No, it's not a guarantee that no one will ever have them. But it makes it harder, which means it's possible that lives can be saved. It means that some people won't have them, that might have them if they were legal.

When seat belt laws were passed, the critics said "just because it's illegal to not wear a seat belt, doesn't mean that some people won't still choose not to wear them". And they are 100% right...despite the law, some people don't wear seat belts. But some obey the law, and people are alive because of it. Seat belt laws don't reduce auto fatalities to zero, but that doesn't mean they don't have a positive impact.

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

Islam is not a nationality or ethnicity. And it is not merely a religion. As well as being a religion, it is a political ideology. It is an ideology as expansionist as Communism. It is more authoritarian than Communism and can be as cruel as Nazism, with the exception that you are allowed to convert or suffer economic slavery or death. So-called "moderate" Muslims know how unaccepting of others it becomes when it is the law of the land, when it comprises the majority population. So, in countries where they are minorities, especially in the U.S., some are attempting to convince their leaders to reform. At this point that is more of a wish than an accomplishment. They do succeed in quietly establishing a sort of tacit moderate practice of the tenets of their ideology, and are friendly, wonderful, normal people. The problem is when they become a majority, their religious leaders impose the true, unreformed nature of Islam. And the larger Muslim conclaves being established in Europe do, as the video above points out, become no-go zones, even for police, so assimilation is totally and intentionally avoided, and a more fundamentalist Islam is practiced.

So Muslim immigration is not equivalent to various ethnic, non-Islamic, immigration. When you have an influx of a large number of Muslims all at once, it not only makes assimilation difficult over the shorter term, it is more akin to inviting an ideology that is inimical to Western values and to U.S. legal norms. The comparison would be more like inviting potential Communists or Nazis, rather than Buddhists, or Daoists, or Jews, or Christians, or atheists.

I wish the video above didn't have that ridiculous cover picture. It really is an interesting rational discussion. It is not dogmatic or extreme. It should be watched as an aid to understanding a little bit more than most folks are informed about.

You mean "Unenrolled"?

Seems you like to make assumptions about what flavor kool aid people drink.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

kool aid is cool aid flavor only convinces people its not kool aid

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

Why do you think they fear this group and accept the others. Ask the Japanese how accepting we were after they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's easy. It's because the general public is not thoughtful or discerning enough to differentiate between extremist minority and the other 1.6 billion people who practice the associated religion.

Man oh man...

I agree, banning possession isn't the same as forcing you to do something...

But I'll say two things..

(1) those two things are similar in this regard...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd. No law is perfect. Laws against murder, don't prevent 100% of murders, but it would be asinine to use that as an excuse to do away with anti-murder laws. But if the law does some good, and is constitutional, it may be worth enacting. Saving some lives isn't as good as saving all lives, but it's better than nothing.

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

The Amish don't mutilate their women's genitalia, they don't beat their girls who want to learn how to read.

Not complete, total assimilation, but some assimilation. You make a very interesting point regarding the Amish, but they aren't dedicated to killing as many non-Amish as they possibly can.

Kudos to you if you are one of the thoughtful ones. I hope terrorists such as the one in NYC are discerning enough to recognize you as such and will spare your life. Obviously the 8 folks murdered were unable to let the alleged murderer see their good side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right, but why don't we ban "Christian" white guys because of Dylann Roof or Jeremy Christian or James Jackson or Robert Lewis Dear or Eric Frein or Frazier Miller etc.

Because there is no large, organized coalition of millions of Christians (in other countries who want to immigrate here), who support the notion of killing everyone who isn't like them. There aren't millions of Christians worldwide, who have declared a jihad on everyone else.

It's a good question...in my opinion, there's a reasonable answer.

I am not too sure there is a ban, have you heard about the vetting process?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zimmy asked a great question about assimilation. Another reason why this is often associated with Muslims, and not a big deal with the Amish 9who aren't overly assimilated into modern western culture), is that the Amish aren't a threat to become a significant enough portion of our population to tilt our national identity in their direction.

If you look at European nations which have allowed a lot of Muslim immigration...Muslims are becoming a significant percentage of the overall population. Muslims have large families, and white Europeans do not. It only takes a few generational cycles, before you see a noticeable shift in national demographics. The Europeans didn't consider this. Many of them are regretting that they didn't factor that into their immigration policy.

I'm not worried that much of our country is going to look like Lancaster, PA where the Amish live. It scares the hell out of me, that we would take even a tiny step, in looking more like the Middle East. That's what is happening in Europe (to some degree), and they are scared sh*tless.

Gee, when you put it that way...

I think most people realize that the majority of Muslims are good people. But there are 2 billion muslims, and if 1% of them are jihadists, that's 20 million jihadists. I feel horrible for innocent, decent Muslims. Not so horrible, that I'm wiling to sacrifice innocent Americans on the altar of political correctness.

Zimmy, if I gave you a bowl of 100 skittles, and told you that 1 of them was poisoned, how many would you eat? How many would you let your loved ones eat? Answer - zero. People aren't candy, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it's not a meaningless analogy either.

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

You mean the Christian White Guys who are US citizens, or the Christian White Guys coming from Syria?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you get that off a fortune cookie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was well written Jim. I have faith in our constitution and our system (unwavering faith until the past 9 months). We would never have systems of government like those in middle east. As far as the cultural aspects, there are lots of them in all kinds of cultures that I disagree with, but I am pretty sure we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture.

In case you missed it a few posts before this, let me repeat:

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

You say "we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture." How about on the basis of political ideology?

Bogus analogy. There have been several million Muslim immigrants in the last 25 years and the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males. It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000. When you weight the cost/benefits of immigration and refuge relocation, I will take those odds fine.

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??:huh:

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

Banning bump stocks doesn't guarantee that this kook would not have shot up the concert in Vegas. It very possibly, could have saved some lives.

"the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males" Sure, death at the hands of Islamic jihadists, is not the #1 cause of death in the USA. That doesn't mean it's not a very serious issue.

"It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000"

I don't know what the % is, I have heard it's as high as 3% - 5% who support the jihad. It's not 1 in 500,000, that would mean 4,000 jihadists. No one knows what the number is.

"I will take those odds fine"

You have every right to say that. And I have every right to say, "I don't want to roll those dice". I don't think that makes you an idiot, and I sure don't think my stance makes me an idiot. Nor do I think it makes me an Islamophobe, which is how most people on the left describe my position.

that's not what you wrote...





Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.

you keep making stuff up

This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.

No I'm not. Read the thread on the Vegas shooting. Read TDF's post #31 here, where he says that bans on bump stocks won't stop everyone from having them - once again, if the law isn't perfect, that means it's a bad law?

I don't have media research data at my fingertips. But I listen to what people are saying. Many, many people who oppose gun laws, use this logic. In my opinion, it's flawed logic. I doubt there's a single law on our books that's 100% effective.

"This really belongs in another thread"

I agree. I didn't insert it here, someone else did.

"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.

it should be

I admit I drink my share of kool aid but happily I can say its not from 1 source or 1 flavor:btu:

The Constitution is not radically "extreme." It was rationally hammered out as the best way to insure equal rights and freedoms before the law. Implying that individuals are prone to error or lawlessness must therefor mean that laws have limits leaves us, and would have left the Founders, with either creating anarchic government or a system of government for which there is no end to exceptions.

Exceptions for human transgression against law in cases of extreme urgency can always, without creating laws for every possible exception, be implied. It would be absolutely reasonable to understand the existence of such a right. No law need be written to express that idea. That would be inherent in human nature. Probably part of those vast residuum of rights left to the people which are outside of the government's enumerated constitutional powers. But the threads of human nature are too vast to be defined.

Government, on the other hand, and its laws, must necessarily be defined. Loose definitions cannot suffice for law. For there to be compliance, there must be definite parameters to law, extreme exceptions to compliance notwithstanding.

So defined government has little to no room to legislate outside of the scale to which it is constitutionally bound. If there is no constitution, no scale, there is no boundary and government can do as it wishes.

It could be understood that there may arise a very extreme circumstance that a constitutionally limited government would have to act outside of the scope granted to it, usually involving some sort of an existential threat to the nation. That is why a strong executive was created by the Constitution, but such a circumstance would have to be of the utmost danger. The mass shootings, common murders, etc., are not at that level of threat to the nation. It is far more of a threat to the people of this nation if their right of defense against tyranny was limited because of criminal disturbances in various states.

As for freedoms not being an all or nothing scenario as you put it, they must be discussed in terms of the Founders understanding of freedom. That has also been described several times in various threads. In what way is the Founders view of freedom not absolute?

Your sources appear to be far more limited than those with whom you disagree.

No. Liberals only get outraged when the killer is a White male. Liberals are happy to ignore the majority of murder and focus on the lighting strikes of mass casualty events. That attention cools and dies as quick as welding slag if the killer is a minority (San Bernardino).

Liberals scream 'RACISM' when ever any note is made that 6.7% of the nation's population comprise 53% of gun homicides.


And the left's disingenuousness starts right there, in how you define conservative's position as a generalized "anti-immigration agenda". I don't know any conservative that is against legal immigration, outrage about illegal immigrant murderers is multi-layered. Just a few:

Illegal border crossers and visa overstays are law breakers simply by being here -- there is no such thing as a "law-abiding illegal immigrant" (see my sig-line).

We are disgusted that liberals are so eager to ignore the crimes of illegal immigrants -- to the point of declaring certain areas of the USA to be a sanctuary for them. They get released back into society even if there is a detention order on them. Our disgust turns to rage when one of those released criminals kills an American; the blood-guilt for those deaths lays at your feet.

LOL. The reason I focus on gun rights is precisely because liberals think the 2nd Amendment is a single issue discussion. They think they are just talking about "guns" but so much more is exposed.

The 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a benchmark for one's understanding and respect for the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Liberals are willing (if not eager) to rationalize carving-out this right from the "rational continuum" of liberty for special treatment, ignoring inviolate rules and principles to achieve what they deem to be, much more important social policy objectives (i.e., "public safety").

In other words, how a person considers the 2nd Amendment is a short but reliable test to expose a wide breadth of deficiencies in understanding of the Constitution and its application (the legitimate extent of government).

I recognize that some "conservatives" have their own litmus test . . . (i.e., abortion and LGBTQ rights) that expose their deficiencies in understanding and applying the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned -- being an Originalist / Strict Constructionist -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Constitution-ignoring leftists have more in common than social/cultural conservatives and Constitutional Originalist conservatives.

Each see government having a role in "regulating" (if not outlawing) what they consider, their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior. That many dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constructionists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

.

I think the real reason Republicans quickly said, "this isn't the time", is to spare Democrats the embarrassment of going off the deep-end proposing knee-jerk, ridiculously ineffective policy. If the Dem's can be counted for anything it is acting the fool when it looks like more than two decades of gun control blue-balls are about to be released.

One big difference between these instances is that Republican proposals would have an effect on the particular type of event. Just like liberals say, 'if there were no guns nobody would get shot; let's like, you know, get rid of them', righties say 'if we had a firm handle on who comes in we wouldn't be suffering these crimes at the hands of non-citizens'.

Big hint, only one side's "solution" to the "problem" are both reasonable and have a chance of being effective.

I can admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute if you can agree that that truth does not mean that any gun law the left can think up is constitutional.

It's hilarious, the people who most employ the "absolute right" line are anti-gunners. I rarely hear any such thing from pro-gunners; when the government can take someone's life, how can any right be said to be "absolute"?

The term when employed by anti-gunners is intended to quash dialogue rather than nurture it. It is uttered in the hope that the reader has as superficial an understanding of the issue as the speaker, so the speaker's opinion that any law the left can think up is A-OK is agreed to.

.

Well, since you have picked a position for me and you and the guy in your mirror have arrived at a conclusion, I don't see any room for me in your "conversation".

The problem is that the legislation now being pushed through bans anything that facilitates a more rapid cycle of fire in a semi-automatic. An aftermarket match trigger that has a faster reset than a stock trigger would fall under the law.

Nearly everyone will be in violation of the law; we are going to forced to cut off the belt loops on our pants . . .



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-SnqKOXqbM