Spencer: The Second Amendment and Islamic Law

In a Sharia state, dhimmis don’t have the right to bear arms. My Human Events column for this week:

The Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Second Amendment comes just as it has been revealed that in Iraq, Islamic jihadists have been forcing the Christians remaining in the country to pay jizya — the tax mandated in the Qur’an for non-Muslims who live under Islamic rule. And in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, the Taliban has been enforcing Islamic Sharia law by waving automatic weapons, forcing music stores to close down at the point of a gun (music is forbidden in Islamic law).

Maybe if Iraq and Afghanistan had the Second Amendment, these things wouldn’t be happening. But they are a bracing reminder of just how radically different are American republican pluralism and the Islamic law that jihadists worldwide are fighting in order to implement. In April 2008, the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Islam offered a glimpse of their perfect society, as they set down a list of measures they planned to implement in the Khyber Agency, a Pakistani tribal area. Many of these would be features of any Sharia regime imposed upon a population that hitherto had not been governed by Islamic law.

Lashkar-e-Islam would:

* Enforce “a total ban on the sale of wine” as well as on gambling;
* Abolish “interest/usury in business transactions” (as numerous Sharia finance initiatives are already helping Muslims do in the West now);
* Ensure “that women are modestly dressed according to Islamic norms when attending school” (as Christian women have already been horse-whipped in Nigeria for not dressing properly according to Islamic standards);
* Ban wedding music as well as “celebratory firing into air”;
* Permit “only Islamic-style graves” (that is, graves that face Mecca, a practice that a British cemetery already began for all graves, Muslim and non-Muslim, in 2006 — in a spirit of multiculturalist accommodation, of course);
* Forbid women from visiting a doctor or hospital without being accompanied by a male relative.

These are not the fevered dreams of a fringe group. Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, is the foremost authority in Sunni Islam. The BBC has called Al-Azhar’s Grand Sheikh “the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims.” Shortly after 9/11, the New York Times held up Al-Azhar as a beacon of Islamic moderation, saying that the institution “has sought to advise Muslims around the world that those who kill in the name of Islam are nothing more than heretics. It has sought to guide, to reassure Westerners against any clash of civilizations.”

In 1991, Al-Azhar certified a manual of Islamic law as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community.” That manual contains such laws as these:

“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

“Circumcision is obligatory”¦for both men and women.”

“The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home.”

“The caliph”¦makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians”¦until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”

Lashkar-e-Islam’s Mangal Bagh hopes such laws will spread all over the world: “Allah revealed the Koran, which was not sent for any one particular region of the world. It was revealed for all of humanity. We are out to spread Islam throughout the world.”

That includes the United States. It may be unlikely that they will ever succeed, but there is no doubt that they are trying. Stealth jihadists are working energetically to wear away the very fabric of American culture, with the avowed goal of imposing Sharia here. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that an America in which Sharia supremacists succeeded in their goal of making Islamic law as the supreme law of the land would look very different from the America of today — to say nothing of the America of the Founding Fathers. The Second Amendment, of course, would be out the window: only Muslims could bear arms, not non-Muslim subjugated peoples.

Deep-sixed also would be the First Amendment — a state religion would be established (Islam, of course) and freedom of speech curtailed. Last year there was revealed a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood sketching out the organization’s strategy in the United States, which emphasized that Brotherhood members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “˜sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The existence of Sharia, and of the worldwide imperative to impose it on unwilling populations, should give Americans all the more reason this week to be grateful that we still have the Second Amendment.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    It truly is beyond belief.

    And yet ask most people on the street who are the real people to be afraid of, and so many of them will mention those terrible Christians, or those terrible conservatives.

  2. says

    The short of all that is, their intent to bring back the 7th century. You see Islam is a time machine too. Who said Islam contributed little to science?

  3. says

    Sharia is a form of slavery. The Second Amendment, which the Left would love to gut, is a great counter to Sharia ever being implemented here. And thus I’m all for gun control if its original meaning from places like central Pennsylvania is the way it is meant—–a steady hand.

  4. says

    Anglo-Saxons have had the right to defend ourselves since we left the European continent in the 4th Century. Australia and England will soon regret deeply the losing the right to defend themselves. Once the police is controlled by Muslims then it will be like living Egypt. Muslim attacks on Christians and the police standing around until it’s over.

    The same “liberals” that disarmed you are the ones that are pumping the Muslims full of government assistance. England needs a second Runnymede.

  5. says

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Without the right of the people to bear arms, this becomes meaningless.

  6. says

    Please stop conflating the Second Amendment issues in the U.S. with the danger of Sharia being imposed world-wide. It trivializes legitimate arguments on both issues. Is this blog JihadWatch? Or is it SupremeCourtWatch?

    Guns won’t protect people against road-side bombs, suicide bombers, or Jizya (Fire on the IRS when they come knocking and you’ll wind up in jail or dead from returned fire).

    Mr. Spencer, you do your fine cause a disservice with articles like this.

  7. says

    Luckily for us, our Supreme Court can read (the 2nd amendment). I hope it stays that way… we’ll see in November.

  8. says

    “Please stop conflating the Second Amendment issues in the U.S. with the danger of Sharia being imposed world-wide. It trivializes legitimate arguments on both issues”

    ..from posting above

    In a word, bullshit! From abstract of D. Kopel’s article in George Mason Law Review:

    “Under shari’a law, non-Muslims, known as dhimmi, have been forbidden to possess arms, and to defend themselves from attacks by Muslims. The disarmament is one aspect of the pervasive civil inferiority of non-Muslims, a status known as dhimmitude. This Essay examines the historical effects of the shari’a disarmament, based on three books by Bat Ye’or, the world’s leading scholar of dhimmitude. As Ye’or details, the disarmament had catastrophic consequences, extending far beyond the direct loss of the dhimmi’s ability to defend themselves.”

  9. says

    “Guns won’t protect people against road-side bombs, suicide bombers…”

    They most certainly do! especially when you catch the roadside bomber redhanded planting those roadside bombs..there are plenty of dead Muslim roadside bombers who can attest to that…and there have been several suicide bombers shot dead as they rushed to the target….and in the western world, people are becoming more informed to Islams tactics and are evermore ready to act and to react…America is full of military veterans who know just how to set an ambush to watch for those who plant roadside bombs or who would die for Allah while trying to detonate a suicide bomb…

    don’t discount Americans with guns Buddy!

  10. says

    This morning in Jerusalem, Mr. Moshe Klessner held a clinic on the utility of firearms in dealing with the attempted imposition of sharia law. We should all take note.

  11. says

    It is already known as “The Heller Decision,” and it hangs by the slender thread of one vote. Two dissenters (Stevens ad Breyer), so called liberal defenders of individual rights, invented a definition of “right of the people” to fit their own control freak ideas of the Constitution. I rejoice at the decision, but I am repulsed by the 5-4 result.

    After the Heller decision, Breyer’s ice cream suddenly acquired a sour taste.

  12. says

    Dave: I’m sorry to say this but you’re clueless. Liberty and the right to possess firearms go hand in hand. As a former Attorney General of the United States, Richard Thornburgh, observed, the fact that Americans have the right to own firearms and that such weapons are not just in the hands of the police, military and thugs, is a key reason why Americans are the freest people on earth. And should radical Muslims begin to assert their putrid agenda with vigor here in America, a major reason why they will fail is precisely because the average American can be well armed. Please wake up.

  13. says

    A quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto:

    “I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.”

  14. says

    So?

    It that’s the case, then what do we do with all these Islamic apologists who keep telling us we can’t tar all Muslims with one brush, that Islam is not a monolith and that there is more wonderful variety in Islam than in the Serengeti.

    But as usual, it turns out to be all Bull. Islamo-Bull.

    In the words of Harry Cummins, who was sacked for his outspoken views:

    “All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics…”

    http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/30/all-muslims-like-all-dogs-share-certain-characteristics/

    And if we take that into account, then Imam Abdul Alim Musa from the Al Masjid Mosque in Washington has the same game plan as all of them:

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2087

    Now just wait for some troll to come out of the woodwork and call me a conspiracy theorist.

  15. says

    Islam is only “monolithic, a static bloc unresponsive to change” when they want it to be. If you’re hearing the not-so-veiled threat of “1.infinity trillion bazillion factorial Muslims are going to be angry” then it’s time for Islam to be monolithic.

  16. says

    It will be interesting now to watch the effect that the overthrow of the D.C. gun ban has on the crime rate in D.C. Since criminals won’t be the only ones with guns, I wonder how many crimes won’t happen since the cowards will now be on an equal footing with law abiding, gun toting citizens.

    A few years back I was a card carrying member of the NRA and I received a free monthly magazine; I think it was called The Rifleman. I used to look forward to it coming in the mail every month and the first page I would go to was the one with different articles about people who had saved themselves, thwarted attacks or home invasions, stopped muggings and robberies, all because they had a gun with them.

    “Guns won’t protect people…”

    Charles Bronson thought that at the beginning of Death Wish, too.

  17. says

    At7:42p.m. “MP” has put the point that can be made very drily. Israel has had freedom for 60 years and is young and still vibrant in its freedom, America on the other hand has been free for 230 plus years. And most younger Americans think freedom comes with no strings attached. What, all religions are the same in this day and age.

  18. says

    dave it sounds like you might be a supporter of the brady bunch aka handgun control inc and you have never had your wife threatened with gang rape by muslims like my wife was only the fact it was dark and and she had what they though in the dark was a 45. auto saved her from gang rape it was a replica pellet gun how do we know they were muslims who else would loudly cry allha acabar a kufer slut for us to use . them demanded she strip my point is the 2nd amendment is just one tool in the usa we have to resist muslim aggression and in the unlikely event they try to impose sharia on use it gives us the tools to fight back as it would seem the only thing they understand is what comes out of the barrel of the fire arm the same ones liberals like your self wand us to give upand btw im from canada and the saying if you have gun control only the criminals
    has come true for the most part in canada thank god my wife is American and i have my green card

  19. says

    I think it is a very bad idea for anyone outside the police or military, ie, trained personnel, to carry guns. You want to hunt, then go bow-hunting. I don’t trust my fellow citizens with guns. Too many of them are unstable and have killed innocent bystanders and others.
    The Second Amendment is an anachronistic vestige of a by-gone era. Time to ammend it.
    The growing numbers of Muslims about lends this cause special urgency because of their propensity for aggression. Once again, a Muslim went on a rampage in Israel, luckily with a bulldozer, but past incidents with guns have been bloodier.
    Guns and Joe Sixpack are bad enough, but guns and Joe Jihad are a nightmare.

  20. says

    Oh, Dave, several who have posted here are kinda’, sorta’ expecting a response from you. Where are you? Or are you that kind of poster who posts once and then runs? Remember, no guts, no glory. Or could you be so far to the left that you dismiss guts and glory as anachronisms? Waiting.

  21. says

    Holy cow jewdog, surly you jest. I carry at all times and wife does too. Our daughter respects and understands our right to own firearms. As Americans we have a responsibility to teach all to understand gun safety. But yet we as Americans have a right to defend our homes and personal property.

  22. says

    jewdog: You don’t trust your fellow citizens with guns? Why not? Over 99% of Americans who own guns use them responsibly. Or didn’t you know that? Far more people misuse automobiles every year in America than do gun owners guns. Want to ban cars too? In fact, more kids every year in this country drown in backyard swimming pools than are killed by firearms. So, does this mean you would support pool control? For every time a gun is used by a thug in a criminal endeavor, it is used at leat four times more to prevent an assault on life and/or property by a law abiding citizen. Try getting your facts straight before opining and embarrassing yourself before way too many people.

    Hey, if you don’t want to own a gun, that’s fine with me. But don’t assault my right to own one by pathetically referring to the Second Amendment as out of date. Here’s a thought for you: None of the Bill of Rights is out of date.

  23. says

    A week ago I was gathering signatures for an ACT! for America project. We were asking folks to sign a petition asking Congress to review materials that are coming out of the mosques across America. After infiltrating 100 mosques, 74% of them proved to have literature that incited Muslims to wage jihad against Americans, incite terror and violence against Americans, and to work to overthrow our constitutional government and replace it with sharia law. The interesting thing was the different reactions from people. Over and over again, people in their 20’s listened for a few minutes to what we had to say and then said, oh no, those people have a right to free speech. When I was talking to a young couple in their later 30’s they listened and then said the same thing. I tried a different tack; I said, okay, so if an imam in a mosque in the U.S. tells his congregation that it is incumbent upon them to throw homosexuals off of mountain tops, then that’s all right? The man said, well, I don’t agree with it but they had a right to say it.

    The middle aged and older folks had a totally different take on it. When I told them what was going on and gave them some handouts for them to read about the subject, they became quiet, thoughtful and concerned. They signed the petition, whereas the 20 somethings, for the most part, did not. When I was driving home I really contemplated this and realized that it would take their homosexual brother or best friend being thrown off a mountain top before they would wake up and see the light, and before they would be willing to do anything to stop it.

    So many young people have been brought up to believe in a few popular lines and then parrot them with fierce conviction. But they don’t have any idea what they would be willing to die for. In our day and age it takes people who have lived a while, suffered and know a bit about life to see the forest for the trees.

    We only need to think back to the mid 70’s to remember what happened in the killing fields in Cambodia to people who couldn’t defend themselves, or what happened to the people in the Hungarian Revolution in the 50’s who where throwing home made bombs to protect themselves against Russian tanks. The Russians were firmly enslaved for over seventy years because the government had the guns, not them. They also didn’t have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, or freedom to think. And it was hell.

    A gun is a tool, just like a lawn mower or a power saw. I think it is a very good idea to learn how to use it properly and to respect it. But as I have a brain and know how to use it I will trust myself with a gun. For those who want to give away our right to protect ourselves, please just stay out of the way and you won’t get hurt.

  24. says

    Isabellthecrusader, I asked my wife as of lately? Has America reached the point of equal is equal? I was raised as an American first and formost. Even with a Spanish name I am an American. Now I say we’ve reached a point in America where half of it’s populace wants to live as a hyphanated American, and once again this is perilus to America and Americans. Will we wake too this stupor we’re in?

  25. says

    Jewdog, lemme ‘splain somthin’ those people whom you would be worried about are already carrying a firearm regardless of the law.

    No law has ever prevented a crime – not one bank robber, burglar, rapist, child molester, or even a drug dealer is deterred from committing a crime. People break laws believing fully that they will get away with it.

    Once more, no law will prevent a criminal from packing a weapon. Let’s pass a law and all the criminals will turn in their weapons – yeah, right.

    You need to visit this site:

    http://www.jpfo.org/

  26. says

    Well, AMartinez, (BTW, I LOVED you in The Cowboys, : ) I’ve been saying this for a long time, that things stink to high heaven around here and if we actually wanted to close the borders, we could do it. If we actually wanted to drill in ANWR and lower gas prices, we could do it. If we actually wanted to stop terrorist infiltration, we could do it. So why don’t we? Bush doesn’t want to. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to. Only a handful of our leaders, and only the ones who don’t seem to have any power, want to. So, is it incumbent on us to be prepared to protect our lives, our families and our property? I think it is. We may die trying but having lived with freedom my entire life, I am not willing to live without it.

    Living without freedom would be a fate worse than death.

    The good news is that I’ve met a lot of people recently who are waking up, who are standing up and who are actually getting out of their houses and doing something about the situation. I also believe that standing up for ourselves and especially our fellow man brings down blessings from God. I believe with all my heart that taking the stand and helping our fellow man while we do that will give us some protection if we ask for it. There are too many precedents in history that show when people banded together to fight a common enemy, like British tyranny or overthrow by Muslim s, miraculous things happened. I don’t think it is any coincidence that Don Juan of Austria at Lepanto or Jean Parisot de la Valette at Malta, both in the later 1500’s, won the day against superior numbered Muslim attackers.

  27. says

    Ah Isabellthecrusader, the only movie where John Wayne was killed, and I still hate Bruce Dern that son of a gun. Its funny as a kid I was the darkest of skin color at the theatre, but allways was American first and formost.

  28. says

    Ah Isabellthecrusader, the only movie where John Wayne was killed, and I still hate Bruce Dern that son of a gun. Its funny as a kid I was the darkest of skin color at the theatre, but allways was American first and formost.

  29. says

    Ah Isabellthecrusader, the only movie where John Wayne was killed, and I still hate Bruce Dern that son of a gun. Its funny as a kid I was the darkest of skin color at the theatre, but allways was American first and formost.

  30. says

    Oh my gosh, I remember going with my Girl Scout troop to see that movie back in, I think, 1972. (That was a very good year.) I thought those guys were so cute and sexy, and I didn’t even know what sexy was back then!

    Yeah, Bruce Dern was the best bad guy in that movie. He got his, though. And that’s what I always loved about John Wayne movies, the bad guys DIDN’T get away with murder.

  31. says

    Isabellathecrusader,
    You are a crackpot! The reactionary monarchs you idolize would be as bigoted to other relgiions and undemocratic as the sharia’h freaks we fear. What would you do after you drive the Muslims out? Force the Jews into ghetto, after you loot and decimate them, and burn the Protestants?

  32. says

    Robert often tries to straddle the liberal-conservative divide in the West for obvious (and valid) reasons: He’s trying to build a big tent for the anti-Jihad.

    Unlike Dave, I find it refreshing on those occasions when Robert DOES openly brandish his political leanings.

    As for the issue itself, if owning firearms was ruled illegal, criminals would still find a way to procure them….just as they do illicit drugs. At least today, law-abiding citizens have recourse to defend themselves. Such may not be the case in the future, when Obama is nominating Supreme Court justices.

  33. says

    M & M,

    Who said anything about forcing Muslims out?

    And your ignorance is showing, sweetheart. Neither Don Juan of Austria, Charles V’s illegitimate son, nor de la Valette, Grand Master of the Knights of St. John, were monarchs. How embarrassing for you, that you did not know that both of these military leaders were DEFENDING their countries when attacked by Muslim invaders who told them they would annihilate any Christian who stood in their way or would not submit. In de la Valette’s case, those poor little Muslims that you are whining about, overran a nearby island, St. Elmo’s, in the spring of 1565 and slaughtered every inhabitant on that island, before nailing the headless corpses of de la Valette’s knights and friends to crosses and then pushing them into the bay so they would wash up on the Malta shore and terrorize the Christians into surrendering. It did not have the desired affect. Instead, de la Valette ordered the Muslim prisoners to be beheaded, and then he shot the bodiless heads in a cannon back over to the Muslims. Such was his resolve. He held out for a month while he fought and prayed for reinforcements that finally came from a Prince of Sicily. The Muslims attacked with 40,000 men to de la Valette’s 8000 men, women and children. The Muslims limped back to the M.E. with 10,000 beaten and demoralized troops.

    Please honey, do yourself a favor and pick up a book, would you? Flash news bulletin: not everything your professors taught you is true.

  34. says

    MorrisMinor: I don’t believe Isabellthecrusader referred to any Christian monarch, though Don Juan was indeed the half-brother of Philip II. But I think you miss a larger point Isabella was trying to make and that is that the Christian world, prejudiced as it was in centuries past because Christians like everyone else are human and thus fallible, was nonetheless a superior phenomenon compared to the inflexible and stagnant Muslim world. It possessed the capacity to evolve, which the Islamic world has shown a decided disinclination to do, and eventually accept the democratic process, true rational inquiry (already well under way centuries before the sixteenth century with the likes of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, both infinitely more original than the best the Muslim world could produce with folks like Avicenna or Averroes, merely good commentators and nothing more as Bertrand Russell observed), modern science (after a few nudges) and other good stuff like the dignity and worth of the individual, regardless of religious persuasion or the lack thereof.

    Thus, your criticism of Isabellathecrusader assumed a stasis of both Christian and Muslim, an error on your part most tellingly revealed by a look at what the Christian world has produced over the last half millennium in comparison to any production in the Muslim world, a dismal record indeed by any fair and objective standard. Perhaps you might wish to reconsider, therefore, your basic accusation. Perhaps you might not wish to maintain that who won the battle of Lepanto is a matter of complete indifference to you. Perhaps.

  35. says

    Isabellathecrusader,
    You are a crackpot! The reactionary monarchs you idolize would be as bigoted to other relgiions and undemocratic as the sharia’h freaks we fear. What would you do after you drive the Muslims out? Force the Jews into ghetto, after you loot and decimate them, and burn the Protestants?

    Posted by: MorrisMinor at July 2, 2008 11:48 PM

    Huh? What “monarchs” are you talking about? Those “reactionary” defenders of their countries, Christianity, and Western Civilization were not monarchs and they did us all a big favor whether you appreciate it or not.

    Nobody has advocated “driving the muslims out” although their voluntary exit would be most appreciated. Your final statement/question is ludicrous and doesn’t even warrant a response.

    Your use of the word “reactionary” implies that the invading muslims were benevolent progressives, cruelly repelled by the militant Christians (Catholics) who were the real villians for imposing Catholicism and killing apostates and non-Catholics. Perhaps you should take another look at the historical record.

  36. says

    Countless times throughout history Muslim neighbors have, because of jealousy and envy of their Jewish or Christian neighbors, risen up and murdered them in their homes. Yes, they were already “subdued” and had no weapons. But, America is different, and our Second Amendment rights are precious. I intend to defy them and fight, as my ancestors fought in the mountains of Greece. I can do no less than they did, and I am a very good shot. Freedom is not free.

    Remember the courageous women of Missolonghi!

  37. says

    Hey, potential attacking and subjugating Muslims–Meet my little fran, Mr. Winchester.

    Oh, and if I am ever buried in a cemetery facing Mecca, please bury me face down! (Thats so ‘mo’ can kiss me Irish, Danish, Cherokee arse)

  38. says

    Lots of aspects to defending freedom. Palayo, I am with you on the 5-4 decision. Appalling that the 2nd hangs by such a thread. How can the 4 supreme robe dissenters see anything else in the 2nd? Unbelievable how blind liberal judges are to truth, even when they have wads of law degrees. Oh wait,…lawyers; I forgot. The Bard was right, but spare the 5!

    From Robert’s note above:
    “…
    Lashkar-e-Islam’s Mangal Bagh hopes such laws will spread all over the world: “Allah revealed the Koran, which was not sent for any one particular region of the world. It was revealed for all of humanity. We are out to spread Islam throughout the world.”

    That includes the United States. It may be unlikely that they will ever succeed, but there is no doubt that they are trying. Stealth jihadists are working energetically to wear away the very fabric of American culture, with the avowed goal of imposing Sharia here. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that an America in which Sharia supremacists succeeded in their goal of making Islamic law as the supreme law of the land would look very different from the America of today — to say nothing of the America of the Founding Fathers. …”

    “..but there is no doubt they are trying…”

    One of the places they are trying is high in our federal government echelon and our school system. For some insight on infiltration of Sharia instruction into the American School system (part of Bill Clinton’s legacy), check out http://www.blessedcause.com.

  39. says

    I don’t pack any heat. But I have packed heat in the past, and I may pack heat in the future. The ‘second’, allows me that option. I prefer to keep that option open, and will do so no matter what any court says…

  40. says

    Susanp
    Here name is Isabellathecrusader. If you knew what you were talking about, after the two wonderful catholic monarchs ejected the Moros, they expelled the Jews too. Then persecuted the converts with the Spanish Inquisition. If your idea of an ideal is some fascist, reationary Catholic monarch, then you don’t belong in a democracy. Sorry, but to me as a Jew, her solution would best be described as out of the frying pan, into the fire.

  41. says

    AMartinez

    I remember watching a early black and white John Wayne movie where an old gray haired man beat him up in a fist fight. (A really tough old guy). That may have been the only fist fight he ever lost on film…I don’t remember the name of the movie, but Wayne looked to be in his early twenties…

  42. says

    I think it is a very bad idea for anyone outside the police or military, ie, trained personnel, to carry guns.

    Posted by: jewdog

    Jewdog: you are missing the point of the 2nd amendment. If you read the majority’s opinion, as I have, it is clear that you and I, as well as every citizen (except mentally ill, felons, and conciencious objectors) are expected to be trained, and train, in the safe and effective use of firearms. An elite militia or standing army (i.e. ‘police or military’ only) being allowed to carry guns does not cut the constitutional mustard, nor does it pass historical muster.

    Pelayo is right, you should familiarize yourself with an organization called Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership; they understand that the only freedom worth a damn is freedom that can be readily defended. The starving and desperate Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto were able to hold off and humiliate the mighty German Army for one glorious month in 1943 only because they had guns and the guts to use them to lethal effect.

  43. says

    Wow, M & M, does my name inspire such terror?

    It isn’t the Catholics who are threatening the annihilation of Israel. It wasn’t the Muslims who saved thousands of Jews from extermination at the hands of the Nazi. People like Stefania Podgorska, Irene Gut Opdyke, Irena Admowicz, Henry Slawik, Fr. Bruno Hussar, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, and many, many more were all Catholics who risked their lives during WWII to help people just like you. Henry Slawik was executed by the Germans after being violently tortured for saving Jews. As Consul-General Aristides de Sousa Mendes was in charge of the Portuguese Consulate in Bordeaux and he managed to save over 30,000 people, 10,000 of them Jews and was repaid by being disgraced by his government, losing his post and dying in poverty. Irene Gut Opdyke was blackmailed into a sexual liason with the German major she was forced to keep house for when he discovered the Jews living in his basement that Irene had been hiding their for two years. She also risked her life daily, when she worked in the kitchen of a hotel serving German officers that backed up to a Jewish ghetto to smuggle food to the starving Jewish people, even though there where sings posted all over the city that any Pole caught helping the Jews would be executed immediately. She defiantly helped these poor folks because it was the right thing to do. All these people, and thousands more just like them, hid Jewish men, women and children, hid them cared for them and treated them with dignity and love. Many were given the name of Yad Vashem, Righteous among the Gentiles, by grateful Jews who were saved. Even Abe Foxman can attest to the fact that he was taken in by his Catholic nanny and brought up as a Catholic to save his life.

    As far as Queen Isabella of Spain goes, again eihter you are ignorant of the subject or you’re not being honest. If you were you would know that there were conversos who resented the reign of the Catholic monarchs, liked the status quo with Mohammedans being in charge and collaborated with them to undermine Isabella and Ferdinand’s authority. Look it up. In a time of war many unpleasant things happen, sometimes to innocent people, sometimes to the absolutely guilty. Isabella and Ferdinand were able to throw off the seven centuries yoke of tyranny controlled by the Mohammedans which nobody else had been able to do. That cannot be dismissed by the nervous rantings of someone who has not done their homework, and obviously can’t resist an opportunity to spread disinformation and partial truth for their own ends. I believe in Islam they call that Kittman.

    And hey, Morris, feel free to address me directly. I won’t bite you, and if the truth were told, if we got down to a skirmish with Muslims, which we very well might, I’d be the one defending your sorry ass against them, while you bitched and moaned about it the entire time. Don’t project your centuries old chip, that in no way threatens you with danger from modern day Catholics or Protestants, while we are facing a very real threat that seeks to destroy us all.

    You don’t know who your allies are, do you?

  44. says

    Gentle jw readers – Allow me to suggest that if you are not currently a member of the National Rifle Association, you consider joining it. It is the only national organization with both the desire and the ability to protect your Second Ammendment rights. You know that the jihadists would love to see the Second Ammendment go away. Give us the means to fight back if necessary.

  45. says

    Pelayo,

    Thank you for your very kind offer, but even if you were free I have an ex-husband floating around who is still breathing. But we could be friends. ; )

  46. says

    jewdog wrote:
    “I think it is a very bad idea for anyone outside the police or military, ie, trained personnel, to carry guns. You want to hunt, then go bow-hunting. I don’t trust my fellow citizens with guns. Too many of them are unstable and have killed innocent bystanders and others.”

    According to FBI statistics, police are 3 to 5 times more likely to shoot someone by mistake than a legally armed citizen is.

    In a way, that’s not surprising. LEO’s end up in situations where they must make split second decisions in target identification. A citizen defending himself against a mugger or burglar has no such problem.

  47. says

    You got that right about “those terrible Christians” that make the lives of these peace-lovers so terrible. One is likely to forget (sometimes, to hear them talk) how much Father Ragheed and his subdeacons had their assasination coming… gunned down in the street where they were left in the car they were driving for a day because it was booby trapped.

    Obviously, we are the problem!