How about private reselling? You know, selling your gun over the internet? Ain't that legal? Don't some people are actually proud of making the guns move around without government monitoring?

Isn't the governement required by law to destroy the records they have on your gun application within 14 days? (maybe more, I don't remember more).

So, the guns are registered in the USA? So if a legaly-owned gun is stolen, you have to inform the authority and they might eventually trace it back to you with the serial number?

Most of the gun problems in Mexico and Canada are because of guns smuggled from the USA. There is a big problem of the overabundance of black market guns. These have to come from somewhere. They don't materialise out of thin air.

Of course it is provocative. If you read what Arab leaders have to say, you can see that even the existence of Jews in the Middle-East is provocative. That's not a very good argument.

But I don't see anything immoral about it.

Annexing land was never "immoral" before Israel did it and Israel was attacked by Jordan, the country that annexed Jerusalem before. Was it "immoral" for Jordan to build homes in East-Jerusalem when they controlled it? What are you supposed to do with land you annexed?

Quite in contrast, building homes in the capital of a country that has both Jewish and Arab citizens is moral and is exactly what we need for peace to happen. Segregating Arabs and Jews and allowing the PLO to run a Jew-free territory does in no way help to create peace, it just rewards racism and promotes hatred.

No, it isn't, not if you insist that all people are equal. You can only be offended by the idea that Jews and Arabs live together in the same city if there is something wrong with that picture. And the fact that some terrorist group doesn't want Jews to live in East-Jerusalem because they think it will be harder for them to get control over the city if they do is simply not enough reason for you to be offended if Israel doesn't give in to the terrorists.

The PLO also don't want Jews to live in East-Jerusalem or for that matter anywhere else in Israel. "Throw the Jews into the sea" was their motto. When will you be offended by Jews living in West-Jerusalem or Haifa? Aren't you already offended that Jews have lived in Hevron for 3000 years? Isn't that an "illegal settlement" by some weird standard based on some "international law" that applies only to Israel?

Right.

And the US never built houses on land it annexed and which is claimed by others. Not in Texas, not in California, and not in Hawaii either. In fact, the US would happily hand over control over what is important to the US to somebody else's rule if an ally demanded it.

That's your standards to which you hold Israel.

One city, built by Jews, lived in by Jews unless they were forbidden to live there, with a Jewish majority since the 1840s and an eastern part that became "Arab" when all the Jews were thrown out in 1948, has to be divided and no Jews may live in the eastern part.

That's totally holding Israel to your own standards.

Just imagine having to give "back" to the Indians an American city that YOU (Americans, not Indians) actually founded and that YOU have lived in for thousands of years, long before the Indians even arrived, and that YOU think is holy, _AND_ that YOU have already offered to be without 60 years ago in exchange for peace, an offer which was refused. Can you even imagine such a scenario in the US? Can you imagine what it would mean for YOU if Israel, your friend and ally, DEMANDED from you to give up this holy city in exchange for nothing and for the simply reason that your friend and ally thinks it is provocative if you keep it?

So if that really is your standards, then, yes, please, hold Israel to them.

But in that case, clean up your own yard before cleaning up what isn't even your neighbourhood.

Jews cannot live anywhere else in the Middle-East. They were hunted down, their houses firebombed and destroyed, they were nearly exterminated in Israel as well so they will damn well live in Jerusalem, whether you like it or not.

Those wars fought against Israel again and again by the same people that are now being "provoked" by Israel building homes in Jerusalem could have resulted in the extermination of middle-eastern Jews, if Israel had lost. You think I'm kidding? Look at what happened to the Dinka, the Fur, the Kurds, the Nubians, the Massalith, any of the peoples who fought the same war machine and lost. Look at what happened to Jews who lived in Iraq or Egypt. You think building homes in Jerusalem is provocative? Read about what happened to Jewish homes in Yemen just last year!

And it does.

Decent and democratic countries build houses in their capital, whenever they want, without informing the Americans or asking for their permission.

They enjoy these diplomatic privileges because they are less likely to call on people to fight a Jihad against the US. They are not "better", they are just your friends.

And they will remain your friends, even if you try to sell off their holiest place to people who want to destroy it. (I am not kidding. When Jordan ruled over East-Jerusalem it DID destroy Jewish holy sites.)

If Israel is "better", Israel should AT LEAST enjoy the same privileges as the Arab states, INCLUDING an undivided capital city and a holy place, just like Saudi-Arabia has Mecca.

But I am totally for treating everyone equally, Arab states and Israel. Diplomatic privileges for any Arab country that actually helps the US and doesn't hate you? Check. All for it. And Israel can only dream of the diplomatic support from the US that Saudi-Arabia enjoys. Stone women, murder homosexuals, finance wars in Somalia and Sudan, even fund terrorists that attack US soil and they are still excellent friends. Obama wouldn't dream of flying to Saudi-Arabia and demand that they stop building houses in Mecca because Al-Qaeda claim it as theirs. That's the kind of diplomatic privilege I would like to see Israel enjoy.

But do ask Syria to stop occupying Kurdish land, while you are at it.

It's provocative.

I don't have any problem with the existence of a jewish state in the middle-east. Can't say it really ease tensions, but it's not a problem in itself that should "disapear". Ain't telling that it's making life easier over there, however.

It wasn't moral either. Why do you claim that I think it was? Annexing land never has been a moral act, as you forefully take land for yourself. Annexing the western mexican states by the USA wasn't moral either.

Except that this argument is bullshit. These colonies are heavily guardes, Palestinians cannot mingle with the Jews for "security reasons". Palestinians will only see their movement impeded more in East Jerusalem in the name of the safety of those colonists.

False. Jews have lived there 3000 years ago, and they didn't 40 years ago. That's the only thing that matters. On those principles, tell me how much land should belong to the Cherokees in the USA? They have lived there for 5000 years!

You just mingle analogy until they don't make any sense. Jerusalem have been build by Jews, but jews left them. A lot of what makes Jews what they are have occured after they have left their holy land, that's what made them so strong. But Jerusalem had been conquered by Muslims, and there has been so much added to it by their rule too that they feel they have some claim to it too. Not to forget that this is one of THEIR holy site too, the 3rd most important, in fact.

They don't ask to get all of it. Just to respect what has been the status quo in the past 60 years, but no. Houses are destroyed, areas are annexed by force to make room for more jewish settlers. Think of your bogus examples, if the natives forced you to leave your father's house to make way for a native who's family lived in France for the past 300 years. I don't think you'd really care about it.

No. And they have done well to defend themselves against such army. I cannot even say that it was a bad action to take control of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, as it gave them the strategic depth to defend themselves.

But 50 years ago is not now. The Israeli aren't under direct treath of invasion anymore. The only thing treathening them is the occasional rocket strike, which is dangerous, but by no mean nation-treathening. Israel won't cease to exist as an entity because of these strikes.

Do you seriously think I am going to compare Yemen to Israel? Yemen is a failed, dictatorial state with a burgeoning extremist population. I don't expect anything but trouble from Yemen. I cannot say the same for Israel. Please hold an argument that make sense.

Decent and democratic countries don't build house in conquered territories. You don't go and build houses in Tijuana because you claim "it's part of San Diego". You respect the actual border, you don't try to pick up a fight. If stupid Mexicans try to cross over to try to impose their rule, you turn them away (at least, that's how it's supposed to be).

Hell, San Francisco, Los Angeles have been founded by Mexicans (or their spanish colonists), do you think they deserve it back?

Have you ever been in Jerusalem?

Those Jewish "settlements" are simply houses in the same streets where you will also find Arab homes. They indeed mingle on the street. Walking through streets in the east I usually didn't even know who was Arab and who was Jew.

I think you picked up some sad propaganda there and believed it. But that doesn't make it right and that doesn't make it an argument either.

The only reason Jewish "settlements" are heavily guarded outside Jerusalem is because terrorists keep attacking them. But within Jerusalem people do live together, as they did in Hevron before the "Intifada".

Arabs' movement in Jerusalem is not impeded, except during times of conflict, which isn't as often as you might think. Usually Arabs and Jews can move freely in Jerusalem.

Don't call something bullshit if you know nothing about it except what one side told you. If you visited Jerusalem and simply walked through a street with Jewish homes, you would see how fantastically wrong you are.

What do you want? Pictures?

Anyone can show you pictures of a burning house and claim that it was "annexed" and burned down by Jews to drive out an Arab family. And for some reason you will believe it. But would you still believe that those Jewish "settlements" in Jerusalem are "heavily guarded" and that "Palestinians cannot mingle" if you walked down the main street in French Hill and wouldn't even know if the person you just asked for directions was a Jew or an Arab?

The European Union considers French Hill to be an illegal settlement in East Jerusalem.

...

French Hill has a population of 6,631. Giv'at Shapira has a population density of 10.9 persons per dunam (10,900 people/km²), while Tzameret HaBira is less crowded, with 4.7 persons per dunam (4,700 people/km²). The population is mostly Jewish, including a large number of immigrants from South America and the former Soviet Union. In recent years, an increasing number of Arabs have been buying apartments in the neighborhood. The ethnic mix is much more diverse than in most other Jewish areas in the city, partly due to the proximity of the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Hill

So, really? Heavily guarded? "Palestinians" cannot mingle? Where are you getting this stuff?

My guess is that you never knew what such a "Jewish settlement" even looks like.

What I think is more likely is that somebody told you that Israel did something evil and you BELIEVED it, with no proof needed. Isn't that true?

Again, you believed stupid propaganda. Jews have lived in Jerusalem FOR 3000 years, not merely "3000 years ago". As I said Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 1840s. It was a majority-Jewish town in the Ottoman Empire. There was absolutely no reason to declare it "Arab". It was not part of an Arab state and it was not an Arab city. The only thing that made it "Arab" was Jordan's invasion in 1948. But if that makes it Arab, then surely the Israeli invasion of 1967 would make it Israeli, wouldn't it?

How much land do they need?

Feel free to deduct for terror attacks, if Cherokees do that (which they don't).

Jerusalem has been conquered by lots of peoples, some of the Muslim, one of them Arab. But that was over a thousand years ago. For the last few hundred years, Jerusalem was Turkish-ruled and for the last 200 years it was a majority-Jewish city. Why the heck do you insist that the Arabs have a claim to it?

And yes, it is the third-most holiest site for Muslims, which is another reason why it is important that both Jews and Arabs should have access to it. But when those holy sites were under Arab rule, Jews were not allowed to visit them.

That's another lie.

Somebody has argued this before here on JU. I asked him to provide proof and he gave me a BBC article about a PA police headquarter destroyed during a battle.

Don't believe the lies. People will tell you that Israel destroys Arab homes and replaces them with Jewish homes, but it's simply not true.

(But I do realise that it likely won't matter. You will simply believe the accusation. When the accused is a Jew, accusation is proof.)

Except that it didn't happen.

You took a piece of Arab propaganda and pretend it's fact. It's not.

Areas are NOT annexed by force to make room for more Jewish settlers. It's simply not true.

Exactly.

So why exactly does Israel have lots of bunkers and sirens and a huge (for its population) army? Why is there talk about "security guarantees"?

You totally underestimate Hizbullah and the Arab armies.

If Israel loses a war, the conflict is over. It is nation-threatening.

No. But I think you should realise that if Israel were to lose a war and its "peace partners" take power, THIS is what Israel will look like.

Do you? Or would you accept the annexation of those territories? For some reason I am under the impression that you have little moral problem with somebody keeping land they annexed if they aren't Israel.

In general, I think, the problem with Jewish "settlements" is the way people see them.

If you walk through a street in Jerusalem where Jews and Arabs live together it obviously doesn't occur to you that far-away people will think of those "settlements" as heavily guarded fortresses where Arabs are not allowed.

In fact, if this were any other country and not Israel, it also wouldn't occur to me and neither would far-away people have such strange ideas of what those streets look like.

People appear to have a natural tendency to believe whatever evil story they are told about Jews (or Israelis) and even when a street with Arabs and Jewish homes becomes, in the story, a "heavily guarded" fortress that Arabs are not allowed to enter, it wouldn't occur to those people even to consider that there might be some latent anti-Semitism present in the scenario. Such stories are always either true or about Israel, not Jews, and hence they are not anti-Semitism.

The fact that they are lies and about Jews is immaterial.

Ironically, since Jerusalem Arabs are citizens of Israel, their homes in Jerusalem are also "illegal Israeli settlements", unless the illegality has something to do with the citizens in question being Jews. This appears to be a big problem for the PA since they have laws that prohibit Arabs accepting Israeli citizenship (probably in the spirit of peace and brotherhood).

Did you know you can buy stuff on Amazon, and not pay sales tax?  In almost all states, Amazon does not collect sales taxes, only in the states they have a physical presence.  (I picked Amazon because they are my favorite, but it applies to all on-line e-tailers).

BUT - did you know that by law, you are required to remit those taxes to your state authority?  Yep!  My state even went so far as to send out forms to all its citizens asking for them to voluntarily remit the taxes for on-line purchases.

So what does this have to do with the private sale of guns?  Same thing.  The law applies, but yes, enforcement is hard.  But then there is a tool the government can use.  if you sell a gun registered to you, and do not inform the authorities and it is used in a crime, guess who they are going to come looking for?

In America, the government does not prohibit free legal trade, but they do put qualifications on it.  And while they do not as of yet have enough of a police force to enforce all the laws (relying on honesty of the citizens), that does not mean you can break the laws with impunity.  There are still reprecussions.

No.

Yes

Some are stolen, some never got registered (there is a black market for guns - most of which originate from other countries).  But the reason that "most of the" is that America has the most guns!  Simple math, not lax laws.  You can live in the safest city in the world, and yet still be murdered.  NY is one of the safest today, yet there are still a few hundred murders a year.  But as a percent of the population, the number makes it relatively safe.

Canada has 10% of the population of the US.  Mexico about 50%, so we dwarf both countries.  And while canada is on par with the US (SOL wise), Mexico is way below and just does not have expendable income to worry about more than the necessities (except for the richest man in the world).

This one I love (not that you believe this Cikomyr, only that you asked the question).  Mexicans want us to give it back.  Why?  We took it from them when they were part of Spain (still a colony).  So should be give it back to Spain?  But then Spain did not find an empty land - they took it from the natives.  So we give it back to them?  The claim of Mexico on the lands the US "stole" from them is akin to  a thief yelling "robbery" when his ill gotten gains are then stolen by someone else.

It ain't been stolen, it had been conquered and annexed from Spain.

Now Spain "stole" it to the natives. That is another story.

I am kinda tired of argumenting of Israel in a Gun-loving thread. My initial point was to challenge the claim that I am antisemitic and Israel-hating. I don't think anyone can think that I love it unconditionnally, but does that make me a Nazi who wants to enforce the "final solution"?

Fair enough.

This brings us back to the same standards thing.

_I_ believe we should hold Israel and the US to the same standard and both should keep the land they annexed since both guarantee equal rights for all people in those territories.

Cikomyr claims we should hold Israel and the US to the same standard and thinks that the US should keep land they annexed whereas Israel should give it up.

This is a rare case of two different same standards, apparently.

One difference is that Mexico didn't attack the US but vice versa (or rather, some territories rebelled against Mexico and then were annexed by the US, or even American settlers rebelled but this begins to go too far).

So what "same standards" really means is that if the US attack someone and annex land, the US can keep it; but if Israel are attacked and annex land, Israel has to give that land up.

The standards are the same, just some standards are samer than others.

Then there is the issue of when the land was annexed.

Hawaii became a US territory, by US invasion of an independent country, in 1898 and a state (full annexation with equal rights for Hawaii's population) in 1959. I am assuming that annexations in 1898 and 1959 are therefor OK.

Jordan annexed the east of Jerusalem, then a mostly Jewish city which was before under Turkish and the British rule, in 1948. This totally makes the city "Arab".

Israel occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1981. But that clearly doesn't make it part of Israel, apparently.

So I am guessing the legitimate steal limit lies around the early 1960s. Anything annexed before is OK, anything annexed after is immoral and must be returned to the legitimate thief (or owner).

And my guess is that this date was picked by the "international community" quite arbitrarily without any regard to whether it would legitimise Jewish or non-Jewish annexations. And then they added a special non-anti-Semitic exception for North-Vietnam which could, apparently, legally annex South-Vietnam in 1976. Such an exception is not anti-Semitic at all and would apply to any country that isn't Jewish.

1. The US occupy Hawaii (1898) and make it a state (1959). LEGAL

2. Nejd (Saudi-Arabia) occupies the Kingdom of Hejaz (1926) and annexes it into Saudi-Arabia (1932). LEGAL

3. Poland and Russia annex the eastern quarter of Germany i(1946). LEGAL

4. Transjordan occupied and annexes the eastern part of Jewish-majority Jerusalem (1948). LEGAL (i.e. Jerusalem is now an "Arab" city forever)

5. Israel occupied the West-Bank (1967) and annexed Jerusalem (1981).  ILLEGAL (annexations are illegal)

6. North-Vietnam annexes South-Vietnam (1976). LEGAL

Clearly, the judgements are totally based on the principle that annexations are illegal. It has nothing to do with whether a given country is Jewish or not.

In that spirit, can anybody point out other countries Obama should visit and complain about the fact that they build houses in annexed land?

The original owner who was stupid ennough not to declare he sold his gun? I mean.. you effectively handed over a lethal weapon you lawfully acquired by passing investigation and checking to somebody that didn't, and could be a criminal.

So you are to blame to passing over weapon illegaly to anoyher party. You were responsible for that weapon, and you did not helped the government tracking the possession of the gun.

You should not to be held accountable for any crime committed to that gun, however. Only to the fact that you did not declared the sale.

My bad. I thought the NICS checks had to be destroyed within 24-hours after approval.

Aaaand most of the unregistered guns. Which means you should be the ones tackling the problem stronger about the spread of illegal guns, to stop their origin. Off course there will always be guns on the black market, you cannot prevent all gun theft or external country smuggling.

I mean, they have lots of problem in Mexico with the cartels recently. These cartels are using high-grade weaponry, like assault rifle. I am quite sure that the ban restriction that occured in 2004 on the sale of those weapon went a long way toward helping these cartels get their hands on assault guns.

But the thing is, Israel hasn't annexed those territories. They are still conquered territories, and they are not annexing it politically, but demographically.

Can't say I would condone the annexation of a territory in the 2010s, however. Different time, different morality.

So is annexation stealing or not?

Not every anti-Semite wants a final solution. In fact I believe such thoughts are as far from your mind as from mine.

I am worried about latent anti-Semitism which is very present in otherwise completely normal people.

The fact that you believe in lies told about Israel, for example about the demographics of Jerusalem (you completely ignored my point that it was a majority-Jewish city before 1948 for over a hundred years) or about the nature of Jewish "settlements", tells me that you are more likely to believe something evil about Jews than about other people.

And the fact that you see Israel annexing land as something completely different from other countries annexing land also tells me that.

You and I clearly see Jewish "settlements" in Jerusalem differently. But I see them as I have physically seen them, as streets with Jewish and Arab homes and a population where at least I cannot tell if a given person I see is a Jew or an Arab, whereas you see them as some sort of anti-Arab fortress. May I ask who told you that view and why did you believe it?

I don't think you are an Israel hater, in fact I see you more of an Israel-supporter. My problem is not with your opinion about Israel but with your reasoning for it. If you think that annexed land should be given up for peace, that's fine. More power to you. But if you think that _Israel_ should give annexed land up because it is immoral for _Israel_ to own annexed land, whereas with any other country these things are not an issue; and if you believes lies told about Israel or ignore the demographics of a city when assigning it to someone's rule, then we have a problem.

If you believe the stories about the "settlements" in Jerusalem and the legends about Israel destroying homes of Arabs to replace them with Jews and are still a supporter of Israel, then you are a worse fanatic than I.

I support Israel because I know those stories are lies. (I have personally seen that the first story is false and I have asked people who told the second to tell me their ultimate source and it was always a story that didn't even say anything about Israel destroying homes.)

You support Israel despite believing those stories. Don't you think that that is problematic?

Israel has annexed Jerusalem in 1981.

Most annexed territories are "conquered territories". The only other example I can think of is East-Germany which was annexed by West-Germany voluntarily in 1990.

Since 1967 Jews have moved (back) into East-Jerusalem. And since 1981 East-Jerusalem Arabs have also moved to West-Jerusalem or the rest of Israel.

What's different in 2010? What was the cut-off point and why?

So it would be wrong now for the PA (or any Arab state) to annex Jerusalem? I can live with that. If Israel has to exist forever in its current borders, i.e. with Jerusalem and the Golan but without the rest of the West-Bank, I'd be happy to accept that.

We might have to find a solution for Jewish villages in the West-Bank (maybe those Jews can become citizens of the Arab state that will end up controlling that territory) and the holy sites in Hevron, but this can be done (as long as that Arab state is not run by the PLO or some other terrorist group).

There is an obvious easy "international law"-based solution.

Have Israel (or, I assume, any Jewish state) annex Los Angeles.

That annexation will legally make the territory of Los Angeles the just and moral property of whomever had annexed it last before the Jewish state.

Worked for Jerusalem. Invaded and annexed by Turks, occupied by Brits, annexed by Arabs, annexed by Israel. That's where it ends. The legal and moral owner has been established. Last one before the Jewish annexation is the legal  owner.

On the simple principle that claiming that your ancestors owned a turf of land 300 years ago and that you don't now shouldn't be a claim for moral right. I'd rather if things settled down to the status quo of official territorial ownership and stopped trying to reverse the latest event, or only more grief will come out of it.

In short, let bygones be bygones, but shouldn't be allowed to happen again. It ain't fair, but it's probably the only way we'll ever get out of this mess. After all, France and Germany somewhat still bicker over Lorraine.

I don't want Israel to relinquish the lands they annexed after the civil war. But I don't want them to annex the land they have seized but never annexed in '67, except if it is done with the consent of the local palestinian population to formally join the new entity that it will form (which is my best hope, but also kinda stupidly idealist).

A bad action does not a bad country makes.

USA were still a darn good democracy even if they still had slavery at the time. Or you were still a great country at the time racial discrimination was still rampant. Canada was still a good country at the time even when they kept the French-canadians as a simple labor class.

It takes a lot more for me to actually resent and antagonise a whole country and it's people than some bad behavior on some part of the government(s). Otherwise, I don't think there is going to be a single nation in the world that would get my approval..