A Synagogue Shooting in Poway
When a shooting attack commenced at the Chabad Passover services in Poway, California, according to Breitbart News, an armed congregant gave his firearm to an off-duty Border Patrol agent, in the belief that his gun in the right hands might save many lives. And apparently he was right. The Border Patrol agent not only shot back but pursued the villain out of the synagogue. There is a lesson here to be had: Armed Jews shooting back definitely minimize casualties and likely discourage future attacks on their communities. Perhaps a warning sign might be in order, to be posted at the entryways of places of worship: “This worship community values the protection of innocent life and is, therefore, protected by armed defenders.” To add value to the sign’s verbiage, it could be issued by an organization like the National Rifle Association or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.
Civilized People Carry Guns to Banish Violence & Promote Peace
Mark Kloos has pointed out that only two ways exist for individuals to convince others to do what they want; the first way is by reason and the second is by force: “Every human interaction falls into one of these two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.”
Because the use of any physical force is an illegitimate act in places of worship, and because its use is, therefore, so unexpected in the context of worship services, the faithful often do not anticipate the possible need for the employment of justifiable violence in defense of the innocent lives of their fellow congregants. Unfortunately, there is always the risk that a criminal invader may seek to employ deadly force against what he likely suspects to be a disarmed community of worshipers.
But there was a time when most worship communities in America were heavily armed, thus safe from attack in most cases. In fact, the disarmament of America’s worship communities, mainly by infringement of their rights under the Second Amendment, along with the loss of life that has resulted, is immoral. It is not only immoral on the part of an attacker to launch a bloodthirsty attack upon innocents; it is also immoral on the part of every leader who has worked to disarm a potential community of victims from taking up arms in the face of a known danger—especially with the rise of Jew- and Christian-hatred that has been encouraged by America’s political Left in recent years.
The Anti-Semitic, Anti-Christian Left
The truth is that Progressive Democrats nowadays vote, on the international stage, for anti-Semitic, anti-Christian treaties (such as the Iran Deal) to empower murderous jihadist states to build nukes, while also supporting Sharia-finance-embracing trade deals (like the Trans-Pacific Partnership) which could usher anti-Constitutional Sharia Law into the US Constitution by treaty, thus granting the anti-Semitic and Christian-hating Koran and Sunna special protections. Democrats also have unanimously supported the Udall Amendment, which would alter the Bill of Rights in the arenas of speech and religion by amending the First Amendment to allow government to decide what kind of “political” speech is acceptable; but, of course, since any and all speech can be defined as political, in the world of the Left, this really means all speech would be rendered subject to government regulation and control.
What should also not go unnoticed is the relentless assault by the Democrat Party on the Second Amendment, despite the fact that prominent Democrats themselves own guns for their own personal protection, such as Kamala Harris, who has said, “I am a gun owner, and I own a gun for probably the reason a lot of people do—for personal safety.” It is also true that California State Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat, smuggled guns from the Philippines to criminal gangs in America, while supporting the immoral agenda of victim-disarmament. With all the corruption afoot among members of the political class, it probably makes sense that politicians would want to empower criminals by disarming the law-abiding, since this would serve to facilitate many of their illegal pursuits to enrich themselves—such as drug running, gun smuggling, and human sex-trafficking. It is why Democrats—and some Republicans—have, in the past, almost universally opposed securing the border against the Mexican cartels.
Trump Appears on the Scene to Fight Corruption & Preserve the Constitution & Bill of Rights
Thank God for President Donald J. Trump, who has acted to protect Jews and Christians, since taking office, by standing up to the Democrats and their libelous fake-news media, which Trump refers to, accurately, as “the enemy of the people.” Only days before the recent anti-Semitic assault on Hassidic Jews, during Passover worship services in Poway, California, the Leftist New York Timespublished what has been characterized as a “brutally anti-Semitic cartoon” depicting a blind President Donald Trump sporting a yarmulke and walking a dog that wears the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Facebook’s anti-Semitism is evident in its promotion of the imagery of the brutal murder of a Jewish baby on its “F*ck Israel” page. This is the kind of thing which has created an environment that is so welcoming to anti-Semitic violence. The author of this article is not arguing that anti-Semitic free speech should be banned, but is merely suggesting that it is immoral for The Gray Lady and Facebook to promote anti-Semitic speech, while, at the same time, banning the religious speech of those political conservatives who are philo-Semitic and pro-Christian. In a sense, by not being even-handed, the Leftist media have been working on a consistent basis to silence philo-Semitic and pro-Christian voices, so they are unable to fight back against their haters. (This writer has already been shadow-banned by Facebook and blocked from trying to post Shay Charka’s cartoon poking fun at the Jew-hating New York Times. As a Constitutional Conservative and a Jew, censorship of this writer’s posts is perhaps doubly to be expected from the virtual book burners at Facebook, yet it is a civil rights violation—especially since Facebook’s business model depends on the selfsame Internet which everyone’s taxes helped pay to develop—including the tax dollars of Conservatives and Jews.)
Ensuring Morality: An Armed Society Is a Polite Society
In a moral civil society, people always choose persuasion to get what they want. Physical coercion or violence has no place. Robert A. Heinlein once famously said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” When temple members carry guns, it becomes risky indeed for armed terrorists to invade their sanctuary. Not every member of a worship community needs to be armed. Indeed, the world recently saw the effectiveness of just one effective good guy with a gun in Poway. When the evildoer’s gunfire was returned, he departed in flight from his armed pursuer. The only argument against being fired upon is to be heard in the report of a firearm returning fire. Shooting back is a moral act, since armed defense protects the lives of good people in worship communities against the aggressions of anti-Semites and Christian-haters.
Of course, there will be calls for victim-disarmament in the Leftist media. This stands to reason, since those who control the media—mainly the Democrat Party and the Left—are anti-Semitic and anti-Christian in every aspect of their politics, even to the extent that they promote the murder of babies after birth as a form of fourth-trimester abortion. There is absolutely no sanctity of life on the Left. How can a Democrat Party, that believes the lives of babies should not be defended, be expected to support self-defense rights for any living soul? Not only is this the same Democrat Party that voted against the bill to protect the lives of babies after they are born; it is also the same Democrat Party which, only a while ago, cheered The Death of Klinghoffer, the cruelly anti-Semitic musical play about a Jew shot by terrorist members of the Palestinian Liberation Front aboard the passenger liner Achille Lauro and dumped from his wheelchair into the Mediterranean. Klinghoffer was murdered for being Jewish.
Guns Make Worshipers Safer
If a preacher in South Carolina had not forbidden defensive gun use in his worship community, Dylan Roof never would have been able to murder nine congregants in Charleston on June 17th, 2015. Guns are the great equalizer. They make weak old women who know how to shoot just as lethal as strong young men. It is said that “God created men and Sam Colt made them equal.”
Obviously, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein of Poway, California, knew it would be unwise to prohibit guns in his synagogue, lest any possible shooting turn into a massacre. It would seem that this wise man knew that California’s stringent victim-disarmament laws put his worship community more at risk, rather than making it safer. It is interesting to note that, despite California’s ban on so-called “assault rifles,” the attacker of the Poway synagogue used an “AR-type assault weapon” anyway. (It should be noted, for the sake of accuracy, that AR-15 rifles were made for civilian use, not for the military, and that the A and R do not stand for “assault rifle” but are merely the first two letters in ARMALITE, the company that originally manufactured the weapon; an AR-15 is, with regard to its functionality, just a common semi-automatic rifle.)
Guns, when they are easily obtained and in common currency among the populace, act as a check against evil interference by criminal or government bad actors, since the large majority of the people using them are good people. It is only when gun bans are put in place—which are obeyed solely by the law-abiding—that the equation changes in favor of the bad guys, for it is only then that the gun-wielding evildoers outnumber armed good guys. Marko Kloos has observed the following: “People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.” But while such a monopoly may exist in California and other victim-disarmament states, this is not the reality in the State of Texas and many other states that believe in freedom and the rule of law. In free states, the equation does not so easily balance in favor of the wicked.
Guns Save Lives
It is time to fight back against Leftist plans for victim-disarmament. A worldview that would sacrifice the innocent to the guilty, by disarming the very people who did not commit any crimes, flies in the face of the ethic of Equal Protection and the Rule of Law in America’s free republic. And it is high time that Jews and Christians alike take advantage of their civil right, under the Second Amendment, to arm their worship communities against those who would murder their congregants. No worship community should be a gun-free zone. To disallow defensive gun use by armed congregants against evil aggressors would be an immoral policy that could potentially cost innocent lives.
When the moral citizens of a free republic bear arms in greater numbers than the evildoers, the very presence of firearms everywhere there are people saves innocent lives.
Who Is Paul Dowling?
Paul Dowling is an American patriot who believes that individual freedom and minority rights that only a republic can protect are the linchpin of Western Civilization. Paul has written a book on the Constitution, explaining the republican values on which it is based and how they protect against the dangers of a strictly majoritarian system of governance. The book is called Keeping a Free Republic: Learning the Blueprint for Liberty in the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. (It is on sale at Amazon, for $6.25 in paperback and $0.99 as a Kindle download.