Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“I am just urging some conservatism when arguing with historical success”
The opposite is true
Heller was the first time The court interpreted the second amendment as applying to an indivudal.
That is > 200 years after it was written. At the time it was written states had laws regulating the ownership, use and storage of firearms. (Thomas cites some of these in Bruen but dismisses them as being exceptions and irrelevant)
Historically the second amendment was quite regulated (“well regulated” if you will)This interpretation that it applied to individuals was “long-lost” (thats a quote) and uncovered in the past few decades. See the 1982 SEnate report “THe Right to Keep and Bear arms”
But this is all besides the point. Since it isnt really the “historical success” nor “conservatism” that you support. It’s not like now that I’ve pointed out that Heller was a recent decision in terms of US history you will suddenly change your mind , and say oh forget it lets go back to a more conservative interpretation, don’t argue with “historical success”. becasue that was never your real argument.
it isnt really about history just like it isnt about the constitution it is about, as I said from the get go favoring the individual over the collectiveTo be clear you might be right, that the indivdual’s rights trumps the collective. But THAT is the point of disagreement.
You talk about traveling between States as if it is some long arduous journey full of obstacles and peril. You don’t need to go to Texas to get guns to Chicago (though if you did I’m not sure how those guns would be noticed) Indiana has very loose gun laws, doesn’t require universal background checks, no waiting period. Gary Indiana is less than an hour away fro Chicago (depending on traffic)
“Re people not listening, a simple answer is…”
I’m not sure if there is a typo. There was no answer to the question there.
AAQ
“yes,,,,”
That in no way answered my question.My question to Mencth was as follows:
One of his arguments why banning guns was a bad idea, is that people won’t listen.
My question was, Is there any other law that he opposes passing becasue people won’t listen? for example would he oppose banning abortion becasue people won’t listen (obviously not all people will)
The words you typed do not (as far as I understand) answer this“even less than 100 years ago, they were occupied”
as mentioned that was in spite of an army more armed than even the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow.“So, then, one should discuss statistics of those and what are possible reasons behind it”
Sure! ITs becasue we have more guns.
More guns = more murder
This is obvious and is born out by data. ITs true fo states its true for countires (developed countries anyway)
see for example Harvard Injury Control Research Center > Firearm research > Homicide for a bunch of studies“I was just giving you etza tova to achieve your mental balance without fighting a (hopefully) impossible fight.”
not to worry.
balanced quite fine.
I enjoy these discussions its just hock for hock sakeI find it funny when Someone argues that he opposes a tyrannical government, yet if you don’t like his ideas you should leave.
You (almost) can’t make this upIt doesn’t get me upset, just the opposite its amusing
“but most murders in USA are not in mass shootings.”
True. Though, and this may surprise you, all murders are bad. SO the argument sure there is more murder but they aren’t mass shootings, is one that puzzles me.
Secondly fear not the US has more mass shootings than France too. So even if we said well murder isnt bad only mass shootings are (again, not clear why we’d say that) You’d still be more likely to lose your head in a US mass shooting than in a French one
“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. ”
Seriously though
THAT is precisely my pointNobody would seriously argue that there is no individual who benefited from having a gun. The question is do we look at the individual or the collective
If you look at antiseatbelt magazine (if there was such a thing ) they would highlight a few people whose lives were saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt.
We ignore those few at look at the collective ALL must wear a seatbelt (in most states) because overall we all benefit. sure an individual might not.THIS is the point of disagreement
The Constitution argument is fluff, for arguments sake lets say it said “an unregulated gun toting populace being fun, the right of each individual to bear any arm wherever and whenever he wants shall not be infringed ”
That still wouldnt answer the OP here was his question “I am genuinely confused by Americans who have tried to explain why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year”
Answering oh the constition,… doesn’t address his question, so change it. And if not why not?Your reason is twofold
1) The cat is out of the bag, there are two many guns
2) Some indiviudals benefited#2 Is where we disagree (as I said in my first post)
#1 Might be another point of disagreement, I’m not yet sure if it is a real argument or notAAQ
“But if you were to move from revolutionary America to revolutionary France, you would have lost your head several times over an average lifetime.”
Well my how times have changed
You are far far far far (4 times) more likely to lose your head in the US than France
The homicide rate in France was 1.2 in the US was more than 4 times higher 4.96 (2018 numbers)
These numbers have not changed by much over my lifetime“If you don’t appreciate it, fine, you are free to suffer or move to a country with other priorities. I”
Interesting is that in the Constition?
No complaining no trying to change the system? If you don’t like it leave!
Where are you getting this notion from?
sounds quite tyrannical. I want to stay here and try to make it better. why don’ t I have that right ?Mentch
“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns.”Reminds me of a patient taking immodium and Miralax. (true story)
“Why are you taking miralax?”
“Well after my surgery, I got constipated (was on opiates) so Surgeon prescribed miralax”
“Why the Imodium?”
“I developed diarrhea'”Arguing well I need guns to protect myself from guns doesn’t do it for me
Mentch
“Your comparison to roe is limited at best. Roe was bad law with no constitutional backing.”Roe is but one example.
My point is “the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .” is nonsense. Supreme court decisions can and have been overturned.Again I understand that you think Roe was bad and Heller was good. My point is that once the Supreme court has spoken conversation is over is simply incorrect.
” and logic is on the side of private ownership.”
History isnt, though.
And even if it was it clearly allows regulation (both based on history and text)
and even if it didn’t that doesn’t really argue WHY we should live this way (whcih was the OP’s question) it just shifts the blame/ Ok so we are stuck with a constiution lets chaneg it and if not why not ? ((rhetorical question I know why not, I explained in my first comment. But the reason why we Allow easy access to guns is not BECASUE of the constituion that just begs the question, why not chaneg the constitution)“Ubiq
The tanach argument is fallacious”
I agree completely. Though Iwas not the one who commented regardign Tanach I dont think it is relevent at all, nor do I think a selective choosing of examples is meaningful“But feel free to pack the courts with liberals who overturn the second amendment sometime in the next 50 years. By then we will have another 200 million guns in the hands of Americans. Then what?”
packing the court wont need to overturn, we can just interpret it the way it was originally undersatood. As to then what.
I dont know. buy back programs?
Ban further sales of ammunition?I don’t know, (Though again I’m not calling to ban all guns so I’m not super worried about what to do) but the idea that people won’t listen is not a reason not to enact a law
I asked you this in the other thread.
Can you think of any other such example, where you oppose a law being enacted because people wont listen ? (we do find this by Chazal lehavdil) People use this argument for abortion, that people will just abort anyway and unsafely (which is obviously true) I don’t find that a convincing argument do you?
Is there any other potential law that you find this convincing?“I think we can all agree on some measures. Especially mental health and background checks. And I fault the NRA and states for not implementing these measures.”
Agreement!
Alos worth noting
nobody (unless I missed a comment) in this thread suggesting banning guns.
The only ones who suggested that were those making “pro-gun” arguemnts (eg Akuperma “all that you do by ”banning” guns i” and Rava “instead of trying to ban everyone elses guns.”)all that was suggested was “gun control” making it harder to get gun , and limiting access to some people
Katontti made the excellent excellent argument of treating guns like we do cars. An argument I largely accept (as mentioned above)arguing that bans won’t work is another example of the fluff I referred to
Mentch
“All the others ignoring the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .”
nope not “ALL the others” I gave no fewer than 3 reasons why the reality is that that argument is completely irrelevant (I gave 4 reasons though in responding to this point the first 2 work together)
“Gun ownership has become enshrined…Real believers will not give up their weapons without a fight”
so had abortion. Arguing that people won’t like their “rights “taken away and may/will get violent Is not a compelling argument
If gun ownership is a good idea argue for that if not this is irrelevant
These arguments are examples of the “fluff” I referred to earlier
they sound substantive, but they aren’t after thinking about them for a bit
Ditto for the Holocaust argument. the Polish and French Armies were better armed than the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow . Both armies fell rather quickly it is a bit silly to think oh my AR 15 will hold back the US army should they attempt another Holocaust. There were many armed uprisings NONE of them succeeded in stopping Holocaust. Sure a few individuals may have saved themselves (probably at the expense of numerous others killed in reprisals, though I don’t think that makes their act improper)
but again this feeds back to my point namely weighing the indivual vs the collective . THAT is the real question at hand .
constitution, Supreme court those are distractions
forgot reason #4 why the constition argument is silly: (this belongs in my pending comment)
4) Even the most ardent supporter of the new interpretation of the 2nd amendment concedes that some limitation exists. No-one (as far as I’m aware) says the second amendment guarantees the right to own Bombs (nuclear or otherwise), grenades, tanks, even automatic weapons/machine guns are uncontroversial restricted. The only question is what regulations are allowed and what are too restrictive. but all agree the some measure of limiting the right to bear arms exists
Katonti’s
your comment perfectly illustrates my pointYou quote the constitution as if that ends discussion
It isn’t simple at all.You say “The Constitution unequivocally grants the right of citizens to own firearms.”
1) This is debatable, that was not the interpretation of the constitution for well over a century (as I pointed out with sources in other threads)
2) Even if it was, the constitution can be reinterpreted. in 1973 the court said the constition grants right to abortion,. in 2022 they changed their mind. In 2009 the Court said the constition grants an individual the right to own firearms in 202? 203? they may change their mind
3) The constitution can be amendedThat is putting the cart before the horse. If you think allowing guns is a good idea say so. If you don’t saying well the constitution ties our hands is nonsense
what you really believe is EXACTLY what I said here are your words : “But since when is public health an excuse to take away ones GD given rights?”
Of course Halacha believes an individual must give up rights for the tzibbur, as other posters have pointed out. But I grant America is not a halachic country. Putting the individual over the collective is EXACTLY what I said was the reason
“just like banning cars in the pursuit of eliminating car crashes would be considered ridiculous.”
As you may know cars are very regulated
you need a license to operate one
They need to be registered
There are limits how/where you can use them
You need insurance
If A Doctor deems you unsafe to drive can get your “right” to drive revokedThese are excellent ideas to enact with guns
YOU compared gun ownership to cars. I agree that would be great.I can’t speak for those people. But After dozens and dozens of conversations I think I get it it comesdown to 3 things:
1) Denial
2) Individualism
3) PoliticsDenial is self explanatory.
Individualism is more nuanced. I’ll elaborate. In the US a great emphais is placed on the individual this plays out in many many ways. for example healthcare, a broader safety net, duty to rescue laws and gun control.In all these cases you need to weigh the needs of an individual vs society. My health care is taken care of by my company, I have a job etc etc. Sure it is nice to give charity to someone who doesnt have a job. but that isn’t OUR obligation. Its every man for himself .
In Europe more of an emphasis is placed on the group WE all need to take care of each other we need to ensure the group has access to health care.
If I see someone in danger, in the US the view is sure I should help but that’s if I want to I shouldn’t be obligated to. Thus there is no duty to rescue law (of course there may be a moral duty to rescue that is a separate issue) In many European countries (eg France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Russia, Norway, Romania, Turkey, and Hungary) there is suche a duty IF you can rescue someone in danger you MUST do so. you cant choose not to.
This plays out with guns. I won’t kill anybody. so even if we are all better off with stricter gun control , why should I give up MY gun ?
See PEw research study “The American-Western European Values Gap” specificly on Individualism and the Role of the State.
THIS is in my opinion THE main reason. Other arguments falling back on the second amendment, cherry picking data are fluff. The crux of the issue is role of individual vs collective
3) Politics also doesn’t need much elaboration. The NRA focusses on this specific issue both on the political front and on the public perception front. Thus any measure of gun control (even when there is wide public support such as expanding background checks) is politically risky.
Gefilte
thank you for taking the time to type and share that.
InterestingGefilte,
I’m skeptical thst R Hauer writes that. Where can this article be found?No Avira it’s unusual because R Moshe ignores or argues with the vast majority of achronim who have dealt with the issue. This is not unusual for R Moshe kdarko b’kodesh but generally other poskim didn’t Pasken in that style
The tzitz Eliezer is more “grounded” in chain of mesora going through achronim.To be clear. Of course R Moshe could, I am not chas veshalom questioning his psak chas veshalom. Nor am I choosing who to follow. I am just relaying that in practice R Moshe is not followed in this regard
“I think “most rabbonim” quoted here refers to shul rabbis and communally involved modern Orthodox or black hat wearing religious zionists, to be honest.”
In my experience, shul Rabbis don’t deal with these questions. They start at the ob gyn and go straight to the relevant poskim if chasidish then chadidish yeshivish then their community (I’m not as well worked in modern orthodox community though I doubt shul rabbanim get these questions there either)“Not everyone followed Rav Moshe in everything, mechitza, chalav yisrael…”
And on this issue, in practice it isn’t followed either.
“rape and incest is no more an excuse for abortion than if she became pregnant as a result of her immorality”
That is one poster’s (ok more than one poster’s) opinion. In practice EVERY such case I am aware of the Rav asked paskened an abortion should be done. Granted it is very very very rare (I can count on one hand) but unfortunalty rare doesn’t equal never.
thanks for the kind works Rebbe.
You’ve taught me wellGlock 43 is very small and easy to conceal carry. 19 is a bit bigger but still not too big . The 43 though has a (standard) magazine less than half that of the 19. This means after dealing with 7 Amalekim you would have to stop and reload while the 19 would allow for 16 mitzvos. The fire power between the 2 is pretty similar both use 9 mm cartridges and the barrel length is only about 1/2 inch different
Can you elaborate on the connection between Biden and things “they” are teaching and doing to Young children?
Fill in ALL the bubbles on the scantron. That way you will definitely get the right answer.
Guaranteed 100!!#Lifehack
“I strongly believe I will not have that problem. Bez”H.”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂thanks I enjoyed that
“That wasn’t the understanding for centuries”
More than centuries
In 1982 Orrin Hatch commisined a reports which concluded “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and LONG LOST—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms”
(emphasis added) the idea that it applies to individuals was not a widely held view. it was “long lost” they dug it upthere were not “many” supreme court cases involving the second amendment (in fact it was one of the least discussed amendments) . And NONE of them (until Heller and then reaffirmed in Mcdonald) took the opposite opinion
Of the few that disucssed it United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, (1886) both ruled that it did not apply to States. Miller (1939) we mentioned. Barrett v. United States (1976) Upheld gun control measures . US v Lopez (1995) was largely over the commerce clause though indirectly related to the second. NONE of these ruled an individual has aright to bear arms
“The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control”
as mentioned many states, from the founding had gun measures in place .These were not challenged“pretty clearly give individuals”
The opposite is true it clearly applies to militia. Excuse me a well regulated milita not just any old milita.
So why the phrase “A well regulated Militia,” would the amendment mena anything different if it just said ” the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
No other amendment has an opening .
Eg ” Practicing religion being a key part of life Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ” or “An infomred populace being neccesary for an involved state abridging the freedom of speech or of the press shall not…”.”
Why that phrase? what does it add?
“Rav Aiemba’s view has been contested, ”
Not by any eye-witnesses as far as I know. ALL the eyewitnesses said he supported it (Hillel Seidman, R’ Mordechai Glatstein come to mind)
as for the Radziner R’ Shmuel Shlomo Leiner HYD and the Slonimer R’ Shlomo David Yehoshua Weinberg HYD both are mentioned in Esther Farbstein’s book Hidden in Thunder: Perspectives on Faith, Halachah and Leadership during the Holocaust
Mentch
“Personally I would Tighten gun control laws.”So we agree. shalom al Yisroel
Avira
“The warsaw uprising was discouraged by gedolim ”This is of course factually incorrect Of course most famously RAv Menachem Ziemba supported the uprising according to numerous (frum) eye-witnesses, . THe Radziner Rebbe, Slonimer Rebbe encouraged armed resistence as well.
Mencht
“Whether or not it was a “fraud” the Supreme Court disagreed and ratified the individual right”
Oh obviously.
I was replying to Smerel who had said ” changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent” to which I replied it doesn’t need to be changed. Leave it alone and just re-interpret it the way it had been pre-Heller.
“so who knows maybe the winds of change will happen to the second amendment also”
You say “will happen” IT already happened with the second. Heller overturned Miller (to an extent). Yes Heller too can be overturned
Smerel
“My only issue was that changing the second amendment is a very dangerous precedent.”
No need to change the second amendment
Just follow it. Either interpret it the way it was interpreted for centuries as applying to a “milita” and not individual. The NRA in the 60’s started pushing the then new idea that it applies to an individual, in what Warren Burger (A conservative) described as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public,”
Even assuming for centuries the 2nd amendment was misunderstood by conservative and liberal alike, and does protect an individual’s right to bear arms, it STILL would not preclude gun control.
In fact the opposite is true. It calls for the milita to be regulated. A little regulated? No Well regulated. And In fact during the ratifying of the Bill of rights, many States had gun control laws including where they could be fired, stored , some states required registration* Many of these laws would be deemed unconstitutional by so-called “originalists” today.I like your 4 proposals. I’m on board
(*See GUN LAW HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SECOND AMENDMENTRIGHTS by ROBERT J. SPITZER)
AAQ
while that is a great point.
Mensch sad it already, and I acknowledged it is a good point“you really do not understand the mindset of the average gun owner.”
I thought I did. I assumed they were peaceful people who obey laws., and if as a society we would be better off going a different way, they might vote against it but they would respect the law.
I am surprised to learn that this isn’t the case, and that they are secretly pretty close to unleashing their weapons’ on their fellow citizens. Which seems to me (if true) to be MORE of a reason to actually confiscate guns
you keep repeating that people won’t comply. Thats fine. I dont see that as a reason not to enact laws. Thats our point of disagreement. Thank you for taking the tiem to explain
One last question:
Can you think of any other law that would benefit society (like you, taking out the discussion about whether it benefits society) but shouldn’t be or hasn’t been enacted becasue people won’t listen?I’s a curious argument and other than Chazal , I can’t think of anything like that *
“The obvious answer is one is against halacha and the moral fabric of society and the other isn’t”
Yes! that’s why guns need more restrictions than abortion (I joke)* I have heard that argument made with abortion (making it illegal would not decrese abortions so why bother) but 1) I don’t find it convincing at all, 2) I have never ever heard it from someone “pro-life” 3) The argument there is that it will not reduce abortions and increase unsafe abortions
“No I don’t think that they are unhinged.”
I didn’t think so either; but the idea that they will start shooting if ; in an effort to curb violence, we enact some measure of gun control does imply that they are unhinged .
“How many of our people complied with government edicts concerning Covid?”
If you told me that a store owner opened fire on a someone who came to fine him for having to many people in his store; yes that is unhinged.
I donlt understand why You seem to have a different standard to abortion.
You seem to be saying
Guns – people won’t listen so dont make rules since the government won;t be able to enforce it
Abortion – “We can outlaw it. We can hold providers responsible. ” – but no jailIn both cases IF there is a need for regulation; enact the legislation restrict abortions/guns for the betterment of society and if some people don;t follow we will deal with that.
I understand (though disagree) with not enacting legislation that can’t be fully enforced (“Our chachumim never made a halacha if they saw the masses refused to comply”) obviously abortion restrictions are unlikely to be fully enforced, and would also require draconian overreach (following suspected abortion clinics? Searching and seizing medical records) . why do you seem open to those restrictions (as long as no jail time) but not guns
Mentch
“I personally believe that jail should be for those who are a danger to society.”
agreed But that’s where this gets a bit circular .
IF (note the caps) eliminating 8 cartrigge magazines would make us safer then if someone refuses to follow the law he is contributing to endangering society
“Existing gun owners are not hardened criminals that we should be seeking to send thousands of them to jail.”
Agreed. So have them trade in their 8 bullet magazines for 7 i’d be open to a buyback program for this. Make it easy to follow the law
Now again; as to whether that particular legislation makes us safer is a fair discussion. But that is the discussion .
I don’t buy the argument ” sure it makes us safer but some people won’t listen don’t make them felons” (paraphrasing that isn’t a verbatim quote)
But I hear what you are saying thanks for the Chazal tzu shtell,
Tuna
I’m not sure your analysis is correct. some had Weapons in Warsaw it didnt “prevent the holocaust” there were other armed rebellions as well. Fro that matter, as you may know entire armed countries fell to the Germans .
“the discussion here was to interrupt set times that yeahivos learn to honor soldiers.”
didnt realize
I was the one who first mentioned “a moment of silence ” (as an idea that I would understand, I don’t understand the OP)
Joseph Kidarko bakodesh said “It isn’t worth giving up even 60 seconds of Limud HaTorah for this purpose, even for a “moment of silence”.” Unclear why he assumed the “moment” had to come from Talmud Torah.
a moment can come from Lunch, recess, typing in the coffee room .
Your “General rule” is cute but Indicate a lack of familiarity with Yeshivos. Time is taken from talmud Torah all the time, for tehilim , a Rosh Chodesh mesiba, Lag Baomer mesiba, various zichronos for the Kedoshim ( I remember well the Kaliver Rebbe Z”l speaking in my elementry school, we all went out to greet him and he taught us his song Shema Yisroel, that I can still hear)
Now, to be clear I am not suggesting that the topic at hand is remotly as important as any of those interruptions to learning. but then again, nor did I suggest or condone interrupting learning in the first place.
Menncth
I don’t understand soem of your points
“Is it really ethical to turn legal gun owners into felons for the sake of “doing something “?”
I can’t think of any other time this argument would be made. don’t criminalize abortion it would turn legal abortion providers into criminals don’t raise taxes it would cause those paying less into felons. Don;t lower the speed limit it would casue more people to break the law.
If you don’t think gun control would help. Fine majke that point. but to argue that it would create more felons; so what?
“”Do you really think that American mentality is going to allow confiscation without a Civil War? Without draconian government methods? Without armed resistance and deaths?”
This is even more puzzling. So all these gun owners are violent unhinged people ready to kill people to protect their “way of life” That is MORE of a reason to take their guns quickly; not less. e can’t wait. Who knows what would set them off today it is gun registartion tomorrow it is someone taking heir parking space
(as an aside no one in this thread called for confiscating all guns, I may have missed a comment here and there but definitely not many)
Sam
I’ll quote what my Rebbe R’ Tzvi Berkowiz said:“It may not make sense, it may be crazy; but when you are in love you do crazy things”
Avira
” we’re talking about taking time off of a seder.”
who is?
Who doesn’t know this?
Its used becasue it is excellent and easily searchable
Why does closing a Yeshiva give honor to soldiers?
If you said should they sing the national anthem or raise a flag say some tehilim, even a moment of silence (to reflect on their sacrifice) I’d understand.
But why close the Yeshiva? I don’t get it
“ubi, you seemed to imply that all these states are not doing reasonable background checks as relevant to the recent event.”
Unclear how you made that inference.
I was replying to a specific comment
I quoted it to avoid confusion
This is the line
““There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.””Gun control laws should not be limited to what would have prevented the last big news story.
Say when (not if ) the next shooter steasls the healdines occurs and he is 22. does that mean any call to raise age to buy guns to 21 is moot, since it wouldn’t have stopped THAT shooter?
Obviously not, if an idea would help/makes sense it should be implemented . perioduniversal background checks are a good idea (in my opinion and most Americans including most gun owners) the fact that it wouldn’t have stopped THIS shooter is immaterial.
Halevai’s suggestion in the OP “Maybe gun manufacturers should be required to make the barrels even more pronounced, in that a bullet should be able to be traced to its licenced owner without having to get hold of the gun first.” Would not have prevented this shooting either.
AAQ
“So, these states DO have background checks except the gun shows?”
I believe license firearm dealers are federally mandated to perform background checks, this applies in all states“Did the latest murderer buy his gun at the gun show? ”
No“Are gun shows a significant source of guns used in crime?”
Yes. Though exact data is hard to vcme by as no records are kept (whcih is exactly the problem)
Bu several reports indicate that this is a source of guns used in crime see aTF report from 2000 Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws against Firearms Traffickers. found that 30% of guns used in crimes were bought through gun shows. his was the second most common source of guns used by criminals (first place were those bought through a strawman which accounted for ~ 40%)not sure what that rat is that you smelled.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
“There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.”
They are not.
and while this is something that nearly 90% of the country agrees is a good idea including the vast majority of gun owners, the NRA opposes it.The last time this was discussed I commented
” but right now today 8/15/2019 the following states : AL, AK, AZ, AR FL, GA,, ID, IN, IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MO MT ME NH NC ND OH OK PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WV WI WY Do NOT require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)”I don’t think much has changed in the past 2 and half years since I wrote that
“This whole business of looking good by the Goyim is completely secondary, if even that much.”
one of the dafim this week is explciit that looking good in fornt of Goyim is a “kiddush Hashem”
Yevamos 79 a relates
In regard to the hanging of Shaul’s descendants which violated a pasuk in the TorahThe Gemara says
טאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: מוּטָב שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְיִתְקַדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְרִים וְשָׁבִים אוֹמְרִים: מָה טִיבָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ? הַלָּלוּ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים הֵם. וּמָה עָשׂוּ? פָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בְּגֵרִים גְּרוּרִים. אָמְרוּ: אֵין לְךָ אוּמָּה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהִדָּבֵק בָּהּ כָּזוֹ.
It is clear these “ovrim veshavim” were not Jewish
Lol UJM
you don’t need to parse a letter to not e an “extra” phrase written over an over and over and over (literally)
If you don’t know why he wrote it, just say so.
My question is pashut pshat what does “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” add that he was careful to include it EVERY time.I know why, Jackk knows, Aseh knows.
B’seder you don’t know no shame in saying soUJM
Actually not.
And of course if it where true, there would be no need to stick in that phrase multiple times.But ok, i’ll bite. What was R’ Zweibel (and the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of America on whose behalf he was writing) looking to add wit h the phrase “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” If it didn’t add anything to “necessary to preserve the life of the mother”?
If it was once, fine I agree don’t be medayek in every word but it is every single time.
Why not just say “necessary to preserve the life of the mother” And thats it, if yo uthink that is Halacha’s approach
Aseh
Great point, I didn’t think of that distinction. Though worth noting that R’ Moshe does not make this distinction IIRC.
to clarify what I meant by “In practice it is this way as well” I meant in practice Poskim use a “looser” (or stricter depending on your frame of reference) definition of “life at risk” than doctors would
Jackk
Your understanding is exactly right .
In practice it is this way as well
Every time abortion comes up, many posters mistakenly comment something along the lines of
“…abortion is only allowed if the mother’s physical life is in danger,…”It is worth noting that in 1989 Rabbi Zwiebel at the behest of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah submitted an amicus brief in the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
“For the reasons stated above, amicus curiae Agudath Israel of America respectfully submits that Roe v. Wade’s holding that all abortions are expressions of a constitutional right that is “fundamental” should be overruled; that abortion should be deemed a “fundamental” right only where necessary to preserve the life of the mother OR WHERE MANDATED BY THE MOTHER’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; and that Missouri’s legislative “finding” that human life begins at conception should be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.
(emphasis added)This line appears over and over again in the brief “Thus, even if the right to most abortions is not fundamental, the right to some abortions — those necessary to preserve maternal life and those mandated by a woman’s religious beliefs — is.”
In fact It seems EVERY TIME the phrase “to protect maternal life” appears it is immediately followed by “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief’s”
The idea that the ONLY abortions allowed is to protect the life of the mother, is not the Torah True (TM) approach
In Buffalo there was an armed security officer
In Texas (according to some reports) the shooter was confornted by armed officers before he entered the school.More guns is unfortunately not the answer
“No reasonable person thinks that abortion is not murder.”
This is offensive the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch were all reasonable people.
Sure you can argue with them. But to say they weren’t reasonable isn’t nice to say the least“Stop being motzi Shem Ra on one of the gedolei hador and gonask mechila. Alternatively,learn how to read before quoting someone.”
If you can’t identify the “Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.” I expect you to ask mechila and/or learn to read before quoting someone
“Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.
Surprise surprise, lo hada”m.”who said that?
AAQ
” but generally exalting R Moshe to press people to disregard a different serious posek is simply halachic bullying”I don;lt think its bullying, I think heis new t oall this . So he thinks Saying “R’ Moshe ” over and over and telling us how great he was (As if the rest of us don;t know) is a winning argument,
As he learns more he’ll fins several pesakim
This on the other hand ” They’d recoil in horror at the shattering of skulls, dismemberment and brutal torture that abortion often entails.” is a bt more bullying.
Though it too is irrelevent. My Bubbeh would recoil in horro at a description of how Sereifa is done. That doesnt mean we skip the end of Sanhedrin come to think of it there are a few blat in Yevamos she’d recoil from too, I guess we skip those ?
Avirah
” And they would scream “murderer!” Without getting into any shailos if it’s *really* murder or not.”Speak for yourself, may be your zeideh was an am haaretz. not sure that is muttar to say, but definitely don;t say that about all of us
And you have a funny idea about how pesak works. This isn’t about who was “bigger” A point you’ve made a few times that is completely irrelevant . (See YD 3:88 where he gives chizuk to someone afraid to argue with the Chazon Ish) Sure R’ Moshe is greater, pesak doesnt always follow who was “greater” .
you personally hold like R’ Moshe, Beseder. He is vey happy I’m sure he is pumped to get your stamp of approval.AAQ
“”you may be right and your opponents holding by minority opinion””
H isnt right. R’ Moshe Is the minority opinion. As demonstrated repeatedly .
Though certainly I’d be chosesh for such a significant minority opieion for such a potetially chamur issurujm
“or undergoes an abortion will be executed”undergoing is probably not assur, there is probably no lifnei iver for a beni noach.
but sure I agree“Why is there even any hava mina that there might be a right to kill a mamzer, any more than to kill a non-mamzer?”
There is no such hava aminah. but according to most poskim abortion isnt murder. In the case of a mamzer R’ Yaakov Emden holds it is muttar to abort (not murder obviously) a mamzer.“but i believe that Rav Shlomo Zalman considered abortion to be Retzichah for Jews also”
I’m not sure if he wrote anything himself on the matter. Both Nishmas Avraham and Shulchan Shlomo (hilchas refuah) write that he held it is gezel