- This topic has 71 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
AAQ
while that is a great point.
Mensch sad it already, and I acknowledged it is a good pointAvira
God disagrees
Shemos 32:27 âHashem says every man should take his sword and kill his brother and relative â(who sinned at the eigal). The were ALL armed. And the Torah is replete with examples of them using those arms.
When mashiach comes and we are called on to wipe out amalek, I am prepared. Are you going to argue with mashiach that it isnât âthe Jewish wayâ?Why are you asking from cheit ha’egel? Klal yisroel left mitzrayim armed, chamushim, according to rashi.
The way a jew behaves in galus is very different from how klal yisroel was structured in the midbar and eretz yisroel.
The tanaim and amoraim were not armed. Neither were the rishonim or achronim.
Avira
I think you are confusing history with hashkafa. The Maccabees were gedolim and armed
The taanaim were armed but knew we couldnât beat the Romans and advised against war. The zealots didnât listen and we got the second churban. Rabbi akiva at first supported the revolt of bar chochba (certainly a taana) and we were free for a few years but then we had beitar and the total subjugation of the Jews. First by the Romans then the xtrians. That is why arms are not part of our existence. We have not been in a position of power for 2000 years. But with the state of Israel and American laws that has changed.
Your original statement that we daven and eisav was given the sword is refuted by the fact that Yaakov himself prepared for war against eisav.
Our power comes from tefilla but we always used tefilla to prepare for war. Now that after 2000 years we are back in our country not subject to dearmament do you really think the approach should be just tefilla? Should Israel just ditch the weapons and rely on a tefilla gathering? There is no proof/support for that approach even in the times of the midbarIsrael doesn’t constitute “we”. They put us in a mess where many of us live in an area of danger.
Rebbe akiva didn’t carry arms with him, neither did rabban yochanan ben zakai. As you said, rebbe akiva thought bar kochva was moshiach, in which case we’re supposed to fight.
Yaakov met eisav not in times of galus, but was machniah himself anyway to avoid fighting. He preferred the jewish approach of bribery and flattery; something haughty zionists are repulsed by.
The chashmonaim fought to preserve Torah. Ever wonder why the jews didn’t fight during purim until given permission? It’s because in galus we don’t fight goyim if there’s a gezerah against us physically.
Avira
Iâm still finding it hard to see your point of view. Using your example of Purim. Had they not gotten permission should they all have just lain down and died? Should they have just said this is obviously a gezarah of hashem and we canât fight ? Obviously they wouldâve fought. And from the fact that they did ultimately end up fighting you see that they had weapons.
We defended ourselves during various pogroms , the crusades etc. we didnât always do very well. But we had weapons whether they were swords or pitchforks or axes.
There is no mikor for an attitude of pacifism or disarmament in Judaism (but there is such an attitude in xtrianity)
And your statement from Israel simply proves my point. In times of danger you need to arm yourself. Pray first, but be prepared to fight. In dangerous situations Rav Moshe allowed women to carry firearms. He didnât say âjust davenâUntil relatively recently I was very pro gun control. My only issue was that changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent. Obama’s sneering comment about “those who cling to guns and religion” should tell you where the next step after overthrowing the second amendment would be
I changed my mind to oppose strict gun control after the George Floyd riots. Those riots caused me to realize that the line of âone day a gun may be your only protection so donât let them take it away â is true.
The over twenty people murdered in those riots were not killed with legal guns. The footage and pictures of a riots where entire business districts were destroyed except for the one store where the owner had a gun and stood on the roof of his store brandishing it also made me rethink my opposition to gun ownership.
People say they “only the US has mass shootings” Aside for that not being true it ignores that the US is also from the few countries that tolerates riots like the George Floyd riots so it’s citizens have more reason to be armed than the the citizens of other countries.
And while the media of course only tells you about mass shootings that (preferably) took place with legal guns and cover up the skyrocketing shootings and murders in the aftermath of the anti-police laws passed after the George Floyd protests, in places that all have VERY strict gun laws, those murders made me question how effective gun control really is.
I still support gun control laws that exclusively focus on weeding out people who present a clear and present danger if they owned a gun (as opposed to most gun control laws âat least in NYS that make so many technical difficulties in owning a legal gun there is no point in trying) I support the following gun control laws (1)national registry for buying a gun that does not allow felons to own a gun and requires felons who own them to hand them back. (2)a two week wait between the purchase and acquisition of a gun (3) only licensed gun dealers may sell guns and much stricter penalties and enforcement for non licensed sales or possession (4)raise the legal possession of gun ownership to 20 UNLESS the person owning the gun is in the army or police training
Smerel
You arenât alone
Right after the Rodney King riots in the 90s i read an article by an assimilated Hollywood Jew. He said essentially the same thing that you did. That after coming out of his Hollywood studio completely surrounded by rioters he came to the conclusion that in times of unrest the police will never be there for you. And he went from being anti-gun to applying for a license.
Personally I would Tighten gun control laws. Years ago I stopped being a member of the NRA because of their stance on so-called cop killer bullets. I did not see a need for those and was perfectly fine with them being out of civilian hands. And I came to the conclusion that the NRA stance of fighting everything is too radical. That said, as Iâve said several times, this is not a problem thatâs going to go away by waving a magical wand , and if thatâs the case Iâd rather have my option of owning a gun rather than the alternative.Smerel
“My only issue was that changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent.”
No need to change the second amendment
Just follow it. Either interpret it the way it was interpreted for centuries as applying to a “milita” and not individual. The NRA in the 60’s started pushing the then new idea that it applies to an individual, in what Warren Burger (A conservative) described as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public,”
Even assuming for centuries the 2nd amendment was misunderstood by conservative and liberal alike, and does protect an individual’s right to bear arms, it STILL would not preclude gun control.
In fact the opposite is true. It calls for the milita to be regulated. A little regulated? No Well regulated. And In fact during the ratifying of the Bill of rights, many States had gun control laws including where they could be fired, stored , some states required registration* Many of these laws would be deemed unconstitutional by so-called “originalists” today.I like your 4 proposals. I’m on board
(*See GUN LAW HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SECOND AMENDMENTRIGHTS by ROBERT J. SPITZER)
Ubi
Whether or not it was a âfraudâ the Supreme Court disagreed and ratified the individual right
Now, as we are seeing with abortion, Supreme Court winds can blow in different directions so who knows maybe the winds of change will happen to the second amendment also. But as I said before in different words. We would be poking the bear. Second amendment believers are no less willing to fight for the right of ownership than we are willing to fight for our religion.Mencht
“Whether or not it was a âfraudâ the Supreme Court disagreed and ratified the individual right”
Oh obviously.
I was replying to Smerel who had said ” changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent” to which I replied it doesn’t need to be changed. Leave it alone and just re-interpret it the way it had been pre-Heller.
“so who knows maybe the winds of change will happen to the second amendment also”
You say “will happen” IT already happened with the second. Heller overturned Miller (to an extent). Yes Heller too can be overturned
@aviradearah We’ve established that guns are extremely dangerous and kill hundreds in the US every year. I have yet to see an argument as to why we even need so many guns. If the number of guns in the US went down by 95%, we would still have more than enough for security purposes and criminals will be far less likely to have them.
So please tell me your rationale why we need so many guns and such big guns at that. What’s wrong with one .22 six shooter for every five US citizens?
Veiter on a semi-related subject, for some reason US politics is extremely polarized. You’re either a Democrat, and hate guns, hate Israel, love gender confusion, and hate business. Or you’re a Republican, and love guns, love Israel, hate gender confusion, and love self-opportunity. For good reason, the frum oilom allied ourselves with the Republicans. But why does that mean we have to swallow their whole schtick hook, line, and sinker?
Yserb – I’m on the fence about gun laws; I don’t know what gave you the impression that I’m pro gun.
Mentsch, I’m referring to an organized reaction. By purim, the reaction was not to form an army and fight, it was to daven and do teshuva – and it worked.
Chanukah, when protecting Torah, our job is to fight first.
Putting up some sort of self defense when attacked directly is a different story. No need to lay down and be killed unless we’re talking about kidush Hashem.
The warsaw uprising was discouraged by gedolim because it caused more harm, ending in the deaths of everyone instead of there being some survivors, for instance.
Mentch
“Personally I would Tighten gun control laws.”So we agree. shalom al Yisroel
Avira
“The warsaw uprising was discouraged by gedolim ”This is of course factually incorrect Of course most famously RAv Menachem Ziemba supported the uprising according to numerous (frum) eye-witnesses, . THe Radziner Rebbe, Slonimer Rebbe encouraged armed resistence as well.
Rav ziemba’s view has been contested, but many others discouraged it. I don’t know about the two rebbehs you cited. Aby sources on it?
“Rav Aiembaâs view has been contested, ”
Not by any eye-witnesses as far as I know. ALL the eyewitnesses said he supported it (Hillel Seidman, R’ Mordechai Glatstein come to mind)
as for the Radziner R’ Shmuel Shlomo Leiner HYD and the Slonimer R’ Shlomo David Yehoshua Weinberg HYD both are mentioned in Esther Farbstein’s book Hidden in Thunder: Perspectives on Faith, Halachah and Leadership during the Holocaust
Avira
You donât seem to be consistent
First , Purim yes they didnât immediately form an army. Bc they had 11 months to deal with the situation. And tefilla did work. But if it was the Adar 12 with no resolution in sight do you really think they wouldnât have formed an army?
You say âif you are directly attacked âyou can defend yourself . How else would you define the holocaust? Do you think that any gadol who knew what lay in wait at the end of those train tracks would have just said âsure , just take the train and hope for the bestâ? Would you have willingly taken your family on that train?
Killing nazis is a mitzvah. Mechias amalek.>>>No need to change the second amendment. Just follow it. Either interpret it the way it was interpreted for centuries as applying to a âmilitaâ and not individual.
That wasn’t the understanding for centuries. It was one supreme court ruling in 1939 that took that position. All the other many supreme court cases on this issue came to the oppisite conclusion The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control and a simple reading of
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
pretty clearly give individuals the right own guns as opposed to referring exclusively to a militia. Otherwise it would say “the right of the militia member to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” It is these type of interpretations that I’m concerned about. Once things are stretched beyond their simple meaning you can discard the constitution
“That wasnât the understanding for centuries”
More than centuries
In 1982 Orrin Hatch commisined a reports which concluded “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clearâand LONG LOSTâproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms”
(emphasis added) the idea that it applies to individuals was not a widely held view. it was “long lost” they dug it upthere were not “many” supreme court cases involving the second amendment (in fact it was one of the least discussed amendments) . And NONE of them (until Heller and then reaffirmed in Mcdonald) took the opposite opinion
Of the few that disucssed it United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, (1886) both ruled that it did not apply to States. Miller (1939) we mentioned. Barrett v. United States (1976) Upheld gun control measures . US v Lopez (1995) was largely over the commerce clause though indirectly related to the second. NONE of these ruled an individual has aright to bear arms
“The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control”
as mentioned many states, from the founding had gun measures in place .These were not challenged“pretty clearly give individuals”
The opposite is true it clearly applies to militia. Excuse me a well regulated milita not just any old milita.
So why the phrase “A well regulated Militia,” would the amendment mena anything different if it just said ” the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
No other amendment has an opening .
Eg ” Practicing religion being a key part of life Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ” or “An infomred populace being neccesary for an involved state abridging the freedom of speech or of the press shall not…”.”
Why that phrase? what does it add?
Haleivi
How can I say they were armed?
Simple deduction from the fact that they fought a 70 year war against the Romans
Was everyone armed? I am willing to concede that those sitting in bais medrash and especially those calling themselves perushim, probably did not participate in the battles
But even the taanaim took sides as we see with Rabbi Akiva and Bar cochvah.Another boring 4th of July, where republicans can celebrate their love of life while watching their love of guns destroy hundreds of lives.
Let’s all congratulate the NRA for a job well done.
Yes, another law abiding citizen who never would have acquired a gun if they weren’t so available. Just like the fentenyl you buy at walmart.
And he was most definitely a republican.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.