Jews and Guns
Two mass shootings in the past month—in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin—have focused American attention once again on the issue of guns. Are guns a Jewish issue? Jewish organizations have expressed their opinions by their statements and their silence.
Relevant Links
Should a Jew Sell Guns? J. David Bleich, Berman Jewish Policy Archive. “Jewish law recognizes that indiscriminate sale of weapons cannot fail to endanger the public.” (PDF)
Dress Code? Natalie Weinstein, Gender Tree. One of the oldest authoritative interpretations of the Bible understands the prohibition over the wearing of a man’s clothes by a woman as an injunction against women bearing arms.
Jews for Gun Control Eric Yoffie, Haaretz. Although a majority of American Jews want to restrict gun ownership, neither of the two main political parties represent their position.
Armed and Jewish Dennis Prager, Jewish Journal. There are two reasons for Jews to support gun ownership: the American value of the armed citizen, and the Holocaust’s lesson that people are not basically good.
Halakhic Hunting Mayanot Lecture. Hunting is permitted if it has positive benefits for humans or the environment. (Audio)
Jews for Guns Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. “Founded by Jews in 1989, JPFO initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed.”
The Reform movement’s Religious Action Center has decried the recent shootings and called for “common-sense gun control laws.” A blog on the Center’s website clarifies what the RAC thinks this means. “The most effective way to prevent gun deaths,” it says, “is to reduce the number of guns.” An earlier editorial by a RAC associate director went further. It decried the prospect of an armed and balkanized American society—and derided the argument that “only when Jews have guns have they been able to preserve Jewish honor and dignity.” The RAC’s answer to threats that Jews might face is tikkun olam.
The president of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly made a more interesting comment on the shootings. He condemned them, but also noted “the fragility of the fundamental social contract that binds us to each other in a civil society. Each and every assault on that unwritten contract,” he observed, “erodes our sense of security, and in so doing, threatens to make us that much less trusting, and less compassionate.” This is undoubtedly true—and unhelpfully abstract. It begs the question of whether it is the guns or the shooters that pose the real problem.
The Orthodox Union condemned the shootings at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin as an assault on religious freedom—but did not mention guns. While Orthodox rabbis, like rabbis of other denominations, have undoubtedly sermonized on guns and violence, taking various positions, Orthodoxy’s Rabbinical Council of America issued no public statement about the recent events.
Jewish exegesis related to guns is necessarily indirect. Biblical and talmudic texts generally require people to secure possessions of theirs, such as dangerous dogs, that pose safety hazards. There are prohibitions on selling weapons to idol worshippers and criminals, lest the weapons be turned against Jews. At the same time, there are complicating biblical and talmudic pronouncements about moral freedom and pikuah nefesh, saving a life. In one talmudic commentary on Deuteronomy, the prohibition on a woman’s wearing men’s clothing includes a ban on her wearing weapons, the quintessential male accoutrement. It follows that for men, wearing weapons is natural.
But none of these sources figures in American Jews’ discussions of guns; instead, there is near blanket opposition. Why?
At the center of the gun issue is power: To whom does the positive and negative power of weapons rightfully belong? Max Weber famously defined the state as an entity with a monopoly on violence; and the American Jewish attitude towards guns, following Weber, cedes all responsibility for the protection of individuals—of Jews—to government. American Jews, as opposed to Jews through most of history, unilaterally cede this power even though it is available to them.
The issue is not simply Left versus Right. The Reform movement explicitly wishes to restrict or prohibit individual gun ownership. In contrast, Orthodox silence on the issue tacitly accepts both the legal status quo, which permits private guns, and social norms, under which Jews do not own guns. The denominational positions effectively converge. Guns are not for Jews.
One pathological consequence of Jewish powerlessness has been the tendency to embrace weakness, rationalizing it and the suffering it produces as elevated and noble. Another pathology is guilt regarding whatever power one does possess. For American Jews, who are not shy about wielding their social and economic power, the choice to remain unarmed is perverse—but logical.
Jews also follow the prejudices of their social class. Educated upper middle-class suburbanites, largely untouched by gun violence, are notably opposed to guns. Their opposition reflects intellectuals’ assumptions about the sources of and solutions to violence, and blame is assigned to the technology. True, the culture of the shooters themselves is identified as the problem in certain cases—say, neo-Nazis. But in other cases, such as inner cities, culture is quietly ignored: Highlighting it might be thought racist. Expiating a sense of privilege by restricting the rights of others is another hallmark of the educated upper middle class. In this sense, too, Jews emulate their fellows and embrace weakness.
There is also a passive-aggressive element in the American Jewish attitude: It cedes a monopoly on violence to government not just in exchange for the government’s protection but as a way of establishing an entitlement to—of demanding—such protection. Government, correspondingly, offers sympathy to victims while accepting empowerment as their protector. Unfortunately, criminals and terrorists have not agreed to the bargain. Thus, the Jewish attitude, a form of pacifism, entails the occasional human sacrifice.
But the American social contract uniquely specifies that government does not retain a monopoly on violence. The country was founded precisely in rebellion against such an idea, a rebellion that is burned into the nation’s founding documents. Moreover, the power of governments to threaten liberties is fact, not paranoid fantasy; Jews have been victims of state violence as much or more than non-state violence. The question of whether to place total trust in the state for protection does not have a self-evident answer.
Then there is the problem of guns and Zion. How many American Jews are taken aback at seeing young Israeli men and women with assault rifles slung on their shoulders? How much alienation from Israel comes from the American Jewish desire that violence be impersonal and distant, rather than, as in Israel, intensely personal?
Guns are an imperfect last defense against adversaries—governments, terrorists, home invaders. In rejecting guns, Jews elect to put their full faith in government—also imperfect, as well as haphazard, biased, even vindictive. Placing faith in government rather than in legal rights places faith not in laws but in human discretion. Such a choice in the haphazard and political is necessarily foolish. And faith in powerlessness is still worse, demeaning and potentially suicidal.
Tags: American Judaism, Colorado, Firearms, Guns, Orthodox Union, Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbinical Council of America, Reform Action Center, Reform movement, Religious Freedom, Sikhs, Tikkun Olam, Wisconsin
COMMENTS
Elihu Davison on August 17, 2012 at 6:56 am ()
Joffe says that American Jews place their faith in government rather than law. He says that government is arbitrary and subject to the vagaries of human discretion--presumably the views of the administration of the day. He calls this a foolish policy. Inter alia one wants to question how, in fact, Joffe views government at all. His evident acceptance of the Weberian definition as a legalized monopoly on violence speaks to his--and today's conservatives--view of democratic government. He ignores the fact of constitutional governance which transcends administrations. Joffe overlooks the example of England where ammunition ownership--not gun ownership!--is highly regulated and gun violence is extremely rare. Joffe presents brief synopses of denominational views on gun violence; he seems to suggest that while Jews have an interest in the subject, Judaism has less to say about guns and public order. Today's conservatives ought to harken back to Edmond Burke who advocated a strong role for government in maintaining public order and little or no involvement in private life. Instead, today's so-called anti-government conservatives are more closely akin to nihilists. Joffe should have cast his discussion in the context of public safety and stability; Judaism has lots to say about that.
Aharon on August 30, 2012 at 12:02 pm ()
"Joffe overlooks the example of England where ammunition ownership--not gun ownership!--is highly regulated and gun violence is extremely rare"
Actually gun ownership is highly regulated and limited in England. The rights in England to use a gun in self-defense are, I believe, non-existent. After England rounded up most guns, violent crime actually increased with guns. Violent crime with knives in England increased after the guns were grabbed and attacks with knives is high. Criminals do not fear breaking into English homes as there is little threat to them.
Actually gun ownership is highly regulated and limited in England. The rights in England to use a gun in self-defense are, I believe, non-existent. After England rounded up most guns, violent crime actually increased with guns. Violent crime with knives in England increased after the guns were grabbed and attacks with knives is high. Criminals do not fear breaking into English homes as there is little threat to them.
Marvin on August 17, 2012 at 8:43 am ()
I am a Jewish sociology professor raised in the Bronx but living in the suburbs for many years. As a consequence of steeping myself in Holocaust memoirs during my teen years, I decided I would not go down without a fight so I armed myself and took courses in defensive shooting. My stance horrifies most Jews in a similar demographic. When I visited Israel I was delighted to see Jewish women with assault weapons on most corners.
Shlomo on August 17, 2012 at 9:00 am ()
Too many Americans, Jews included, accept an extremely polarized statement of the the gun ownership issue. A stark choice between no private guns and private guns galore. I prefer to think that citizens should be allowed to own and use guns with reasonable legal restrictions. As with automobiles, guns should be registered and gun-users should be licensed by the state or national government.
Joffe honestly spoke to Jewish hang-ups about guns. But there are some problems. Many citizens, especially the young, old, infirm, and unexpert, may not be able to defend themselves with guns in sudden time of need. Should everybody have brought their gun to the Aurora, CO movie theater? And Elihu Davidson articulately demurs, citing traditional Jewish values weighted in favor of public order.
Joffe honestly spoke to Jewish hang-ups about guns. But there are some problems. Many citizens, especially the young, old, infirm, and unexpert, may not be able to defend themselves with guns in sudden time of need. Should everybody have brought their gun to the Aurora, CO movie theater? And Elihu Davidson articulately demurs, citing traditional Jewish values weighted in favor of public order.
SW on August 17, 2012 at 9:46 am ()
One notes that the American city of Chicago has significantly more strigent gun control laws than most cities, and yet "boasts" among the highest murder rates and gun violence in the world. This being stastically and factually without debate, the question about guns is not one of more laws, but of who uses guns. For myself, when I am in a German or Israeli airport and see the police with automatic weapons to guard against and perhaps react quickly to murderous violence, I am more rather than less comforted. It is not a question of guns or government, but of protection from murderous violence, and in that regard, guns are a positive element in society, though totalitarian regimes often attempt to remove them from society for their own murderous intent. Rabbinic sources advise seeking peace but preparing for war, and this is such old counsel that the only remaining question for me is: shall we heed such advice or follow postmodern foolishness and yet again try to make a society unable to defend itself?
Aryeh on August 17, 2012 at 11:49 am ()
So very true! I have 30 years of Law Enforcement experience in Chicago Metro.
Julian Tepper on August 17, 2012 at 10:10 am ()
The article's lead is two shootings in the USA, in Colorado and Wisconsin.
That is important in these two respects:
First, the author asks if guns are a Jewish issue. Easy answer. If guns are an issue at all in America, and the Jews to whom he refers are American, then, yes, of course, guns are an issue for American Jews. Why should they be considered different from anyone else. And it matters not to American Jews what the Bible or the Talmud or any other Jewish cite may provide if guns are an American issue.
Second, since it is clear that the article refers to an American issue, I think the article should have delved significantly into the Second Amendment to the American Constitution. This is especially so because of the author's reference to the Weber state definition, where he implicitly equated violence with gun ownership. The Second Amendment's reference to militia (not to mention numerous other sources) demonstrates that the purpose of the right to bear arms was to permit ordinary citizens of states to protect themselves against federal government threats. Bear in mind the context of the time, and the hatred for George III. The Second Amendment, as it is for all Americans, is the governing rule for Jewish Americans. And the Supreme Court recently ruled that it covers personal gun ownership.
The men who killed others in Colorado and Wisconsin would have been able to obtain the weaponry needed for their sordid goals in an American where gun ownership or possession is outlawed or severely controlled.
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
That is important in these two respects:
First, the author asks if guns are a Jewish issue. Easy answer. If guns are an issue at all in America, and the Jews to whom he refers are American, then, yes, of course, guns are an issue for American Jews. Why should they be considered different from anyone else. And it matters not to American Jews what the Bible or the Talmud or any other Jewish cite may provide if guns are an American issue.
Second, since it is clear that the article refers to an American issue, I think the article should have delved significantly into the Second Amendment to the American Constitution. This is especially so because of the author's reference to the Weber state definition, where he implicitly equated violence with gun ownership. The Second Amendment's reference to militia (not to mention numerous other sources) demonstrates that the purpose of the right to bear arms was to permit ordinary citizens of states to protect themselves against federal government threats. Bear in mind the context of the time, and the hatred for George III. The Second Amendment, as it is for all Americans, is the governing rule for Jewish Americans. And the Supreme Court recently ruled that it covers personal gun ownership.
The men who killed others in Colorado and Wisconsin would have been able to obtain the weaponry needed for their sordid goals in an American where gun ownership or possession is outlawed or severely controlled.
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
Craig J. Bolton on August 17, 2012 at 10:48 am ()
"No where is it written that the government is responsible for our personal protection. I'm not a lawyer, but, show me? "
In American law it is explicitly and extensively written that government does NOT have a responsibility for your personal protection.
In American law it is explicitly and extensively written that government does NOT have a responsibility for your personal protection.
Lee on August 17, 2012 at 10:53 am ()
Where do we put our faith? In God? In ourselves and our fellow human beings? In the concept that we are capable of making this a better world and are obligated to try to do so? Or in machines which are designed to kill people?
Aharon on August 30, 2012 at 12:09 pm ()
"Or in machines which are designed to kill people?"
Should the Israelis give up their guns? Guns save more lives than they take. Daily, among the pro-gun blogs and sites are news reports proving how guns have been used by private citizens to defend themselves, their family, neighbors, and businesses from criminals that were armed and unarmed.
Should the Israelis give up their guns? Guns save more lives than they take. Daily, among the pro-gun blogs and sites are news reports proving how guns have been used by private citizens to defend themselves, their family, neighbors, and businesses from criminals that were armed and unarmed.
Yoel B on August 17, 2012 at 10:55 am ()
Weber's assumption is that there is no intrinsic human right to self defense, and implicitly to life itself: Both are granted -- or not -- by the State. The intellectual underpinnings of the USA explicitly rejected that sort of thinking in several spheres, leading to phrases such as "Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed violated" and "shall not be infringed." I leave it to those better qualified than I to decide whether Halacha is better aligned with Weber or the Founders.
It should be noted that the first systematic bans on firearms possession in the USA were part of the reconsolidation of Democratic Party control in the post-Reconstruction South. They were directed at freed slaves who were trying to protect themselves against the Klan and similar forces. The Sullivan Laws in NYC were a corrupt move to reduce the hazard posed by armed citizens to Tammany allied street thugs. The well-intentioned Weimar era firearms registration laws made it much easier for the Nazis to disarm their political enemies.
As it is now, budgetary constraints have led the police in, for example, Oakland, California to decide not to respond in person (unless you are well-connected, of course) not just to loud noise complaints and the like, but to crimes such as burglary, grand theft, extortion. And of course the police have no legal obligation to respond to any particular call at any time. As the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
It should be noted that the first systematic bans on firearms possession in the USA were part of the reconsolidation of Democratic Party control in the post-Reconstruction South. They were directed at freed slaves who were trying to protect themselves against the Klan and similar forces. The Sullivan Laws in NYC were a corrupt move to reduce the hazard posed by armed citizens to Tammany allied street thugs. The well-intentioned Weimar era firearms registration laws made it much easier for the Nazis to disarm their political enemies.
As it is now, budgetary constraints have led the police in, for example, Oakland, California to decide not to respond in person (unless you are well-connected, of course) not just to loud noise complaints and the like, but to crimes such as burglary, grand theft, extortion. And of course the police have no legal obligation to respond to any particular call at any time. As the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
DM on August 17, 2012 at 10:57 am ()
I'm an older woman, a little to the left of center, and like Joffe and many others, I hold complicated and perhaps inconsistent views on guns and gun possession. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals seems to be practically impossible, although perhaps a ban on assault weapons and/or the ammunition for them would help, as might drug legalization.
From time to time I am hit by the impulse to learn to shoot and acquire a weapon--I live alone, BTW) but given my innate carelessness and clumsiness I talk myself out of it, not to mention that I now have grandchildren turning up from time to time. Chalk it up to post-holocaust syndrome--I spent my childhood imagining what I'd do if "they" came to the door--but I believe strongly in Jewish self-defense, individual and organized.
I recognize there are ugly and unstable characters who love armaments--I once occupied a cubicle adjoining that of a writer (Jewish) who pored over knife catalogs--but in the days when I made business trips to Texas, I wasn't bothered by the ubiquitous rifles in pickups. Certainly, there are dangers in owning guns, but I do believe--within limits-in the right to bear arms.
I have to admit I was delighted when visiting Israel in the early eighties to see young soldiers around and about, on and off duty, with machine guns. Smiling, joking, making eye contact, they give off very different vibes than their US counterparts.
From time to time I am hit by the impulse to learn to shoot and acquire a weapon--I live alone, BTW) but given my innate carelessness and clumsiness I talk myself out of it, not to mention that I now have grandchildren turning up from time to time. Chalk it up to post-holocaust syndrome--I spent my childhood imagining what I'd do if "they" came to the door--but I believe strongly in Jewish self-defense, individual and organized.
I recognize there are ugly and unstable characters who love armaments--I once occupied a cubicle adjoining that of a writer (Jewish) who pored over knife catalogs--but in the days when I made business trips to Texas, I wasn't bothered by the ubiquitous rifles in pickups. Certainly, there are dangers in owning guns, but I do believe--within limits-in the right to bear arms.
I have to admit I was delighted when visiting Israel in the early eighties to see young soldiers around and about, on and off duty, with machine guns. Smiling, joking, making eye contact, they give off very different vibes than their US counterparts.
Aryeh on August 17, 2012 at 11:47 am ()
Wherever we live, we should never give up our right to be armed and to protect ourselves, period! Not just in the Land of Israel but in the Diaspora also. The Shoah taught this lesson very clearly! Those who dont want to protect themselves, stand aside and let the Shomrim do so.
Josh on August 17, 2012 at 12:45 pm ()
Rabbi Moshe David Valle offered a unique perspective on firearms in his Kabbalistic writings. I dealt with this topic on Chakira (http://chakira.org/2012/05/02/vallegun/) and think its worth mentioning as an explicit Jewish primary source on gun violence; a notable lacuna of this article.
Tim Upham on August 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm ()
I have dealt with so many people, who state "If they were armed with guns, nobody would try to kill them." Being armed with a gun, and knowing when to use a gun, are two different things. What would happen, if a Jewish community center was armed with guns, and somebody walked in there, to ask directions about the neighborhood, and was shot, because they were a stranger, and considered threatening. The employees of the Jewish community center would be charged with manslaughter. Arming Jews with guns, is not a protection from what COULD happen. Yet, so many have the idea, that being armed will prevent another Holocaust from happening. There is a big difference between being a protector, and being a bully.
sabasarge on August 18, 2012 at 12:35 am ()
Tim, you present a foolish scenario...
"What would happen, if a Jewish community center was armed with guns, and somebody walked in there, to ask directions about the neighborhood, and was shot, because they were a stranger, and considered threatening"
That is a ridiculous hypothesis.
Jews simply need to study their history, and that inherently will dictate that they arm and train themselves (if they are self-respecting and have a brain)pionrsw case
I am armed from the moment I rise, until I retire for the night.
Hopefully I will never need it, but one thing is certain......I will never be a victim.
"What would happen, if a Jewish community center was armed with guns, and somebody walked in there, to ask directions about the neighborhood, and was shot, because they were a stranger, and considered threatening"
That is a ridiculous hypothesis.
Jews simply need to study their history, and that inherently will dictate that they arm and train themselves (if they are self-respecting and have a brain)pionrsw case
I am armed from the moment I rise, until I retire for the night.
Hopefully I will never need it, but one thing is certain......I will never be a victim.
SW on August 18, 2012 at 1:33 pm ()
It is alleged that being armed with a gun and knowing when to use a gun are different. One cannot know when to use a gun without being armed, and those who pretend to know cannot truly know. Those who would have the law abiding disarmed for the sake of what they see as peace would create victims when those who carry arms illegally choose to act murderously. Or even to "bully." In what way will another Holocaust happen? In the moment, public statements by bullies like Iran's president give clear indication, as do the statements of Hamas and Hizbollah, which one notes factually are all armed in one way or another. To presume to hector Jews about carrying weapons while excusing others for doing the same is simply illogical, at the very best. But it is very political, as were attempts to disarm citizens by totalitarian regimes in the last century and more. One learns easily why the Warsaw ghetto uprising was easily quashed by the National Socialists: Polish Jews were "poorly armed." Nazis? Bullies. Polish Jews? Victims of bullies. Knowing when to use a gun comes easily when one must rise up against bullies who themselves are armed, and who do not respond to those "peace" activists who complain about Jews while rationalizing the supposed victimization of the many who would -- and have -- so often murdered Jews.
Aharon on August 30, 2012 at 12:16 pm ()
"What would happen, if a Jewish community center was armed with guns, and somebody walked in there, to ask directions about the neighborhood, and was shot, because they were a stranger, and considered threatening"
What would happen if one or more well-armed Jew-haters walked into a JCC and started shooting? The presence of an armed guard is no guarantee of protection and the police can be long minutes away to save the day. If you lack confidence in yourself to properly use a gun then please don't buy one. Please don't ask the rest of us to go through lives defenseless.
What would happen if one or more well-armed Jew-haters walked into a JCC and started shooting? The presence of an armed guard is no guarantee of protection and the police can be long minutes away to save the day. If you lack confidence in yourself to properly use a gun then please don't buy one. Please don't ask the rest of us to go through lives defenseless.
Asher Najer on August 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm ()
“Where Are My Grandparents”? An Essay on the Second Amendments- An Abnormal Jewish Perspective
I am Asher. I was born in Israel to parents who survived the holocaust. Growing up with survivor parents raised perplexing questions in me. How did these individuals survive during the war and become capable of starting not only a family but a nation. I found this paradox bewildering. How could they survive against all the statistical odds? They should have perished according to actuarial statistics. My brother and I should have never been born: yet we are here. Was it an accident of fate or was it divine intervention? Looking at my parents, garnering the strength to create a family, nurture it, love it, protect it and living their lives affected by horrors of the past, was a super human task in maintaining balance. However, life for us has never been in balance compared to Jews whose family never experienced the holocaust. The most striking example is that I never had grandparents. As a matter of fact, I grew up in a neighborhood where none of my friends had grandparents. Few had uncles or aunts, though some had distant cousins. Overall we were a nation of family orphans. I remember in the late 1950’s my father’s only surviving brother came to visit us in Israel. I had a procession of friends coming over to look at a strange concept of an uncle. None of them had nor seen one. They were gawking at him as if they were in a trance watching a new cartoon in the movies. That was my normal.
My father joined the Polish Brigade at the beginning of WWII and picked up a gun. Later he was transferred to the British army and valiantly fought the Nazis. However, his father and other brothers were not allowed to have guns, so they all perished. The same story was on my mother’s side. Jews and civilians were disarmed by their respective government and they also perished. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf .
I always wondered how Jewish life would look if they were not disarmed. Most certainly hundreds of thousands would have perished but not six million. I am certain the Nazis with their Tiger tanks, army and Luftwaffe would have conquered but at a much higher cost. Definitely the Gestapo and the SS would suffer tremendous losses trying to round up Jews. Their challenges for massive roundup would have cast an existential doubt in their twisted mind. The Nazis would have had a tougher time controlling or governing the conquered, after their successful blitzkrieg. Therefore, the odds of my friends and me, as little children in Israel, having some semblance of the concept of grandparents, uncles or cousins would not have been so abnormal.
The tragedy in Aurora Colorado and previous mass murders should not be a call for naïve creation of a greater tragedy. Disarming the citizens by eviscerating the second amendment through calls of foolish politicians, could pave us toward cataclysmic tragedy. Constitutional Democracies are a weak form of governance which should be strengthened and enshrined by adhering to its constitution.
(Refer to the previous blog) "Tell Me Who Your Friends Are and I’ll Tell You Who You Are”
As a Jew living in America, I have the legacy of witnessing over 3200 years of empires, states and nations come and go. We have witnessed many national flags and constitutions being torn into shreds through greed manipulating ignorance. The Soviets had theirs constitution and so did the Germans. However, the power elite finding mechanism in canceling it destroyed their nation. Being a grandparent now, I am witnessing our constitution being tinkered toward a dangerous path of evisceration. In the scheme of Jewish saga, I am wondering if this is the beginning of the American empire's entering the path of insignificance and into the dust bin of history. The difference now, my granddaughter, living in Israel, will not have to ask “Where Are My Grandparents”?
Http://nimshal.blogspot.com
Copyright Asher Najer 2012
I am Asher. I was born in Israel to parents who survived the holocaust. Growing up with survivor parents raised perplexing questions in me. How did these individuals survive during the war and become capable of starting not only a family but a nation. I found this paradox bewildering. How could they survive against all the statistical odds? They should have perished according to actuarial statistics. My brother and I should have never been born: yet we are here. Was it an accident of fate or was it divine intervention? Looking at my parents, garnering the strength to create a family, nurture it, love it, protect it and living their lives affected by horrors of the past, was a super human task in maintaining balance. However, life for us has never been in balance compared to Jews whose family never experienced the holocaust. The most striking example is that I never had grandparents. As a matter of fact, I grew up in a neighborhood where none of my friends had grandparents. Few had uncles or aunts, though some had distant cousins. Overall we were a nation of family orphans. I remember in the late 1950’s my father’s only surviving brother came to visit us in Israel. I had a procession of friends coming over to look at a strange concept of an uncle. None of them had nor seen one. They were gawking at him as if they were in a trance watching a new cartoon in the movies. That was my normal.
My father joined the Polish Brigade at the beginning of WWII and picked up a gun. Later he was transferred to the British army and valiantly fought the Nazis. However, his father and other brothers were not allowed to have guns, so they all perished. The same story was on my mother’s side. Jews and civilians were disarmed by their respective government and they also perished. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf .
I always wondered how Jewish life would look if they were not disarmed. Most certainly hundreds of thousands would have perished but not six million. I am certain the Nazis with their Tiger tanks, army and Luftwaffe would have conquered but at a much higher cost. Definitely the Gestapo and the SS would suffer tremendous losses trying to round up Jews. Their challenges for massive roundup would have cast an existential doubt in their twisted mind. The Nazis would have had a tougher time controlling or governing the conquered, after their successful blitzkrieg. Therefore, the odds of my friends and me, as little children in Israel, having some semblance of the concept of grandparents, uncles or cousins would not have been so abnormal.
The tragedy in Aurora Colorado and previous mass murders should not be a call for naïve creation of a greater tragedy. Disarming the citizens by eviscerating the second amendment through calls of foolish politicians, could pave us toward cataclysmic tragedy. Constitutional Democracies are a weak form of governance which should be strengthened and enshrined by adhering to its constitution.
(Refer to the previous blog) "Tell Me Who Your Friends Are and I’ll Tell You Who You Are”
As a Jew living in America, I have the legacy of witnessing over 3200 years of empires, states and nations come and go. We have witnessed many national flags and constitutions being torn into shreds through greed manipulating ignorance. The Soviets had theirs constitution and so did the Germans. However, the power elite finding mechanism in canceling it destroyed their nation. Being a grandparent now, I am witnessing our constitution being tinkered toward a dangerous path of evisceration. In the scheme of Jewish saga, I am wondering if this is the beginning of the American empire's entering the path of insignificance and into the dust bin of history. The difference now, my granddaughter, living in Israel, will not have to ask “Where Are My Grandparents”?
Http://nimshal.blogspot.com
Copyright Asher Najer 2012
Jerry Blaz on August 17, 2012 at 7:30 pm ()
For many years when I lived on a border settlement in the early years of the state, I was an member of the active reserve of the IDF. I had a gun in my possession in my bedroom when I went to sleep and when I carried it with me when I went to work. In fact, I enjoyed target practice, but I learned that shooting at people was a different creature, so I became an anti-tank gunner, which is a more dangerous military "calling" because we were so vastly outmanned by the tank. I looked at my ability to use a gun as an obligation, not a right. So I became a anti-tank gunner because I didn't have to see a human figure in my sights when I pulled the trigger.
Here, in the U.S., since I am living in the city and I am able to live without "gun-toting" and not a hunter, I do not need a gun. That is my choice.
I find that there is a national gun club in the U.S. financed by the gun and ammunition manufacturers who offer membership to gun-lovers and owners at a nominal fee. While it actually is a well-financed pro-gun lobby, it calls itself an 'association' and enrolls its members in its lobbying activities. As a result, most elected officials turns away from any hint that they might vote for anything as mild as getting ammunition manufacturers to put identification marks in their ammo to assist police when guns are used in a crime.
If someone who has been vetted by police and psychological records wants a gun, then that is something they can do now. But the problem is that there are too many gun-owners who are not vetted as being capable of responsible and lawful use of their firearms, but too many of these people can also get guns as freely as the responsible gunowners. I do not think that people who actually believe that the "black helicopters" are going to come and invade them, and that they will be able to defend themselves adequately is in my estimation psychologically too unstable to hold a gun.
Here, in the U.S., since I am living in the city and I am able to live without "gun-toting" and not a hunter, I do not need a gun. That is my choice.
I find that there is a national gun club in the U.S. financed by the gun and ammunition manufacturers who offer membership to gun-lovers and owners at a nominal fee. While it actually is a well-financed pro-gun lobby, it calls itself an 'association' and enrolls its members in its lobbying activities. As a result, most elected officials turns away from any hint that they might vote for anything as mild as getting ammunition manufacturers to put identification marks in their ammo to assist police when guns are used in a crime.
If someone who has been vetted by police and psychological records wants a gun, then that is something they can do now. But the problem is that there are too many gun-owners who are not vetted as being capable of responsible and lawful use of their firearms, but too many of these people can also get guns as freely as the responsible gunowners. I do not think that people who actually believe that the "black helicopters" are going to come and invade them, and that they will be able to defend themselves adequately is in my estimation psychologically too unstable to hold a gun.
Yoel B on August 17, 2012 at 7:49 pm ()
Mr. Upham is correct that being a protector -- even of oneself -- is a mindset. But if one has mobility problems or is physically frail, so that safely leaving the scene isn't feasible, an appropriately selected firearm and some training and practice is a valuable tool.
I don't argue that if I were to own a firearm it would stave off another Holocaust.
I argue that people who favor governmental forms which seek to regulate every aspect of their subjects' lives end up enabling governments which regard life and property as privileges the state may grant at its discretion.
I don't argue that if I were to own a firearm it would stave off another Holocaust.
I argue that people who favor governmental forms which seek to regulate every aspect of their subjects' lives end up enabling governments which regard life and property as privileges the state may grant at its discretion.
wjyoder on August 18, 2012 at 9:20 pm ()
More handguns; more accidents, violence and death. For a Godly people chosen and called to promote justice and human flourisning, these arguments for guns and self-defense are discourging. I look to Jews for clear thinking. Why are you going along with this American deadly, crazy gun facination? It's similar to thinking war violence is the answer in dealing with enemies.
Mia Sherwood Landau on August 19, 2012 at 10:58 am ()
Gun control has not worked in other countries and will not work in the USA. Take away the right to bear arms and you take away the right and responsibility to assess danger and to protect oneself and one's family. Undermining the Second Amendment is gutting the rights and responsibilities of the individual that form the basis of all personal responsibility in a free country. History shows this to be a fact, and it is a fact now. Gun control is not specifically a Jewish issue, it is a human issue, and it is the crux of the rights and responsibilities inherent in a free society.
Julian Tepper on August 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm ()
American Jews, and all other Americans who love our Constitution, will benefit in their understanding of the Second Amendment from watching this video: http://tinyurl.com/d2pzjry.
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
Jeff Urbach on August 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm ()
I was the first to comment here. Wow, am I pleasantly surprised. Expecting the usual anti-gun attacks , the majority of comments are pro-gun. Maybe we Jews have finally woken up .
Lawrence Finder on August 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm ()
I'm Jewish. I'm Republican. I'm pro-Second Amendment. I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association. I am a former federal prosecutor and former Special Deputy U.S. Marshal. I own pistols, revolvers, rifles (hunting, AR platforms and others), and shotguns. I'm blessed to live in a state where eligible citizens are afforded the right to carry concealed firearms. I been held up by someone who quickly learned that it's not a good idea to try to rob a person with a loaded 9mm, especially when that person is protecting himself and his son from miscreant trash. Frankly, I don't care what tikkun olam has to say about limiting or abridging the 2nd Amendment. You're not going to change my mind.
Aryeh on August 20, 2012 at 6:19 am ()
I'm Jewish. I'm Republican. I'm pro-Second Amendment. I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association also!
Julian Tepper on August 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm ()
Jeff, We'll see if that carries over to the November elections.
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
nr greenfield on August 20, 2012 at 12:14 am ()
"The question of whether to place total trust in the state for protection does not have a self-evident answer."
One of the striking pictures coming out of the Rodney King can't-we-all-get-along-riots in LA of a few decades ago, was of two Korean storeownes standing in front of their respective properties, guns in hand, facing down the crowd threatening to loot and destroy their property as they had the rest of the neighborhood. A number of unarmed people had already been killed attempting to protect their property, but those two Koreans, their families and their businesses survived.
It graphically demonstrates that government isn't always there to protect. It can't. But one can take steps to lessen the odds of calamity by taking on that responsibility oneself and should have the right to do just that.
One of the striking pictures coming out of the Rodney King can't-we-all-get-along-riots in LA of a few decades ago, was of two Korean storeownes standing in front of their respective properties, guns in hand, facing down the crowd threatening to loot and destroy their property as they had the rest of the neighborhood. A number of unarmed people had already been killed attempting to protect their property, but those two Koreans, their families and their businesses survived.
It graphically demonstrates that government isn't always there to protect. It can't. But one can take steps to lessen the odds of calamity by taking on that responsibility oneself and should have the right to do just that.
Aryeh on August 20, 2012 at 6:18 am ()
@Lawrence Finder. B' Kavod Larry. I am with you on this one. Its called Pikuach Nefesh and that over rides Tikkun Olam any day Halachicly. I was for years a member of the Chicago police Branch of the Illinois Shomrim Society of Jewish Police Officers!
Lawrence Finder on August 20, 2012 at 10:19 am ()
Thanks Aryeh. I'm familiar with the Illinois Shomrim Society, having worked extensively with Chicago PD and Cook County Sheriff's Police back when I was an Assistant State's Attorney of Cook County. I understand pikuach nefesh, but meant to insert the word "crowd" after the term "tikkun olam," to refer to those coreligionists who substitute their warped concept of social justice, masqerading as tikkun olam, before Hashem, Torah and Israel (the people and the land). In other words, I have contempt for left wing Jews, especially those who cringe at the sight or sound of the word "gun," who choose to be defenseless. Those fools should read a history book or two about how the defenseless Jews were led to slaughter by the Nazis, and how the resistance Jews, living in forests, used guns- not polemics - to kill those who were intent upon killing them. "When someone arises to kill you, pre-empt them, and kill them first." Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 62b. My long winded explanation for self-defense in case someone doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Doreet B. on August 20, 2012 at 3:51 pm ()
I too am very happily surprised to see other pro-gun people here, who understand that it's necessary to protect yourself and your family, even in the United States. I know people who have lived in Chicago, and said that it was a very horribly violent place to live.
Many areas of the United States are very dangerous, with increased crime, drugs, violence, burglary, and the police will not help you. In Oregon, where i live, police do not do anything, unless it has a gun involved. You are on your own for protection. Everyone here has a gun at home; many people and women, take classes to carry a gun legally. The property crime is so bad, burglary is common. I myself realize that I have to take a refresher course to handle my 38. smith and wesson, as I am not familiar enough with it. I'm an older woman, living alone, in Lane county, Oregon, which is now full of drug violence, crime, rampant burglary, and "Meth-heads" running around downtown, in broad daylight.
I totally support the 2nd ammendment, and so do many gun-owners, gun clubs, and individuals in Oregon. Oregonians are pretty smart, independent, and not passive about protecting their families. We know the govt. is not going to protect us from crime: We have to do it ourselves. We are never going to relinquish our guns; we remember history of "taxation without representation," and know dictatorship could always happen again."The only necessary thing for tyranny to flourish, is that good men do nothing."
I wish those Jews who are so complacent, and think the govt. will always protect them, should visit Oregon, and see that we have no functioning police or real govt. to protect us. And Israel has every right to have soldiers, arms, and protect itself. There is much chaos in the US alone, that we must ask Reform Jews to question their complacency.
What would any of them do, should a "home invasion" happen to their family, home broken into, and no self-protection at hand? Do they think the police will PREVENT this? And keep their kids from getting killed, or harmed? No way! That will not happen! The police will come hours late, and just take a report. They will do nothing to keep this from happening, or come to your aid. You are now responsible for the protection of your family in the US, and no one else. Please inform Reform Jews, it's a violent, dangerous world, even in the US. Passiveness is only going to make you a victum.
Many areas of the United States are very dangerous, with increased crime, drugs, violence, burglary, and the police will not help you. In Oregon, where i live, police do not do anything, unless it has a gun involved. You are on your own for protection. Everyone here has a gun at home; many people and women, take classes to carry a gun legally. The property crime is so bad, burglary is common. I myself realize that I have to take a refresher course to handle my 38. smith and wesson, as I am not familiar enough with it. I'm an older woman, living alone, in Lane county, Oregon, which is now full of drug violence, crime, rampant burglary, and "Meth-heads" running around downtown, in broad daylight.
I totally support the 2nd ammendment, and so do many gun-owners, gun clubs, and individuals in Oregon. Oregonians are pretty smart, independent, and not passive about protecting their families. We know the govt. is not going to protect us from crime: We have to do it ourselves. We are never going to relinquish our guns; we remember history of "taxation without representation," and know dictatorship could always happen again."The only necessary thing for tyranny to flourish, is that good men do nothing."
I wish those Jews who are so complacent, and think the govt. will always protect them, should visit Oregon, and see that we have no functioning police or real govt. to protect us. And Israel has every right to have soldiers, arms, and protect itself. There is much chaos in the US alone, that we must ask Reform Jews to question their complacency.
What would any of them do, should a "home invasion" happen to their family, home broken into, and no self-protection at hand? Do they think the police will PREVENT this? And keep their kids from getting killed, or harmed? No way! That will not happen! The police will come hours late, and just take a report. They will do nothing to keep this from happening, or come to your aid. You are now responsible for the protection of your family in the US, and no one else. Please inform Reform Jews, it's a violent, dangerous world, even in the US. Passiveness is only going to make you a victum.
JewishRifleman on August 30, 2012 at 10:10 am ()
I am an American Reconstructionist Jew, and I own firearms so that I can protect myself and my loved ones in absolute worst case scenarios. I am also a member of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), because I recognize that a state monopoly on violence led to the disarmament of Jews before the Holocaust. My grandparents made it through the Lodz Ghetto, Auschwitz and Ravensbruck. Never again should Jews surrender their civil right to self defense- we do so at our own peril.
Aharon on August 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm ()
The JPFO is a great organization.
Joel Abramovitz on September 27, 2012 at 11:15 am ()
DM, I am a retired officer of the US Army. Perhaps because of my experience with US soldiers (very few of them Jewish, to be sure), but I don't find that their eye contact or body language relative to other citizens is any different than the Israeli soldiers I have seen.
I invite you to consider whether your perception is due to a Jewish ambivalence concerning state power that other commenters in this string have discussed.
As for private ownership of firearms...my wife protected herself from a threat of rape by producing a weapon and calling a person's attention to the laser dot on his chest. Five minutes later, she was offering coffee to the friendly police officers.
Regretfully, we can't just become England, or even Switzerland or Israel where gun ownership is common but crime rare. Gun ownership does offer protection to those who wish it, and train for it. That's not a fact that excludes Jews.
I invite you to consider whether your perception is due to a Jewish ambivalence concerning state power that other commenters in this string have discussed.
As for private ownership of firearms...my wife protected herself from a threat of rape by producing a weapon and calling a person's attention to the laser dot on his chest. Five minutes later, she was offering coffee to the friendly police officers.
Regretfully, we can't just become England, or even Switzerland or Israel where gun ownership is common but crime rare. Gun ownership does offer protection to those who wish it, and train for it. That's not a fact that excludes Jews.
Comments are closed for this article.
My politics are called by many Progessive, Left of Centre, whatever. Yet, as a Jew, and as a Jew who has volunteered 5 times and served on combat bases on the Lebanon and Syrian borders , I am avidly pro Second Amendment. My friends on both sides of the political divide think I am just confused. Hardly.
No where is it written that the government is responsible for our personal protection. I'm not a lawyer, but, show me? So, now that I no longer have small kids at home, after a 38 year no-guns allowed agreement with my wife, I have armed myself. I have an assault rifles, pistols, a shotguns, and most importantly , have taken , and continue to take , excellent training to keep my skills and knowledge current.
I take gun ownership very, very seriously and am appalled at fellow gun owners who've never even taken a basic skills course. I give them wide birth when at the range. I am representative of the MAJORITY of NRA members who do not oppose stricter gun show controls, training requirements , etc.
So, putting all the pieces together I feel very Jew should own and be trained in the proper use of arms for self-defense . For a pro gun Jewish view of the issue, visit the website of Jews For The Protection of Firearms Ownership. An organization of which I am a proud member.
Shabbat Shalom
As Jews, of all minorities, we have seen the horrible results of being defenseless. Anyone who says the Shoah can't happen here, is in my opinion pollyannish and naive. Israel herself has always been threatened existentially , and never more so with the current Iran rush to go nuclear.