Mynamescox44: Alright. I haven't even read your whole post yet, I will before I finish this one though. From what I've read, this is utterly ridiculous.

Just as easy to kill someone with a bat or a large blade? Are you kidding me? Think before you speak. If one guy has a 9mm, and the other has a baseball bat, we all know how that's going to go. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, I don't care if you manage to somehow catch a bullet on a metal bat, you're dead.

"I'm not a p***y who needs a gun to hide behind when s**t hits the fan." Just quoting you here. Sure, you may not be a p***y, but you're certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed if you think any other weapon is going to protect you as well as a firearm, and no, that's not a complement despite your faith in said blunt objects. Even the best fighters you'll meet know to have guns. Are they p****ies too?

Guess what? In the EU, people aren't allowed to have guns at all. Liberals point out that gun violence is at a minimal, but people who know what they're talking about point out that crime rates and murder rates have skyrocketed.

As for the Muslims, if people are dying every day, which I completely agree with, we shouldn't be letting them in at the moment. They'll cause even more trouble. Muslims aren't the root of all the worlds problems, but many of them sure do stem from the radicals, that's for sure, and once again, I'll point to Europe, which is flooded by non-ISIS Muslims who are fleeing ISIS. They're causing absolute chaos over there, because they only know the way of life within their home countries, and can't adapt to the European life style. And guess what? Since they don't have guns in Europe, they can't do anything to stop these mobs. 

That's why we should enact a temporary ban on Syrian immigration. Not to mention letting more ISIS people in.

Titan127 : Fair enough perhaps I came off as a bit to sure in my post but he did say something needed to be done and the way it came off to me he's strongly considering a database of some sort as well as possibly making muslims in the country wear some sort of identification to keep to "more easily be able to monitor them" both changes that are exactly what Hitler did and no most acts of terror are not committed by Muslims it just seems that way because there's such an emphasis on a person being Muslim if they commit a crime wetter it actually was religiously motivated or not. Even when a christian commits a crime that's religiously motivated it's rarely talked about.

I know what is going on since I live there in one of the "hotzones" of the refugee crisis, and I've been following the development of all of this very closely. I can tell you however that while definietly a big problem right now it's somewhat overblown and stories like these are often used by conservative media to scare Americans and make them think it's even worse than it is. Really a lot of the problems in Europe in general (though it varies from country to country) is caused by how the EU has handled the whole situation not to mention a lot of European countries weren't in the best state to take in refugees to begin with compared to the US. With how small the amount of muslims living in the US is I definietly think you could stand to take a few more even if not to the extent some European countries including my own have.

And in response to something you said in another post. Guns is not the solution to this. Bringing guns into our society would create way more problems than it solves, with all the crime it brings and I'm not basing that on blind belief but on actual statistics if you compare developed countries with liberal gun laws to those with more strict gun laws. It would not suddenly solve the problem of ISIS as these are people who are very dedicated to their cause and will stop at nothing to see it through, suddenly having people wear guns isn't going to deter them. I can also tell you this is something most people here agree on even the more conservative.

Yes people have a hard time adapting but that's because we do little to help them adapt to society while at the same time seeing some countries take in a huge amount of refugees. And I'd say that is to be expected anyway as long as they abide the laws of whatever country they're in, I don't see why they can't keep parts of their culture. You see the same thing happening with Christians fleeing those areas, it's nothing that stems from Islam.

Oldschool777 : Any religion can be twisted that way, it's not really any different when it comes to Islam. We've seen it with both islam and Christianity but I don't think that's an excuse to blame and/or punish all muslims for that, you would never see that same treatment with if ISIS was a chiristian group or even it being discussed for that matter. Really I don't see why people would have the right to suddenly oppress a minority in the name of "safety" even more so considering a change like this probably would do little to nothing in terms of making the US more safe but definietly would make people fear that of which they know little about in this case Islam and Muslims, which I think is the last thing to strive for in a situation like this.

Zlinqx: Yes, he is considering a database, which I find perfectly acceptable, honestly. The identification thing is nothing more than over-speculation by the liberal media though, otherwise he would be absolutely hammered for that constantly. I also have to go against you on your second point. Lets see the Navy Yard shooting. What the media said (before any information had been let out) was that it was a white republican Christian with an AR-15 shotgun. I won't even get into the fact that there is no such thing as an AR-15 shotgun, but by the time the information that he was a black liberal Muslim was let out, it had blow over. Or more recently, when there were multiple shooters, they said they were looking for white young adult males. Not Arabic (sorry if I got the ethnicity wrong, I don't know the specific ethnicity of really anything except for Aryan). Or, for that matter, recently a man came after a police officer (who was in his car) and tried to shoot him. The man admitted he had done it for Islam, but that got blown over and denied by the media as well. Not only does that confirm that the media isn't on my side, it gives even more reasons to keep Syrians out temporarily.

As for this, the conservative media has very limited power as compared to the liberal media in America. And here's the thing, you're almost proving my point right here: "With how small the amount of Muslims living in the US is I definitely think you could stand to take a few more even if not to the extent some European countries including my own have." While not flat out admitting it, this implies that you don't in fact, think they should be there. You obviously don't want them there, and why is that? Think about it.

And this here, my post was based on statistics as well. Like I said, gun violence drops at astounding rates, but actual violent crime skyrockets. Those are the statistics you'll find if you dig just a little bit deeper.

Finally, from what I've seen, they aren't abiding the laws of whatever country they're in, and they should be allowed to keep their religion and the like, but when they cause chaos, or want to enact Shari law, then I have a problem, and a big one. I haven't seen the likes from Christians fleeing those countries either, would you mind providing me with an example?

Zlinqx : Funny, Sweden is going to become a third world country by 2030, a UN study said recently.

The fact of the matter is, guns are private property. The government has NO RIGHT to my private property.

I don't think it would be a bad to ban it since it will definitely spawn all sorts of things like  protests, mobs, etc. Even if there are problems with it, maybe letting the problem continue will keep the hypersensitive people at bay.

Titan127 : Sorry for the late reply didn't realize you had responded because I never got a summon. I'll try responding again but it's been a while since I last added into this discussion so hopefully I don't end up repeating myself too much.

I wouldn't say it's overspeculation since he never denied it and it could be a natural step. The similarity is still there because establishing a database for jews was one of the first things Hitler did. Not saying things would play out exactly like it did then.

The second things goes to a point I made earlier. People only really look up the religion of someone when they're muslim often times when someone is christian and commit a crime it won't be stated even if it was religiously motivated that would often be dismissed. An example I like using to illustrate that is the utoya shooting. Anders Breivik from Norway went to a workers youth league camp and murdered 77 people, most of which were minors. Deemed as one of the most horrific acts of terror in recent history, he was a christian and did it for religiously motivated reasons yet that particular point was barely brought up at all. Which makes sense because why would christians look for a reason to exclude other christians? I would like to ask you to reference wherever it says that legal authority has been looking for aryan christians specifically because I simply don't see that being very believable and I'd argue the contrary is much more likely.

Wheter liberal media is bigger or not does not actually say anything about the validity, furthermore I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that supported the split being about half with slightly leaning towards the liberal side. I never said I don't want muslims here that's just you making assumptions. I AM half arabic and my father was an egyptian immigrant. The thing I would say is true is that Sweden has taken in more immigrants than we can actually handle considering we're a pretty small country population wise (In relation to that we've taken in more than any other western country in the world)  and have done a poor job helping them assimilate to society. This has created a lot of tension and segregation which I personally would blame at our inept government who didn't realize their mistake until the deed was done. In comparison the US has barely taken in any immigrants considering you'd have the capacity to take in a lot more which is what I was getting at. The spread should be more balanaced and the responsiblity shared by all western countries in stead of how it is now, when countries like Sweden and Germany are taking in tons and US barely any. I wasn't saying this meaning Sweden was some kind of model example in how to handle the refugee crisis because simply put it's not.

Again I would like you to provide sources for these statistics. Just stating that it's the case isn't actually say anything.

Nobody has enacted sharia law in a western country. Sure not everyone abides laws and I'm in favor of sending those who don't back to the country they came from, but the majority do. There are many muslims who's lived in the US for years that you don't see causing any problems. The source of this terror is caused by young people typically rbeing recruited by people working for ISIS under false pretenses that they'll actually be helping people by providing relief and/or appealing to the fantasy that you'll be contributing to something greater which can be an appealing thought for many teenagers who feel like they don't belong. They then trick them to go down there after which they'll be held there and force to fight or serve them. That's essentially how it works here too. Those recruiters are the people who primarily need to be dealt with not the people being recruited. Thing is people like Trump who wants to treat muslims that way is only adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously you wouldn't see christians from those countries commiting big acts of terror against other christians even if they may be different because there is no motivation for them to do so and no big terror organization like ISIS that would brainwash them into that way of thinking. The goal of ISIS is essentially world domination by muslims and any muslims/muslim country which doesn't agree aren't true muslims to them. When most of the western world is inhabited by christians that motivation wouldn't really work here. The point I was getting at about christians fleeing these countries is that they're just as prone to doing things like those people think muslims typically do. IE treating women poorly. Because those are things that aren't based on the religion there but on society itself being less developed and people who have lived there being used to the hierarchy being set up a differnt way. As far as adapting goes that's why the government needs to establish a system to more easily be able to integrate people into society (the other big flaw in the swedish system besides reaching overcapacity).


FalcoDude : I've heard about the report before and it simply isn't true. That study was based on the HDI. It's also been predicted that Sweden would be ranked 25th on the HDI by 2015 which didn't turn out to be true at all. Furthermore it wasn't stated anywhere in the study that Sweden would be a 3rd world country, that was something added later in articles talking about it mostly by right wing media. If you can cite the place in the article where it says otherwise then I'd very much like to see it. If anyone actually read the report they'd see the prediction that the HDI of Sweden would drop wasn't even made by the model they primarily discussed but another set of data they used to compare it to. "User approach data" which seems a whole lot less scientific in how it is complied. Even if following that we still wouldn't be a third world country because the report said the HDI would be about 0.906 and anything above 0.9 is considered very highly developed (with anything above 0.8 still being highly developed). For a first world country to completely reverse and become a third world country in such a short period of time it would take some pretty extreme changes. 

As far as guns go that doesn't really apply I'd say when those guns could be a hazard for other people. That logic would make more sense being applied to drugs then because why would the government have any business in what drugs you're using if you aren't forcing them on others? The debate in the US isn't even about taking away all guns nor would I suggest doing that in the US because with the rampant gun culture I think it would be inefficient. It's about banning certain weapons such as assault rifles from public use because you're not going to need those for protection.

TLDR: I think you need to read through the report you seem to be referencing again.

Timothy McVeigh.
Charles Whitman.
The KKK.

These are 3 examples of WHITE domestic terrorists, born and raised in the USA (I'm naming Charles Whitman only because his act could also be looked at as act of terror, as I'm sure it was by those who were attacked by him). It's important to keep in mind that not all terrorists are going to come from overseas, or be of another color and/or religion.

It's natural to have some fear, but I'm reminded of the golden rule - "treat others how you want to be treated". I would hope that if for *some reason* I was a refugee, a country would be willing to give me a chance and take me in.

Nothing has prevented criminals going in and out, yet the method installed by our goverment essientially plays god over the lives of others, turning away people who've lost their homes and families to war and poverty.


Even in light of our countries buisness in instigating war and the selling of weapons, we're told be afraid of "terrorists" to legitimize the unjust actions of our goverment and our invasion of the east.

The issue is that we are unaware and misinformed by politics, blurring the line between victims of war and the actual mercenaries, and in this case, making a scape-goat out of a religion that promotes peace more than most.

Note:
The Quran is a historically respected religious text, especially in the early years of Americas' declaration of independance, and it was a islamic country to first recognize Americas' freedom and gave it's support.

We need to know what we're fighting, and it isn't muslims.

Banning Muslim immigration? I don't think it should be done, but there might be a need to limit and background check the number of people who immigrate from countries where terrorists are known to reside. The background check will help our country make sure that we don't have terrorists entering our country and help them so that our country knows that you are a non terrorist person who practices Islam and that you should not be placed on any watch list.

To begin: I am a muslim, so obviously I am somewhat passionate about this subject, even though I am not in the US, or have any link to the country.

I will keep it respectful. I want to also say that there is some misinformation about islam (and Sweden and Europe in general, but zlinq already made all the points I wanted to make about Europe)

janus: I am not 100 percent certain if you were serious with that us wanting to crush the western countries and all that, but if you were.

Its wrong. Just wrong, just like the supposed requirement for muslim women to wear hijab’s.

Sure a lot of muslim women do wear them, but I have several family members that don’t.

And for that muslim crushing thing, I don’t know where anyone would get that from, and to be honest, it would probably be some media fear mongering.

 

As for the actual issue itself which I just realized I haven’t really talked about yet.

Obviously, I don’t think so. I think something that people tend to forget, is that these refugees are trying to ESCAPE from DAESH., they are trying to escape. It’s absolutely heartless to keep them out. And even if there were criminals coming in to the country (not saying that it would happen) there are criminals coming from everywhere. There are criminals coming from everywhere.

Another thing I want to mention is that people think that muslims are the group that mostly do terrorist attacks. What about the countless mass shootings in the US? The things that i'm saying have pretty much already been said. (Except for us wanting to crush and the hajib thing)

 

 

Oldschool777: So, you want to shut down all muslim twitter accounts? So, mine as well ;P?

If you were to do that, you are disabling regular ever day life that all others can participate in but just because of a minority we can not.

As for muslims being the main group that does misdeeds and stuff, pretty much 100 percent agree with zlinq on that one.

 

And as for the irish being hated and why should muslims get a free pass. Do you think that it was good that the irish were insulted and hated? Do you honestly think that was a good thing? If not, then why in the world would you want that to happen AGAIN? And you don’t want to feel sorry for muslims? So you don’t want to feel sorry for people that are losing their families?

I tried to keep it respectful.

I never said it was good to hate on any race or religion or group. But part of earning acceptance is accepting the hatred and the insensitivity of others and proving people wrong. I know,not every single Muslim does bad things. A lot of them come here to start a new life and to be productive. But when you see terror on the global stage,it is either carried out by Muslims or they are the ones behind the scenes of such an attack. I know,maybe I am angry,maybe I am sick of seeing it,but it is true,sadly.

Oldschool777 : I disagree with you on the hatred thing, because I don't think you should first be hated to be accepted.

And you say ''But when you see terror on the global stage,it is either carried out by Muslims or they are the ones behind the scenes of such an attack.'' That is not true. You say it like only islamic terrorism exists. I want to bring Zlinq'xs point back up, first I mean no disrespect to christianity or any religion. But when say a ''christian''  does a terrorist attack a lot of the time it is just glanced over. When a ''muslim'' does it they won't shut up about the fact that its'' muslims.'' Yes there is a notable amount of ''islamic'' terrorism sadly, but thats not the only form of terrorism.
 

Obviously not. I'm Muslim. I know my faith quite well. We might have crooks, liars, extremists, and the like, but we are mostly sensible. To ban one group temporarily but no others reeks of racial prejudice. No one in U.S.A. was this hostile to the Islamic viewpoint until the September 11 attacks. Nowadays, Muslims don't have much respect at all. If they can't get into U.S.A. for one reason or another, they should immigrate to Canada or something. Bottom line; blatant racism and disrespect is a detriment to foreign relations, and society in general. We should stop being so judgmental. Just because one terrorist attack by one given ethnicity offends you, doesn't mean you should retaliate in loathing and discrimination. I bet the Japanese, despite being bombed twice, invaded and occupied, wouldn't develop a desire to decry America and it's people. Terrorism is obviously wrong, but America's not helping through assaulting Muslims, despite many of them not supporting Al-Qaeda. Assumption, prejudice, racism, stereotyping, bias, and inequality are detriments to global unity and understanding. 

Oldschool777 :  I disagree with your post. I know the media portrays Muslims as the only terrorists, but that's simply not true. I remember a few days ago when the news coverage about the Orlando shooting was happening and all the reporters were saying was how this guy was a Muslim and how he was devout in his faith. They're basically trying to get it in our minds that being Muslim= being a terrorist, which is simply not true. And if you're going to ban Muslims, for doing a "stereotypical thing", than you might as well ban everyone. Why not ban all white people because of the Columbine shootings? Why not ban all Asian people because of the Virginia Tech Massacre? Your reasoning is highly flawed. I understand a lot of terror attacks are carried out by Muslims, but you could say the same for any race or religion if you were to dig deeper. The fact of the matter is, there are good and bad people of all backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions. Banning a whole group from entering the country based on "they may or may not kill people" is stupid, and could be said about anyone. Anyone immigrating into the US could lead a productive life, or they could turn out to cheat, deceive, or kill people. 


imamonster : I totally agree dude. Although I'm not Muslim, it disgusted me how many times they mentioned the Orlando shooter was a Muslim. Seriously though, why does religion even matter in this situation. The person killed innocent people, end of story. No need to mention the killer's background, as it doesn't change anything. It's just the media trying to enhance an already strong stereotype. 


Ultrajeff : That's so right, dude. I hate how the actions of a few totally slander the majority. Just the statement "banning Muslims" is ridiculous. No matter what faith you are, you can't tell a whole religion that they can't come into your country. After all, the whole idea America was founded upon was the idea of equality for all and opportunities for people who didn't get them in their original countries. 

Once again it amazes me,and not in a good way how people cherry pick things without reading the whole damned thing. I know,not every single Muslim that comes here does so to do us harm. Most want a better life for themselves and their children. That is what America is supposed to be about. As a second chance,a time to make good.

Monster,my word,we must stop meeting like this,haha. A lot of groups that are respected now,like the Irish for example,they were treated like dirt,crammed into deplorable conditions,and there were signs that literally said,"Irish need not apply." They paid their dues and are now respected and loved. The term 'paddywagon'? That came from a large truck to haul away drunken Irish-Americans.

Oldschool777 : Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words but, just because a group in the past was treated like dirt, new groups need to be as well?

You can pay your dues in other ways, and not be handled like filth.

Oldschool777 : What the heck? So just because one group of people was treated bad hundreds of years ago, a group today must experience the same? The main reason we learn history is so that we don't let bad events repeat. Why would we want to repeat the mistreatment of an entire group? I have a few analogies for you. A freshmen in college is a victim of hazing at his school. Since he was hazed, when he becomes a Junior or Senior, he decides to haze the current freshmen just because he experienced the same. Is that right? No, it's not. All it will do is start a vicious cycle of hazing. Another analogy is a child who gets abused by his/her parents. They only know of this form of parenting and they feel like they have to do it to their kids because they experienced it too. This again starts a vicious cycle of abuse. We need to learn from the past, and move on, not make the same mistake again. 

It is the same in life,RDay. When you start at a new job,you are the lowest on the totem pole and you are given everyone else's crap. This is to see how you handle pressure. When you prove yourself,you are gradually given more respect and when someone else new starts,they must prove themselves. Believe it or not,a lot of people were treated bad when they first came here,they did not know the language or the customs,they only knew of their former life. But they did not whine and cry about it,they tried to understand and through struggle they were able to gain respect. Adversity builds character.

RDay13 : the difference you're not seeing is that his religion is the reason behind the attack. Being white or asian is NOT the same as being Muslim. I'm not sure why people equate religious groups with racial groups.

geeogree : Yes sadly he is doing it because of his religion. And a religion that he doesn't know.