While Obama and Hillary seek to disarm America, Isrealis request gun permits to defend themselves
While Israelis are arming themselves to fend off the increasing number of murderous Arabs, Americans are being threatened with confiscation and obstruction by President Obama and presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
As more Arabs go berzerk and knife, run-over, shoot or bomb Israeli citizens, the government is making it easier for Israelis to obtain firearms.
Gilad Erdan, Minister of Public Security, has stated that he will simplify the process by which citizens obtain firearms:
Following the wave of terror attacks across the country, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan has directed that obtaining permits to carry firearms be made easier. “In light of the security situation I’ve decided to make it easier to obtain a permit for owning a weapon,” he said Wednesday [October 14].
“In recent weeks many civilians have assisted the police in stopping terrorists who were carrying out attacks. Civilians who are skilled at using firearms are a multiplier force in our struggle against terrorists, so I’ve taken steps to make obtaining guns easier for now.”
Under the new guidelines, officers with the rank of first lieutenant or higher and NCOs with the rank of master sergeant or higher who are serving in the army as conscripted or reserve soldiers will be entitled to obtain weapons, as will former or current members of special units serving in regular or reserve units. The guidelines also apply to civilians who have taken courses as security guards at the Israel Airports Authority, the Shin Bet security service or any institution approved by Israel Police.
With the Obama administration allowing record numbers of immigrants from Syria and the Middle-East to enter the U.S. with no way of checking their backgrounds, Americans may soon find themselves in need of a way to fend off radical islamists.
While Isreali officials are making it easier for their population to protect their families, Obama and Clinton have both made statements that will make it much more difficult for Americans to do the same.
President Obama said he would make the gun-buying process more onerous, but only for law-abiding citizens. His proposed executive order would enhance background checks on those citizens purchasing a firearm from a high-volume gun retailer. In other words, if you lawfully purchase a firearm from a gun store (instead of out of some dude’s trunk at midnight) you will face increased scrutiny. Yeah, that’ll solve a problem…
Hillary says that the Australian mandatory gun buy-back program is “worth looking into.” That program is the government confiscating your firearms under the cover of them bothering to pay you for the property you didn’t want to sell.
Both of them are answering to a far-left agenda. To make citizens more dependent upon the government, they must not have a way to provide for or defend themselves. That way, when the next crisis arrives, the only thing that can save us all is the federal government.
When the U.S. requires 2years of military service for every citizen like Israel does, then you can compare the parity of gun laws and ownerhsip between Israel & the U.S.
Interesting thought. Are you comparing conscription to the right for a person to defend themselves? Not sure I understand your point.
Read your article, I agree with the point you referenced, it specially addresses well qualified and trained Israeli individuals will get approvals for ownership, not just any knucklehead. If you want to go by the belief of the b Time that the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, I’ll agree that you may own a single shot musket that has to be packed with a lead ball. before shooting. If you want something more then perhaps the Israeli model you’re pointing is a good framework
I am only trying to understand your position and as such I have a few questions:
1) Should a person only be allowed to defend themselves from an aggressor if they have served in the military?
2) Since muskets were the military arms of the day in the 18th century, why would not the constitution apply equally today? Shouldn’t the framers have limited arms to spears and slingshots to make sure citizens capabilities were inferior to the those in general use?