Things were very different. Society then was more comfortable with firearms and hunting, and shooting clubs spent more time teaching marksmanship than trying to defend their shooting ranges from developers. Grade Schools taught gun safety, and it was common to see deer rifles in truck windows. It would have been absurd for gun owners to worry about gun rights. Times change – sometimes for the better, sometimes worse.
If I felt safe from confiscation under some future law (or current law in some states), I would support requiring gun owners to prove competency and earn a license before buying a firearm. I do recommend testing and licensing for carrying a gun if the law states “will issue” instead of “may issue,” because even well-intended people become autocratic when they have power.
Your response sounds at least a bit revisionist. Please check unbiased sources before trying to argue. Understand, I’m less of a historian than the Europeans that divided the Middle East into countries a century ago, but you’re advocating a legacy that never existed for either group.
Like many other areas, Greater Israel / Greater Palestine has been the object of conquest and re-conquest for several millennia, so it’s no good trying to argue one. The first regional land grab I’m aware of was the Israelites fleeing Egypt and looking for a home, but I’m sure there were others before that. And how many times was that incarnation of Israel invaded before the Muslim armies invaded in the 7th century?
Good luck tracing deeds in that region. I’m sure some families will claim ownership back to the Crusaders. And some other clan will dispute their claim.
Here we have the crux of the problem. Who took land by force, and when? Zionists declared Israel independent of the British and their neighbors immediately attacked.
Do I blame the Zionists, fresh from the European Holocaust and routine persecution in the Middle East for wanting a safe place to call home? Nope. Do I blame the other residents for being mad about it? Nope. Do I blame the refugees for leaving and then wanting to return? Nope. Do I blame Israel for not wanting the refugees back? Nope. Do I blame the neighbors for wishing the refugees would leave? Nope.
The invaders (or freedom fighters, depending on your perspective) were repelled and lost territory for their trouble. This bloody cycle repeated itself several times over the last half of the twentieth century. Do I blame Israel for seizing land from the neighbors that attacked them? Nope. Do I blame the neighbors for being cranky about it? Nope.
Finally, do I blame Palestinians for demonstrating at the border fence? No. In their position, I would be beyond livid, but I would not use children as shock troops. Angry demonstrations should not be a child’s work. Do I blame Israel for defending their border? No, and my beliefs on using deadly force are complicated, but I don’t believe either side has the moral high ground.
Conscientious Objectors exist in Israel, and since I’m conflicted about the force used at the border fence, Mr. Danziger’s heritage is irrelevant. I do take issue with pairing a cultural stereotype with a thug.
There are no saints in the middle east conflicts and very few real villains. Crude political cartoons that associate racial stereotypes with thug imagery display a puzzling lack of intellect, imagination, and value.
In other words, WTF?! That’s dumb and offensive. You owe your readers an apology.
Is this really so much to hope for?