The Rabbi Would Take My Guns Away
BY Herschel Smith
12 years, 2 months ago
In response to Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense, Rabbi David JB Krishef and I had an e-mail exchange. He wrote to me:
Mr. Smith – Thank you for reading the Ethics and Religion Talk column. Please note that no one in the column took the position that one may not use a weapon to defend oneself and one’s family, or even other innocents. Also note something which became clear to me only after the publication of the column, that assault weapons are currently not legal for ordinary citizens to own. Therefore, the position that we espoused in the column is in fact current law, as I understand it.
To which I responded:
You might want to see this.
So-called “assault weapons” are only prohibited insofar as they are foreign made, or have magazine capacities greater than ten. This just prohibits manufacturing in Michigan, or in other words, prevents jobs from coming to Michigan.
Pre-1994 weapons are still allowed. That just makes it more expensive, but not impossible or illegal.
And … I addressed the issue of assault weapons in my article.
Kind sir. Please let me ask you two questions that would help me to understand your views.
(1) If modern sporting weapons (so-called assault weapons with high capacity magazines) had existed in the colonial days, and the colonists were sustaining home invasions that endangered their families, would you have allowed them to use those weapons to defend their families, or would you have restricted them to the available weapons of the time (i.e., black powder and muzzle loaders)?
(2) In the links I provided I documented two-, three-, four- and five-man home invasions all over America. Would you restrict the magazine size in my own weapons, thus making my family more endangered in such a home invasion if there were misses, failures-to-stop, home invaders high on meth, and so on?
To which the Rabbi responded:
Mr. Smith —
1) As long as we are traveling through time, I would take a 22th century weapon that would immobilize the assailant without harming him!
2) It is not wise to make law or policy based on outlying cases. I freely admit not being an expert on law enforcement and weapons – therefore I consulted with colleagues who are. My understanding is that were assault weapons of any capacity fully legalized, there would be far more innocent lives killed than saved, because a weapon in the hands of a person untrained to use it properly is more likely to do harm than good.
Thus has the mission of much of American progressive clergy morphed from one of salvation into societal security. Soteriology has become anthropology, and concern for individuals has been replaced by pining away for the perfect state.
As for the “outlier” example of multiple-man home invasions, my research was too easy to uncover in a brief period of searching for a single day of crime for me to believe that it is really an outlier example. Besides, what if I want to be prepared for home invasions regardless of whether the Rabbi thinks I need this preparation? How can my scenario be an outlier to itself?
As for so-called “assault weapons,” take note, Rabbi, that control over weapons that have collapsible or telescoping capabilities, easy take-down and modularity, lights, no so-called “sporting purpose,” and magazines more than a pre-determined amount has its roots in Nazi Germany. I believe your people have a history with Nazi Germany, no?
On October 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm, Buzz said:
Huh? The Rabbi is making a pragmatic argument. He could be right, he could be wrong. (I happen to think he’s mistaken.)
But rather than address his pragmatic argument, you simply go off on a rant about clergy abandoning their ultimate mission, as if showing concern for “societal security” somehow precludes an equal concern for salvation. One can, spiritually speaking, walk and chew gum at the same time.
And then, to top this non sequitur, you follow with an even greater leap of logic by associating the Rabbi with Nazi tactics. Have you no shame?
On October 2, 2012 at 12:49 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Not even you believe the things you just said. Let’s take them in order.
First, he is placing societal good before my right to self defense with whatever weapon I choose to be the best for my purposes. He clearly says so. That isn’t walking and chewing gum at the same time – that’s choosing one “good” before another “good,” if he even sees my self defense as a good thing.
Next, you didn’t read the link, did you Buzz? You didn’t see the Nazi confiscatory policies associated with weapons with lights, weapons with high capacity detachable magazines, and so on and so forth. You know, the whole plethora of gun controls associated with what the dems want to do in America. It all comes from Nazi Germany.
Do I have shame? You bet, like that time that I forgot my anniversary. But not over my upbraiding of the Rabbi. He is an idiot, just like you.
EDIT: Oh, and I see that SOCOM.MIL host and IP address you’re working from.
On October 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm, Buzz said:
Sorry, but your self-defense has nothing to do with the “salvation” you mentioned in the main post. You clearly stated that he had abandoned his mission of salvation for one of societal security and some imagined perfect state. Self-defense is a completely separate issue not addressed in that paragraph. You just changed the subject in your response.
And I did read the link. I didn’t question that that’s what the Nazis did, and I don’t know how you possibly drew that conclusion from what I wrote. I’m saying its shameless to associate someone’s ideas with Naziism simply because they happen to agree on some policy totally unrelated to Nazi ideology. You in effect are saying the Rabbi and Democrats are Nazis for wanting gun-control laws–an absurd leap of logic.
And this is strictly about poor logic and shoddy thinking. I am a strong Second Amendment supporter, but I also support sound logic.
On October 2, 2012 at 1:24 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You must read in a circumspect manner, Buzz. Self defense is not only a right, but a duty. See earlier posts. It is a duty before God because man is made in God’s image. When man defends himself or his family, it is immoral to give up the very means of that defense, or to insist that someone give them up. Additionally, it is immoral to give up the best means of that defense, just because someone is scared of it. That is a clear and manifest abdication of our responsibilities before God.
That’s what the Rabbi is doing, and he clearly says so in his prose. He wants people who own so-called “assault weapons” to give them up because of the potential damage that they do to society (in his view). He has clearly abdicated his responsibilities to teach people about their duties before God – which includes choosing the best they can provide for their families – in favor of what he (mistakenly) sees as a better thing, i.e., the common good.
As for his notions of weapons, I simply cannot understand what you’re talking about. I correlate his positions with Nazi Germany, and that is clearly correct. Read the paper again. I said nothing more than his positions are associated with the behavior of the Nazis, and you or I may infer by extension that perhaps those policies aren’t appropriate for the common good. The reader can draw his own conclusions. I do and I did.
Now. Go back to your hole, Buzz. Next time, use your real name, not a fake one. And use a real e-mail address. And before you comment again, use your *.mil e-mail address or have your comments deleted. Your comments are over until you learn to read more carefully and be truthful.
Lastly, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you support the second amendment or not.