Just another discussion

So earlier this year MrDeathWilliam made a thread about Transgender's rights to use the bathroom of their preference. I thought that this thread was handled quite well for such a controversial subject, and I am hoping to repeat that same atmosphere in such a thread.

So if you guys are willing to I wanted to discuss a topic that has been prominent in this years election and for the past couple of years in the news and media. During Trump's campaign he constantly promised for a rise in border security and a change of immigration system, including a complete ban from all muslims entering the country. This seemed to be one of his largest promises and one that really resonated with many of his supporters. Trump claimed this would be a huge fix in our current broken system and would reduce the amount of Terrorist attacks on US Soil.

On the other hand the democratic party has seen this proposition as un-constitutional and demeaning towards Muslims. Rather than an increase in boarder security they believe that gun control is better and more effective solution to our problem. Now while Democrats say Trump's plan is against the first amendment, the Republicans believe the democrats are threatening our second amendment right to bear arms.

The main question I have for you guys is which one do you believe is a better policy and solution to fix our current problem with terrorist attacks on US soil?

Remember to keep the discussions civil and if you feel like your arguments are getting too heated then please either (a.) Stop replying to the person/thread or (b.) Move your discussion to a private message. Also remember that everyones opinion is equally valid and you should respect everyones opinion even if you don't agree with it. I am interested to here everyones ideas on this topic

(Also a small tip: Use of sources and factual information can greatly help your case/argument)

 

I believe gun control to an extent should solve a huge portion of the problem. It is so easy to acquire a weapon that can gun down a crowd in seconds. Heavy weapons, assault rifles, and DMRs should not be sold to the public, however, handguns, pistols, hunting rifles, and double-barreled shotguns should still be sold. Those weapons have less power, and you cannot gun a crowd down with those. Introducing a policy like this can still satisfy both sides of the argument. Dangerous weapons get banned, but the more mild ones are still allowed for those who still want firearms.

 

I agree with you completely.
Handguns - Serve as a great purpose as a self defense weapon
Bolt Action Rifles - Useful for hunting deer and other large animals
Double Barreled Shotguns - Useful for hunting birds such as ducks
AR-15 and other Semi-automatic weapons - ???? I have no clue why someone would need this. It's not practical for self defense because its heavy and not something you can keep on you or have quick access to. If you are hunting with an AR-15 or a semi-auto rifle then no offense but you need to work on your marksmanship and should probably just find a new hobby. The only real purpose a semi-auto firearm has is to kill multiple targets in a short amount of time. Something perfect for a terrorist attack. Either that or its just because they are fun to shoot. And there is no problem with that but how fun can something really be that you would rather have that enjoyment at the cost of thousands of innocent lives....

Also I find it stupid how terrorist suspects who are on the no-fly list can still purchase a firearm.

 

I think you bring up a good argument and one that I can stand behind for the most part. First off you are definitely correct that anyone who is a suspected terrorist should not be allowed in the United States until they are fully confident that they are not working for a terrorist organization. I also agree with the idea of limiting/banning immigration from certain regions rather than a specific race or religion (This is also something Trump has started to aim towards more).

However even with an increase of border security, I still see a loophole in this method of combating terrorism in the US. It is quiet obvious that over the past few years we have had way to many terrorist attacks on US soil, including the Boston marathon bombing, the San Bernardino Shooting, and most recently the Orlando Shooting. However all these attacks were domestic terrorist attacks, meaning all the shooters/terrorist were US citizens. In fact there hasn't been a foreign terrorist attack in the United States for the past eight years. This just seems to me to indicate that the problem isn't in our border security but rather our gun control and the easy acceptability all US citizens have to guns.

But overall I think you made some good points that I can agree with.

 

You wanna stop Terrorism hmm?

>Stop Immigration from enemy countries
>Regulate guns better
>Make people who have never commit crimes easier access
>Full on Mental Health Check ups before being able to buy guns
>Watch groups who are the most known for terrorism (By this rhetoric you use statistics)
>Ex-Prisoners get a lot tougher time getting fire-arms based on their previous crime
>Watch all Ex-Prisoners closer if you can and applicable
>Watch Prisoners who make exclusive groups that center around indoctrinating or appear to be indoctrinating Youth/vulnerable inmates
>Stop all gang activity in Prisons
>Remake the Prison System how Russia does it
>Prisoners in one cell and away from prisoners at all time
>Make the border extremely strong, kill people crossing
>First point may sound terrible if not unethical but Psychological Messaging works
>Make Legal Immigration more applicable for those, make it only a tad easier
>Watch all Immigrants closely

 

I agree with this to an extent. Instead of halting immigration completely from certain countries, just introduce a more intensive security check on people from those countries. That way, people can still come in, but suspects could be denied. And people shouldn't introduce this for the wrong countries too, such as India, India is often confused to be affiliated with terrorists and such, while in reality, the terrorists in here are either from the Middle East (Al Qeada, IS, Mujahideen) or Sri Lanka (LTTE).

 

I am heavily against a Muslim/ethnicity ban, and for gun control. I however don't think gun control alone can stop terrorism.

A ban against Muslims or people originating from the Middle East is the sole definition of terrorism.



"all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race..."
-Google definition of 'racism'

Donald Trump's plan to ban Muslims and Islam from the U.S. is completely absurd. It roots itself and fear and xenophobia, due to the actions of only a minuscule percentage of a race. Just because someone is Muslim does not mean that they are a radical terrorist. This is the equivalent of saying "Every person who plays on IJAH is a pedophile". As you can see, these type of stereotypes are the foundation of racism.

Islam does not even sanction radicalism. ISIS and other terror groups are simply using religion as an excuse to commit horrible acts of terror.

This also clearly violates the US's 1st amendment which guarantees religious freedom to all.

Second, I'd like to take a look at the definition of 'terrorism':



Terrorism does not have to be tied to Islam or any religion. If you disagree with me on this, Muslim radicalists are not the only religious sect that have committed acts of terrorism. There have also been Christian acts of terrorism, coming from groups such as the KKK (Ku Klux Klan). Terrorism doesn't have to come from religious motives to be terrorism.

There are dozens of shootings everyday, an increasing amount of which are at schools, which brings us to the second topic, Gun Control.

I think Gun Control is great. I don't believe on a total ban on guns, as this would dissatisfy many people, however I do believe in extensive background checks on people purchasing guns. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this besides the fact that the process could potentially become bureaucratically sluggish. If anyone has a different problem with it, then most likely they should be a person who needs to be background checked.

I am completely for gun control, and I know it could prevent many lost lives. However, I don't think Gun Control can stop terrorism. Almost anything can become a weapon - Look at 9/11, for instance. Terrorists used planes as radical weapons, not guns.

We can't completely prevent terrorism, but I hope we can find a non-prejudicial method of discovering terrorist cells and predicting attacks.

Making a grand gesture of banning Islam from the US is exactly what they want. It's called terrorism for a reason. By showing this fear, we are simply giving them what they want.

 

He never said he would ban Muslims/Islam. You can't just ban an entire religion from a country, especially one like America. Even if Trump wanted to 'ban' Muslims and/or Islam, it would be impossible. People aren't going to stop believing in something because the government does not like it.
Halting immigration from terror-compromised countries so terrorists cannot sneak into America isn't racist.

This is pretty accurate. Trump wants to put more of an effort to make sure terrorists cannot sneak into our country, and more security would definitely help.
-----
I disagree with a lot of other things you've said also, but that's just your stances on those issues, that's fine, but you cannot put words into someone else's mouth, (in this case, Trumps').. but all is in good faith, I don't want to come off as hostile either, just wanted to point this out.

 

"Donald J. Drumpf is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

From the trump campaign website, here.

(It's a written statement from his campaign)

 

Well actually you can, and in fact the US has done it before. During World War II the US put a complete ban on Japanese entering the country, not only that but also relocated all the Japanese people living in the United States and put them in camps. We basically did the same thing to the Japanese that the Germans did to the Jews, minus the mass killings.

The only reason I am saying this is because it is important to note that even though people say Trump's plan is against the 1st amendment and unconstitutional he still has fully capability of making it happen through an executive order.
Yes, banning a certain group of people from entry into the US is one of the things a President can issue through executive order.

 

don't get the impression I'm trying to be hostile, as I said before. all is in good faith

Is he necessarily wrong?
First though, let me correct my own statement from my previous post.. by saying I was, for the most part, wrong. I would be ignorant if I did not concede that.
But, as I said previously, how the man himself would do such a thing would require halting immigration from Arab/Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia. That is how it would be done.

To back up my first statement, if you read the rest of the written statement you just linked me, you can see why he would want to do such a thing in this scale.
Let's give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt for a second, wonder if he is right? Wonder if the surveys, polls that we are given are indeed correct? Answe yes the those, just for now.
Alright, if you were the President of the United States, and those polls happened to be true.. how would you act upon it? Seriously, think about that for a second.

Spoiler: Here are the polls the site gives us

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0012iZ2...XhI9KmDkk0IpWi711QS4_LNrHk4QWT6vvOg7WQ8QQ7A== Had to make a spoiler, it's a long link.

Also, something pretty important to add here, you did undervalue the next sentence of Trump's statement.
We already know the first part, so don't have to get into that:
"..until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"
Essentially, this means until we have a proper vetting system that can alienate terrorists from the bunch, a complete ban on Muslims, (referring on the halting in immigration from said countries before) is necessary until we can figure everything out and we can proper distinguish terrorists from everyone else.

Alright, now disagree with what he said now again, benefit of the doubt over.
Now here is the question, why is he wrong?

don't crucify me please lol

I would be stupid if I did not address these now, because they have become relevant in this debate:
also, I've added my response inside the quote, it makes it easier because I'm on a phone. I made my text blue.

 

Don't worry all of your points so far seem innocent to me and I don't see anyone else getting upset by them. I think you did a fine job with wording and tone in your arguments.

Well you see he and his supporters are misinterpreting the data/polls. Trump uses these polls to back up his claim that too many Muslims are terrorist/jihadist but he misses out on some of the most crucial parts of the data.

For example just look at the first lines of this article.
"According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, of those polled a significant minority embraces the supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.*"

This first sentence throws off Trump's entire plan. All of these responses are from Muslims already living in the US. These aren't polls of future immigrants but current US citizens, Born and raised in America. So banning Muslims from the US wouldn't do anything because the ones causing problems are already here.

Here is another and better example I have.
Lets just pretend that Obama banned all Muslims from entering the US from the moment he got into office in 2009 until his departure in 2017. Even if he didn't let a single muslim into out country, Every single terrorist attack on US soil in the past eight years still would have happened. Regardless of Muslim ban or not. We haven't had a single foreign terrorist attack in the past 8 years. Every single terrorist attack has been committed by a US citizen.

 

As many people support Trump for being "straightforward", I would think that he would take this literally.

Even if he didn't mean a ban on the Islamic religion, you have to admit that his choice of words were extreme.

 

I do agree, his choice of words was pretty extreme, but it's kind of to be expected because of Trump.
One thing I like about the guy is that he speaks rather simply to where everyone can understand him, which is something you learn as you go talk to a lot of people, especially as a businessman, so it is more than likely Trump saying 'ban Muslim immigration, until we can figure things out' is another example of that.

Actually, you mentioned Obama, so let me do the math. Let's ask the question, statistically, if President Obama banned Muslims back in 2009 when he took office, how many Muslims would have been prevented from coming into the United States?

Right now, there is currently 3.3 million Muslims within the United States, courtesy of Wikipedia, so I'm going to give that the benefit of the doubt and say that is up-to-date with 2016, least for now.
So this leaves the question, how many Muslims have came here during Obama's Presidency?
Statistically, I've found that it come around 1.1 million-1 million Muslims. courtesy of TheDailyWire and others.
..also not to mention, most of them are from war-torn nations, such as Pakistan, and they have a history of not liking us that much.
If what I am finding is true, it would mean that the population of American Muslims has increased by at least one-third, which makes a considerable difference and actually proves Trump's point, to an extent.
It makes a difference, but that isn't the whole problem, because it's sort of too late. They're here and there is nothing we can do about it.

What Trump wants to do is stop Muslim immigration, (how he would accomplish this we already went over), so the problem won't get worse, because we have enough on our plate already, we don't need to accept another course until we know it does not have food-poisoning. don't kill me, that's an example, but you get the point.

Since I want to have no stones unturned here, you brought up the fact that most terrorist attacks are by our own citizens. I'm going to assume your correct here.
If that is the case, that is only proving Trump right again, because he has talked about scilencing any site, or any video, which has been made by terrorists to try and influence the American population. I mean, I am pretty sure we can all get behind that to be honest, but moving on. Considering this act goes hand-in-hand with the 'Muslim' ban, (least until we can separate the good and the bad).

(he said it here, back in 2015, and what I said above is what it translates to)

 

But why does it matter? Not a single one of those Muslims have done anything. Out of the 1 Million that have come over ZERO have conducted a successful terrorist attack. Not to be rude but this point just sounds xenophobic as you are literally saying its bad that harmless muslims have come into our country. I know you didn't mean to and you aren't actually xenophobic but let me repeat myself that not a single foreign muslim has committed a single act of terrorism in the US for the past 8 years.

Also I didn't say most terrorist attacks were committed by US citizens, I said ALL.

 

Honestly, Donald Trump's words are twisted and people seem to see them different from what they really are. I've agreed with every single point @Comrade_Venom has mentioned here, and I do have real life examples to support my case.

For starters, Donald Trump never said that we are going to ban all Muslim immigration. He is putting a hold on Muslim immigration until we can get better screening. We are not against Islam, we are just trying to sift through who is good and who is bad. There have been Islamic attacks recently, more than 30,000 since the tragedy on September 11th, 2001, for that fact. Now I'm not saying that Muslims are bad, I am saying that we don't know who these people are, and until we can get better screening, I think ensuring everyone's safety is a good idea before letting foreigners in, especially from the horrors that we have seen.

Donald Trump also has no prejudice against Mexicans either. Donald Trump wants to deport all the illegal Mexican immigrants. I do admit Donald Trump sometimes words himself in an obnoxious way, but his intentions are for the better of America.

As for my real-life scenario, I would like to mention a major problem that Donald Trump has the possibility to fix. It's welfare fraud.

My family had lived in this same house for nearly 20 years, we aren't rich but we aren't poor. What I am saying is, we've never received any form of government support on our income, whilst we are a small family. With the unfortunate death of my father on 11 December, I am left with only my mother, and we are struggling financially. Nonetheless we still have not received any government support. On the other hand, our neighbors have a son that has reached his 20's, and has now become a parent. He has been with two women in the past year and has three children, where he collects $60,000 a year tax-free due to welfare fraud, claiming he is a single parent whilst both parents live in the same house. Now the variables don't add up here. My mother is elderly and currently struggling to survive, whilst my neighbor has a body fit for work and labor, and has not yet contributed to society, and yet he is able to survive off of welfare fraud and unemployment while my mother is forced not to retire.

What I'm saying is that Donald Trump's ideas seem to be scary, but they have a point, they will accomplish something, and America simply can't afford to support these people who are living unfairly off of welfare fraud, and we can't afford the immigration and death rates from the Islamic population. What we need to do is stop and think before we make any decisions that could cost us more than we can afford.

 

I agree with your statements about Trump.

1.) I don't think Trump hates Mexicans and I personally don't see whats that wrong with deporting illegal immigrants. After all they are illegal. And I would much rather prefer to see legal Mexican's who get the benefits of being a US citizen but also while paying their dues and taxes.

2.) I also agree with your point about welfare and I sincerely apologize for your current struggles in life and hope it gets better.

3.) I don't hate Trump, and in my opinion it is stupid for people to bash on him. The fact of the matter is that he is going to be our next President regardless and arguing about his win won't solve anything. If I or someone else wishes he will fail in office then we are also wishing for this country to fail. His success = our countries success, so we should all be rooting for him.

That said he does have some ideas I can't fully comprehend or understand how they will actually work as he plans them to. This doesn't mean I hate these plans or him for that matter but rather I just feel like he is taking the wrong approach. It doesn't really matter to me how long Trump plans on banning Muslim immigration into our country. Trump could ban muslims for his entire term or for one minute I could care less. But regardless of how long the ban is what will that actually do. The screening system we have now has worked fine for the past eight years so what is there to fix. Thats the main point of this thread. I am not looking to hate Trump and his ideas but just want to know why he thinks a pause in immigration from the Middle East will do anything.