Gays and Jews question

[ARperson]

Anti-Semitism is alive and well across the world. This little place called Israel could tell you all about. Just about every individual in the Middle East, eastern Europe, hell, Western Europe, and the entire former Soviet Union who isn't Jewish or Christian (and I'm not sure about all of them) is usually blatantly anti-Semitic. I'd go as far as saying that aside from Britain, everything east of the Atlantic, west of the Pacific, and north of the Indian are anti-Semitic, if not in policy, then at least in mentality.

 

[AnklePocket]

Many feel that the mind is the most effective weapon. Certainly true most of the time, but there are times when it's not. As my ancestors in 1930's Germany said, "...couldn't happen here. I'm a German first, Jew second." Well, history does have a way of repeating itself and whoever coined "Never Again" is probably sick to his or her stomach. 1930 wasn't all that long ago and human nature probably hasn't changed much in that time.
All hope is not lost. Many feel that "we're" above violence. That's a good thing, but one must be ready or at least allow others to be ready should they choose to. It's fine to not be ready as long as you don't deny others that basic human right.
9/11 has brought "readiness" alive to a degree. Times are changing for the better although slowly and many really are "with the program".
By the way, I know a gay Jew who's 100% in favor of the RKBA. He doesn't own a gun, but supports those who do.

 

[twoblink]

I pretty much take (what I think to be the general THR stance) I could care less if you feel like smoking 80 packs of cigarettes a day while sitting naked watching porn. I could care less if you are gay and your favorite food is ice cream on your hotdog. It makes no difference.. and the best part is.. IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS..

Just like my preferences in firearms and more to the point, my ownership of firearms is pretty much nobody else's business. If everybody took that view, the law books would be all empty and we'd live freer lives..

The gays seem to have issues with the gay marriage... I have issues with the "government granted privileges" of marriage. I think if you got rid of that, then marriage is nothing more than mutually agreed contracts, and then gays would have nothing to gripe about because you can then contract to marry anybody. Once again, the problem is with government, not really certain political parties..

As for the "Evil Parties"..

Who's evil? The Republicrats, or the Democans?

Yeah.. That's what I thought too..

 

[jimpeel]

a. The ADL is made up of the same people who, throughout history, have told the Jews "Don't make waves, blend in; and they'll leave us alone." and have been historically wrong every time.

b. There are three segments of society who are easy to lure into seclusion where nefarious deeds may be perpetrated upon them.

The first is children. Because of their trusting nature, and willingness to be helpful, children are easy to distract and lure using excuses as simple as helping the perpetrator to find their "puppy".

The second is Prostitutes. Because of the nature of their business and the privacy in which most people want them to perform their services, it is easy to lure a prostitute into seclusion. This is the reason that prostitutes are the favorite target of heterosexual mass murderers like Jack the Ripper.

The third is Gays. Because of the nature of their sexual desires, and the privacy these acts require, it is easy to lure a gay person into seclusion. This is what happened to Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. This is why homosexuals are one of the favorite targets of heterosexual and homosexual serial killers like Randy Kraft, and Jeffrey Dahmer.

This is why Gays should be armed and why the Pink Pistols are a necessary component of the gay lifestyle. If Matthew Shepard had been armed, he likely never would have been beaten to death. It's a little hard to beat someone who is holding his attackers at bay with a firearm.

 

[BigG]

"The U.S. has two major parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. The Evil Party is actively trying to institute socialism; the Stupid Party is trying to fine-tune it." Dr. Yuri Maltsev

Anybody who claims to see no difference is either naive or pursuing a hidden agenda.

 

[AnklePocket]

Republicans - personal responsibility, accountability and self reliance
Democrats - guidance, regulation and entitlement

The problems arise when Republicans compromise their values to get votes and when Democrats use their platform to entice certain groups (another form of compromising values). All is well when Republicans are Republicans and Democrats are Democrats. Both working together is what is required. It's kinda rare around here, but I've heard that it does happen in some areas.

 

[MrAcheson]

Sorry but the Big 2 parties are different. If this was not the case you would not see one or the other crying and gnashing their teeth after every election. Unless everyone that doesn't think like you are sheep...

 

[sw442642]

It is very simple.

It is unfortunate but Jews and Gays have good evidence to regard many Conservatives as bigots and their enemies. Certainly current rhetoric and past history suggest that this is a reasonable position.

Conservatives also like guns - thus guns become a marker for the conservative position. So if bigots rave about having guns, it seems a reasonable thing to oppose such folks having lethal weapons.

What about guns for self-protection?

It may seem not a good strategy. A conservative government might support gun rights but still be a government that uses the force of the state to harm gays and jews. Thus, it is better to have a more friendly government even if it means some crackers don't have guns.

One can see a conservative government forcing Christianity as the approved state religion, legalizing discrimination against gays, etc. We can see that rhetoric slipping out once in awhile. Look at the crazed general Bonkin.

So that's why guns aren't a high priority. They don't correlated well with respect for other liberties. Too many gun fascists around.

 

[cordex]

Anybody who claims to see no difference is either naive or pursuing a hidden agenda.

They both want a very large, powerful government.
What they do with that power is slightly different.
Neither is particularly appealing to me.

 

[Sam Adams]

Twoblink and Abenaki

I'm another descendant of Abraham who is the antithesis of the stereotypical anti-gun Jew. One need not be Albert Einstein to figure out that if only 10% of those Jews murdered in Europe during WW2 had taken out one German or Ukranian or Polish or whatever soldier/cop/goon, then some 600,000 would have died trying to perpetrate Hitler's fiendish plans. Of course, at such a ratio the whole process would have stopped well short of 6 million murdered Jews for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) Hitler and his minions would have realized that it was too expensive to fight a war and murder the Jews simultaneously and, therefore, it would have stopped or 2) the murders would have continued, along with the German, etc. casualties, leading to a faster conclusion to the war due to a lack of manpower on the Axis side, thereby leading to less murders (e.g. maybe the 500,000 Hungarian Jews shipped off to the gas chambers in January 1945 wouldn't have been, because the Russians would have already owned Berlin).

However, as the old Yiddish saying goes (translated into English): "IF your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather." IF is a big word, and my distant relatives and co-religionists in Europe 2 generations ago didn't, in fact, take up arms in large numbers. Why so many of those left - at least in the US and in Europe - haven't learned the lesson is quite beyond me. I certainly have, and I'll only be disarmed when I'm dead. My wife (not the typical "J.A.P.") knows how to shoot and will be doing lots more as time goes by. Our children will be trained from pups to respect and use firearms, and be intellectually armed against the insidious rantings of the uber-Lefty anti-gunners.

BTW, my wife's uncle, who not only saw his father and brother killed in front of him but was a "guest" in Auschwitz and 3 other similarly luxurious resorts so kindly provided by the Nazis, owns machine guns and numerous other fun toys. He'll also be disarmed only when dead.

Those who think that all Jews are anti-gun should try meeting my friends and family - some are anti-gun (not the friends, since I can choose them), but most are not. I make fun of the rest regularly, and love to spoil their preconceptions by telling them after a day or weekend of fun that they just experienced a miracle - they were in the presence of an armed gun nut and didn't even know that a gun was present, let alone get shot 57 times by the concealable, full-auto revolver that shoots armor-piercing hollow-points that can take out airliners from 5 miles away without aiming. Seriously, it does pay to burst bubbles, and it is also fun to see the bug-eyes and slack-jaws that the announcement of a nearby loaded weapon brings.

 

[twoblink]

Sam Adams,

I have to say; most TFL and THR'ers are the EXCEPTION and not the rule. You think you see the likes of Kaylee, Tamara, Runt walking down the street everyday? (If you do, post their pics and contact info!! I'm sure there'll be plenty of THR'ers who'd be interested in dating them!!)

So you my friend, are definitely the exception, and not the rule. (Congrats, you aren't a listed moron who knowns no history)

I have a few friends who are JEWS (I mean the hat, the beard, the pickles, the works) and for some reason... Even after reading the history, they feel that Jews shouldn't have even tried to resist.. :banghead:

I told him, if that's your stance, then you will be hearing "Get in the Shower!!" instead of "Never Again!!".

It seems the rampid movement of personal security and liberty as a shift in responsibility to the Gov'ment just sickens me..

Sam, I look forward to the day I can meet your family and you can meet my gf. (Hopefully by then, my wife)

 

[MrAcheson]

they feel that Jews shouldn't have even tried to resist.

Those Jews really need to re-read Esther. Why was there no Jewish Holocaust under the Medo-Persians? Because Xerxes allowed the Jews to band together and fight back. If that isn't a Biblical precident I don't know what is.

 

[cloudkiller]

Some very good replies

Anti-Semitism is alive and well across the world. This little place called Israel could tell you all about. Just about every individual in the Middle East, eastern Europe, hell, Western Europe, and the entire former Soviet Union who isn't Jewish or Christian (and I'm not sure about all of them) is usually blatantly anti-Semitic.

Sadly this is true. Ironically in the United States, conservative Christians have a love hate relationship with Jews. For the apocalyptic/millenial visions of many evangelicals to come true, they rely on the existence of the nation of Israel. However, conservative Christian conspiracy theories are horrendously anti-semitic. Pat Robertson's writings are rampant with anti-jewish sentiment as well.

 

[Wildalaska]

You think you see the likes of Kaylee, Tamara, Runt walking down the street everyday? (If you do, post their pics and contact info!! I'm sure there'll be plenty of THR'ers who'd be interested in dating them!!)

Come to Alaska, girl gunners all over the place (although not quite as attractive as our own here I may add)....

WildiimportedonethoughAlaska

 

[braindead0]

I think the problem lies with the 'leaders' and not necessarily the followers. Same with African Americans... The so called 'leaders' need victims in order to increase their power, without these 'victims' they would be just ordinary joes.

So they get up on their soapbox and rail against 'the man', 'homophobes' etc and demand the government do something about it, they get free press and I'm sure gobs of money from the sheeple.

It's pretty simple, follow the money.. and you'll find the problem.

 

[CMichael]

I am Jewish. Jews have been traditionally Democrats. The reason for that is in the past the Democrat party has championed civil rights. The problem is once they achieved their goals they went to the other extreme such as racial preferences.

Many Jews see the Democrat party as still being leaders of civil rights. They have not really realized how much the party has changed. So since the Democrat party is traditionally anti gun ownership rights so many of the Jews who support the Democrat party are anti gun ownership rights.

Obviously I don't share this view.

 

[cadfael]

Being Jewish is one of the major reasons that I decided to take a more active role in protecting myself from harm.

There are many people who want to do me harm because of what I believe, not what actions I take. Unfortunately, I'm in the extreme minority in my family.

Adam

 

[jimpeel]

The reason for that is in the past the Democrat party has championed civil rights. ...

Many Jews see the Democrat party as still being leaders of civil rights.

As usual they got it wrong. The Democrats were the ones standing in the schoolhouse doors. the Democrats, including Al Gore's father, voted in droves against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

How people are able to be fooled so easily is beyond me. Perhaps it is those empty promises and filling of the outstretched palm that makes them so.

 

[sw442642]

How silly and simplistic. Those Democrats were the Southern Dems who inherited the racist mantle of Jim Crow after the Civil War and would not identify with the GOP, the party of Lincoln.

At the time of Goldwater, there was a major shuffle with Southern Dems going to the GOP and most liberal Republicans shifting to the Democrats.

It was the liberals of both parties that championed Civil Rights. Most Jews lived not in the South and maintained a liberal Democratic orientation.

One cannot avoid that the dark side of the conservative movement (racist, antigay, antisemitic) drove those folks away from whatever positive value conservatives might have. Again, as gun rights were seen as a rural or southern value, correlated with evil - they were suspect. They were not seen as true protectors of equal rights.

Gun rights for minorities was not respected by conservatives until recently and the racists that still surface on gun lists defile the RKBA.

Let's make some sense of history, shall we?

 

[jimpeel]

sw442642

Let's make some sense of history, shall we?

Okay, let's.

From http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/48.html

Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

and

From http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html

Senate Floor Debate: Leadership Strategy

When the House-passed bill reached the Senate floor in March 1964, three groups of senators formed: pro-civil rights Democrats, southern Democrats opposed to the bill, and Republicans. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey led the Democrats who supported the bill and worked actively for its passage. As Senate majority whip, Humphrey enjoyed the support of Mike Mansfield, Senate majority leader. Together they were determined to pass the legislation and even arranged grueling twelve-hour daily sessions to wear down the opposition. Humphrey's task was to line up supporters to defend the bill in debate, to persuade reluctant members of his party to vote for passage, to encourage publicity, and to count votes. The Senator from Minnesota labored hard for passage and sought cooperation from many sources, including the Republicans.

Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the "southern bloc." It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture. The "southern bloc" relied on the filibuster to postpone the legislation as long as possible, hoping that support for civil rights legislation throughout the country would falter. The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party.

Russell's forces disliked civil rights legislation for several reasons. Many feared that their southern constituents would vote them out of office if, as senators, they voted for equal rights for African Americans. The "southern bloc" held up consideration of the bill from March into June hoping that presidential candidate George Wallace, a segregationist from Alabama, would do well in the early presidential primaries. If Wallace seemed popular, Russell would argue that the nation as a whole did not support federal civil rights legislation and that the Senate should not pass an unwanted bill. For Senator Russell s letter to the president, click here. Southern senators could not compromise. Only by forcing cloture could they demonstrate to their constituents that they had fought to the end against hopeless odds.

 

[twoblink]

It seems that the sheeple are being led like Cortez by the prospect of gold and fountain of youth at the end of the Democratic party road..

I know shrewd Jews who scrutinize everything; ... except the democratic party and it's planks..

 

[Sean Smith]

It is pretty amazing how the Democratic Party was able to mutate itself from the party of the white sheet and the lynch mob to the party that reflexively gets virtually all of the black, gay, jewish, and female votes...

 

[Joe Demko]

Yeah, you guys got it all figured out. Gays, Jews, Blacks, et. al. just aren't smart enough to be Republican. Otherwise, they'd see through all that Democaratic chicanery.

 

[Sean Smith]

Not really, the Republicans made a point of welcoming all the disaffected Southern Democrats with open arms, and they got the smell that went along with it. You can't take Strom Thurmond's votes for your party on one hand, without getting the guilt by association on the other.

 

[jimpeel]

Golgo-13

Yeah, you guys got it all figured out. Gays, Jews, Blacks, et. al. just aren't smart enough to be Republican. Otherwise, they'd see through all that Democaratic chicanery.

The Democratic party exists as the party of welfare; the party of Socialism; the party of the outstretched palm; the party of taxation; the party of increasingly larger government.

For our mutual edification, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to the real reason that the aforementioned groups demonstrate such unbridled fealty to a party that has done nothing more than make unfulfilled promises; with the exception of opening the public coffers to generalized looting.

Can you explain why the Jewish vote in NY went to Hillary Clinton even in the face of her kissy-face huggy-huggy session with Raisa(sp?) Arafat and her declarations about the Palistinian state?

Can you explain why Blacks continue to vote for the Democratic party even though none of the promises they make year after year -- vote for me and I'll set you free -- remain unfulfilled; and the only result has been the destruction of the Black family in America?

Why the same laments are raised year after year by the same Black "leaders" of the unfulfilled promises and the continued racism in America?

What has this blind allegiance to the Democratic party brought to these groups?

As for Gays, they are just starting to be courted by the divide-and-conquer Democrats and are being used as a cudgel against anyone who expresses anything that doesn't march lockstep. They will use the Gays in the same manner they have used the Jews and the Blacks.