Muslim control vs gun control

[GearSolidMetal]

Either it makes sense to completely ban something if it will save 1 life, or it doesn't.

Since there are over 50,000+ deaths a year due to traffic accidents, that means there's 50,000+ reasons to ban cars.

The inventor of the car should be reviled, because his creation has accumulated an entire holocaust, accumulated over a century.

We need to ban cars and trucks, then force everybody to use bicycles, trains, and subways.

Everybody agree? Good, because if you don't, you want 50,000+ people to die.

 

[VivaRevolution]

And here we go with the same inapt and inept analogies.

Is there a right to own guns? Yes.

Is there a right to immigrate to the United States? No.

Sorry you had to play this same stupid game.

The next thing the Threadstarter will tell us is that it's illogical for an American to have the right to free speech, but not a right to own child porn.

Our government has a constitutional requirement to have a separation of church and state, which would include discrimination against non citizens based on religion.

So you see, this does have to do with rights, and the constitution as well.

 

[TSO]

which would include discrimination against non citizens based on religion.

nope

 

[Bloodworth]

So I see alot of logically inconsistent people running around here.

For anyone arguing we need to ban guns, you are a brainwashed lemming if you aren't also calling on the banning of Muslim immigrants.

For anyone calling on banning Muslim immigrants, you are a brainwashed lemming if you aren't also calling for a ban on guns.

Either it makes sense to completely ban something if it will save 1 life, or it doesn't.

Some people like myself, tend to point out that a Muslim immigration ban, without Saudi Arabia on the list is stupid, just as many of us like to point out that calling for a gun ban, when you have ZERO ability to remove those guns from the population is also very stupid.

All I know, is that freedom isn't free.

People are going to die if you want to live in a free society. We don't ban religions or tools, because of how bad actors use them. We arrest, and try them for committing a crime.

Anyone telling you we can stop all crimes is a fucking snake oil salesman.

What does a lack of jobs, lack of seats in schools , over population , or economic strain have to do with not wanting anymore immigrants including Muslims .

 

[TheComebackKid]

Guns are the last line of defennse against tyranny. Guns are used to harm but also protect. We lose guns we lose protection. If we lose muslims we lose...rape and terrorism?

 

[VivaRevolution]

nope

Yep, because the verbiage isn't about citizens or people, or property, it's about the government.


The government cant do anything based on religion. It can't wipe its ass with a cross sign.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Guns are the last line of defennse against tyranny. Guns are used to harm but also protect. We lose guns we lose protection. If we lose muslims we lose...rape and terrorism?

We lose.....our seperation of church and state.

You may not think state sanctioned discrimination based on religious beliefs is a big deal, but I do.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What does a lack of jobs, lack of seats in schools , over population , or economic strain have to do with not wanting anymore immigrants including Muslims .

Well I'm for an immigration ban myself, until wage growth outpaces inflation for atleast a decade, but the discussion here is about those who support a Muslim ban.

 

[TheComebackKid]

We lose.....our seperation of church and state.

A) That's not in the constitution and the concept gets misapplied 99% of the time anyhow

B) Even if it was in the constitution the constitution applies to American citizens...not other countries.

 

[VivaRevolution]

A) That's not in the constitution and the concept gets misapplied 99% of the time anyhow

B) Even if it was in the constitution the constitution applies to American citizens...not other countries.

It is in the constitution.

It applies to the government, not to citizens, or property, or non citizens, or any other legal entity. It applies to one entity, and one entity only, the US Government. Hell technically a state government could make their official religion Catholicism, if state constitutions didn't include the same clause.

 

[TheComebackKid]

It is in the constitution.

It applies to the government, not to citizens, or property, or non citizens, or any other legal entity. It applies to one entity, and one entity only, the US Government. Hell technically a state government could make their official religion Catholicism, if state constitutions didn't include the same clause.

Its not in the constitution man lol. This is what's in the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

How would a Muslim ban on foriegn immigrants violate this clause?

 

[Bloodworth]

Well I'm for an immigration ban myself, until wage growth outpaces inflation for atleast a decade, but the discussion here is about those who support a Muslim ban.

Musims countries have poor women's rights, poor homo rights, poor religious freedom, can marry more then one wife.
Completely opposite if liberal u.s., yet they seem to be the best of friends .

Or one is stronger then the other

 

[TSO]

Yep, because the verbiage isn't about citizens or people, or property, it's about the government.


The government cant do anything based on religion. It can't wipe its ass with a cross sign.

Wrong

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only people covered are "the people", the people means citizens.

https://constitution.laws.com/we-the-people

 

[Cold Front]

Our government has a constitutional requirement to have a separation of church and state, which would include discrimination against non citizens based on religion.

So you see, this does have to do with rights, and the constitution as well.

There are some Iranian Christian refugees unable to get into the country right now who would disagree with you that the ban is about religion.

That's because Trump's ban is about country of origin, not religion. The ban SHOULD be about Muslims, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[VivaRevolution]

There are some Iranian Christian refugees unable to get into the country right now who would disagree with you that the ban is about religion.

That's because Trump's ban is about country of origin, not religion. The ban SHOULD be about Muslims, but it doesn't have to be.

Sure, because trump knows the courts would strike it down if he based it on religion.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Wrong

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only people covered are "the people", the people means citizens.

https://constitution.laws.com/we-the-people

Congress shall make no law.

It isn't restricting people, it is restricting the government.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Its not in the constitution man lol. This is what's in the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

How would a Muslim ban on foriegn immigrants violate this clause?

Because Congress would be making a law that discriminates based on religion.

Do you really believe that the courts wouldn't strike down any law that clearly states this is its intent?

 

[panamaican]

I wonder why no one has ever proffered this argument "We need Muslims to help prevent violence from other Muslims."

 

[Exception]

America is full of pussies, and the politicians know this and scare them even more.

We might as well live in cages, with police guarding us to keep us safe.


America always focuses on small pointless shit(Yes pointless in the grand scheme of things)....we have a bunch of people in poverty, who lack education, which causes more deaths than a a school shooting or muslims...but yet we dont do much.

How about ban poverty, crap education, and Corporate cuck politicians?

Generally speaking, people don't choose to be blown up by a suicide bomber or watch their children be murdered in a mass shooting. People do choose to be worthless wastlings that suck the welfare teat for their entire existence. I would much rather prevent innocents from being murdered if I have to choose between that or rewarding people that are so worthless they stay on welfare for majority of their adult lives.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Our government has a constitutional requirement to have a separation of church and state, which would include discrimination against non citizens based on religion.

So you see, this does have to do with rights, and the constitution as well.

nope

I think you're both wrong. Freedom of religion and other constitutional protections do apply to non-citizens but as far as I know only non-citizens in the US. So it might very well be constitutional to ban Muslim immigration so long as the people immigrating don't have American citizenship but you couldn't ban Islam or enact discrimination against non-citizen Muslims in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong @panamaican, @Quipling, @alanb