Again. Jerusalem was Jewish-majority before 1948 and since 1848.

Your claim about "ancestors" only seems to affect Israeli claims. But you regard the Arab claim valid on the same grounds for some reason.

Both had ancestors living in the city, the Jews were just there earlier and longer.

But an ancient Arab population makes the city Arab, whereas an ancient Jewish population doesn't make it Jewish.

Why is that?

The status quo is that Israel controls Jerusalem.

There is no need to bicker over Lorraine since both Germans and Frenchmen can live there if they like.

Except Jerusalem, apparently.

Again, Jerusalem was annexed in 1981. The local "Palestinian" population was never asked. But neither has anyone asked them now when it was apparently decided that Jerusalem is "Arab" and must become part of a "Palestinian" state.

The Jewish population of East-Jerusalem wasn't asked when Jordan annexed the territory in 1948. The people of Hawaii were not asked when the US annexed Hawaii either.

So you are saying that annexations in 2010 are not all right, but opreviously they could be. You are telling me that Jerusalem is Arab, which it is solely because an Arab state annexed it in 1948, but is not Jewish despite an Israeli annexation in 1981. And you claim that the local population (presumably only the Arab population) must agree to being annexed, yet you promote the idea of annexing East-Jerusalem to a new Arab state without asking Jerusalem's population, Arab or otherwise.

In mid-2000, when it appeared that some Arab-majority parts of Jerusalem would be transferred to Palestinian Authority control, Muslim Jerusalemites expressed less than delight at the prospect. Peering over at Arafat's PA, they saw power monopolized by domineering and corrupt autocrats, a thug-like police force, and a stagnant economy. Arafat's bloated, nonsensical claims ("We are the one true democratic oasis in the Arab region") only exacerbated their apprehensions.

‘Abd ar-Razzaq ‘Abid of Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood pointed dubiously to "what's happening in Ramallah, Hebron, and the Gaza Strip" and asked if the residents there were well off. A doctor applying for Israeli papers explained:

"The whole world seems to be talking about the future of the Arabs of Jerusalem, but no one has bothered asking us. The international community and the Israeli Left seem to take it for granted that we want to live under Mr. Arafat's control. We don't. Most of us despise Mr. Arafat and the cronies around him, and we want to stay in Israel. At least here I can speak my mind freely without being dumped in prison, as well as having a chance to earn an honest day's wage."

http://www.danielpipes.org/2534/the-hell-of-israel-is-better-than-the-paradise-of-arafat

Best-case scenario is that you declare an Arab annexation in 1948 valid and an Israeli annexation in 1981 invalid. This alone I consider anti-Semitic. I can live with both annexations being invalid, both being valid, or the newer one being valid. But basing the validity of an annexation on whether Israel is the annexor is ridiculous.

Worst-case scenario is that you hand over a Jewish and Arab population who want to be part of Israel to a new Arab state run not by a real government like Jordan's but a terrorist group. And that is apparently the "moral" solution.

No, but lies about a country will destroy its image in the world. And especially for a Jewish country those lies are much more easily believed for some reason.

You didn't even take into account what I told you about the Jewish population of Jerusalem driven out in 1948. THAT really happened. But it doesn't, for some reason, invalidate the Arab claim to the city.

Now, if you only you would apply those same standards to Israel, a country that had abolished slavery 2500 years ago (when it was under Persian rule).

You never know where threads are going to go!  And for the record, you are no cheer leader for Israel, but I have not found you to be anti-semitic.

Yes they did.  they did not "declare" war, but they were shooting at us.  Kind of like the middle east.  The Mexican army did not cross the border, but they harbored the bandits that did (war by proxy).

Very good!  The law is there, and is usually followed.  But not by criminals.

America has more criminals.  Sinple size dictates the truism of your statement.  not a conspiracy.

I have been banned from this very thread for this.

Yea, I do remember.  but he did relent.  And besides, Leauki needs some one to debate that is at least rational (most of the ones that take him on are the far side of the Far Side).

I have only banned 3 folks in my career.  And none for their views. (2 were to the right of me).

Anyway. I think the problem is more around enforcement of the current gun law, and the stupidity of some gun owners' opinion that they should beware of government tracking them.

More track-down of these guns to the source, mesay. If we find that a legitimate gun owner seems to be the sources of 40 black-market guns, well, he is clearly a problem. Either he isn't responsible for the privilege the society grants him, or he is a criminal-supplier. Either way, he should be punished for his lack of responsible action.

You're looking at this from a skewed viewpoint. When is the last time you bought a firearm? Guns are not cheap, but a criminal or a gang member can buy one for 50 bucks. Why is these? Criminals don't go to gun shops and buy them. Gun owners don't go to gun shops to buy a $500 handgun, so he can turn around and sell it in a back alley for $50. Many guns used are stolen. Have you ever seen what types of guns are being picked up from criminals? They are not antiques, crooks and gangs don't find them cool enough, they want Glock's and Ingram's (think MAC 10). It is much easier to steal the guns than buy them. Criminals don't pay retail.

I get a big kick out of when I see a big cache of weapons seized from Mexican gangsters. These are often accompanied by photos and a right up about how the weapons are flowing from the US to Mexico. That's pretty amazing when a majority of the weapons are Chinese AK's, but sometimes you see American M-16. Now here's the funny thing about that, you can't buy a fully automatic M-16 in the US unless you are a US law enforcement organization, or you have obtained a yearly issued Class III license (no easy to obtain). Then you have to find one of the few suppliers that will have one to sell you. Your corner gun store doesn't. These guns can be identified by markings on many of their parts. So where do the guns come from?

Well there is another buyer authorized to purchase these weapons, the Mexican Government. Can there be corruption in the Mexican military? How unthinkable.

I have two "assault" styled rifles, an XM-15 and a G-3, both semi-automatic. Let me tell you both of these would be terrible for a criminal activity. They are hard to conceal, heavy, and most importantly, require skill to use effectively. Criminals prefer handguns, gangs like machine pistols (for the coolness, large capacity spraying power, and concealment). These are even harder to get because they are uncommon. Police and military don't use them (Uzi's had a use with US special forces long ago, but have been long replaced by the MP-5). So many of these types of weapons are smuggled in from abroad, where they are made cheaply due to few moving parts, stamped in sheet metal.

I'm not saying private firearms are not used for criminal purposes, they are. So are baseball bats, shouldn't those be registered too?

Funny thing is, when a crime is committed and the weapon retrieved in the USA, almost 100% of the time, the authorities trace it back to its molten metal!  So I do not think we need more registration.  And indeed, while the MSM wants to phrase the argument in that manner, it is hardly about that (every weapon that is in legal hands they know where it came from).  instead the debate is on the actual ownership of them.  They are not trying to get more documentation, but rather more restrictions (you can only own a gun if your birthday falls on the second tuesday of each week).

I still want to know why a Jewish city in the Ottoman Empire suddenly became "Arab" just because an Arab state once annexed it but didn't become Jewish again when Israel annexed it.

Should Israel have thrown out the Arab population (like Jordan threw out the Jewish population) or destroy the mosques (like Jordan destroyed the synagogues)?

To me it looks like anti-Semitism when an annexation is defined as legitimate or illigitimate on the basis of whether the annexor is Jewish and when ethnic cleansing of Jews can make a city legitimately Arab.

So they are able to know where is the point the gun ceased to be in legitimate hands? Probably stolen is most case?

Unfortunately about 387 AD.  It is not something to be proud of.

Yes.  Once stolen, of course, they cannot trace it until it turns up again.  But it usually will since people stealing them are not usually going to put them in a collection somewhere.

The Obama nutjob that shot up her fellow professors in Alabama?  They traced the gun back to New jersey (I think, May have been new Hampshire) to a FRIEND of her husband who originally bought it.  They can tell just about everything about the weapon except how many times it was cleaned.

Ntiro said 'have been long replaced by the MP-5' Actually, they are replacing the MP-5 with the MP-6.  In my opinion, the MP-5 was the worst in the MP series when it first came out.  Without the silencer that acts like a barrel extention it just arkward to fire.

Nitro, your thoughts?  Anybody else can comment as well, its just that Nitro brought up the MP-5.  The gun that I plan on purchasing next (as the L-RD's wills) is the M1 Garand.

Since we are talking about Israel here I'll blend the two.  Israel has a gun that's like the MP-6 but better. I can't remember what its called.    Leauki, those law enforcement officals that dress in all black and ride on the black motorcycles (usually the sport bikes) carry the Israelie version of the MP-6.  The reason is because it is very accurate, light, easily to conceal, and has high rate of fire.  If you ever go to Israel, stay away from these guys.  They are tough as nails and supposedly they are to crack down on drugs.   Leauki, if you know the guys I speak of maybe you can give more information about them.

I'm heading to the gym now. I've gotten a little pudgie.

I'm sure you're correct. When I was leaving the military, a lot of the special forces guys were still using the MP-5, but I had heard they were looking at other options. It was actually looking MP-5's when I got interesting in the G-3 (HK-91) back in 84, always liked .308 caliber better anyway. Three years ago I replaced the synthetic stock and fore grip with all wooden (and combat distressed) furniture. It looks sweet. 

Yes awesome weapon the M-1. The M-1 Carbine is nice to, especially if you want a lighter gun in smaller caliber. Are you getting an original or new production? The only flaw with this rifle is "ching" noise it makes when the last round is spent. The Germans used to wait for the noise, as they knew the GI was reloading. I also like it's predecessor, the M-14, it has a more modern box magazine, but it is heavy. The Ruger Mini-14 is the civilian and also is a fine rifle. But the M-1 is a great choice, and nice shooter.

If I get a chance I want to pick up a Barrett model 82A1, before the gov. decides to outlaw .50 cal. BMG. Now to come up with 5 grand for the rifle and another 3 grand for the optics and BORS. This could take awhile.

387 is about the time when the Roman ban on Jews living in Jerusalem ended. At the time the city was part of the Roman (later Byzantinian) Empire.

In 614 the (Sassanid) Persian Empire took the city. I claim this as "taking the city back" because one the Persian Empire was allied with the Jews (and Jews fought among the Persians for the city) and two the last legitimate (per the Bible) government of Israel was also Persian (before Alexander's invasion). Iran and Israel have been allies for 2500 years until 1979 (and actually well into the 1980s during the First Gulf War).

In 629 the Byzantinians again took the city. (And again Jews were not permitted to live there.)

In 638 the (Arab) Muslims took the city and Jews were allowed back in. Note that those were " Moses said to his people" Muslims, not "Death to the Jews" Muslims.

In 1099 the Muslims expelled the Christian (but not the Jewish) population of the city. Then the Crusaders took the city and again threw the Jews out.

Then in 1187 the (Kurdish-led) Muslims took Jerusalem and again allowed the Jews in. Saladin announced that the exile (which both Jews and type-1 Muslims believed in) was over.

The the first Turkish tribes arrived and drove out random parts of the population, including Jews.

From 1250 the city was ruled by (Turkish) Mamluks from Egypt. By the 16th century it was in Ottoman (Turkish) hands.

In 1918 the British took it. And in 1948 it was divided by Israel and Jordan.

In 1967 it became Jewish again. At that time it had had a Jewish majority for over one hundred years.

And this is why Jerusalem is an Arab city. 400 and 50 years of Arab rule in a space of 2000 years make a Jewish city Arab.