Question for liberals

[Tallguy88]

the point is
we are told "don't demonize all Muslims because of the actions of a few extremists, remember, every group has a few bad apples"

and at the same time, we say to ignore the many negative things that Islam brings
we are told to be suspicious and make it harder on people who want to own guns

we are told to assume the best about Islam (a religion that has launched attack after attack against Christians over the centuries)
but we have to be wary of CITIZENS who own guns legally

It's a matter of proportional response. You're likelihood of being killed by a gun, any gun (even your own), is much greater than your likelihood of being killed by a Muslim terrorist.

So guns get more attention from the "do something" crowd, because it's actually something we can do something about, and have a noticeable effect on the incidences.

 

[Rhamiel]

It's a matter of proportional response. You're likelihood of being killed by a gun, any gun (even your own), is much greater than your likelihood of being killed by a Muslim terrorist.

So guns get more attention from the "do something" crowd, because it's actually something we can do something about, and have a noticeable effect on the incidences.

there are things that we can actually do about Muslim Fundamentalism

but I support the pro-life firearms legislation that the Catholic Church supports

the Church has dogmatic teaching on firearms?
I think you are misrepresenting the issue
in 1880's or even the 1950's, many many Catholics acted like the Limbo of the Infants was a dogmatic teaching of the Church instead of just being the pious opinion that it is
why there are even people who are around my age who were shocked when Pope Benedict said that he did not have a favorable view of that belief.

my point is, I think you may be misrepresenting a popular idea as a teaching of the Church

 

[Antigone]

I'm happy I live in a country where gun ownership is severely restricted both practically and legally. Nobody has guns here, nobody wants them.

None of the musllms I know - a dozen or two - has ever tried to kill me by hurling a quran at my head. Actually, none have tried to kill me, period, and I grew up in an area where over half of all families were of Turkish or Moroccan descent and practicing muslims. About a quarter of my primary school classmates were muslims. One was a twerp. Another was one of my best friends. I was entirely ambivalent towards the rest.

It's not exactly an answer to your question, but then again you're assuming the two are somehow related. They're not to me. Not having guns freely available makes me feel safe. Having muslims around does not make me feel unsafe.

 

[Tallguy88]

there are things that we can actually do about Muslim Fundamentalism

Something other than things tried in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451?

 

[Rhamiel]

They're not to me. Not having guns freely available makes me feel safe. Having muslims around does not make me feel unsafe.

yet another example of how feelings do not always have a relationship to reality

does Holland have "Zone urbaine sensible"?
I know France has neighborhoods where Muslims attack other people and the police know that no Muslim will testify against a fellow Muslim so the crimes just go unpunished
does Holland have that yet?

 

[Antigone]

yet another example of how feelings do not always have a relationship to reality

Why is that unrealistic? Psychopaths, fundamentalists and criminals have a much harder time getting guns than they do in the US. Compare our gun death rate to yours and tell me I'm wrong.

does Holland have "Zone urbaine sensible"?
I know France has neighborhoods where Muslims attack other people and the police know that no Muslim will testify against a fellow Muslim so the crimes just go unpunished
does Holland have that yet?

Oh yes, those. That was hilarious. The French had a very good time with that.

R., like any major city, Paris has its good and bad areas and mostly that has to do with the socio-economic circumstances of those areas. But some of those 'zone urbaine sensibles' as reported by Fox News? I've walked through them. With a (female) friend. At night. Unarmed. I was unaccosted, unharmed, did not witness any crimes, nobody tried to force me to wear a burqua or tried to rape me. Anyone who's ever been to Paris will tell you that that report was 100% fictional.

 

[MikeK]

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...pload/2013-02-Violence-Backgrounder-FINAL.pdf

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ony-Proposals-to-Reduce-Gun-Violence-2013.pdf


http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-violence-a-catholic-framework-for-action.cfm

http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-064.cfm

We are all, of course, free to believe that we know better than our Conference of Bishops.

 

[MikeK]

yet another example of how feelings do not always have a relationship to reality

does Holland have "Zone urbaine sensible"?
I know France has neighborhoods where Muslims attack other people and the police know that no Muslim will testify against a fellow Muslim so the crimes just go unpunished
does Holland have that yet?

How is it that you still believe this stuff? This was proven to be bunk and Fox even appologized for their errant reporting on it.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...pload/2013-02-Violence-Backgrounder-FINAL.pdf

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ony-Proposals-to-Reduce-Gun-Violence-2013.pdf


http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-violence-a-catholic-framework-for-action.cfm

http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-064.cfm

We are all, of course, free to believe that we know better than our Conference of Bishops.

Good, since they're mere men and not infallible.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I do not know anyone who has been INSPIRED to kill because of a gun
while guns have been misused for violence
they do not actually provoke violence
the Koran on the other hand, commands violence be done to others


my first post in here was meant as satire

to show that if we treated Muslims like we treat citizens who want to own guns, it would rightfully be viewed as an infringement on their rights

Muslims in the US are often also citizens, and shouldn't be treated any differently than other citizens. Since its citizens that US gun laws apply to, why treat them as a separate group?

You seem to treat Muslims and citizens as mutually exclusive groups. But there's no religious test for citizenship. It sounds like you are proposing US law and rights be different for different religions groups. Christians should be allowed to buy Bibles, Muslims should be allowed to buy Korans, etc...and all people should face the same process when applying to buy a gun

 

[MikeK]

Why is that unrealistic? Psychopaths, fundamentalists and criminals have a much harder time getting guns than they do in the US. Compare our gun death rate to yours and tell me I'm wrong.

Yeah, but I'm sure in your post-Christian, semi-socialist country they just use other weapons for murder and that your murder rate is just as high as ours is...it must be, you have a far higher proportion of Muslims than we do, and an armed population is a safe population.

(Looks up murder rates for our two countries)

Nevermind.

 

[Poor Beggar]

If an unstable Muslim with mental health issues is able to kill a class full of kindergarten students by throwing copies of the Koran at them, or a child playing unsupervised with a Koran accidently dies from injuries caused from a book going off, I'd support such a ban.
But it would have to apply to Calculus books and mathematicians too, do you know how heavy one of those books are? I could do damage with one.

But he'll probably use a gun. In which case we will need other people to have guns to stop him because, let's face it, we aren't going to be able to throw books at him.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the US government put restrictions on religious belief. Only certain people who pass background checks will be allowed to read their faith's holy writings?

He was suggesting the opposite. It was an analogy. As none of us would support limiting access to religion, we therefore shouldn't reduce access to other things protected by amendments.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Since we aren't supposed to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of lunatics,

Why are you judging all gun owners based on the actions of a minority of lunatics and shouting for bans?

In fairness and to be consistent, I expect you to start demanding bans on the Koran and background checks for Muslims. Thanks.

Issues like this really just come down to whether you believe all amendments should be followed or whether you think the ones you don't agree with should have strings attached because it's, well, you know, "common sense".
Personally I opt for consistently following the law even when it's uncomfortable to avoid the mess we get into when everyone does what's right in their own eyes.
So we don't get to infringe on people's religions and we don't get to infringe on people's right to the same level of technology to protect themselves as the bad guy has.

 

[Marius27]

Since we aren't supposed to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of lunatics,

Why are you judging all gun owners based on the actions of a minority of lunatics and shouting for bans?

In fairness and to be consistent, I expect you to start demanding bans on the Koran and background checks for Muslims. Thanks.

I oppose guns, because I view it as anti-Christian. Those who live by the sword [gun], shall die by it. I don't support Islam either.

 

[MikeK]

Issues like this really just come down to whether you believe all amendments should be followed or whether you think the ones you don't agree with should have strings attached because it's, well, you know, "common sense".
Personally I opt for consistently following the law even when it's uncomfortable to avoid the mess we get into when everyone does what's right in their own eyes.
So we don't get to infringe on people's religions and we don't get to infringe on people's right to the same level of technology to protect themselves as the bad guy has.

Should the press be free to publish secret nuclear weapons information leaked to them? Is it a violation of the 1st Ammendment to prohibit calling 911 for fake emergencies? The United States Supreme Court has never taken an absolutist literal stance on the Bill of Rights. Our rights to free speech, arms, etc are general rights and are not and should not be unlimited.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Should the press be free to publish secret nuclear weapons information leaked to them? Is it a violation of the 1st Ammendment to prohibit calling 911 for fake emergencies? The United States Supreme Court has never taken an absolutist literal stance on the Bill of Rights. Our rights to free speech, arms, etc are general rights and are not and should not be unlimited.

I like your view. I get to pick the parts of the constitution I like and you get to pick the parts you like. That way we don't have to disagree.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

The amendment itself has a string attached, that well regulated part.

Issues like this really just come down to whether you believe all amendments should be followed or whether you think the ones you don't agree with should have strings attached because it's, well, you know, "common sense".
Personally I opt for consistently following the law even when it's uncomfortable to avoid the mess we get into when everyone does what's right in their own eyes.
So we don't get to infringe on people's religions and we don't get to infringe on people's right to the same level of technology to protect themselves as the bad guy has.

 

[Poor Beggar]

The amendment itself has a string attached, that well regulated part.

And how was that interpreted? There's clear documentation on it.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

And how was that interpreted? There's clear documentation on it.

Revisiting how that language is interpreted is not an inappropriate thing to do. The Constitution has to be a living document.