Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trump calls to ban Muslims.

3K views 67 replies 40 participants last post by  OD* 
#1 ·
  • Like
Reactions: zonker1986
#7 ·
Well when everyone causes the problems we have with muslims I'll agree. Why do we have to be so different from other countries? If your hurting me or my family you can't come to my house anymore. Should I stop everyone from coming because of what you do.

I'm not saying others don't cause us problems. But there aren't any others we're supposedly at war with.

Well the drug dealers but that was Carter.
 
#4 ·
Well we have a lot of Christians being beheaded and other acts against them . Don't see them being brought to US only muslims . Why? Let the Muslim countries handel their people. Their lots of oil money and open pace to settle them. No need to come here. We have enough trouble with the illegals..

He didn't say a forever ban " The ban should apply "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" with regard to the attitudes of Muslims toward Americans and terrorism, said a statement from the Trump campaign.

We have enough problem We don't need to bring more here.
 
#5 ·
As much as I probably shouldn't do this it'd be totally unconstitutional to ban a people because of their religion. The Bill of Rights protect the freedom of the expression of religion...any religion. We'd be no better than any nation that bans Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism (all just an example).

That being said Islam is a Trojan horse within our country. Those Muslims that try to come over here you can deny them access based on marketable skill, or the lack thereof, or some other excuse anyone can conger up to bar entrance into America. But you can't ban just based on religion. It's hypocritical.

Also Trump is just saying the flavor of the day. He's more than a flash in the pan but the guy's a moron who has no touch of reality. He expects to be elected and have Mexico, who can't afford to feed their people, to pay for a wall so they can keep their citizens that are starving and hate their government to stay there. He's an idiot. :rant2:
 
#33 ·
As much as I probably shouldn't do this it'd be totally unconstitutional to ban a people because of their religion. The Bill of Rights protect the freedom of the expression of religion...any religion. We'd be no better than any nation that bans Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism (all just an example).

That being said Islam is a Trojan horse within our country. Those Muslims that try to come over here you can deny them access based on marketable skill, or the lack thereof, or some other excuse anyone can conger up to bar entrance into America. But you can't ban just based on religion. It's hypocritical.

Also Trump is just saying the flavor of the day. He's more than a flash in the pan but the guy's a moron who has no touch of reality. He expects to be elected and have Mexico, who can't afford to feed their people, to pay for a wall so they can keep their citizens that are starving and hate their government to stay there. He's an idiot. :rant2:
Yoy need to take a Constitutional Law Course. MUSLIMS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION until they are allowed to legally enter the US of A . We can and do deny access to many foreigners for varied reasons each and every day of the week. I won't comment on the rest of your rant, not worth the time or effort.
 
#12 ·
What do I think?

The U.S. government has no business dictating terms over religion, as in which shall be allowed and which kicked to the curb. No matter how much of a clown the would-be overlord happens to be.

It's not who we are, as a people.

Though, we've got a solid track record of hiring clowns. Can't imagine Congress going along with such crap. But then, stranger things have happened when irrational fears grab hold of folks.


That said, I'm all for vastly increased scrutiny for folks coming from certain nations that have deplorable security conditions, have deplorable stats on the presence of "jihadis" and other psychos. Want in? Bend over and wait, until we can vet your whole life, all your contacts, etc. Goes for any individual in a similar situation, religion irrelevant.
 
#14 ·
I disagree with him, but since the truth is somewhere between what he says and what every other politician says in their cowardice, I won't condemn him for it.

I again quote Samuel Adams (and he had justification given the state of the Catholic Church at the time): "In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind... such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed."
 
#22 ·
I don't totally agree with him, but I see the argument. Overly simplistic answer, and it won't fly but.... I'm betting it will appeal to his supporters.
 
#29 ·
Let's just get it over with:

Get rid of freedom of religion (1A)
Take all the guns (2A)
Search anyone and anything to make sure they're not terrorists (4A)
Decide who's a terrorist based on incomplete evidence (6A)

Last step: congratulate ISIS and AQ on destroying us exactly as they planned.
 
#48 ·
It's not contrary to our principles, if the religion is directly opposed to our civil government. The question is: is Islam compatible with government of the people? That's the debate we need to have nationally, and one which I'm sure will not be resolved on this forum.
 
#42 ·
Trump is right on this issue and while we are at it just seal the borders and make everyone coming in do it legally.

IMHO, It is a whole pile of BULL stink to whine and cry that this nation can not seal its borders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michael t
#45 ·
Trump is not my #1 pick but I agree with him on this issue.

Now I'm not a lawyer or expert on immigration law. But I have seen the below information cited from a multiplicity of sources. Please debunk this if not true. It seems to very much prefer a religious test under US immiigration statutes, at least for those seeking asylum.

"Under federal law, the executive branch [of the United States of America] is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, US Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] ... was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant."

And it is in the federal statutes!

"Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a 'refugee' as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term 'refugee' means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ... and who is unable or unwilling to return to ... that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... religion [among other things] ...[.]"
 
#62 ·
Trump is not my #1 pick but I agree with him on this issue.

Now I'm not a lawyer or expert on immigration law. But I have seen the below information cited from a multiplicity of sources. Please debunk this if not true. It seems to very much prefer a religious test under US immiigration statutes, at least for those seeking asylum.

"Under federal law, the executive branch [of the United States of America] is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, US Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] ... was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant."

And it is in the federal statutes!
"
Yes, but I think you are misconstruing what it means and why it is in the statutes. I think you actually have it upside down. That provision is to provide for asylum for those who are being persecuted
in other lands because of their religion. It states those afflictions visited upon some poor soul which will qualify that person for asylum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOS24
#46 ·
CCW again I agree with what your saying. I just worry about how far we go to appease. APPEASE is the key.

We deffinately do need to be careful How we handle it but closing our eyes isn't it. Trump runs off at the mouth, we all know that, but some of the thought is right. The way we do it is the determining factor.
 
#47 ·
Waste of time; people will just claim that jihadis are allowed to lie about their faith. And a portion of jihadis believe it too. It'll just change the nature of the terror.

Now, you can ban muslims from entering. The liars will slip through. And so will those willing to deny their faith for convenience (we're all human afterall). But unless you plan on banning mosques, then it's not like they're not going to have places to go and radicalize anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brocktice
#50 ·
But unless you plan on banning mosques, then it's not like they're not going to have places to go and radicalize anyway.
Same with weaponry in general, or alcohol. You can criminalize this vendor, or that source, this amount or that style. But even when official zones of prayer and worship are torn down those folks who still believe will find a way. In this era of instantly-available alternative sources and electronic info gathering, it's all but impossible to halt influences reaching a willing person. It's only a matter of time. Banning booze in the '20's did nothing. Banning arms in the '90's did nothing. Focusing on the permissions schemes du jour do nothing. Murderers ignore all the prohibitions, least of which is about the products and tools.
 
#52 ·
Some think that Trump would be nothing without his being born "silver spoon". His personal success in growing an enterprise cannot be attributed to stupidity. Just because some don't understand, or disagree, with Trump's thinking, does not mean that he is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MMinSC and ETXhiker
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top