Europe’s Leading Rabbi: Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: WarminIndy

What are you ranting on about? No Britain does not have any control over what the Australian government chooses to do. But when have I ever said that I don't support the rights of aborigines, however coming from the states I don't see how you can comment on the treatment of native peoples, you don't have a great track record yourself.
You dont seem to have great understanding of the world or of have the commonwealth works.
To be honest I don't see how you can sit as an American and criticise the global relationships of other countries you don't have any moral highground.
I don't have any problem at all accepting Jews in the UK, I however do not support concealed carry guns for anybody in this country ever.
And how can I have been a problem for the world since before the US was founded I'm only in my 30's.

Listen, how do you really feel about the Jews?

Please, be honest.

The reason I ranted so hard on you is because you seem to be a typical Brit, you have your eyes on how unfair the royals are, how unfair your MPS are, how unfair the bankers are, how unfair Americans are, how unfair everyone else is to you, and never sit back and consider that maybe your problems with discrimination are just what they are, your country invited them in, didn't care squat about their rights in their countries and then in order to avoid the obviously painful outcome, the terrorism in your country is because your country kind of deserves it. The law of reciprocity, karma, you reap what you sow, all of that stuff that says what you do will come back on you, and it has.

You seem to not understand the failure of your country, you don't seem to be able to see the genocides committed against many groups of people in the name of Brittania. You won't acknowledge it, either now or historically, but at the same time condemn other countries.

You want to know why you need concealed and carry in Europe? Because the British were naive to believe Hitler was only invading Poland and Czechoslovakia. The same problems that led to Hitler are still in Europe today. Once you face that issue, then you can begin to understand that the two thousand year old anti-Semitism has not abated, it just continues to go unchecked, by the very Empire that subjugated a globe of people.

Unless you, as a Brit, begin to address your own prejudices and discriminations and racism, there won't be a change for the Jews. And that's why they need concealed and carry, because your response just left them defenseless once again.

Let's think about laws that prohibit one from owning a gun.

Say you get a gun anyway.

The government finds out.

They send guys with guns to put you in a cage because they're allowed to have guns, and you're not.

Makes perfect sense.

This is why the writers of The Constitution put in the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should need to beg their government to be able to protect themselves.

a reply to: Jamie1


Shh... Blasphemy!!! But seriously I agree... Not saying civilians should be driving around in Bradley's or have a Patriot battery in their backyard but.... Well I'll leave it at that...

Oh, where to start on your god awful grasp of history....

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I kept saying England because I know England is the country where all of the crap comes from, not Scotland that was forced to be in the UK, not Northern Ireland that was forced to be in the UK and not Wales, that was forced to be in the UK.

Not true in the slightest. Wales wasn't even a country when the Normans invaded it and that was largely in response to Welsh raiders and an effort to secure the border.

Scotland joined by request and for 100 years a Scottish King had sat on the throne of England.

Northern Ireland, they want to remain part of the UK and the settlement of Ulster was by Scottish protestant settlers, not English.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, I know exactly what the UK is, but you seem to be very proud of exerting the "British" Identity on subjugated people, even today.

And who would these "subjugated" people be?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Let's see, if the UK kept out of India, you wouldn't have the Indian problem of British Indians,

We have an Indian problem? For years Indians have been valuable and productive members of society, even during the Raj, they provided some of the best troops in the Imperial Army. I wouldn't call them a problem.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
if the UK stayed out of Australia, the Aborigines might be first class citizens in the country they were thriving in before the UK showed up.

The Australian colonies were largely self-governing from the middle of the 19th century, the UK had very little input (and did not desire it) into the internal workings of the colony. That said, from 1869, Act's were brought into Law to protect the Aboriginals, scarcely 5 years after the US had torn itself in two over Slavery - something which the UK and it's Empire had banned some 30 years prior to the US engaging in a massive civil war over the issue.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And if the UK stayed out of China, there would not have been three Opium Wars.

I think you'll find that the UK weren't the only power involved in the Opium Wars, certainly the 2nd Opium War. I see you've neglected to mention that US's part in the subjugation of China during..

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I think it is funny that you guys love Brit Identification so much that you fail to see the horror, the terror, the persecution and the subjugation of people across the British Empire.

Of all the Empires, the British (while doing some dodgy things) was the most benevolent. Compare it to the Spanish, the Dutch, the Belgians or the French. Let's not even get started on the US's subjugation of the Native Americans...

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Then you came here, killed our Native Americans and then left us to deal with the problem,

Oh my lord, you really are deluded. Prior to 1776, the British had rather good relations with the Natives near to the 13 colonies. This is also another point, the British only controlled what is now the North Eastern corner of the US, the vast majority of the Native population that was killed and subjugated was done in the 19th century by the US itself as it expanded West. Trying to pin this on the British is total BS.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
we revolted,

Correction, some of you revolted (and only rich landowners too). Almost 1/3rd of the colonists fought on the British side and left the US afterwards to settle in Canada and the Caribbean.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
kicked you guys out twice

Twice? Let me guess, you're one of those who thinks the US won the War of 1812.... Righto...

originally posted by: WarminIndy
and now you seem to still not get the idea that your empire was built on the blood, sweat and tears of subjugated and persecuted slaves around the world.

As is every Empire, including that of the US today. No one is innocent.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And then you have a problem with a small population in Europe asking to defend themselves.

They already can and the "risk" being claimed by the Jews is massively overblown.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
The British Empire made second class citizens out of the rest of the world, and then Brits feel like second class citizens in their own country when all these people who are called Brits, come to England and wreak havoc.

No, we didn't, on the contrary, the British Empire left a legacy around the world of Democratic government and the rule of law. In most of the colonies, they were self-governing and India was conquered by Indians and ran by Indians.

And who, exactly, is wreaking havoc?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, Brit means simply someone part of the British Empire, even Muslim terrorists. They might not be English, but they are Brits. How's that for British Identification?

No, that isn't what "Brit" means and you're clearly just talking bollocks now.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Let's think about laws that prohibit one from owning a gun.

Say you get a gun anyway.

The government finds out.

They send guys with guns to put you in a cage because they're allowed to have guns, and you're not.

Makes perfect sense.

This is why the writers of The Constitution put in the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should need to beg their government to be able to protect themselves.

What laws would these be? I can't think of a single EU country were gun ownership is prohibited. So, dismount your sanctimonious high horse and stop with the worship of your parchment, you're not special.

I tend to ponder if everyone on earth had a gun with never ending fire power, how long would it take to wipe ourselves out?

If the good would shoot the bad the good would become bad and again, no one would be left.

Guns should never of been invented but they were. Responsible use of fire arms is the key.

If we all had fire arms in our homes and guards at our doors, we'd still eventually wipe out each other because there is no good in man kind. Anyone who thinks they wouldn't kill for the right reason is lying to them self.

a reply to: Britguy

I wonder if the day will come when only jews are permitted to carry guns?

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: Britguy

I wonder if the day will come when only jews are permitted to carry guns?

This is exactly where I saw this thread going from the beginning. Where is your precious balance now, Stu?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: Britguy

I wonder if the day will come when only jews are permitted to carry guns?

This is exactly where I saw this thread going from the beginning. Where is your precious balance now, Stu?

What has that got to do with me? Don't try to pin another's views upon myself, poor form.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: Britguy

I wonder if the day will come when only jews are permitted to carry guns?

This is exactly where I saw this thread going from the beginning. Where is your precious balance now, Stu?

What has that got to do with me? Don't try to pin another's views upon myself, poor form.

So... you're not going to call him out on his agenda? Where is your sense of balance now?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: Britguy

I wonder if the day will come when only jews are permitted to carry guns?

This is exactly where I saw this thread going from the beginning. Where is your precious balance now, Stu?

What has that got to do with me? Don't try to pin another's views upon myself, poor form.

So... you're not going to call him out on his agenda? Where is your sense of balance now?

What agenda? I'm not going to lay into over a single line asking a very innocuous question. If it bothers you so, why don't you ask and if he/she elaborates on it, maybe I'll comment.

The only reason you're trying to bait me on this is because you're licking your wounds from yesterday and want some payback - you got caught making stuff up several times and making out like this threat is against Jews and Jews only, when it isn't.

a reply to: stumason

The only reason you're trying to bait me on this is because you're licking your wounds from yesterday and want some payback - you got caught making stuff up several times and making out like this threat is against Jews and Jews only, when it isn't.

Wrong. I had one brain fart, which I immediately admitted. You, on the other hand have been twisting what I have said and accusing me of having an "agenda." Meanwhile, you do everything you can to deny the Anti-Semitism the Rabbi is reacting to. You even feign ignorance as to why the State of Israel is even necessary. All this in the name of "balance." Yet you never try to balance out the obvious Anti-Semitic postings? Why is that?

Here is my agenda: I am trying to explain why a Rabbi would want to make it easier for Jews to own guns for their self defense in the EU. He is not suggesting that others have their guns taken away from them. He is reacting to a growing climate of Anti-Semitism in Europe. The targeting of a kosher supermarket is an example of this. (For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge that this was not an attack on "Western values," it was an attack on Jews.)

You have cherry picked my posts. For example:

You have now made several posts in which you have claimed these were attacks against Jews, first and foremost, when they are nothing of the sort.



Let me get this straight... days after an Anti-Semitic gunman used a kosher supermarket as a shooting gallery, you are scoffing at the idea that there is Anti-Semitism in Europe?




The Jews killed in 2012 were not cartoonists


In this case, linking to a previous attack where French soldiers were attacked

You evaded the question, didn't you? Are you denying that the kosher supermarket was targeted because it was frequented by Jews? Are you denying that Jews were killed in 2012? Yes, a madman went on a killing spree, killing soldiers and all, but he made it a point to include Jews in his rampage, not, say, Greek Orthodox.

Once again, let me repeat myself so that maybe it will begin to sink in: yes, the Islamists are striking out at people and institutions that they find threatening. Charlie Hebdo was attacked because Free Speech is threatening. The kosher supermarket was attacked because Islamists find the very existence of Jews threatening. Given that, and given the increasing number of Muslims in Europe, can you see why a Rabbi would be concerned about the safety of his co-religionists?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I think you obviously have prejudices against British people, because none of the things you have accused me of are actually in any of my posts, in fact I have already said that British manipulation in other countries has cause problems, something you seem in denial about in you own country.
And you said the financial problems if the British government are due to some divine retribution, ignoring the fact that the latest recession originated in the States.
I don't have a problem with immigration in this country and have never said that I do.
I am not racist and do not discriminationate which seem to be pretty harsh accusation for you to come out with from thin air.
What I have said repeatedly is that I do not support the idea or civilian carrying handguns in this country, and I don't think it would be a good idea in France, but that's ultimately a choice for their people.

originally posted by: DJW001
Wrong. I had one brain fart, which I immediately admitted. You, on the other hand have been twisting what I have said and accusing me of having an "agenda." Meanwhile, you do everything you can to deny the Anti-Semitism the Rabbi is reacting to. You even feign ignorance as to why the State of Israel is even necessary. All this in the name of "balance." Yet you never try to balance out the obvious Anti-Semitic postings? Why is that?

One? You had several, fella.

And, in the scope of this thread (ie; the Kews asking for special dispensation to arm themselves outside of the current legal framework), yes I am going to deny that "anti-Semitism" exists in such an amount as to warrant giving a particular religious group special allowances.

As for these "obvious" anti-Semitic postings, I can't say I've seen any but in my experience it's not worthwhile to engage bigots and racists in any debate because it's fruitless. You seem, despite your obvious attempt to slant the issue, able to hold a reasonable debate none the less, hence why you have been selected for stuification.

originally posted by: DJW001
Here is my agenda: I am trying to explain why a Rabbi would want to make it easier for Jews to own guns for their self defense in the EU. He is not suggesting that others have their guns taken away from them. He is reacting to a growing climate of Anti-Semitism in Europe.

As I said earlier, I understand what you're saying, that isn't the problem, I simply disagree with it. As for this claim of a rising tide of anti-Semitism, I do not see the evidence. Statistically, they have actually been on the decline, with only a slight increase in France over the past few years.

For example, 2013 saw the lowest number of anti-Semitic attacks in the UK since 2005 - however, there were a reported 304 "anti-Semitic" attacks in the UK recorded for the months January-June 2014 which was a rise of 36% year-on-year, but even then we're talking about very small numbers to begin with so the percentage quote is misleading. 36% of a couple of hundred isn't much.

Also, the method in which they are recorded is open to interpretation as all it seems to be needed to qualify for "anti-Semitic" is for the victim to be Jewish, it doesn't seem to matter if the crime was motivated because the victim was Jewish and of these 304 "attacks", they include graffiti (so doesn't even have to have a "victim") and online abuse which can come from anywhere and it doesn't matter where you live.

originally posted by: DJW001
The targeting of a kosher supermarket is an example of this. (For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge that this was not an attack on "Western values," it was an attack on Jews.)

Yet you seem to want to focus solely on the attacks on the Jewish shop, painting the whole attack as an anti-Jewish plot and even make out like the non-Jews killed in other attacks were just "trying to protect the Jews". Yes, 4 people were killed in a Kosher supermarket, but 13 non Jews were killed the day before! But oh, because Jews got killed, it's suddenly all about them and it's an "anti-Semitic" attack.

originally posted by: DJW001
You evaded the question, didn't you? Are you denying that the kosher supermarket was targeted because it was frequented by Jews? Are you denying that Jews were killed in 2012? Yes, a madman went on a killing spree, killing soldiers and all, but he made it a point to include Jews in his rampage, not, say, Greek Orthodox.

No, what I am denying is this was a sole attack on Jews with non-Jews killed as an afterthought or while "protecting Jews", which is what you're trying to push. As I pointed out to you, more Christians and Muslims have been killed in both attacks than Jews, but you only want to focus on them - why is that?

originally posted by: DJW001
Once again, let me repeat myself so that maybe it will begin to sink in: yes, the Islamists are striking out at people and institutions that they find threatening. Charlie Hebdo was attacked because Free Speech is threatening. The kosher supermarket was attacked because Islamists find the very existence of Jews threatening. Given that, and given the increasing number of Muslims in Europe, can you see why a Rabbi would be concerned about the safety of his co-religionists?

No need, chap- if you actually read what I posted understanding you isn't the issue - I simply do not agree with you.

As for the Rabbi, he is being hyperbolic and playing the (far too often) victim card while demanding special treatment when if you actually look at things in balance, there is no more a threat to Jews than there is to Christian, Atheist, Buddhists, Sikh's, Hindu's or Rastafarians. This is the issue I have and one you seem to want to ignore.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: DJW001
Wrong. I had one brain fart, which I immediately admitted. You, on the other hand have been twisting what I have said and accusing me of having an "agenda." Meanwhile, you do everything you can to deny the Anti-Semitism the Rabbi is reacting to. You even feign ignorance as to why the State of Israel is even necessary. All this in the name of "balance." Yet you never try to balance out the obvious Anti-Semitic postings? Why is that?

One? You had several, fella.

And, in the scope of this thread (ie; the Kews asking for special dispensation to arm themselves outside of the current legal framework), yes I am going to deny that "anti-Semitism" exists in such an amount as to warrant giving a particular religious group special allowances.

As for these "obvious" anti-Semitic postings, I can't say I've seen any but in my experience it's not worthwhile to engage bigots and racists in any debate because it's fruitless. You seem, despite your obvious attempt to slant the issue, able to hold a reasonable debate none the less, hence why you have been selected for stuification.

originally posted by: DJW001
Here is my agenda: I am trying to explain why a Rabbi would want to make it easier for Jews to own guns for their self defense in the EU. He is not suggesting that others have their guns taken away from them. He is reacting to a growing climate of Anti-Semitism in Europe.

As I said earlier, I understand what you're saying, that isn't the problem, I simply disagree with it. As for this claim of a rising tide of anti-Semitism, I do not see the evidence. Statistically, they have actually been on the decline, with only a slight increase in France over the past few years.

For example, 2013 saw the lowest number of anti-Semitic attacks in the UK since 2005 - however, there were a reported 304 "anti-Semitic" attacks in the UK recorded for the months January-June 2014 which was a rise of 36% year-on-year, but even then we're talking about very small numbers to begin with so the percentage quote is misleading. 36% of a couple of hundred isn't much.

Also, the method in which they are recorded is open to interpretation as all it seems to be needed to qualify for "anti-Semitic" is for the victim to be Jewish, it doesn't seem to matter if the crime was motivated because the victim was Jewish and of these 304 "attacks", they include graffiti (so doesn't even have to have a "victim") and online abuse which can come from anywhere and it doesn't matter where you live.

originally posted by: DJW001
The targeting of a kosher supermarket is an example of this. (For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge that this was not an attack on "Western values," it was an attack on Jews.)

Yet you seem to want to focus solely on the attacks on the Jewish shop, painting the whole attack as an anti-Jewish plot and even make out like the non-Jews killed in other attacks were just "trying to protect the Jews". Yes, 4 people were killed in a Kosher supermarket, but 13 non Jews were killed the day before! But oh, because Jews got killed, it's suddenly all about them and it's an "anti-Semitic" attack.

originally posted by: DJW001
You evaded the question, didn't you? Are you denying that the kosher supermarket was targeted because it was frequented by Jews? Are you denying that Jews were killed in 2012? Yes, a madman went on a killing spree, killing soldiers and all, but he made it a point to include Jews in his rampage, not, say, Greek Orthodox.

No, what I am denying is this was a sole attack on Jews with non-Jews killed as an afterthought or while "protecting Jews", which is what you're trying to push. As I pointed out to you, more Christians and Muslims have been killed in both attacks than Jews, but you only want to focus on them - why is that?

originally posted by: DJW001
Once again, let me repeat myself so that maybe it will begin to sink in: yes, the Islamists are striking out at people and institutions that they find threatening. Charlie Hebdo was attacked because Free Speech is threatening. The kosher supermarket was attacked because Islamists find the very existence of Jews threatening. Given that, and given the increasing number of Muslims in Europe, can you see why a Rabbi would be concerned about the safety of his co-religionists?

No need, chap- if you actually read what I posted understanding you isn't the issue - I simply do not agree with you.

As for the Rabbi, he is being hyperbolic and playing the (far too often) victim card while dem,anding special treatment when if you actually look at things in balance, there is no more a threat to Jews than there is to Christian, Atheist, Buddhists, Sikh's, Hindu's or Rastafarians. This is the issue I have and one you seem to want to ignore.

Im glad you said it.
It saved me the trouble.

a reply to: stumason

As for the Rabbi, he is being hyperbolic and playing the (far too often) victim card while demanding special treatment when if you actually look at things in balance, there is no more a threat to Jews than there is to Christian, Atheist, Buddhists, Sikh's, Hindu's or Rastafarians. This is the issue I have and one you seem to want to ignore.

The way you ignore what I actually say?

I realize that Europe has more stringent gun controls than the United States, but it seems to me people who are at high risk of being attacked, whether it be single women, handicapped individuals, delivery service people or members of minority religions should have the right to at least make a case for being allowed to carry weapons in self defense. The issue is certainly something that calls for very public and open debate. We're not talking about an RPG launcher in every garage, like we have in the United States, just Rabbis, Imams and single mothers with a small caliber pistol at hand.

My very first post. [Bolding added for emphasis. --DJW001]

Muslims can have guns too... and the bloody events of the past week prove that they have more and deadlier arms than the Jews already.

My next post.

The Rabbi is not claiming that Jews should be above the law, or that the rest of the populace should be disarmed. He is just saying that unfortunately, Jews need to take steps to defend themselves. Muslims and gays should probably do so too, but the Chief Rabbi doesn't speak for them, does he?

My NEXT post....

I agree, the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack against modern Liberal Democracy, perceived to be an enemy of Islam. Why are you trying to deny that the attack in the supermarket was intentionally targeted against Jews, because they, too, are perceived to be an enemy of Islam. Considering Jews to be an existential threat is a functional definition of Anti-Semitism.

And the NEXT post.... [Bolding added for emphasis.]

It's as though you have been arguing with someone else altogether. Yes, I get you sincerely believe that Anti-Semitism is not a danger... why can't you see why a Rabbi might think that it is? There are still Jews in Europe who remember the concentration camps. When they see the FN, the French National Front, starting to attract mainstream voters, they have reason to worry.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: stumason

As for the Rabbi, he is being hyperbolic and playing the (far too often) victim card while demanding special treatment when if you actually look at things in balance, there is no more a threat to Jews than there is to Christian, Atheist, Buddhists, Sikh's, Hindu's or Rastafarians. This is the issue I have and one you seem to want to ignore.

The way you ignore what I actually say?

I realize that Europe has more stringent gun controls than the United States, but it seems to me people who are at high risk of being attacked, whether it be single women, handicapped individuals, delivery service people or members of minority religions should have the right to at least make a case for being allowed to carry weapons in self defense. The issue is certainly something that calls for very public and open debate. We're not talking about an RPG launcher in every garage, like we have in the United States, just Rabbis, Imams and single mothers with a small caliber pistol at hand.

My very first post. [Bolding added for emphasis. --DJW001]

Muslims can have guns too... and the bloody events of the past week prove that they have more and deadlier arms than the Jews already.

My next post.

The Rabbi is not claiming that Jews should be above the law, or that the rest of the populace should be disarmed. He is just saying that unfortunately, Jews need to take steps to defend themselves. Muslims and gays should probably do so too, but the Chief Rabbi doesn't speak for them, does he?

My NEXT post....

I agree, the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack against modern Liberal Democracy, perceived to be an enemy of Islam. Why are you trying to deny that the attack in the supermarket was intentionally targeted against Jews, because they, too, are perceived to be an enemy of Islam. Considering Jews to be an existential threat is a functional definition of Anti-Semitism.

And the NEXT post.... [Bolding added for emphasis.]

It's as though you have been arguing with someone else altogether. Yes, I get you sincerely believe that Anti-Semitism is not a danger... why can't you see why a Rabbi might think that it is? There are still Jews in Europe who remember the concentration camps. When they see the FN, the French National Front, starting to attract mainstream voters, they have reason to worry.

So then, it seems you are saying everybody should be armed?

Are you advocating an arms race?

I dont quite understand your point.
I can fully understand why a rabbi might think or say that, whether I think hes right is another matter completely.

I would say if anybody is facing racism and bigotry in record numbers, it would be the muslims. Attacked weekly by the media and demonized for one reason or another.
Constantly painted as religious ideologues, planning on taking over the world one terrorist bomber hiding in a burka at a time, enforcing sharia law on the world.

Here a controversial idea, lets arm the muslims. Lets see how well that one goes down?

a reply to: stumason

And, in the scope of this thread (ie; the Kews asking for special dispensation to arm themselves outside of the current legal framework), yes I am going to deny that "anti-Semitism" exists in such an amount as to warrant giving a particular religious group special allowances.

So, if you were a Jew, you would be comfortable with this:

Jan. 26, 2014: Video footage captures anti-government protestors shouting “Juif, la France n’est pas a toi”—“Jew, France is not yours”–at a demonstration in Paris.[19]
March 2, 2014: A Jewish man is beaten on the Paris Metro by assailants who reportedly told him “Jew, we are going to lay into you, you have no country.”[20]
March 10, 2014: An Israeli man is attacked with a stun gun in the Marais district.[21]
March 20, 2014: A Jewish teacher is attacked leaving a kosher restaurant in Paris. After breaking his nose, the assailants drew a swastika on his chest.[22]
May 9, 2014: A number of antisemitic scrawlings were found across the Alsace region in eastern France. Stars of David and the words « Juden Raus » were written on a car near the synagogue in Saint-Louis in southern Alsace. Other antisemitic graffiti was discovered in nearby Huninge as well as in Village-Neuf, both close to the German and Swiss borders.[23]
May 15, 2014: A Jewish woman was attacked at a bus stop in Paris’ Montmartre district by a man who shook her baby carriage and said, “Dirty Jewess, enough with your children already, you Jews have too many children, screw you.”[24]
May 16, 2014: A dozen inscriptions were found in Toulouse including: "SS", "Hitler burned 6 million Jews and forgot half" and "Long live Palestine".[25]
May 25, 2014: Two Jewish brothers who were dressed in traditional Jewish clothing were attacked near a synagogue in Créteil. One of them suffered severe injuries to his eye. They were attacked by two men who were armed with brass knuckles.[26]
June 9, 2014: Two Jewish teenagers and their grandfather are chased by an ax-wielding man and three accomplices as they walk to their synagogue in the Paris suburb of Romainville on Shavuot.[27]
June 10, 2014: A Jewish teen wearing a yarmulke and tzitzit is attacked with a Taser by group of teens at Paris’ Place de la République.[28] In Sarcelles, two Jewish teens wearing yarmulkes are sprayed with tear gas.[29]
Main article: 2014 Sarcelles riots
In July 2014, dozens of young men protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza (following the Operation Protective Edge) briefly besieged Don Isaac Abravanel Synagogue in Paris and clashed with security.[30] Accroding to Serge Benhaïm, the president of the Don Isaac Abravanel Synagogue, noone inside the building itself was attacked.[31]
July 14, 2014: Bastille Day celebrations in Paris turn violent. Anti-Israel rioters attack the Don Isaac Abravanel synagogue.[32]
July 20, 2014: anti-Semitic rioting in Sarcelles, a suburb of Paris. In November a 27-year-old man was convicted of arson for having deliberately set fire to a kosher grocery store.[33]
Sept. 2, 2014: Two French teenage girls are arrested for plotting to blow up a synagogue in Lyon. A Central Directorate of Homeland Intelligence source said the teens were “part of a network of young Islamists who were being monitored by security services.”[34]
Nov. 12, 2014: A kosher sushi restaurant in Paris is firebombed.[35]
December 2, 2014: "A Jewish woman was raped in an apparent anti-Semitic attack in Créteil, a commune in the southeastern suburbs of Paris," according to Ynetnews.[36] The rapist told the woman that he was raping her "because you are Jewish."

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: OneManArmy

So then, it seems you are saying everybody should be armed?

I am saying that people who have good reason to arm themselves in self defense should not be prevented from doing so. In the United States, this is actually considered a human right. I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with Muslims being armed with handguns to protect themselves from anti-Muslim violence, also a very real threat in Europe.

a reply to: DJW001

Ok, let's ignore the focus you placed on the Jews being attacked (which was the overall emphasis of your posts) and look at the rest of it....

As I said, they already can arm themselves within the law. What the Rabbis is asking for (and you it seems) is for extra allowances to arm themselves above and beyond.

Now, what you're saying is every group that feels threatened should be able to arm themselves over and above what is allowed in law....

Yeah, good idea, Batman! See where this is going? As soon as one group get's given special permissions, others will seek them (and likely be granted owing to precedent) and we will end up with a fragmented society, splitting itself into little cliques, all armed to the bollocks and ready to shoot anyone they deem a "threat"... Sounds like parts of the US, actually...

When you compare this to the actual threat faced, it is a massive over-reaction, will only lead to more problems than it solves and will certainly lead to more people being killed as a result. For crying out loud, there is more chance of Jews being killed in a traffic accident than there is from being shot by some rabid Islamic militant, but we don't go fitting all Jew's cars with big deployable inflatables and roll-cages, do we?

In fact, Jews are far more likely to be killed in Israel than in Europe! Since 1993, 626 Jews have been killed in Israel as a result of terrorism - this is more than the total amount of people killed in the entire of Europe in the same time from all forms of terrorism against all targets!

The response has to be proportionate to the threat - something Israel has trouble with, we all know - and arming a segment of society because every few years there might be a couple killed by a madman is insane itself.