It is interesting to me that since last night when I posted it how few people actually read the linked article and only read the subject line.  I took the subject line from Foxnews as their teaser to their story.  That being said, a question was asked as to why so many I presume American Jews seem to anti gun.  I will attempt to answer.

I believe that the thought of the Anti-Gun Jew being the majority of American Jews is really a myth anymore, propagated by some stereo types from the early part of the last century.

At the Early part of the last century a very large percentage of the American Jewish population was comprised of European immigrants living in and around NYC.  As we know NYC passed the Sullivan act in order to keep arms out of the hands of the various new immigrant groups.  They were generally poor and could not afford a permit, along with the Irish, the Italians, etc.  They brought with them the philosophy that had helped them survive in Europe, that is be in offensive and try to get along without bringing attention to yourself.  To this end you remained unarmed.  When one is unarmed you sure hope everyone around you is too.  This sort of lead to a belief of non violence on the domestic side of things.  You really hoped as I said before that no one would try to do you harm and relied on the neighborhood cop that knew everyone in the area and really did care about protecting folks.  

In many senses the bulk of the Jewish folks in the US were unaffected by the events in Europe in the Mid 20th Century.  They therefore carried on this philosophy and tried to pass it to their children.  The rise of neo nazi hate groups later in the century changed this to a degree as well as Jewish folks moving out of the major eastern cities and throughout the country where firearms use was more common.  

I would venture that today the anti gun percentage of the Jewish population is relatively small but quite vocal in their views.  They still cling to that early NYC philosophy.  The majority of Jewish folks I believe to be pro gun.  I live in an area that is about 50% Jewish here in our suburban paradise.  I would venture that most of the Jewish people I know have at least one firearm, and that includes people who are probably quite liberal in all of their other political views.  They have seen through Israel's emergence that strength and preparedness for the unthinkable is better than blind hope that being unthreatening will deter some future tyrant.  Unfortunately, some in an older generation still adhere to the earlier ideal.  It would be wonderful if people did not need weapons  for defense, but that is simply not true.  The younger generation influenced in part by those who survived the European experience know this. Unfortunately the wealthy and now powerful may not as they were not exposed to this.  The later immigrants being poor were not of the same social class and did not associate in the same circles.  Same however can be said of most of the other 20th century immigrant groups that gathered in cities in the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries.  Their experiences are similar, and so are their support of these issues of collectivism vs individualism.  They are not bad people, just products of their experience.  

This collective experience v individual experience over generations has a great impact on the overall psyche of an area.  When my family came to Ohio in the late 18th century there were few roads, no cops and a Sheriff was a few hours away by fast horse.  This brings the need for self reliance that is passed down through the generations.  I venture that many other families had a similar experience.  I contrast that with the Jewish portion of my family that came through NY to Cleveland ie one urban center to another.  Had it not been for the rise in crime in the 20th century, they would have seen no reason to arm for self defense.  As it happens they did.  

I venture that now I know very few Jewish folks who don't own at least one firearm.  It may be a hunting or skeet gun, a pistol for defense, or a .22 for plinking.  It might even be an SUR or a whole bunch of everything.  I would venture that those who base some anti Jewish sentiment on anti gun leanings are barking up the wrong dog.  Anti Gunners come in every flavor, that certain members of one group seem more vocal about it is, well common throughout many segments of society.  The myth however runs deep while the reality is usually far less insidious.

Scarcrow:

Just to set the record straight, Paolo is not an American, he is Italian, his wife is Israeli and had a 3 year old relative murdered by the scum you usually jump to the defense of.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, those without the experience taught by doing and seeing and living should hold their tongues less they sound really stupid to those who have been there and done that and lived it.

Alright, let's take a breath.  Go on.  I'll wait...




Ok.  Shall we see what it is I actually wrote, rather than re-inventing it and going from there.  Yes?



Readers will note the [b]cautionary[/b] (as opposed to punitive) nature of my comment.  I don't insist there has actually been an infraction, but express concern that it is right around the corner.

[i]"Rag-head"[/i] is sufficiently broad (covering a wide set of cultures, traditions, and religions which espouse fashions that encourage the use of cloth headdresses from Hindu to Muslim to...) and sufficiently derogatory to be "right on the line if not over" in my book, particularly when married with the suggestion that all (or most) "rag-heads" are terrorists.

Racism is a strict no-no and if people can't cope with that, well, there's always full-auto.com or a variety of other fora to explore those aspects of your personality among like-minded (if that's a good word combination) individuals.

To quote a marine I knew: "It's out there... but dis ain't it."

I realize that there will now be the natural temptation to debate the definition of "rag" of "head" of "rag-head" of "slur" of "slip" of "temptation" of "tendency" of "race" of "racism" and of "ism" and of "is."  I know this will include citations to authorities including Webster's, Black's Law Dictionary, the Bible and the Torah and the Koran.  In resisting this temptation try to remember that arguing semantics about such things is a slippery-Klinton move ("depends on what the definition of is is") and probably not worthy of an AR15.com member.

I'm also quite certain some clever member(s) will wish to ask after the patriotism or humanity of anyone enforcing the conduct codes outlined here in favor of a group of which a small subset might actually include a terrorist or two (though I'll note for the record that none of the boarding area pictures I've seen show the 9/11 murderers wearing any cloth headdresses).  This too is the kind of noise that is more worthy of the least attractive qualities of say, John Ashcroft (i.e. "If you don't agree with me you must be a terrorist/inhuman lout/European.") much less the best qualities of the productive AR15.com member (the latter being the first and perhaps last qualities that AR15.com members strive to let show when posting here).

Either of these directions is a quick path to a thread lock and a moderator warning- particularly comments about the fact that I'm European (and therefore obvious inhuman/uncaring/a heathen/anti-American).  One might, for example, ask snidely, "What does it take to make some people angry?"  I will give you a head start for your own personal debate (please conduct it in the privacy of your own home).  When I'm paying attention I rarely capitalize "god," I [b]ALWAYS[/b] capitalize American.

Really, don't make me into a kindergarten teacher.  Please?  First off we do keep track of such things and I hate using the red pencil in the attendance book.  Second, this thread is important.  I'd like it to stay active.  

Unclear what's acceptable and what isn't?  A pretty good gauge will be to ask yourself if Rumsfeld would say it during a press conference or an event where the press is likely to be around.  You should assume the press is likely to be around AR15.com.  [b]This is because they [red]are.[/b][/red]  You're a member of this community.  You volunteered to be one.  That makes you a representative of the "gun culture" and imposes on you (at least by honor code) the responsibility to conduct yourself in a "more civilized than the average bear" manner- lest you cast your fellow gun owners- and hence your family- in a negative light.

No.  We hold ourselves to a higher standard here because we STAND for something and because we ARE better than those who don't.

It takes less than 5 minutes to whip out a bone-headed post.  That post might sit in searchable archives not connected with (read: controlled by) AR15.com for months if not YEARS.  Hell, in 5 years Hillary might be president and using the word rag in combination with any cranial reference might carry a capital sentence and subject the hardware it was carried on to seizure and forfeiture.

Can't see/remember hearing Rumsfeld say something that might be "on the line" ?  Probably a bad call then.

Okay, I just want to point out the above excerpts as reasons as to why the gentler sex make wonderful moderators... [:)]

1. The cleansing breath...See? Don't you feel better?
2. The call for civility.
and 3. The CORRECT use of the plural for "forum".

Clear thinking and correct writing make any post more effective, (not just from Mods). AND the time it takes to THINK about what you're posting often helps you arrange your thoughts better. Just my two cents.

Thanks Tatjana. [:D]

Scarecrow,
To judge by the tone of the above post, you seem at least as, if not more, concerned with validating your "existence" and generating "controversy" (perhaps simply for it's own sake) than actually adding to the topic.

That and the snide personal insult at the end would seem to suggest (to me at least) that you are more intested in discord than discourse...

Whazzup wit dat my bruthuh?

Notable FACT:  The wild west where and when everyone carried a gun had the lowest crime per capita of any society in human history.  Think about it.  A bad guy was famous feared and pursued even if his crime was once.  Billy the Kid wouldn't even make the front page in todays society where the Dalmers of the world get the press. Ban guns and only the bad guys have guns. Muggers don't mug cops..............

Jews with guns????? How about everyone with guns??????

Both of you knock it off.

Why is it that right when the thread gets back on track someone has to start hurling insults?

Wow,

4 pages, 1643 reads, and only 2 comments about the actual subject of this thread.  

For those who go to the end first, the actual subject of the thread was Richard Reid, the shoe bomber on the American flight from Paris to Miami last Dec.  He reasoned that because Jews in Israel have guns he should blow up an American airliner.  He of course and thankfully failed due to his own ignorance and stupidity.