Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[blah the Prussian]

You know, I'm surprised this doesn't get brought up more often, but maybe the Founding Fathers were wrong about some things? I mean, they sure as hell were wrong about slavery, and I think they were wrong about Monarchy. They had some good ideas, particularly with regard to due process, but a bunch of their ideas were, simply, wrong. The Second Amendment is very clear that the people do have the right to bear arms. That shouldn't be the conversation. The conversation should concern whether or not the Second Amendment should continue to exist.

[Tryhard]

I'm also surprised that nobody seems to find anything relatable in this story, instead finding some sort of excuse to talk about religious extremism or gun ownerships or whatever. The perpetrator being a gay man with poor social skills makes him resemble so much an average user of this forum (or many other places on the internet), and yet we completely discard the man's relation to humanity and think we would never have acted differently if driven to despair by life. Well, how can you be so sure?

To be fair, I did just recently post that and details are still coming out. The fact that you can have that much self-loathing just adds another layer of depression to this story.

[tuvarkz]

As a whole, Muslims are not the only people who can commit hate crimes. This was certainly a hate crime. But do you know what else was a hate crime? The attack on a black church by a white man. Why aren't white men getting banned from entering the country. That in itself is also a slippery slope.

It's definitely annoying how tragedies are used to push agendas, but many LGBT people have also started crying out against guns, and there are also lots of people who get that pitting two minorities against each other (LGBT and Muslim) is a horrible thing to do. There are just as many innocent Muslims out there.

Regarding hate crimes, there's a significant difference between white supremacist (We're talking Neonazi tier) and radical islamist groups. The former has barely any power, and even by most christian, even conservative christians' standards, violence against homosexuals is not justified. In the meantime, ISIS and other groups have a significant area of influence, have active and passive supporters spread across the first world, and have a large amount of people that will agree with them, a major Turkish journal with bonds to the Turkish presidence calling the victims of this mass shooting 'perverts'. Additionally, comparing 'white' and 'muslim' is a false equivalency. Regardless of the population composition in the US, having white skin is an inherent trait that you're born with and cannot change (Well, unless you undergo a surgery to recolor your skin, but that would only change the outer appearance), while Islam is an ideology (Considering how religions are functionally ideologies with a dogmatic basis) with a clear doctrine that people are free to abandon if they feel they cannot abide by Islam's principles (Well, except in the countries where apostasy and/or blasphemy can be punished by law).

Yes, there is a large amount of Muslims that do not hold hateful views towards the LGBT community, but there's a statistically significant group amongst muslims in the first world that does; and the statistics get worse in muslim-majority countries (And homosexuality is outright illegal in some of them). Additionally, I don't think that statistical minority should be equated to being oppressed, or else we risk outright insane groups such as scientologists to claim protection for their beliefes under the (fake) argument of being an opressed group.

EDIT: And again, comparing apples to tomatoes here, Islam being a religion/ideology while homosexuality being an inherent condition of a person.

Edited June 14, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Duff Ostrich]

You know, I'm surprised this doesn't get brought up more often, but maybe the Founding Fathers were wrong about some things? I mean, they sure as hell were wrong about slavery, and I think they were wrong about Monarchy. They had some good ideas, particularly with regard to due process, but a bunch of their ideas were, simply, wrong. The Second Amendment is very clear that the people do have the right to bear arms. That shouldn't be the conversation. The conversation should concern whether or not the Second Amendment should continue to exist.

It's an interesting question: Why do people twist themselves into intellectual knots in order to deny the obvious, which in this case is the text of the second amendment? I think I know the answer though. No one wants to be the guy arguing against our civil liberties. No one wants to admit that what they really want is to take something away from people. Instead they just want to blame rabid gun nuts for creating an environment where the Bill of Rights has been improperly interpreted, even when that is patently false.

Now, a rational royalist like yourself might not be so keen to delude himself on the issue. You realize what the discussion is really about, which is to ultimately attempt to change one of the most fundamental aspects of the American character in pursuit of security. The problem is it won't work. Changing even the most benign word found in the Bill of Rights would lead to protests and endless criticism from pundits and conservative intellectuals. Going after guns in a real way would lead to riots, and not without reason. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution it sought to amend is the backbone of this country. Rip it out and the idea of America dies with it.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Rezzy]

Without going into the gun debate right now, as someone who grew up in rural Illinois, I can tell you that I grew up in a place where pretty much every house had a gun, and if you didn't yourself, you knew plenty of people who did. It's a part of the culture here. The start of deer season is practically a national holiday here, and my sister's house is decorated like Gaston's hunting lodge. Any attempt to limit gun ownership is taken very badly here. Any hunting rifle could just as easily kill a person in the wrong hands, but when you grow up around guns, the first thing they teach you is how to handle them responsibly. Growing up, I didn't know anyone who had been injured or killed by a gun other than suicide.

I've also lived in Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but also has some of the worst gang violence and gun deaths in the country. I worked in the Chicago hospital system, and people who I treated who had gunshot wounds were practically lining up out the door. I'd say there was seldom a day, where we didn't see at least one gunshot wound.

[Tryhard]

I've also lived in Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but also has some of the worst gang violence and gun deaths in the country.

The difference is not between states with gun control laws, as with so many guns in circulation they do very little, but that other first world countries with gun control laws have minimal gun homicides comparatively (when the UK and Australia implemented their handgun bans where people willingly gave over owned guns (which, I do fully see would never happen in america), gun crime decreased significantly) while the US has on average a mass shooting (which is classified as 4 or more people being shot and killed or injured) more than once a day.

Honestly, I've heard every permutation of the gun law argument. I've grown so disinterested in it yet, it was amazing how that was honed in on.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Augestein]

Without going into the gun debate right now, as someone who grew up in rural Illinois, I can tell you that I grew up in a place where pretty much every house had a gun, and if you didn't yourself, you knew plenty of people who did. It's a part of the culture here. The start of deer season is practically a national holiday here, and my sister's house is decorated like Gaston's hunting lodge. Any attempt to limit gun ownership is taken very badly here. Any hunting rifle could just as easily kill a person in the wrong hands, but when you grow up around guns, the first thing they teach you is how to handle them responsibly. Growing up, I didn't know anyone who had been injured or killed by a gun other than suicide.

I've also lived in Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but also has some of the worst gang violence and gun deaths in the country. I worked in the Chicago hospital system, and people who I treated who had gunshot wounds were practically lining up out the door. I'd say there was seldom a day, where we didn't see at least one gunshot wound.

Not to mention, it's not like.. You need a gun to kill people. I mean, if anyone really wanted to, they'd find a way.

[Rapier]

I don't see the possibility of guns being prohibited in America unless something drastic happens and its culture is changed so that it accepts gun prohibition, which is something that would take a lot of social engineery (that I doubt will be successful, since conservatives are so good at coming up with conspiracy theories for such a thing to pass the radar). Imo it is more sensible to discuss how much limitation guns should have instead, something that is much more probable and acceptable than outright gun ban.

I honestly have no opinion (read: Conflicting opinion and I can't make my mind) and I care very little to go around searching for anti-guns arguments x pro-guns arguments and evidences backing up each side. From a pro-guns perspective I know that banning/limiting guns won't take guns away from criminals, they will just allow a selected few people to have the monopoly of [illegal] guns and the other unarmed citizens will be at a big disadvantage to defend their own securities. From an anti-gun perspective I know that banning/limiting guns, while it is not possible to outright stop them from being used criminally, acts as a deterrent to said crimes, making it more difficult to commit crimes with guns. So, I'm not sure.

What was the difference there though, with the gunner being gay himself? I guess the visitors of the club being happy people or having social skills would be that difference? Can't call it much of a hate crime though.

Victims' orientation makes it stand out in some way for a lot of people, but it's really the same story as behind your regular mass shooting, except the sheer proportions of it are disastrous. A guy was losing his mental stability and the only place where he sought comfort rejected him for being weird and unpleasant. The club's visitors' responsibility in neglecting one of their own LGBT folk is somewhat comparable to people who in one way or another drive people to suicide, for example. I mean, the guy had nobody else to turn to for help and relief. He attacked those whose attention and time he craved the most.

I'm also surprised that nobody seems to find anything relatable in this story, instead finding some sort of excuse to talk about religious extremism or gun ownerships or whatever. The perpetrator being a gay man with poor social skills makes him resemble so much an average user of this forum (or many other places on the internet), and yet we completely discard the man's relation to humanity and think we would never have acted differently if driven to despair by life. Well, how can you be so sure?

This looks awfully like you're trying to justify his actions.

If we go by the same logic, yes, I'd probably do the same thing if I were as mad as he is and on his place, and probably so would everyone else. The magic word here is "mad". If I had a deranged, twisted view of reality, I'd find very logical to act on those deranged views of mine. But obviously it is still unacceptable, insane. Our empathy, should we have been on his shoes, does not make the case any more acceptable.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I don't see the possibility of guns being prohibited in America unless something drastic happens and its culture is changed so that it accepts gun prohibition, which is something that would take a lot of social engineery (that I doubt will be successful, since conservatives are so good at coming up with conspiracy theories for such a thing to pass the radar). Imo it is more sensible to discuss how much limitation guns should have instead, something that is much more probable and acceptable than outright gun ban.

Well most people I've seen who are pro-gun control are young people, usually 25 and lower so I'd say once the younger generations start to gain more power in society rather than the older ones is when we'll start seeing changes in that regard.

[Lord Raven]

It's an interesting question: Why do people twist themselves into intellectual knots in order to deny the obvious, which in this case is the text of the second amendment? I think I know the answer though. No one wants to be the guy arguing against our civil liberties. No one wants to admit that what they really want is to take something away from people. Instead they just want to blame rabid gun nuts for creating an environment where the Bill of Rights has been improperly interpreted, even when that is patently false.

Now, a rational royalist like yourself might not be so keen to delude himself on the issue. You realize what the discussion is really about, which is to ultimately attempt to change one of the most fundamental aspects of the American character in pursuit of security. The problem is it won't work. Changing even the most benign word found in the Bill of Rights would lead to protests and endless criticism from pundits and conservative intellectuals. Going after guns in a real way would lead to riots, and not without reason. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution it sought to amend is the backbone of this country. Rip it out and the idea of America dies with it.

Do you only argue based on personal attacks or are you going to make a point? You keep saying these are "American values," but that is ultimately meaningless to a European as well as other Americans that don't believe in the idea of "American values." You're taking a bunch of nuance away from the situation and acting on the completely opposite end - saying that basically anyone who disagrees with you is delusional, and only stating principles without actually backing up said principles with any sort of meaningful fact. I guess the two of us do not see our vision of what America ideally should be in the slightest.

Like, he literally brought up a point saying something to the effect of, "Why don't we re-evaluate laws often and see if a law made in the 1770s applies to the modern day?" and you twisted it into calling him delusional and playing mental gymnastics. That's the overarching point here. You are not making an argument, you are insulting people.

Regarding hate crimes, there's a significant difference between white supremacist (We're talking Neonazi tier) and radical islamist groups. The former has barely any power, and even by most christian, even conservative christians' standards, violence against homosexuals is not justified.

... yes they are

https://www.queerty.com/allow-a-former-skinhead-to-explain-why-white-supremacists-hate-and-brutalize-gays-20110103

This is one dude, but let's not pretend white supremacist groups don't do stuff like this. Islamic standards will say the same thing. This doesn't stop radical Islam from corrupting the same thing.

nevertheless discriminatory immigration policies are not strictly unconstitutional or even necessarily unethical.

This I don't understand. You cling to the words of our founding fathers and despite this you don't seem to really grasp the reason why our founding fathers created a first Amendment or why America formed in the first place. For people escaping religious persecution or otherwise. Obviously, we have limits, but saying it's not unconstitutional and clinging to our founding fathers' word and reasoning for your second amendment is quite contradictory. So when your guns are taken away you will give a shit, but if innocent Muslims manage to escape from their downtrodden village and want to find work in America you tell them to go fuck themselves because they're not covered by the constitution?

We are endowed with these rights by our creator, or (if you prefer) by nature.

Nature endows us with the ability and right to travel but you're suggesting restricting it for something as arbitrary as religion and security. You yourself said we're sacrificing freedom for security by taking away guns, but aren't we sacrificing freedom for security when we don't allow people? Why is America, the land created for escape from persecution, denying people who are otherwise persecuted in their own country?

News Flash: these Muslims believe in the same creator that you do, and they were created by the very same nature. If you hold these truths to be so sacred, then why are they only applicable within the confines of our country?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Rapier]

Yes, there is a large amount of Muslims that do not hold hateful views towards the LGBT community, but there's a statistically significant group amongst muslims in the first world that does; and the statistics get worse in muslim-majority countries (And homosexuality is outright illegal in some of them). Additionally, I don't think that statistical minority should be equated to being oppressed, or else we risk outright insane groups such as scientologists to claim protection for their beliefes under the (fake) argument of being an opressed group.

EDIT: And again, comparing apples to tomatoes here, Islam being a religion/ideology while homosexuality being an inherent condition of a person.

I'd expect no less, since they come from places whose fundamentalist views are homophobic, barbaric and generally unproggressive. I don't expect people to change so soon and behave as "western" people do with regards to those matters, the cultural difference is too high and it takes a long time until cultures adapt and become compatible, if they ever do. However, so long as those views remain just that, views, and aren't used to violate other people's rights, they can coexist. So far, I don't recall muslim violating others' rights being a notable thing in first world countries, but if you have evidence, go ahead.

I don't know if the conservative dystopia where muslims are a majority and their culture change western laws into something you'd expect from a muslim country has any chance of happening. They will have to secularize, either by will or not, just like Europe got secularized, in order to compatibilize with our societies. Our notions of freedom and liberty can't be exchanged for barbaric views more fitting for the Dark Ages. We didn't come a long way just to lose it all for intellectual cowardice/mediocrity and fear of stupid political labels. Anyone who tries to limit freedom or any given rights must be stopped. I sincerely hope liberals don't just throw the towel if such cultural imposition happens, because we can't keep painting everything as rainbows forever.

... yes they are

https://www.queerty....e-gays-20110103

This is one dude, but let's not pretend white supremacist groups don't do stuff like this. Islamic standards will say the same thing. This doesn't stop radical Islam from corrupting the same thing.

There's a big difference that puts those groups apart: There is nothing in "being white" that tells you to act like a supremacist. It is an ideological construction that derranged people follow. However a religious person can find many motives, justified by their religious doctrine, to adhere to views that we call radical. Of course, not all religious people have the same view, but religious doctrines do literally incentive radicalism.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Rapier

[Lord Raven]

As someone with family who lives in those countries, as well as friends with family over there and/or grew up in said countries - you don't know what you are talking about.

The issue with any country in Asia is any degree of inherent homophobia - but let's not pretend our "western ideals" hold homosexuality in particularly great regard either. Are we gonna pretend that gay marriage was only allowed throughout the entire US a year ago? How about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" being the most progressive way for gays to join the military until very recently? We in the US are not a paragon of tolerance, as this thread has continued to show.

Furthermore, Christian groups out west are also inherently homophobic and have the same barbaric fundamentalist views as those out east do by your opinion, the difference having entirely to do with our current society not being in civil war which causes inherent tension. Furthermore, liberalism is spreading out east, more slowly than here, but progressive movements definitely exist out there. Their culture also has much more of an American influence - even if it is in a shallow way - than we all seem to think.

EDIT:

There's a big difference that puts those groups apart: There is nothing in "being white" that tells you to act like a supremacist. It is an ideological construction that derranged people follow. However a religious person can find many motives, justified by their religious doctrine, to adhere to views that we call radical. Of course, not all religious people have the same view, but religious doctrines do literally incentive radicalism.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/christian_pastor_says_gays_worthy_of_death_at_conference_with_3_gop_presidential_candidates

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-70-Stoned-to-Death-for-Homosexuality-Police-118243719.html

Please stop pretending that Islam is the only religion that believes and says shit like this.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Rezzy]

I hate how every time something like this happens, people try to politicize it before the bodies are even cold. I enjoy the freedom I'm afforded in the Western world, where people like me can do pretty much anything, without fear of persecution for our identity. Living in the western world in modern times is better than any other period in history.

The First and Second Amendment are both core parts of the law in America. Taking away freedom of religion isn't something I'm willing to accept.

... yes they are

https://www.queerty.com/allow-a-former-skinhead-to-explain-why-white-supremacists-hate-and-brutalize-gays-20110103

This is one dude, but let's not pretend white supremacist groups don't do stuff like this. Islamic standards will say the same thing. This doesn't stop radical Islam from corrupting the same thing.

I'm sure you're as embarrassed by Mateen as I am by those guys. Any time you have something as far reaching as religion, there's always going to be crazy people who use it to espouse violence. Most of the Muslims I know are fine people whom I'm proud to call friends, and the ones that I don't like, I don't like for other reasons, not their religion.

I will continue to live my life and raise my children to not hate an entire other group of people for the action of a few.

[Anacybele]

Not to mention, it's not like.. You need a gun to kill people. I mean, if anyone really wanted to, they'd find a way.

This.

A TON of things can be weapons. Not just guns, not just knives.

Any good crime/detective show will tell you this. Law & Order, for instance. The perps use all manner of things to murder or attack the victims, from hard blunt objects like pipes and statues, to sharper things like glass bottles and scissors, to soft stuff that can suffocate you like pillows, to intentionally set fires (known as arson). Those who want to kill WILL find a way to kill. My stepdad once told me that Australia once banned guns. Knife crimes skyrocketed as a result.

Hell, you can be killed just by someone slamming your head against a wall multiple times, choking you to death, or just beating you up. You can be killed without the killer actually holding a weapon in their hand! The killer is the weapon him/herself!

Gun control is bullshit and will hurt responsible gun owners more than the people that shouldn't have them. The criminals buy guns illegally, and the monster that attacked this gay club so obviously did that. Increasing the laws for the places He DIDN'T buy this gun from won't do shit.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Anacybele

[Lord Raven]

I think people get "gun control" confused with "banning guns."

Please learn the difference, people. There's a significant difference.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Anacybele]

The difference is there, but not relevant here, Lord Raven.

I just said, this guy didn't buy his gun from legal, licensed gun sellers. He bought it illegally, where the seller doesn't follow these laws. So the laws do NOTHING here. What needs to be done is using our guns to catch these trash people and stop them from murdering and selling illegally.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Anacybele

[Tryhard]

For the love of god, tell me in what world knives can be as effective as a killing device as automatic weaponry to the point where you can kill 50 people and injure 53 more. If you can do that, please teach me your superior ninja skills.

The reason guns are bought is for their superior protection effectiveness (for the case of people that actually want to use it for defense), because they are purposely designed in order to be able to kill people or animals very easily.

"You could just use knives" is a stupid argument, and always has been, and yet multiple people have made it here.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rapier]

As someone with family who lives in those countries, as well as friends with family over there and/or grew up in said countries - you don't know what you are talking about.

The issue with any country in Asia is any degree of inherent homophobia - but let's not pretend our "western ideals" hold homosexuality in particularly great regard either. Are we gonna pretend that gay marriage was only allowed throughout the entire US a year ago? How about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" being the most progressive way for gays to join the military until very recently? We in the US are not a paragon of tolerance, as this thread has continued to show.

Furthermore, Christian groups out west are also inherently homophobic and have the same barbaric fundamentalist views as those out east do by your opinion, the difference having entirely to do with our current society not being in civil war which causes inherent tension. Furthermore, liberalism is spreading out east, more slowly than here, but progressive movements definitely exist out there. Their culture also has much more of an American influence - even if it is in a shallow way - than we all seem to think.

So you're telling me that I am wrong for thinking (well, knowing) that Middle East countries, in particular those that are religious fundamentalists, have heavy laws against proggressivism, the LGBT community, women etc.? You really want me to pretend that their laws do not hinder the LGBT community's rights, that gay people aren't stoned to death on those countries, that women's rights are not heavily restricted on said countries? I'm not going to source this because it is obvious and I want to conservate my energy, but if you insist on that I'll back it up with proof.

Of course the west is not a bastion of proggressivism. No one said that, except you. However, it is much better than places where it is outright illegal to be a homossexual, where you're getting punished for being one, where women are treated like cattle or have heavy rights restrictions. Compare it to western countries, where our notions about women's and LGBT rights are much more advanced and those people can live with some dignity. Your attempt to relativize this issue and put everyone as the same fails short because there are huge discrepancies between western countries and Middle Eastern countries.

True, some christian groups are inherently homophobic and have the same barbaric notions, based on religious fundaments. However, compare their capability of upholding such homophobic and barbaric notions on the west with others' capability of upholding such homophobic and barbaric notions, based on religious fundaments, elsewhere. If you don't say that it is much more present on the latter then you're being intellectually dishonest.

The point behind what I argued before is, there is nothing wrong with muslims living among us, but I am certainly not going to tolerate religious fundamentalism, as I don't tolerate christians' fundamentalism. As I said, the issue comes when and if those same muslims, or a majoritarian number, uphold homophobic and barbaric notions and possess enough power to impose them. This research on Britain can be used as an example. They're a minority now, but what happens if that number becomes enough to, say, ban homossexuals from teaching on schools, as a large number of people answered that they were favorable for it? Such a thing is untolerable, and those who want to violate others' rights based on whatever bullshit notion they have must be stopped short and forced to accept things as they are. The point is that bigots need to be forced to conform, whether they are christian, muslim, buddhist or whatever.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Rapier

[Lord Raven]

Is your only argument here that we should not outlaw things because criminals will get ahold of things anyway? Why have laws then, if criminals will just break them?

Regulations will always help, regardless of situation. Do you think we should keep pissing away money on the drug war because criminals will get cocaine/heroin/marijuana/lsd anyway? Should we have any age restrictions on alcohol because teenagers will drink it anyway? Like, the point of a regulation is that this happens less. It doesn't prevent it from happening, but it ends up happening less often, and the black market is more expensive than the regulated market.

So you're telling me that I am wrong for thinking (well, knowing) that Middle East countries, in particular those that are religious fundamentalists, have heavy laws against proggressivism, the LGBT community, women etc.? You really want me to pretend that their laws do not hinder the LGBT community's rights, that gay people aren't stoned to death on those countries, that women's rights are not heavily restricted on said countries? I'm not going to source this because it is obvious and I want to conservate my energy, but if you insist on that I'll back it up with proof.

I'm not going to say that it's true in every country, but it's definitely not nearly as barbaric as you're claiming. You're painting them as barbarians with morals reminiscent of the Dark Ages, when in reality they have morals reminiscent of 40s and 50s America.

No one said that, except you.

I never did.

However, it is much better than places where it is outright illegal to be a homossexual, where you're getting punished for being one, where women are treated like cattle or have heavy rights restrictions. Compare it to western countries, where our notions about women's and LGBT rights are much more advanced and those people can live with some dignity. Your attempt to relativize this issue and put everyone as the same fails short because there are huge discrepancies between western countries and Middle Eastern countries.

I'm not trying top ut everyone as the same, so please don't misrepresent my point.

True, some christian groups are inherently homophobic and have the same barbaric notions, based on religious fundaments. However, compare their capability of upholding such homophobic and barbaric notions on the west with others' capability of upholding such homophobic and barbaric notions, based on religious fundaments, elsewhere. If you don't say that it is much more present on the latter then you're being intellectually dishonest.

This has little to do with religion, however. This has much more to do with the area they're from. Middle eastern countries have had wars due to religion, territory, or even sections of religion for ages now, and they've been constantly in a state of disrepair for various reasons. Shit like ISIS even spawned up because the west gave them fodder to work off of, given how America treated places like Iraq in the past and screwed them.

I'll look into the history later, but I'm not about to pretend that the West is a better place to live because it's Christianity vs Islam; it's a much more environmental reason, and places like Pakistan which border the middle east and countries like Egypt which have their own version of Jon Stewart are much more progressive than, say, Saudi Arabia. And Qatar for another example (my sister has lived there for four and a half years so she's significantly more qualified than either of us to speak about this) is also very progressive. The other countries are wrapped up in wars that inherently bring tension, and the people who believe otherwise try their best to leave - this has more to do with environment than religion, and Islam doesn't cause these wars.

The point behind what I argued before is, there is nothing wrong with muslims living among us, but I am certainly not going to tolerate religious fundamentalism, as I don't tolerate christians' fundamentalism. As I said, the issue comes when and if those same muslims, or a majoritarian number, uphold homophobic and barbaric notions and possess enough power to impose them. This research on Britain can be used as an example. They're a minority now, but what happens if that number becomes enough to, say, ban homossexuals from teaching on schools, as a large number of people answered that they were favorable for it? Such a thing is untolerable, and those who want to violate others' rights based on whatever bullshit notion they have must be stopped short and forced to accept things as they are.

I can quote sources with statistics too!

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su

It's a very trivial difference how many American Muslims are for/against homosexuality than Christians in the US. Considering that many Muslims in this country are immigrants (ie first generation) and are inherently about as conservative as Christians in our nation, this proportion is bound to increase as first generation americans will begin to increase in number and voting rights.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Anacybele]

Nobody is arguing that any weapon is as effective as a gun. Of course they're not as effective. What we're saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns have to be used to stop those people who are killing people, regardless of what weapon the killers used.

[Time the Crestfallen]

EDIT: Everyone above me said it better

Edited June 15, 2016 by Phillius

[Duff Ostrich]

Do you only argue based on personal attacks or are you going to make a point? You keep saying these are "American values," but that is ultimately meaningless to a European as well as other Americans that don't believe in the idea of "American values." You're taking a bunch of nuance away from the situation and acting on the completely opposite end - saying that basically anyone who disagrees with you is delusional, and only stating principles without actually backing up said principles with any sort of meaningful fact. I guess the two of us do not see our vision of what America ideally should be in the slightest.

Like, he literally brought up a point saying something to the effect of, "Why don't we re-evaluate laws often and see if a law made in the 1770s applies to the modern day?" and you twisted it into calling him delusional and playing mental gymnastics. That's the overarching point here. You are not making an argument, you are insulting people.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't insulting blah, and in fact I've grown to respect him throughout our various interactions over the last few months. I also wasn't being sarcastic when I said he understood the issue. This isn't about our interpretation of the second amendment (because there is only one valid interpretation), but whether or not it should be law in the first place. As you said, blah isn't an American and does not have the same regard for these particular values as I do. This is why he has no qualms, as a gun control advocate, getting down to what gun control is really about, which is the restriction of a liberty protected by the Bill of Rights.

But what is an American gun control advocate to do, given that he otherwise professes to value the rights protected by the Constitution? These are the people engaged in mental gymnastics. I was simply trying to explain why the text gets misinterpreted.

This I don't understand. You cling to the words of our founding fathers and despite this you don't seem to really grasp the reason why our founding fathers created a first Amendment or why America formed in the first place. For people escaping religious persecution or otherwise. Obviously, we have limits, but saying it's not unconstitutional and clinging to our founding fathers' word and reasoning for your second amendment is quite contradictory. So when your guns are taken away you will give a shit, but if innocent Muslims manage to escape from their downtrodden village and want to find work in America you tell them to go fuck themselves because they're not covered by the constitution?

The first amendment has nothing to say about immigration policy. It is therefore not unconstitutional to have an immigration policy, as we do now, that limits how many people (and from where) are allowed to enter the country. This isn't even in opposition to what we already do. The Obama Administration vetted 10,000 Syrian refugees before accepting them, and you'd better believe we rejected many more than that. We took in who we wanted.

Nature endows us with the ability and right to travel but you're suggesting restricting it for something as arbitrary as religion and security. You yourself said we're sacrificing freedom for security by taking away guns, but aren't we sacrificing freedom for security when we don't allow people? Why is America, the land created for escape from persecution, denying people who are otherwise persecuted in their own country?

News Flash: these Muslims believe in the same creator that you do, and they were created by the very same nature. If you hold these truths to be so sacred, then why are they only applicable within the confines of our country?

It's unlikely that I believe in the same creator as Muslims, as I am an atheist. Classical liberalism is my religion, and man is his own god.

I'm not sure whether or not you're arguing for a border-less society, but that simply isn't realistic. A functioning immigration policy is a necessary facet of any healthy state, and the lack of a functioning immigration policy for continental Europe is likewise indicative of a collection of unhealthy states.

My conception of rights apply to everyone everywhere, but the American government is not equipped for and does not have the authority to go beyond its own borders. Responsible nations will (more or less) respect the sovereignty of other nations, and it is neither our duty nor within our ability to take in everyone.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Nobody is arguing that any weapon is as effective as a gun. Of course they're not as effective. What we're saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns have to be used to stop those people who are killing people, regardless of what weapon the killers used.

Yes, people kill people. But that fact is that these people have disturbingly easy access to weapons with which they can kill dozens of people. Gun control is not about banning guns for everyone, it's about making it impossible for these mentally ill and violent people to acquire them and if you think you have a valid reason why that's a bad thing, then I'm all ears.

[Rapier]

If guns are going to be limited, I hope that at least the government invests in better security. There is little point on limiting guns when someone can just buy a gun illegally, hide it and then use it to kill 50 people. There is little point in limiting people's ability to counter any criminal's initiative if there are no security people properly armed with guns ready to counter any criminal's initiative.

That's why this matter is so complicated. By limiting guns we also limit the common citizen's ability to defend himself against someone with a gun, and we know the government can't be everywhere.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Rapier

[CyborgZeta]

I just said, this guy didn't buy his gun from legal, licensed gun sellers. He bought it illegally, where the seller doesn't follow these laws. So the laws do NOTHING here. What needs to be done is using our guns to catch these trash people and stop them from murdering and selling illegally.

No, Mateen acquired his guns legally and passed all background checks.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/dealer-who-sold-orlando-massacre-guns-i-don-t-make-n591456

Mateen also had a security clearance, an armed security guard license, and had passed various background checks and tests (which goes to show you that stricter background checks won't necessarily help).

I don't want to get into a debate about gun control or anything, because I've already stated my views before. I support the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to defend themselves, and I do not wish to see that right infringed.