9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rabbi Gary Moscowitz

  1. What does “premise permit” mean?
    Yes of course people should carry in a synagogue (or in a church, or elsewhere).

    • Exactly.

      The right to carry should exist and be exercised.

      The list of “proscribed“ places should be minuscule.

      We that carry are not the danger.

      Jeff B.

    • It’s New York City. I presume there is a permit required to have a gun in building other than your home (which is a different type of permit).

  2. “Several people in every synagogue should have the right to carry a premise permit.”

    That’s a bit of gibberish.

    What does it mean to “carry a premise permit”? Carrying a permit is like carrying a library card. Perhaps this isn’t what was meant, but this is what was written.

    Why should “several people in every synagogue” have such a right? Why not everyone in a synagogue?


    • What the Rabbi is proposing would not risk prosecution.

      What you are proposing is the appropriate long term result.

    • Yeah, let’s clean up the language, and our thinking, here and now. The quote should have been;

      “Everyone has the right to carry a gun, including those in every synagogue.”

      That’s the basic right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and so far the discussion is only about the degree of the violation of that right.

      Slippery slope. People die.

      “Ten Minutes of Terror” went one of the Drudge headlines. Ten minutes and apparently no member of that synagogue was able to return fire? I don’t know. I’m asking here. Can we chalk this up as yet another mass shooting in a gun free zone then?

      So in addition to the shooter, do we not have those who provided aid and comfort to the shooter by disarming everyone in that synagogue, by chilling or outright depriving the exercise of that right to bear arms?

      The next question would become; how many of those synagogue members present had previously wanted to carry, and were either discouraged, delayed, encumbered or denied by the onerous legal process, being thereby disarmed at the time of the attack whereas they would have been armed otherwise? In other words, how many were deprived of the exercise of an enumerated right under color of law, resulting in otherwise preventable, grave injuries and deaths?

      That’s all that need be discussed here. That, and which lawyers and prosecutors will take the case, and where to try it.

      The constitution (and the Oath thereto, and all the other laws which support it) either matters and can be readily, rigorously and successfully enforced, or it has been abolished. Which is it?

      Let’s now see you legal “experts” come on here and muddy things up into an impossible, sclerotic tangle, thereby demonstrating your allegiance to the wrong side while attempting to show us your genius. Go ahead; show us how clear thinking is a weakness, and how we’re being simplistic and silly if we’re not wrapped up in sclerotic tangle. Explain it to us while more people die for being caught in that tangle, that web you weave, thinking yourselves brilliant.

  3. Unfortunately, Jews in the US are mostly anti-gun/anti-self-defense. I suspect that in a Synagogue congregation, you probably won’t find more than a handful that would be willing to be armed. I used to work at an Israeli company in Silicon Valley, and they thought that an armed population here was just stupid. Bear in mind that Jews as a group seem to be socialists. They prefer a government to be in control of the people, not the reverse. They don’t all think this way, of course.

    If you look at the gun laws in Israel, they are very restrictive, even with all the attacks they have. I was not much impressed with them after discovering this, and finding out how they think as a group. Very disappointing.

    • Note that Israel was very much a socialist country early on, and it’s still only very partially recovered from that experiment.

  4. The notion of Jews in gun-hating cities like NYC applying for permits to protect their synagogues maker a great deal of sense. It would make it very clear whether the left wing politicians who pretend to be on their side actually are, when the rubber meets the road.
    I think we can make a pretty good guess what the outcome of that particular experiment would be.

Comments are closed.