"Ask the Rabbi" by R. Mermelstein
QUESTION: Dear Rabbi
Mermelstein:
It's wonderful to read your views, and know that I'm not alone as an
exile from those who are in all other respects in my corner, a seeming
outsider in both camps.
In your case it is an attempt to convince your fellow Jews of the
crucial importance of the 2nd amendment, in my case, it's my fellow
liberals. Well, self-proclaimed liberals. To me liberal means, "Mind
your own business, don't tread on me, don't inhibit the free flow of
ideas and don't impose your morality on me simply because you're in the
majority".
I loathe the current republican trend toward a "faith based"
nationalism, literally the same national socialism which spawned the
Nazi disaster.
Yet nor can I support the democrats in their efforts to cut their (our)
own throats by gutting the 2nd amendment. Who do they think will
protect them from a fanatical, populist religious "right" (nothing
could be more to the left) once they've succeeded in disarming
themselves? A Republican packed congress and Supreme Court? I think not!
So here's my question, and please feel free to edit the preceding rant from the posted version:
As someone who believes that both the right to attend to one's bodily
situation as one sees fit (ie: abortion) and the choice to bear arms
are personal and have no place in legislation, can you think of a way I
can support the 2nd amendment without voting Republican?
I won't vote democrat either, and if it came down to it and I desired
an abortion, I could fend off the bible-thumpers with a gun in one hand
and a coat-hanger in the other. All the abortion clinics in the world
won't save us from a government who owns us by default the way Hitler
did Germany once he passed his gun control act (upon which our own 1968
act was modeled by the way, but you probably know that). Hitler's
act too, couched in public safety and national security.
My quote: "There's nothing liberal about gun control".
P.S. I came to your site on a web search for AP abilities of the 7.62
Tokarev which I didn't see covered on the site, but what I did find was
so much more important and it is to your political and social integrity
to which I now appeal. I've book marked the site and intend to read it
in its entirety as time permits.
Thanks!
Susan
04 May 2005
ANSWER: Dear Susan,
Democratic Party politicians are anti-gun nearly 100% of the time. Republican Party politicians are nearly
pro-Second Amendment when they deem it advantageous to their continued
political careers, based on the demographic and historical backgrounds
of their constituents and districts, but their views of the individual right
to keep and bear arms vary wildly. Cases in point: Alberto Gonzales,
the new US Attorney General nominated by President Bush (a Republican)
and confirmed by the Senate (with a Republican majority), favors the
revival of the reviled Brady Act of 1994 that expired last September.
Neither you nor I have ever seen, much less been witnesses to, an
"assault weapon" acting on its own to commit murder and mayhem. Mr.
Gonzalez, however, citing his police officer brother's safety on the
streets of Texas, views semi-automatic weapons as a threat to the
public. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (a Republican) recently
terminated the sale of .50 BMG rifles. New York Gov. Pataki and New
York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (both Republicans) would not nullify
the almost century old Sullivan Law of New York City in a thousand
years. Former VP Al Gore (a Democrat), while serving in the US Senate,
had an A-rating from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action for some
time until he gauged the winds to be blowing in the opposite direction
once he decided to make a run for that plush resort on Pennsylvania
Avenue. Gore, had I been a Tennessean, could have received my vote each
time he ran for reelection while he held that rating if his Republican
rival was less pro-gun, even though I am a registered Republican.
Politicians with immovable principles are scarcer than hens' teeth. So
we vote for the man or woman who best represents our Second Amendment
interests at that given moment.
I am now in the middle of reading "The Writings of Theodore Roosevelt"
by William Harbough. Roosevelt, the person I admire most in American
history, saw no contradiction in a man (this was before women's
suffrage) not toeing the party line on each and every platform. If the
candidates offered to you differ on abortion (which I am against, by
the way) and the Second Amendment as an individual, rather than a
collective, right with one pro-abortion and anti-gun (which is usually
the case) and the other anti-abortion and pro-gun (which is also
usually the case) you must let your priorities decide whether the law
made possible by Roe v. Wade or the Second Amendment to the Bill of
Rights is of foremost importance to you. Interestingly you cite
positions, pro-abortion on demand and pro-individual gun ownership,
which are present in the same politician at about the same frequency
that it snows in July. Though this is certain to enrage, Libertarians
don't count. We are speaking about real world politics and politicians,
not altruistic wannabes whose unfamiliar names only serve to clutter
ballots. I won't even launch into an off-topic debate with you over how
someone can vehemently defend life with the muzzle of a firearm yet
kill an unborn baby who hasn't acted negatively on anything except its
mother's convenience (instances of rape and incest being the possible
exceptions). You've got quite a conundrum on your hands, I'd say!
Best regards,
Rabbi R. Mermelstein
Rabbi@GunOwnersAlliance.com
Author of "Mermelstein's Guide to Metallic Cartridge Evolution"
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_Mermelstein_book-01.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972254420/gunownersalli-20
Click
here to write Rabbi Mermelstein your questions!
[Back to "Ask
the
Rabbi"]