Nice Galil.

Sadly, the natives of Israel can’t have it. While rifle-toting soldiers and reservists are a common sight in Israel, actually buying a modern for personal ownership is nearly impossible for their citizens. And the down side to the issued weapons is that they may be recalled at the whim of the issuing authority.

This entry was posted in civil rights, rifle, rkba, self-defense and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Nice Galil.

  1. Ray says:

    One of my all time favorite rifles, Built like a tank . Almost no recoil, accurate ,and as reliable as any other AK. If you could still get the “real thing” in this country I’d sell My AR’s and Russian AK’s and just haul a Galil.

  2. Bill C. says:

    As I read the Bible and see all of the people who have disarmed and oppressed the Israeli people over the centuries, then the 20th century, and their need to be able to protect themselves individually today from the people living next to and even among them who want them dead, why in heaven’s name do they have laws restricting civilian ownership? That is absolutely the most idiotic policy stance I can imagine. They CLEARLY know better but still do that?

    • Lyle says:

      Importation of American Progressivism. To understand that you need to understand the genesis of American Progressivism and its early (and continuing) love affairs with Eugenics, the KKK, Nazis, Fascists and Marxism in general. Find and watch that video clip of Helen Thomas (and old Progressive, and the exalted darling of today’s Progressives) where she’s telling the Jews to “Get the hell out of Palestine” and go back “Home…to Poland”. Her only mistake in saying it outright was in revealing the cause—The Progressive strategy is stealth and infiltration and she blew the cover, so they had to put her out to pasture.

  3. Pingback: SayUncle » Gun Porn

  4. David E says:

    Bill C said it – I have always wondered why Israel restricts ownership so heavily where it is needed most. However, the IDF really ARE some of the baddest butt kickers in the world.

    • David Luck says:

      yeah…they just did quite a number on 2,100 Gazan civilians, 500 children among them. You may enjoy paying taxes to keep Israel (and its American bitch) on the map, but I’m done with it. And the reason why “Israel restricts ownership”…is because all Totalitarians think alike.

      • Bubba says:

        Well David Luck, I can’t agree with you more re: Israel. I still haven’t forgotten the 34 Americans they murdered on the USS Liberty.

  5. David Carlson says:

    From the posted Jerusalem Post article: “gun licenses are only given out to those who have a reason because they work in security or law enforcement, or those who live in settlements ‘where the state has an interest in them being armed.'”

    The “lifetime supply” of 50 cartridges really had me wondering… does that imply that ammunition is purchased at firing ranges only, but just fifty cartridges maximum per firearm are legally allowed?

    My admittedly limited understanding of Switzerland is that the service rifle is kept at home, but that there is a single box of 24 5.56mm cartridges (the amount left over from the six round Schmidt-Rubin magazines, i.e. four magazines full). And woe betide anyone who opens the box! Shooting and ammunition purchases are limited to the various ranges and firing points. Perhaps Oleg might comment given his recent trip to the Confederation of Helvetian cantons and hanging out with its firearm community?

    As for the absence of gun spree killings and massacres in Israel, I’d beg to differ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
    Or, as an American born fanatic–like Meir Kahane–does he not count? In the words of the TA gunshop owner in the article, were these settlers U.S. “barbarians?”

  6. JQP says:

    Oleg, I’m putting this comment here because comments seem closed there:

    http://blog.olegvolk.net/2014/08/19/the-original-owner-didnt-need-it-anymore/

    I love how it’s PC in America to dress a cute girl in a uniform that saw 50m+ dead, but un-PC to dress a cute girl in a uniform that saw 20m dead. (Even though the latter actually designed the weapon in question) Or whatever the numbers are, I’ve tired of looking them over; the take-home fact is that the Soviets killed far more innocent people than the Nazis, and started doing so long before the Nazis came to power, and stopped doing so long after the Nazis were gone.

    The Soviets were worse. Why is it okay to parade their uniforms about? Especially when they’re so crappy? Hugo Boss designed the Nazis’ outfits.

    Why is communism (far worse murderers than Nazis) cute, but Nazism (bad, but not nearly as bad as the commies) totally forbidden?

    I suppose we could argue that murders divided by length of reign will show us the true metric of evil, but then the Hutus win (they killed far more people per day than the Nazis did – and with far fewer resources at their disposal). And nobody would give a damn if you used a Hutu uniform, so that’s out.

    Food for thought?

    • Oleg Volk says:

      The comments should have been opened for the other thread.

      The cute girl in the photos plays a Soviet sniper, so she was a reasonable choice for the captured weapon. Nazis, like Hutus, had a higher rate of murder AND they opposed us more directly than the USSR, so they got the bad rap.

      • WiseCaveOwl says:

        bunk. The Red Empire attempted to subvert and destroy our entire System. Hitler wanted no war with the Brits – they declared first, over Poland – and none with America. That’s why FDR had to backdoor his way in, by snookering the Japs into attacking us. Hitler then declared war on America, 12 Dec. ’41, because by then he was in deep trouble against the Russians and needed Japanese help. Nazis “get the bad rap” because they killed off large numbers of an ethnic group that now completely dominates American political, cultural, and economic life.

    • David Carlson says:

      Actually, both the USSR and the Nazi Third Reich are abominable, horrific, and criminal regimes.

      As for some kind of equation or reduction as to which of these reprehensible, vicious, totalitarian regimes was “worse” than the other based on some kind of notion that “Or whatever the numbers are, I’ve tired of looking them over; the take-home fact is that the Soviets killed far more innocent people than the Nazis, and started doing so long before the Nazis came to power, and stopped doing so long after the Nazis were gone.”

      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

      The Bolshevik regime came to power in 1918, and consolidated control over the ruins of the Russian Empire in the 1920s. Forced collectivization, deliberate famine, etc. etc. the Terror, the Gulag and so on made the pre-WWII Soviet state “by far the more murderous of the two.” Most Soviet state killing took place in peace time. Germany started WWII, and killed civilians in pursuit of racial imperialist plans, most of which were never realized. The “Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.”

Comments are closed.