Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AFAIK, car bombing, etc., is illegal in every country in the world. Yes, even in muslim countries. Granted, I'm quite sure the evenness of law enforcement varies a lot. It's also true that there are jewish, christian, and hindu terrorist groups operating in the world today, although islamic terrorism gets the lion's share of attention.
My point is that illegal acts in the US are illegal no matter the religion of the people doing them. Please, exactly what further restrictions would you like to see placed on the exercise of the first amendment?
When a PARTICULAR group DECLARES WAR ON US, it is NOT against the Constitution.
There are no absolute freedoms in any part of the constitution.
Right to bear arms - but as my friends on Left would say, you can't own a tank or a nuke. Well said.
Freedom of speech - again my friends on Left would say all Hate Speech should be banned. Also you can't shout 'bomb' on a plane or 'fire' in a crowded cinema.
It's time to put restrictions on religion too, Islam doesn't belong in a civilized society. I understand that this is the Left's favorite religion and though they always want to limit every freedom in the constitution, they will fight for their allies (Islam) in this case.
To be a good Muslim is to be like Muhammad. Unfortunately Muhammad wasn't a nice chap, and that's putting it mildly. Sina's Challenge
Yes you can own a tank and a nuke.
Why would anyone follow a religion that was started by s child molester?
There are a few million Muslims in the US that are peaceful, we need to place restrictions on all Muslims because of the actions of a few? We need to make dramatic changes based on irrational fear. Always reminds me of the internment of Japanese citizens.
"There are a few million Muslims in the US that are peaceful, we need to place restrictions on all Muslims because of the actions of a few?"
Lets take this idea a little further.
Only a FEW Americans commit murder in relation to the entire population of the U.S.'s so lets get rid of ALL murder LAWS.
Only a FEW americans break ALL our laws so lets get rid of the ENTIRE Justice system from the jails to the judges, attorneys on down to the local sheriff, etc. because only a few commit crimes in relation to the entire population.
Only a FEW use guns to commit crimes, yet many, you included I believe, want registration, to restrict the types of guns and mag sizes etc. for the rest of us.
"The entire idea of essentially outlawing Islam is insane."
I don't recall ANYBODY advocating that.
Actually, there are threads right here on c-d urging exactly that. There is also one urging that we revoke citizenship for 1st and 2nd generation muslims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
As hs been stated, I have NO problem with TEMPORARY ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. UNTIL we can have vetting system that we KNOW works.
We do NOT have one today and I doubt we ever will.
it is IMPOSSIBLE to vet Syrian refugees when there are NO records on them.
But that is a de facto ban, since there is no way to predict what a person will do in the future. Why you'd trust the records of a government like Syria's is beyond me anyway.
I don't know exactly what should be done - other than do what we're already doing - keep close tabs on people and watch what they actually do. The only other option is to not let anyone in at all, but there are two problems with that - 1) it won't stop home-grown terrorists, muslim or otherwise and 2) humanitarian issues.
????? True, nothing in the constitution prevents other people from declaring war on us.
I'm sure that isn't what you meant to say though, so can you please explain exactly what is not against the constitution?
I was responding to a post referencing the 1 st amendment of the Constitution.
Originally Posted by jacqueg Yes it does.
AFAIK, car bombing, etc., is illegal in every country in the world. Yes, even in muslim countries. Granted, I'm quite sure the evenness of law enforcement varies a lot. It's also true that there are jewish, christian, and hindu terrorist groups operating in the world today, although islamic terrorism gets the lion's share of attention.
My point is that illegal acts in the US are illegal no matter the religion of the people doing them. Please, exactly what further restrictions would you like to see placed on the exercise of the first amendment?
Actually, there are threads right here on c-d urging exactly that. There is also one urging that we revoke citizenship for 1st and 2nd generation muslims.
But that is a de facto ban, since there is no way to predict what a person will do in the future. Why you'd trust the records of a government like Syria's is beyond me anyway.
I don't know exactly what should be done - other than do what we're already doing - keep close tabs on people and watch what they actually do. The only other option is to not let anyone in at all, but there are two problems with that - 1) it won't stop home-grown terrorists, muslim or otherwise and 2) humanitarian issues.
"Actually, there are threads right here on c-d urging exactly that."
My apologies, I should have made myself clearer, I was referring to people, mostly politicians who ACTUALLY matter.
I was responding to a post referencing the 1 st amendment of the Constitution.
Originally Posted by jacqueg Yes it does.
AFAIK, car bombing, etc., is illegal in every country in the world. Yes, even in muslim countries. Granted, I'm quite sure the evenness of law enforcement varies a lot. It's also true that there are jewish, christian, and hindu terrorist groups operating in the world today, although islamic terrorism gets the lion's share of attention.
My point is that illegal acts in the US are illegal no matter the religion of the people doing them. Please, exactly what further restrictions would you like to see placed on the exercise of the first amendment?
OK. People who have declared war against the US probably don't have first amendment protections. (I say probably, because courts have ruled that enemy combatants and prisoners of war do have some rights, depending on the specific situation.)
What about people who haven't declared war on the US? For instance, the estimates I've seen from our gov sources for ISIL "membership" (they don't keep a membership list or collect dues) are all less than 50,000. That's disputed of course, here's one guy who thinks it's more like 200,000 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...r-9863418.html. But that still leaves more than 1.5 billion muslims who haven't declared war on the US. Should the first amendment rights of all muslims in the US be restricted? We also know that ISIL includes fighters from a number of nations, including the US. So should people of those nationalities living in the US have their first amendment rights restricted?
And no one has yet said what they mean when they say that first amendment rights should be restricted. Are we going to have a government list of approved religious beliefs? Or what, exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
