Temporary Ban on Immigration.....

[Bruce1]

I am aware of what it's about, but you miss the point of my rhetorical questions. That is, you want to suspend a fundamental right of human beings in this country for a little security on one hand, but most conservatives do not want the 2A changed or challenged one iota because Freedom. I'm glad that you're in favor of more gun control.

Germane to your post and your point, the only rights denied to non-citizens expressly in the Constitution are the right to vote and the right to run for elected office. Obviously, our laws likely make it impossible for them to purchase a firearm in this country as well, but they are otherwise entitled to freedom of expression and free practice of religion. So, no, the temporary ban on one specific religious group would absolutely, positively fly in the face of the First Amendment.

That's outside the fact that many would find it morally appalling, let alone probably unenforceable as there does not exist a blood test, DNA test, or other objective measure by which to determine someone's religion. The only American Egyptian I've met is a Christian, so would he be allowed entry because he says he's Christian? He looks like an Arab and is from a predominantly Muslim country!

Wow GR, we are talking about people wanting to come into our country to kill us, our kids, spouses, etc. what about the immorality of our government NOT taking steps to do that? I have Muslims I worked with and are friendly with and they are great people and Americans. They refer to "those people" meaning the redicals as people we should keep out!! SMH

 

[BoilerBiker]

I have Muslims I worked with and are friendly with and they are great people and Americans. They refer to "those people" meaning the redicals as people we should keep out!! SMH

How would we accurately distinguish and identify the 'good and bad' ones during an immigration screening process?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

While I can't say that I agree with some of the positions you have shared on this board, you do seem present yourself as a rational thinker. I would appreciate you sharing a rational description of why and for what purpose someone in the US would "really need" a weapon like that. It's seems to me that the usual response to anyone asking any such questions on specific guns are: "the absolute primacy of the 2nd amendment" and the inflammatory presumption that if "Obama" succeed in getting any one type of gun restricted he will somehow take them all.

Beyond those straw man positions, I'm truly interested in the "right reasons" for needing a semi-auto weapon designed for combat.

Admittedly, I live in the Northeast US on just under an acre suburban lot. A place where a handgun in trained hands seems perfectly fitting for any needed home defense.

I certainly don't need one, but here are some scenarios:

A catastrophic attack resulting in a breakdown of the civil society, failure of power grid, financial systems, etc

You live in a violent neighborhood

You own livestock and need to protect them from predators

They are much more accurate than handguns.

I'm not a good shot, so if a band of thugs knocks down my door, I need to squeeze off as many shots as possible, sort of like my co-Rec days.

The last thing we need is Obama's band of partisan idiots in the JD deciding unilaterally who can buy guns and who can't.[/QUOTE]

Based on your logic here no auto company should be allowed to build and sell a car to the public that goes over the speed limit. Ever hear about freedom?[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing against gun manufacturers being able to build and sell guns. I am in favor of longer waiting periods, which would allow a more thorough background check.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

So I'll try to address the points raised since I last checked this thread:

- I've already addressed the constitutionality concern, but since it was asked by three different people again... The Constitution grants rights to "the People." There is legal precedent that "the People" includes people living here, not just citizens. Citizens are only granted two exclusive rights expressly in the Constitution - the right to vote and the right to run for elected office. The rest of the Constitution, including the free practice of religion, applies to "the People".

- There are lots of extremists in the world, yes, and many of them want to kill us, yes. But that number is still an extreme minority of people represented in the Muslim religion. So when I am asked about bringing in people who "support Sharia", I think it's interesting because Sharia doesn't mean "Kill Americans", and Sharia - as practiced in its most extreme form - would constitute a whole bunch of illegal actions here for which immigrants would be jailed and deported after being given due process (which is their constitutional right).

- If you want to close the border to someone from Syria, or Yemen, or Iran or whatever, then I have far less problem with that than I do banning on the basis of religion. What Bruce and Trump and etc. have proposed is - yes BLANKET - ban of Muslims (temporary or otherwise) based on their religious belief. If that's not what you mean, then you need to be more clear, as does Trump. That said, I think it's going to be very difficult to make the case for that as the rest of the world continues to accept innocent refugees while we sit across the pond saying "nah, we're skeered."

- My rhetorical questions were not a strawman (someone needs to look up the definition of a strawman, apparently, because I didn't try to pose the OPs question as something easier to defeat... I pointed out blatant conservative hypocrisy as it pertains to protecting the Constitution.. it was rhetoric. In internet parlance, it'd be "trolling"). While I admit they were definitely trolling, the questions are no less valid, and no one has been able to adequately answer other than to try to deflect by incorrectly saying that immigrants do not get certain Constitutional rights, specifically the right to free practice of religion within the bounds of other laws (i.e. you can't sacrifice your daughter to the Lord of Light). If you ban people from entering the country based solely on their religion, how do you identify someone's religion objectively? If it's as simple as a man saying "I'm a Coptic Christian" and his wife removing her burqa for a hot minute, then the "ban" does nothing but give a propaganda advantage to the enemy. And that is something that should be considered here as well.

And then what do you do with the Muslims that are already here - both the citizens and the non-citizens? Citizens get to stay but non-citizens have to leave? Same question applies to a country ban... if a Syrian has been living here legally for five years with no issues, does he get to stay? Considering San Bernadino, Ft Hood, and Orlando were all perpetrated by citizens, I'm not sure the citizen/non-citizen stance has a damn thing to do with it.

I find this entire "temporary ban" immoral and unconstitutional, but I've already been pretty clear on that. I'd like someone to justify why they think it is Constitutional to do this, and base that argument on fact rather than a faulty understanding of Constitutional law. If I'm wrong about people being granted rights who are legally immigrated here, I'm all ears, but everything I've found doing a little bit of research points to the fact that legal immigrants are, in fact, granted most constitutional protections within the bounds of law.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

So I'll try to address the points raised since I last checked this thread:

- I've already addressed the constitutionality concern, but since it was asked by three different people again... The Constitution grants rights to "the People." There is legal precedent that "the People" includes people living here, not just citizens. Citizens are only granted two exclusive rights expressly in the Constitution - the right to vote and the right to run for elected office. The rest of the Constitution, including the free practice of religion, applies to "the People".

- There are lots of extremists in the world, yes, and many of them want to kill us, yes. But that number is still an extreme minority of people represented in the Muslim religion. So when I am asked about bringing in people who "support Sharia", I think it's interesting because Sharia doesn't mean "Kill Americans", and Sharia - as practiced in its most extreme form - would constitute a whole bunch of illegal actions here for which immigrants would be jailed and deported after being given due process (which is their constitutional right).

- If you want to close the border to someone from Syria, or Yemen, or Iran or whatever, then I have far less problem with that than I do banning on the basis of religion. What Bruce and Trump and etc. have proposed is - yes BLANKET - ban of Muslims (temporary or otherwise) based on their religious belief. If that's not what you mean, then you need to be more clear, as does Trump. That said, I think it's going to be very difficult to make the case for that as the rest of the world continues to accept innocent refugees while we sit across the pond saying "nah, we're skeered."

- My rhetorical questions were not a strawman (someone needs to look up the definition of a strawman, apparently, because I didn't try to pose the OPs question as something easier to defeat... I pointed out blatant conservative hypocrisy as it pertains to protecting the Constitution.. it was rhetoric. In internet parlance, it'd be "trolling"). While I admit they were definitely trolling, the questions are no less valid, and no one has been able to adequately answer other than to try to deflect by incorrectly saying that immigrants do not get certain Constitutional rights, specifically the right to free practice of religion within the bounds of other laws (i.e. you can't sacrifice your daughter to the Lord of Light). If you ban people from entering the country based solely on their religion, how do you identify someone's religion objectively? If it's as simple as a man saying "I'm a Coptic Christian" and his wife removing her burqa for a hot minute, then the "ban" does nothing but give a propaganda advantage to the enemy. And that is something that should be considered here as well.

And then what do you do with the Muslims that are already here - both the citizens and the non-citizens? Citizens get to stay but non-citizens have to leave? Same question applies to a country ban... if a Syrian has been living here legally for five years with no issues, does he get to stay? Considering San Bernadino, Ft Hood, and Orlando were all perpetrated by citizens, I'm not sure the citizen/non-citizen stance has a damn thing to do with it.

I find this entire "temporary ban" immoral and unconstitutional, but I've already been pretty clear on that. I'd like someone to justify why they think it is Constitutional to do this, and base that argument on fact rather than a faulty understanding of Constitutional law. If I'm wrong about people being granted rights who are legally immigrated here, I'm all ears, but everything I've found doing a little bit of research points to the fact that legal immigrants are, in fact, granted most constitutional protections within the bounds of law.

There's nothing unconstitutional about immigration limitations. There are multiple precedents for them. So no, you didn't address anything. It's not against any law. Your rhetoric is not a fact and your moral feelings are largely irrelevant. It's well within the power of congress to regulate.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/immigration/legislation-timeline.html

 

[New Pal Boiler]

So I'll try to address the points raised since I last checked this thread:

- I've already addressed the constitutionality concern, but since it was asked by three different people again... The Constitution grants rights to "the People." There is legal precedent that "the People" includes people living here, not just citizens. Citizens are only granted two exclusive rights expressly in the Constitution - the right to vote and the right to run for elected office. The rest of the Constitution, including the free practice of religion, applies to "the People".

- There are lots of extremists in the world, yes, and many of them want to kill us, yes. But that number is still an extreme minority of people represented in the Muslim religion. So when I am asked about bringing in people who "support Sharia", I think it's interesting because Sharia doesn't mean "Kill Americans", and Sharia - as practiced in its most extreme form - would constitute a whole bunch of illegal actions here for which immigrants would be jailed and deported after being given due process (which is their constitutional right).

- If you want to close the border to someone from Syria, or Yemen, or Iran or whatever, then I have far less problem with that than I do banning on the basis of religion. What Bruce and Trump and etc. have proposed is - yes BLANKET - ban of Muslims (temporary or otherwise) based on their religious belief. If that's not what you mean, then you need to be more clear, as does Trump. That said, I think it's going to be very difficult to make the case for that as the rest of the world continues to accept innocent refugees while we sit across the pond saying "nah, we're skeered."

- My rhetorical questions were not a strawman (someone needs to look up the definition of a strawman, apparently, because I didn't try to pose the OPs question as something easier to defeat... I pointed out blatant conservative hypocrisy as it pertains to protecting the Constitution.. it was rhetoric. In internet parlance, it'd be "trolling"). While I admit they were definitely trolling, the questions are no less valid, and no one has been able to adequately answer other than to try to deflect by incorrectly saying that immigrants do not get certain Constitutional rights, specifically the right to free practice of religion within the bounds of other laws (i.e. you can't sacrifice your daughter to the Lord of Light). If you ban people from entering the country based solely on their religion, how do you identify someone's religion objectively? If it's as simple as a man saying "I'm a Coptic Christian" and his wife removing her burqa for a hot minute, then the "ban" does nothing but give a propaganda advantage to the enemy. And that is something that should be considered here as well.

And then what do you do with the Muslims that are already here - both the citizens and the non-citizens? Citizens get to stay but non-citizens have to leave? Same question applies to a country ban... if a Syrian has been living here legally for five years with no issues, does he get to stay? Considering San Bernadino, Ft Hood, and Orlando were all perpetrated by citizens, I'm not sure the citizen/non-citizen stance has a damn thing to do with it.

I find this entire "temporary ban" immoral and unconstitutional, but I've already been pretty clear on that. I'd like someone to justify why they think it is Constitutional to do this, and base that argument on fact rather than a faulty understanding of Constitutional law. If I'm wrong about people being granted rights who are legally immigrated here, I'm all ears, but everything I've found doing a little bit of research points to the fact that legal immigrants are, in fact, granted most constitutional protections within the bounds of law.

What about people who don't live here yet? Constitution cover them too?

How about extra-terrestrials?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

What about people who don't live here yet? Constitution cover them too?

How about extra-terrestrials?

You can be as snarky as you want, but I'm talking about law, not your opinion. We cannot and should not discriminate entry into this country on the basis of religion. It's neither constitutional nor actually feasible. Come up with a better response.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

If Obama can discriminate against gun owners and 2nd amendment then we CAN and SHOULD discriminate against who comes into this country.

BAN THE TERRORISTS-ARREST OBAMA

 

[TOKenBoiler]

You can be as snarky as you want, but I'm talking about law, not your opinion. We cannot and should not discriminate entry into this country on the basis of religion. It's neither constitutional nor actually feasible. Come up with a better response.

It probably is constitutional despite you're emphatic belief that it's not.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/12/08/is-trumps-proposed-ban-on-muslim-entry-constitutional/

 

[gr8indoorsman]

There's nothing unconstitutional about immigration limitations. There are multiple precedents for them. So no, you didn't address anything. It's not against any law. Your rhetoric is not a fact and your moral feelings are largely irrelevant. It's well within the power of congress to regulate.
http://www.infoplease.com/us/immigration/legislation-timeline.html

Maybe I missed it, but there is no precedent for exclusion of immigration on the basis of religion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And as I said, I would not be summarily opposed to restriction based on country of origin, and as I requested in my previous post, if THAT is the intent, the someone needs to say it. But we've been pretty clear: this is about Muslims.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

You can be as snarky as you want, but I'm talking about law, not your opinion. We cannot and should not discriminate entry into this country on the basis of religion. It's neither constitutional nor actually feasible. Come up with a better response.

Show me where it is unconstitutional to limit immigration from certain countries.

We have blocked Chinese and Marxists from entering the country in the past, and both of those moves were upheld by SCOTUS, under the plenary power doctrine.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

It probably is constitutional despite you're emphatic belief that it's not.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/12/08/is-trumps-proposed-ban-on-muslim-entry-constitutional/

Did you even read that? I subscribe to the WSJ and have read it, and at best that editorial points out that law scholars are split. So there's no "probably" about it.

“Aside from being outrageous, it would be unconstitutional,”

"I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,”

“Whether modern courts would uphold a racial or religious immigration restriction is difficult to predict.”

"Mr. Volokh said it’s also possible that the Trump plan could violate treaty agreements with American allies."

What'll happen is he'll propose it by Executive writ, and SCOTUS will take it up under review. There is SCOTUS precedent regarding immigration and it overwhelmingly grants constitutional rights to immigrants. There is also SCOTUS precedent regarding ethnicity of origin from 140 years ago. It is probably anybody's guess as to how this would be decided today, other than along political lines.

So yeah, IMO it is unconstitutional, and there are a lot of people who agree. And some who don't. But your editorial link doesn't prove anything.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Show me where it is unconstitutional to limit immigration from certain countries.

We have blocked Chinese and Marxists from entering the country in the past, and both of those moves were upheld by SCOTUS, under the plenary power doctrine.

Yeah, I read the same editorial you just read... LOL.

We're not talking about country of origin. OP and Trump said "Muslims." There is no historical precedent for religion, though I suppose you could try to make a case that Muslims are "subversives" if you want...

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Yeah, I read the same editorial you just read... LOL.

We're not talking about country of origin. OP and Trump said "Muslims." There is no historical precedent for religion, though I suppose you could try to make a case that Muslims are "subversives" if you want...

I have been talking about country of origin the entire time. I disagree with Trump and the OP on that, for now at least.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Did you even read that? I subscribe to the WSJ and have read it, and at best that editorial points out that law scholars are split. So there's no "probably" about it.

“Aside from being outrageous, it would be unconstitutional,”

"I believe Trump’s unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution,”

“Whether modern courts would uphold a racial or religious immigration restriction is difficult to predict.”

"Mr. Volokh said it’s also possible that the Trump plan could violate treaty agreements with American allies."

What'll happen is he'll propose it by Executive writ, and SCOTUS will take it up under review. There is SCOTUS precedent regarding immigration and it overwhelmingly grants constitutional rights to immigrants. There is also SCOTUS precedent regarding ethnicity of origin from 140 years ago. It is probably anybody's guess as to how this would be decided today, other than along political lines.

So yeah, IMO it is unconstitutional, and there are a lot of people who agree. And some who don't. But your editorial link doesn't prove anything.

Pay attention to the part where it says immigration is within Congress's plenary powers. Try looking that up.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Pay attention to the part where it says immigration is within Congress's plenary powers. Try looking that up.

No crap really? You guys can barely argue the point of this thread so you change the topic to plenary power of Congress and country of origin. Please keep me posted as the topic of this thread changes!

Congress has never used its power to ban an entire religious group from immigrating to this country. Nor should it.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

No crap really? You guys can barely argue the point of this thread so you change the topic to plenary power of Congress and country of origin. Please keep me posted as the topic of this thread changes!

Congress has never used its power to ban an entire religious group from immigrating to this country. Nor should it.

So, you think doing indirectly what you say can't be done directly is materially different? Disallowing immigration from Muslim majority countries doesn't offend you, but not allowing Muslims to immigrate does. Fine. I'm sure Trump can live with your preference.

And I'm pretty sure you dragged in the 2nd amendment. And you wanna complain about changing topics!

 

[Bruce1]

This is my last post on this topic. I began by saying I thought a temporary ban on Muslim immigration was a smart thing to do to help keep our country safe. Very quickly the conversation turned to the religious implications with respect to our constitution, etc. The above chart shows the radical increase in radical attacks since 2000. There are several places to go on the Internet to get further data. The bottom line is that Isalmic terrorism, which amounts to virtually 99% + of the attacks has been growing exponentially. If we have to take some radical temporary steps to protect our people so be it.


Anybody wanna talk gun control??

 

[ecouch]

Lunacy.

CIA - We can't vet them.
FBI - We can't either.
DHS - We can't vet them.
Military - *shrug* They know what we know.

ISIS - We have hid operatives and plan to exploit the immigrant crisis. It worked in Europe.

The regressive left - Let my people in!

Muslim isn't a problem. I am not keen on taking these refugees. Trump is trash.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

So, you think doing indirectly what you say can't be done directly is materially different? Disallowing immigration from Muslim majority countries doesn't offend you, but not allowing Muslims to immigrate does. Fine. I'm sure Trump can live with your preference.

And I'm pretty sure you dragged in the 2nd amendment. And you wanna complain about changing topics!

I figured people associated with Purdue could recognize rhetorical questions for what they were. I was proven wrong.

 

[terminalg92]

This is my last post on this topic. I began by saying I thought a temporary ban on Muslim immigration was a smart thing to do to help keep our country safe. Very quickly the conversation turned to the religious implications with respect to our constitution, etc. The above chart shows the radical increase in radical attacks since 2000. There are several places to go on the Internet to get further data. The bottom line is that Isalmic terrorism, which amounts to virtually 99% + of the attacks has been growing exponentially. If we have to take some radical temporary steps to protect our people so be it.


Anybody wanna talk gun control??

As an atheist even I will say (loudly) that the idea of "a temporary ban on Muslim immigration" is ridiculous, impractical, unconstitutional, unenforceable, and embarrassing.

And yes, I would welcome some talk on gun control with respect to GOMD. Guns Of Mass Destruction.

If you're interested in talking about why anyone with a pulse is legally allowed to buy and carry weapons that can kill dozens of people a minute, then reply.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

I figured people associated with Purdue could recognize rhetorical questions for what they were. I was proven wrong.

If by rhetorical you mean, asking a question that has no connection to the topic being discussed, everyone recognized that.

 

[Purdue97]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not the First? It's OK to take away rights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would sacrifice freedom to obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

Hypocrisy runs rampant in this debate. I think some common sense can help clear it up but not solve it. Looks like we might need some Constitutional Amendments.

I see both sides as being hypocritical. Dems with Muslim immigration are now suddenly talking about religious freedom, and they think these people should have the right to live in a safer/freer place. However Dems seem to ignore religious freedom it in regards to birth control/wedding cake/cupcake/baking/wedding photographer issues. And downplay the safety issues of immigration from the ME and certain countries.

Democrats have cried that justice system is not fair especially in regards to minorities and the poor, and their due process has been violated by law enforcement/prosecutors. Now, if someone is suspected of terrorism or on a no fly list, they(Dems) want their right to buy a gun to be blocked without due process. ( By that method of thinking Hilary should be banned from running for President as she is being investigated for criminal wrong doing in regard to email/server/ security and who she shared info with.) Dems believe that banning sale of guns to people on suspect/investigative lists this will improve safety, although they ignore the aspect of safety with their immigration views and ignore their championed cause of due process.. Hypocritical.

Republicans argue that Christians banning wedding services to homosexuals are practicing religious freedom. Then on the other hand want what they will believe will lead to a safer country by limiting/ ME immigration from Muslims, which puts clamp on religious freedom. They do it(argue limiting Muslims)on grounds of believing it will make America safer, but then do not want to ban sale of guns to people on suspected/investigative lists.

Not really sure what the answer is. One would think that some common sense laws could be passed that would prohibit the sale of guns to personnel on the suspected/investigated lists. That said, I think that is clearly unconstitutional. Due process and 2nd Amendment are clearly violated.

As for immigration, I think it is pretty clear that certain demographics need to be banned although that likely will be argued as unconstitutional unless it involves a known attempt to launch an attack or attempt to over throw government. Need examples? Sure. I do not see how an Afghani Taliban lives here without their entire life being an entire intervention that involves social workers and constantly being investigated for hate crimes. Not a surprise, shock, or shock that Mateen's father is an Afghan Taliban that runs anti USA tv propoganda, I also do not see any need for people that live in Muslim States that their only education has been from the Madras. Same if they have fought for ISIS regardless if they claimed to be forced into it or not. We do not need to let every person in. There should be some litmus test imo.

Forced to choose, a political candidate with these topics, I would like a moderate Republican. They would allow immigration with proper vetting. Some are open to background checks, mental health checks for gun sales. Unfortunately, not an option right now in terms of Presidency.

On a side note, there have been both Dems and Reps on the news in the past week stating that the Immigration and Nationality Act would give the government the control over these immigration issues. I am not going to say I know enough about it. It did seem from the little I read of it on Wiki that it actually prohibits what has been said could be done with it. And one would have to make the tie that the immigrant wants to over throw the USA which in reality, would not only prevent a Muslim from immigrating, but anyone with that goal.

 

[Purdue97]

As an atheist even I will say (loudly) that the idea of "a temporary ban on Muslim immigration" is ridiculous, impractical, unconstitutional, unenforceable, and embarrassing.

And yes, I would welcome some talk on gun control with respect to GOMD. Guns Of Mass Destruction.

If you're interested in talking about why anyone with a pulse is legally allowed to buy and carry weapons that can kill dozens of people a minute, then reply.

In short, assault weapons(fully automatic) are already banned. Weapons such as the AR-15 or the Sig used in Orlando are semi automatic and have the same capabilities as semi automatic shotguns, pistols, and hunting rifles. Therein lies the issue. People for gun rights see it as banning all semi automatic rifles/shotguns/pistols. Technically speaking, it would be.

 

[Purdue97]

I think there are few common criticisms: (a) How is "Islamic immigration" ascertained? Does that mean just asking the prospective immigrant if he or she is Muslim? Presumably if it was a terrorist in that situation they'd just answer 'no'. Or is the suggestion to halt immigration from certain countries that are predominately Muslim, and if so, which countries, and if so, are these countries where immigration has led to terrorism on our soil? Because: (b) haven't the attacks over the last several years been by American citizens? e.g. I believe San Bernandino guy was born in Chicago and Orlando shooter in New York. If I'm not mistaken most of the 9/11 bombers were on tourist visas from Saudi Arabia. (c) establishing policy based solely on someone's religious affiliation is taboo and largely considered "un-American" given America's freedom of religion foundation as well as its deep immigration roots as a country.

Too easy an out to say that the Orlando and San Bernadino shooters are American citizens. The Orlando shooters dad is Afghani Taliban which is bad news from the get go. And the San Bernadino shooter was radicalized by his wife through social media that radicals used to introduce him to his wife. The 9/11 bombers being from SA support restrictions form certain parts of the world.

 

[Purdue97]

Its simple. I do not think people of certain religions, ethnicities, etc. should be denied entry to this country on the sole basis of that characteristic. It is immoral and in my opinion wrong. It is especially immoral and wrong in light of the current global refugee crisis. Most of these attacks are domestic. They are people who were born in the United States, are United States citizens, and are afforded all of the same constitutional rights as anyone else. Closing the borders to immigrating "Muslims" would have had 0 impact on preventing these attacks. Rational gun legislation, however... Now we might be onto something.

Nothing like rewriting history to fit your political view point. Not for ban on immigration but your claim that it would not have prevented attacks is misleading at best.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

As an atheist even I will say (loudly) that the idea of "a temporary ban on Muslim immigration" is ridiculous, impractical, unconstitutional, unenforceable, and embarrassing.

And yes, I would welcome some talk on gun control with respect to GOMD. Guns Of Mass Destruction.

If you're interested in talking about why anyone with a pulse is legally allowed to buy and carry weapons that can kill dozens of people a minute, then reply.

What about banning or at least restricting immigration from certain countries? You think that's unconstitutional also?

And who gets to decide who's allowed and who isn't allowed to buy guns? Political hacks like Holder and Lynch?

 

[terminalg92]

What about banning or at least restricting immigration from certain countries? You think that's unconstitutional also?

And who gets to decide who's allowed and who isn't allowed to buy guns? Political hacks like Holder and Lynch?

I would guess (but don't know) that we already have countries that we don't allow immigration from e.g. North Korea. I would be fine if someone wants to introduce legislation (or whatever the legal mechanism) to add additional countries to the no-immigration-list, and have Congress vote on it as there needs to be accountability for the decision.

Regarding who's allowed and not allowed to buy guns, IMO the problem is much less about WHO is allowed to buy guns, but rather WHAT guns are allowed to be bought and carried. There are already banned weapons in America right? IMO it's as simple as some more weapon types need to be added to the banned list. As I said before, "arms" in the 2nd amendment meant the type of weapon that existed in 1791. It's entirely unclear and IMO unlikely that the Founding Fathers would've authored in wholesale liberty with weapons that were 100x more deadly than what they then would've been referring to as "arms".

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I would guess (but don't know) that we already have countries that we don't allow immigration from e.g. North Korea. I would be fine if someone wants to introduce legislation (or whatever the legal mechanism) to add additional countries to the no-immigration-list, and have Congress vote on it as there needs to be accountability for the decision.

Regarding who's allowed and not allowed to buy guns, IMO the problem is much less about WHO is allowed to buy guns, but rather WHAT guns are allowed to be bought and carried. There are already banned weapons in America right? IMO it's as simple as some more weapon types need to be added to the banned list. As I said before, "arms" in the 2nd amendment meant the type of weapon that existed in 1791. It's entirely unclear and IMO unlikely that the Founding Fathers would've authored in wholesale liberty with weapons that were 100x more deadly than what they then would've been referring to as "arms".

Specifically, which weapons would you ban?

 

[buygreekbonds]

Nothing like rewriting history to fit your political view point. Not for ban on immigration but your claim that it would not have prevented attacks is misleading at best.

Hilarious headline from Evergreen: "British Muslims Fear Repercussions After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing"

 

[terminalg92]

Specifically, which weapons would you ban?

I'm not qualified to answer that question as I know very little about weaponry. But just so I'm not ducking your question, the gist of my belief is I don't see why "normal citizens" should be allowed to buy and carry "weapons of mass destruction" which would probably include things like hand grenades, missile launchers (e.g. the ones you shoot from your shoulder), chemical weapons, land mines, bombs (presumably with some sort of a maximum power rating so as to not exclude fireworks or whatever), and certain types of guns perhaps limited by shots per minute but perhaps there's a better way to define it, as again I'm not a gun guy. Anyhow I suspect the majority of those weapons are already banned or else really highly regulated/restricted.

 

[qazplm]

This is my last post on this topic. I began by saying I thought a temporary ban on Muslim immigration was a smart thing to do to help keep our country safe. Very quickly the conversation turned to the religious implications with respect to our constitution, etc. The above chart shows the radical increase in radical attacks since 2000. There are several places to go on the Internet to get further data. The bottom line is that Isalmic terrorism, which amounts to virtually 99% + of the attacks has been growing exponentially. If we have to take some radical temporary steps to protect our people so be it.


Anybody wanna talk gun control??

how many people in the US were killed by Muslims in this calendar year? How many by other than Muslims? Answer those two questions, and you will see that one number is very, very large, "yuge" even, in relation to the other number, which is very very small. The vast majority of killing in this country isn't done by Muslims or terrorists. The vast majority of mass killings aren't even done by Muslims or terrorists (since we only seem to count Muslim terrorists as actual terrorists).

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
You can also access all data on mass shootings as defined by the FBI (4 or more dead at the link above).

No, Islamic terrorism has not been growing "exponentially." There are certain discrete conflicts going on right now. It certainly isn't in the US. Yet folks like you want to take drastic actions for a problem that isn't remotely in need of such actions.

 

[kescwi]

how many people in the US were killed by Muslims in this calendar year? How many by other than Muslims? Answer those two questions, and you will see that one number is very, very large, "yuge" even, in relation to the other number, which is very very small. The vast majority of killing in this country isn't done by Muslims or terrorists. The vast majority of mass killings aren't even done by Muslims or terrorists (since we only seem to count Muslim terrorists as actual terrorists).

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
You can also access all data on mass shootings as defined by the FBI (4 or more dead at the link above).

No, Islamic terrorism has not been growing "exponentially." There are certain discrete conflicts going on right now. It certainly isn't in the US. Yet folks like you want to take drastic actions for a problem that isn't remotely in need of such actions.

Well, Charelston is out of the one year requirement, as of this past Friday, for mass shooting but there were no Muslims involved in that one.

People behind these sort of acts are just crazy, that's all. Religion, flags, Del Monte v Snack Pack... none of those matter, the perpetrators are just crazy and should be kept as far as possible away from guns and/or anything else that can kill in volume.

 

[qazplm]

Well, Charelston is out of the one year requirement, as of this past Friday, for mass shooting but there were no Muslims involved in that one.

People behind these sort of acts are just crazy, that's all. Religion, flags, Del Monte v Snack Pack... none of those matter, the perpetrators are just crazy and should be kept as far as possible away from guns and/or anything else that can kill in volume.

well no, there are two types: those who are just crazy, and those that are trying to use terrorism as a political tool. The thing is the vast majority of our volume killers are the first type and it's not even remotely close. So coming up with crazy ban all Muslims, or profile Muslims, or whatever is as if someone decided to ignore the actual facts and instead pretend that there is a huge threat of Muslims coming in and killing everyone.

 

[kescwi]

well no, there are two types: those who are just crazy, and those that are trying to use terrorism as a political tool. The thing is the vast majority of our volume killers are the first type and it's not even remotely close. So coming up with crazy ban all Muslims, or profile Muslims, or whatever is as if someone decided to ignore the actual facts and instead pretend that there is a huge threat of Muslims coming in and killing everyone.

I don't think any person who enters into these types of mass shootings/bombings is that politically astute, if they were they would want to stay alive to further their vision. I think they have issues, mental issues, more than socioeconomic, religious, political,... and are maniluplated by voices in their heads and/or people with a long term political vision who convince them their actions will have meaning and a reward.

I agree, it's crazy to ban all Muslims, but fear sells right now and middle Amerca can sense it all slipping away and they need to blame someone.

 

[ecouch]

So yeah, IMO it is unconstitutional, and there are a lot of people who agree. And some who don't. But your editorial link doesn't prove anything.[/QUOTE]

As an atheist even I will say (loudly) that the idea of "a temporary ban on Muslim immigration" is ridiculous, impractical, unconstitutional, unenforceable, and embarrassing.

And yes, I would welcome some talk on gun control with respect to GOMD. Guns Of Mass Destruction.

If you're interested in talking about why anyone with a pulse is legally allowed to buy and carry weapons that can kill dozens of people a minute, then reply.

You cash out your "concerned" card when you invent terms like guns of mass destruction.

 

[ecouch]

I'm not qualified to answer that question as I know very little about weaponry. But just so I'm not ducking your question, the gist of my belief is I don't see why "normal citizens" should be allowed to buy and carry "weapons of mass destruction" which would probably include things like hand grenades, missile launchers (e.g. the ones you shoot from your shoulder), chemical weapons, land mines, bombs (presumably with some sort of a maximum power rating so as to not exclude fireworks or whatever), and certain types of guns perhaps limited by shots per minute but perhaps there's a better way to define it, as again I'm not a gun guy. Anyhow I suspect the majority of those weapons are already banned or else really highly regulated/restricted.

You could have stopped after the first sentence.

You know nothing. But, you have an opinion.

Where do you buy your weapons of mass destruction?

 

[ecouch]

I don't think any person who enters into these types of mass shootings/bombings is that politically astute, if they were they would want to stay alive to further their vision. I think they have issues, mental issues, more than socioeconomic, religious, political,... and are maniluplated by voices in their heads and/or people with a long term political vision who convince them their actions will have meaning and a reward.

I agree, it's crazy to ban all Muslims, but fear sells right now and middle Amerca can sense it all slipping away and they need to blame someone.

Lets see if others can recognize why your post makes absolutely no sense.

If they can't, I still prevail. Religion, and its promised rewards, are a problem.

 

[kescwi]

Lets see if others can recognize why your post makes absolutely no sense.

If they can't, I still prevail. Religion, and its promised rewards, are a problem.

You think religion promises rewards, that's your problem, not religions.

 

[ecouch]

You think religion promises rewards, that's your problem, not religions.

Oh my.

Salvation is no longer in play.

I honestly don't know where to go from here.