What is the difference....

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by chimo, Dec 8, 2015.


  1. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    What is the difference between Trump wanting to ban the import of Muslims because of what they MIGHT do...
    and Obama/Clinton wanting to ban the import/sales of firearms to Americans because of what they MIGHT do?
     
  2. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King Site Supporter

    I've never seen a gun go off and start killing people on it's own.
     
  3. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Moderator Moderator Site Supporter++

    I have thought of the hypocrisy of the different sides many times. It is the same with speech. We often screech about political correct speech and words yet the other side does that same with Democracy, Republic or just not using the 100% correct term on a firearm or part. Seems to me when you think you are right, then you think you are right and the opposing knows nothing. Left or right, we all do the same thing.

    Right- Merry Christmas Left- Happy Holidays
    Right- semi-auto Left- automatic weapon
    Right- colored person Left- African American
    Right- Illegal Alien Left- Migrant worker

    There seems to be no middle of the road. No compromise. No agreement on any issue. Sometimes I wonder if the opposition is so strong just for the sole purpose to oppose the other side. @chimo's post is very true. We seem to have an all or none mentality.
     
  4. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    Because only what obozo and bill's pimp want matters ? [dunno]
     
    Mountainman, HK_User and UncleMorgan like this.
  5. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    read what I wrote again...these mutts are not banning/restricting firearms due to what the firearm might do, they are doing so because of what WE might do.

    I'm not big on laws that treat people like they are all potential criminals and terrorists until certified otherwise by government...that is what totalitarian societies do. In FREE societies, FREE people are deemed to be sane, responsible and law-abiding until our ACTIONS prove otherwise.

    Now I have no problem requiring those who wish to join our free society to be vetted to ensure they fit in with the rest of us...and I really don't have a problem with outright bans on immigration...but this notion that we ban people based on their religion is just as wacky and unamerican as banning people based on their race, gender, political leanings, etc. Apply the law equally or don't apply it at all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015
  6. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I eat vegetables. My friends are not vegetables.

    Most people don't handle shades of grey very well, and that's probably a survival characteristic that's pretty much hardwired in our species for simplicity and reliability.

    Something will either eat you, or it won't. You need to either attack or retreat. You're either in danger, or not.

    Not much middle ground there.

    Women seem to handle compromise better than men, generally speaking. But I think that's because men are supposed to have already eliminated just about every issue that doesn't have a lot of compromise potential.

    For a man, seeing any at all is proof that there's a lot of potential for the ladies to work with.

    Usually. YMMV.

    I've noticed that many people seem to be more evolved than me.
     
    Tully Mars and BC22 like this.
  7. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King Site Supporter

    Sorry...we have too many problems here to worry about putting the resources into vetting thousands of alleged "refugees" belonging to a group dedicated to our destruction (or for that matter, IMO, to take seriously yet another idiot that wants to be president...though I wouldn't be too surprised if he wins, the american electorate seeming to thrive on them).

    Another small difference in your idiotic comparison is that I have yet to find a section of the constitution that guarantees either the right to keep and bear Syrian (alleged) refugees. I suppose a point could be attempted that barring them violates the freedom of religion enjoyed by US citizens...except that, besides their not being US citizens (or even currently present in the US), they are the very antithesis of freedom of religion.

    I actually believe that people here should have the right to take tigers into their homes as pets...but I don't believe they have the right to let them run free in our neighborhoods.
     
  8. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I eat vegetables. My friends are not vegetables.

    I pretty much agree with Chimo's previous post, but with one small reservation.

    There's nothing wacky about banning, or legislating against--or killing--those who formally wage war against you.

    And, like it or not, everyone on this planet is currently at war with Islam because Islam is perpetually at war with everyone who isn't a Muslim, and many who are.

    How official it gets, or how "declared" it is in the US is open to discussion and subject to change on a day-by-day and atrocity-by-atrocity basis.

    But it only takes one person to start a fight, and one side to start a war.

    I would cheerfully see every Muslim in America deported or imprisoned just because they are
    card-carrying, dues paying, and loyal adherents to a group that is formally dedicated to killing or enslaving me. And my family. And all of my friends.

    However, I would just as cheerfully welcome genuine ex-Muslims. If they're willing to risk murder for their disaffection, I'd call that a good start on becoming friends and allies.

    I would like to see the Muslim religion formally split into a part that denies the Koran outright, and
    writes their own Holy Book--one based on peace and tolerance. And human rights, including women.

    They just need a newer and better Prophet.
     
  9. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King Site Supporter

    I think there is a middle of the road...it is just not overly popular.

    I am a Libertarian...a constitutionalist who is far further right than left. At the same time, I am a non Christian who really doesn't give a damn how one greets another with good wishes of the season. To quote Jackson Browne in his song (and about my favorite of the season), The Rebel Jesus: "In this life of hardship and of earthly toil, we have need for anything that frees us. So I wish you pleasure and I wish you cheer...from a heathen and a pagan, on the side of the rebel Jesus."

    I also know liberals who actually know the difference between auto and semi auto...and the definitions of "migrant worker" and "illegal alien", even if they disagree with immigration laws as written and would like them changed. I don't think I know anyone among my conservative friends who uses the term "colored person" these days (even idiotic racists use more pejorative terms) ...though most (like me) are somewhat disgusted with "hyphenated Americans" and believe in true equal rights for all.
     
    Mountainman likes this.
  10. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    The problem with vetting "refugees" is I doubt it can be done.

    PASSPORT TO TERROR: MailOnline reporter buys Syrian papers being sold to ISIS fighters sneaking into Europe hidden among refugees
    • Reporter bought $2,000 Syrian passport, ID card and driving licence in Turkey under the name of a real man who was killed in the conflict
    • Forger boasted that ISIS fighters are using documents to travel to Europe to start terror sleeper cells or live under false name free of past crimes
    • Also being used by economic migrants from other countries exploiting generosity of Europe to Syrian refugees
    • Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee told MailOnline the scam was 'deeply disturbing' and should be 'addressed immediately'
    • The blank documents are genuine, having been stolen from government offices by militias fighting regime of Bashar Al-Assad
    • EU border official admits fraud is rising and bigger than first thought
    MailOnline reporter buys Syrian papers being sold to ISIS fighters sneaking into Europe with the refugees | Daily Mail Online

    As ISIS' s has the money and the official blank documents; all they need is a forger. To stay alive, the forger will offer a huge discount.
     
    kellory likes this.
  11. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    So you think that the only rights we have are those that are guaranteed in the Constitution and that the Constitution only applies to citizens? Those who drafted & ratified the document and later added the Bill of Rights would disagree on both counts.

    Apply the law equally...either ban all immigration or let everyone in and vet/approve them using the same criteria. Applying the law based on your irrational fear of religion, firearms or purple people eaters is NOT what this country is about and NOT supported by the Constitution we swore an oath to defend.

    I doubt we can vet people who buy firearms to ensure they won't misuse them either...yet neither one of us advocates banning citizens from having firearms.

    Sorry folks, living in a free country carries some risk...if you can't accept that risk without infringing upon the inalienable rights of others...foreign or domestic, perhaps living in a free country isn't a suitable choice for you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2015
    Mountainman and chelloveck like this.
  12. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    I think we all acknowledge that immigration is a federal responsibility. I also think that the feds have mucked it up totally. Which leads to thinking that stopping ALL immigration until the mess is sorted out makes sense.
     
    Mountainman and Tully Mars like this.
  13. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    I don't agree that we are at war with a religion any more than I agree we are at war with "terror" or drugs or poverty. History has proven that waging war on religions, ideas and nouns don't turn out so well. Yeah, I've got problems with Islam...and Christianity and Judaism and just about every other religion. But I live in America, where people are free to practice whatever religion they please as long as that practice does not infringe upon the rights of others. How about we look at the total number of Muslims who have immigrated to this country vs. the number that have done something to make war upon us after they have arrived or have otherwise infringed on our freedom. How about we look at the total number of Muslims who are already citizens compared to how many of those citizens have done something to do us harm or otherwise infringe upon our liberty? Those numbers, I believe, would make this fear of Muslims look pretty irrational.

    Finally, put yourselves in the shoes of our current Muslim citizens. If this country started banning the immigration of Christians and treating Christians as if all of Christianity was nothing but terrorists...how would you react? Would you rally around the government and denounce your religion...or decide that perhaps that government has gone off the deep end into tyranny? How many of our own people are we going to radicalize against us due to our actions?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015
    chelloveck and Seepalaces like this.
  14. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    That, I can live with. Apply the law equally to everyone, or don't apply it at all.

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Note how both the 5th Amendment addresses "persons" and how Section 1 of the 14th Amendment actually distinguishes between citizens and "any person". The Constitution and its concept of equal protection under the law does not only apply to citizens...it applies to everyone. I took an oath to defend that Constitution, and I can't support discriminating against people based on their religion today any more than I could have supported discriminating against people based on their German or Japanese blood in WWII.
     
    chelloveck and Seepalaces like this.
  15. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I eat vegetables. My friends are not vegetables.

    I'll be the first to say I'm wrong more often than right, and I hope I'm wrong here. Only time will tell.
    And in the meantime I'll cheerfully fight no war I can successfully avoid.
    Peace n' Love, Y'all.

    Time for another Scotch and banana smoothie...
     
  16. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Moderator Moderator Site Supporter++

    This is a line from the article that @AD1 posted-
     
    Tully Mars and Seepalaces like this.
  17. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    Sorry, there are laws in a free country and it seems some are aware of them and others aren't. In this nation there has been immigration quotas and nations that were blocked in the past.
    As they have existed for a long time; quotas have nothing to do with risk or being free.

    U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. Congress and the President determine a separate number for refugee admissions. Immigration to the United States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.

    Also:
    Per-Country Ceilings

    In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed 7% of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single year. This is not a quota that is set aside to ensure that certain nationalities make up 7% of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.

    Also for refugees and Asylees:
    For Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, the President set the worldwide refugee ceiling at 70,000, and the regional allocation was as follows:
    How the United States Immigration System Works: A Fact Sheet | Immigration Policy Center
     
  18. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    Can you cite one instance where we banned all immigration based on a religion, which is what Trump is advocating?

    I really don't give a crap how the immigration system works now...we all know that it obviously doesn't work...for more reasons that just haji terrorists. It would be much simpler, from a practical and logistical standpoint...and more in line with the principles this country was founded upon...to simply stop all immigration while the process is reviewed and possibly modified, rather than to attempt to ban the immigration of all people of one specific religion, dontcha think? It would surely decrease the risk of pissing off the Muslims who already live here and turning them into active enemies rather than just remaining apathetic idiots. The term "blowback" or "unintended consequences" comes to mind.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015
    chelloveck and Seepalaces like this.
  19. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King Site Supporter

    I was going to stay out of this thread both for my blood pressure and to keep from going astray of the CoC...however, since nobody else seems to want to address this, I will do so very carefully.

    The government has no business "vetting" people to determine their suitability to own a firearm...that is the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment. It does NOT say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the government determines they are unsuitable".

    There is most certainly no comparable statement that the right of any person not a citizen to enter the United States shall not be infringed.

    Pax out...
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015
  20. Seepalaces

    Seepalaces Monkey+ Site Supporter+

    Isn't it amazing how a libertarian born again Christian and a libertarian atheist and a libertarian Muslim can all get along with small government? When we disagree, we can say crazy crap like, "I disagree. Did you catch the game last night?" When there is no giant government trying to use guns to force us all to get along, we do pretty well. It's only when people use giant government to force their will on others that we start having to defend.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7