To conservatives: If banning firearms wouldn't decrease gun violence, why would banning muslims decrease islamic violence? If the second ammendment protects your rights to carry arms, and therefore it shouldn't even be an argument, why doesn't the right to religious freedom protect the muslims?
To progressives:
If banning firearms will decrease gun violence, why won't banning muslims decrease islamic violence? If their religious rights are protected by the law, why aren't the rights to own guns, with no infringement upon that, protected as well?
I'm pretty split between being conservative on some issues, and progressive on other. In this case, I think that banning guns in the US wouldn't affect gun violence as much as progressives claim, but I also think that banning muslims, even temporarily, will solve any problems at all. Besides, I believe that the constitution makes banning either illegal.
>>69485542
>why doesn't the right to religious freedom protect the muslims?
It does, it shouldn't
>>69485542
Guns dont kill people, people do.
>>69485542
there are reasonable gun owners
there are no reasonable muslims
Banning firearms would reduce gun violence, but the right to bear arms is more important than improving crime statistics.
>>69485542
You can ban muslims, but not ban the Quran. Guns are like the Quran. It's the shitheads that are the problem. The only damage a book can cause is if it falls on your toe.
>>69485542
Your argument seems to be either have guns or have muzzies.
I choose guns.
>>69485542
Because you need a human to pull a guns trigger. To trigger a Muslim all you need is Aloha Snakbar!
>>69486226
>Guns are like the Quran.
This is a proper analogy, unlike the OP. Good job Romania.
>>69485542
>gun violence
Fuck off with this nonsense.
The right to religious freedom protects the right of muslim Americans to practice their faith, it doesn't mean you have to let muslims into your country because the constitution doesn't apply outside the US.
>>69486621
Why the fuck is Alaska so far up? You got niggers in snow?
>>69485542
Guns wont start revolting and split your country when they reach 20-50% of the population.
>>69485542
Guns are inanimate objects and do not have a mind of their own. Someone has to pull the trigger.
Muslims are the ones who do that.
>>69486621
>In this case, I think that banning guns in the US wouldn't affect gun violence as much as progressives claim.
>>69486226
This makes a lot of sense. But it still goes against the law to discriminte legally based on religious beliefs, no?
>>69486324
No, but wouldn't it make more sense to simply have entrance prohibition on certain countries, such as the ME / NA area. If you already do, there isn't a lot more to be done, right?
>>69485542
"Banning" itself is ignorant nonsense.
The US has no natural Muslim population and we suffer no obligation to let one Muslim in.
The US is a proposition state predicated on private firearm ownership, so "banning" legal firearm ownership, which the government does not have the authority to do, would invalidate the government.
>>69485542
>Lol guise if you don't let Muslims into your country illegal Muslim owners will still get a hold of them. It's of no use, let them in
>>69486766
There's a lot of rape in Alaska for various reasons.
>>69486766
Natives
O B T U S E
B
T
U
S
E
>>69485542
It's exactly the opposite. The more bad people you let in, the more bad things happen. The more good people have guns, the fewer the bad things that happen. Literally the opposite.
Muslims pose a direct threat to religious freedom and secularism via sharia law
>>69486932
Where are your scatter plots? I have several more.
It's a time of war. Muslims are statistically the biggest threat so they should not be imported for a while
What's so hard to understand?
>>69485542
Guns don't kill, people do; religion doesn't kill, people do. Guns and religion are just tools to aid the person doing the killing. The First Amendment protects you from the government barring you to practice any religion, it does not protect the practitioner.
>>69485542
>If banning firearms wouldn't decrease gun violence, why would banning muslims decrease islamic violence?
Are you really asking the difference between an inanimate object and a human being?
Banning guns might, but probably not, lower gun crime. The statistics just don't support it, and it's an important right that should be protected. Banning muslims also probably won't lower our risk to terrorism in any kind of substantial way, and the protection of religious liberty is one of our foundational values and should be upheld.
>>69485542
America is already saturated with guns so they won't go away, if you prevent muslims from getting in your country they can't commit terrorism.
>>69487018
What are these various reasons?
>>69485542
Ideologies are more dangerous than firearms you stupid fucking danskjรคvel.
>>69487108
Are your retarded? I wasn't refuting your argument, I was quoting the OP to show you my opinion on the matter which you presented, which was that I didn't believe banning guns would reduce gun violence. I'm literally agreeing with you, yet you failed to percieve it from the very start, and assume because I use the term 'gun violence that I am inherently agains it.
>>69487152
Aren't more people killed by guns than by muslim terrorism? Statistically the biggest threat is debatable, although I don't outright disagree. I'm just saying that it's not exactly completely objective.
>>69485542
The difference is that my gun isn't gonna pick up a knife and try to stab people for not following its belief set.
also this post reeks of
>Current Year
>>69487375
There are a lot more men than women in many places, the native culture, men are more likely to be bored and lonely, etc.
We don't need to ban muslims.
We just need reasonable restrictions on high capacity assault muslims.
And a waiting period.
And mandatory licencing and safety testing.
And reasonable limits on how many muslims you can get in a year.
>>69485542
Constitution protecrs americans and individuals on us soil. Refugees are neither. Your argument is flawed as fuck. Kill yourself achmed
>>69487108
>>69486621
Do you have one of violent crimes vs black population?
>>69485542
Dude that statue is fucking HOT
>>69485542
islam is a doctrine of aggressive expansionism. rather than treat humans as people, it treats humans as slave and cargo. Religious freedom doesn't mean you have the right to go around practicing a religious of murder. That is the complete antithesis of what America was founded on.
>>69487465
Focusing on gun violence rather than violence in general is a fallacy of the anti-gun movement. Rational people don't care about the means of murder or the method of serious assault.
>>69485542
You see, when comparing guns to muslims, keep in mind that one is a savage killing machine from a primitive time, and the other is an inanimate object.
>>69485542
Why are you against Anti Nazi laws?
>>69487468
>>69487456
>>69487225
>>69487049
>>69487550
>>69486965
Do you have difficulty with reading comprehension? At no point did I even hint at anything like the strawman which you are building, yet you simply resort to memes and ad hominems as your entire argument. Please re-read the OP and rethink your answer.
>>69487290
>>69486954
This is the point that I am trying to make.
>>69485542
>what's the difference from banning inanimate objects and people!
>remember goys, feel the bern!!!
>>69487648
This is the closest thing I have to that.
>>69487992
The correlation on the lower one is still shit-tier though. Post r^2 please. I merely wish to understand.
>>69487468
>also this post reeks of
>>Current Year
He literally addresses the inverse of the question to progressives. He's legitimately asking people to explain their views on them, not going "checkmate stormfags".
>>69487992
Nice. Thanks.
>>69487910
>>69487468
My statement is still 100% good though, im saying people who have a militant belief are far more dangerous than the inanimate objects that are available, my gun isn't gonna get angry at somebody drawing its prophet and try to shoot up the place.
>>69485542
Banning muslims is not illegal and has been done in the past by other presidents. There is actually a clause in the constitution for stopping immigration of specific peoples due to issues stemming from their living here. This "you cant do that" is just leftist bullshit lies.
>>69488211
I didn't make those particular charts. This chart gives a much better explanation for what drives homicide rates.
>>69485542
>muh false equivalences
Don't insult guns by comparing them to Muslims you slimy faggot.
>>69485542
If Muslims were passive tools, your argument would make sense. Instead they are humans who have values which make them want to kill people. Guns don't want to kill people.
>>69487910
Im resorting to constitutional law, which is a subject i ecelled at in law school. So fuck you. Muslim refugees are not protected by the constitution. My 2nd amendment is. Therefore, your argument is fucking stupid. Muslims here are protected. They just need to be monitored because most of the terrorists in france, belgium and even those arrested in the us (not san bernardino) are homwgrown. So fuck off faggot
>>69485542
Conservative here.
Guns are not equal to Muslims. Guns have no mind and cannot think. Guns do not kill. People kill people. People are more likely to kill people when they've been inspired by radical Islamic ideology.
>>69487465
>Aren't more people killed by guns than by muslim terrorism
Taken at face value I think you're right. The number of gun deaths in America include things such as suicide, which if you hold the belief that people inherently own themselves, it would logically follow that they have a right to end their life, deaths from justified defense of self, and the number of murders that are committed by people who don't follow the law and have illegal firearms purchased via the black market. The last point is a point of contention but other two still stand. I don't have relevant statistics to show the makeup of each variable, but the point is that all gun deaths are not criminal in nature, and many of the deaths would not be prevented by barring law abiding citizens from owning them.
>>69488802
Looks like you didn't 'ecel' at grammar though.
Seeing as you know the law pretty well, won't it be illegal to have mass surveillance based on religious beliefs alone?
>>69485542
Because firearms do not possess autonomy and cannot act on their own. Muslims on the other hand do.
A gun is a tool. No tool has ever got up from the bench it was placed upon and spontaneously murdered anyone. People on the other hand get up and take it upon themselves to commit murder all the time. Therefore laws governing tools a re stupid while laws governing people make sense.
>>69485542
>inanimate objects are the same as people
>piece of metal that fling other pieces of metal over there really really fast can hold ideologies
>>69485542
Actually its explicitly spelled out that the president can restrict immigration as he sees fit if he deems it necessary.
>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
8 USC ยง1182
>>69486932
>But it still goes against the law to discriminte legally based on religious beliefs, no?
No. We are a sovereign nation and we tell anyone to fuck off for any reason.
>>69485542
Who is this semen demon?
>>69489513
I'm talking about the American citizens, which are muslim. They would be illegal to keep tabs on based solely on their religion, no?
>No. We are a sovereign nation and we tell anyone to fuck off for any reason.
I'm talking about your own constitution.
>>69489144
Funny joke. Typing on my phone. The us government has interned certain portions of the citizenry based on national security throughout history. Plus the patriot act has greatly expanded the governments powera under the guise of national security. I also said monitor them. As in, do police work like the fbi does every day. Google us isis prosecutions. Weve already busted something like 75 people last year alone. So yes, there is precedent for monitoring terrorists/muslims in the us. Its called under cover work.
>>69489144
>won't it be illegal to have mass surveillance based on religious beliefs alone?
which law does it break
>>69489813
1st ammendment:
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.
I was thinking that it might go against this, but this anon says it doesn't, so maybe I'm wrong.
>>69489795
Considering how the Japanese Internment camps ended up, do you think it is feasible to get surveillance on all muslims through legislation? Or is that possible with an executive order?
>>69489749
>American citizens
Then yes. We can't ban Muslims, as much as I want to. We can ban entry of new ones though, which is what I inferred you were talking about considering this is the only Muslim ban anyone is taking about.
Is that all you wanted to ask in this thread? Because that's your objective answer. We can't ban either.
>>69490165
I was also thinking about the surveillance of US citizens based purely on their ethnicity / religion.
I also made the same thread on eightchan leftypol to get some varied responses, so it's not as if I'm only asking here.
A gun ban would have worked in the US if gun ownership hadn't propagated the way it has.
We still have time to stop the bleeding when it comes to our Muslim count
>>69485542
>To conservatives: If banning firearms wouldn't decrease gun violence, why would banning muslims decrease islamic violence?
Just look at your own retarded country and Germany and you get the answer. Before you imported shitskins you had no violence (outside of world wars) now you have rampaging shitskins and your country is become a third world shithole. Your question, and you, are idiots.
> If the second ammendment protects your rights to carry arms, and therefore it shouldn't even be an argument, why doesn't the right to religious freedom protect the muslims?
You are asking-- Shouldn't we give our country to the enemy? What a fucking stupid question. If I were your president I would sell you as a slave to ISIS for one dollar.
Look, immigration doesn't have to do with residents here
>>69490448
You are correct there too. We cannot specifically target a group based solely on their religion.
I'm sure we could do some things to skirt that though. "This specific mosque has been linked to Isis" was used in the past I think.
I'm not saying it right or just. That's what would probably go down.
>>69485542
I could respond seriously but nobody at all is talking about "banning muslims" so idk what you want out of this thread
>>69485542
If banning firearms wouldn't decrease gun violence, why would banning muslims decrease islamic violence?
Muslims generate intent, they have always, and will always demand dominance through power and violence. They have been the enemies of everyone around them for 1400 years and taking pity on them for their own crimes is an invention of the past 50 years.
A gun is an object, at best it can enable existing intent.
