I've always wondered why there is such a divide between conservatives and liberals regarding the solution to terrorism in your country. Both sides hate it. Both sides want to stop it. Both sides have solutions that make sense to me. Either sides' solutions don't seem mutually exclusive to me. But a middle ground win-win solution seems impossible.
Assault rifles and guns in general are dangerous and screening should be made stricter.
And yes, if terrorists can't get their hands on guns, they would likely use an alternative weapon (such as bombs). But taking away one preferred option for mass killing from them isn't a bad idea.
Individuals with ties to terrorism (of any ideology) or have expressed terrorist beliefs SHOULD be monitored extensively or even straight up deported (if they are not naturally born americans) and FFS should be completely denied legal access to guns. I understand profiling is racist and unfair but if it works, then it should be used. The lives of the few outweigh the sensitivities of the many.
And I always wondered where the "the Muslims will revolt" mentality is coming from. Hypothetically, if you're gay and your country decided to get rid of/put pressure against the ppl that have links to a terror group that guns down innocent ppl to push for gay rights, would you revolt? I wouldn't if they did that against a Catholic group, I'd actually cheer the government on. Moderate Muslims are the same (or at least the ones I've met) and would understand such precautions. It's the radical ones that would likely go nuts. But they already hate you anyway. Frankly, this "logic" actually completely dehumanizes moderate Muslims as it assumes that they are not persons who can take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.
I mean both arguments from either side make sense but why is it impossible for ideas from both sides to be used? Again, they seem like they are not mutually exclusive to me.
I guess that is the problem when there is an ideological split. But it seems like such a waste.
Instead of calling it radical islam, or islamophobia we should call it islamofacism or islamonazis. Because currently there is no other form of government that closely resembles nazis and fascism as Islamic governance.
Oh wow, it really is a term. I did not even know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
So lets just call it what it is, Islamofascism
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Plus when it comes to guns..I wonder how many guns give people cancer every year?
I mean we live in a country where we sell a product with a warning label of "this will potentially kill you" and it's not like it's on a can of poison or something, it's on items MEANT to be consumed, meant to be used in the exact way in which they cause harm. These are also addictive and for a long time were seen as a "cool" status symbol by teens.
I mean when we figured out how toxic stuff like asbestos was we actively went out of our way to not use it and to remove it in places where it already was.
Originally posted by psycho gundam
It's pretty wild how bold you are making statements like thatYou don't actually care about human beings. You cannot AND say this
You have a strange misguided view of how complex people are. Of course you can say those things and care about human beings. Perhaps you don't care about ALL human beings, but it's not like you lack the ability to care at all.
Would you say the nazi's cared about nobody? Except they did: other nazi's. There were also some non-nazi's they were indifferent to, kinda.
I'm not condoning it, but you can actually be a super racist ass hole while still not being 100% emotionless.
Originally posted by SurturI'm actually shocked you posted this, not only because you're trying to apologize for someone else's poisonous thinking with a Nazi reference with a positive message at the end(?) but also for not seeing what I was a responding to and not understanding the nuance as far as to confront me for defending life....
You have a strange misguided view of how complex people are. Of course you can say those things and care about human beings. Perhaps you don't care about ALL human beings, but it's not like you lack the ability to care at all.Would you say the nazi's cared about nobody? Except they did: other nazi's. There were also some non-nazi's they were indifferent to, kinda.
I'm not condoning it, but you can actually be a super racist ass hole while still not being 100% emotionless.
This place I tell ya
Originally posted by psycho gundam
I'm actually shocked you posted this, not only because you're trying to apologize for someone else's poisonous thinking with a Nazi reference with a positive message at the end(?) but also for not seeing what I was a responding to and not understanding the nuance as far as to confront me for defending life....This place I tell ya
I wasn't trying to apologize for anything dude. Let me try to sum up what I was saying: having a really f*cking shitty belief doesn't mean one is 100% devoid of human emotion. That is all I meant.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I've always wondered why there is such a divide between conservatives and liberals regarding the solution to terrorism in your country. Both sides hate it. Both sides want to stop it. Both sides have solutions that make sense to me. Either sides' solutions don't seem mutually exclusive to me. But a middle ground win-win solution seems impossible.Assault rifles and guns in general are dangerous and screening should be made stricter.
And yes, if terrorists can't get their hands on guns, they would likely use an alternative weapon (such as bombs). But taking away one preferred option for mass killing from them isn't a bad idea.
Individuals with ties to terrorism (of any ideology) or have expressed terrorist beliefs SHOULD be monitored extensively or even straight up deported (if they are not naturally born americans) and FFS should be completely denied legal access to guns. I understand profiling is racist and unfair but if it works, then it should be used. The lives of the few outweigh the sensitivities of the many.
And I always wondered where the "the Muslims will revolt" mentality is coming from. Hypothetically, if you're gay and your country decided to get rid of/put pressure against the ppl that have links to a terror group that guns down innocent ppl to push for gay rights, would you revolt? I wouldn't if they did that against a Catholic group, I'd actually cheer the government on. Moderate Muslims are the same (or at least the ones I've met) and would understand such precautions. It's the radical ones that would likely go nuts. But they already hate you anyway. Frankly, this "logic" actually completely dehumanizes moderate Muslims as it assumes that they are not persons who can take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.
I mean both arguments from either side make sense but why is it impossible for ideas from both sides to be used? Again, they seem like they are not mutually exclusive to me.
I guess that is the problem when there is an ideological split. But it seems like such a waste.
Do people on the left actually disagree with monitoring people with ties to terrorism extensively? As far as I can tell Obama has himself talked in favour of this. I think the disagreement comes when some on the right propose that this kind of monitoring or other sanctions should be extended to all Muslims (foreign and even US citizens)