ITT: Explain logically how a ban on people from Muslim majority countries is any different from trying to institute an...

ITT: Explain logically how a ban on people from Muslim majority countries is any different from trying to institute an assault weapons ban.

Protip: you can't.

Weapons don't kill people ?

Iran is not covered in the american constitution

The president has the right and the power to ban people from entering the united states based on the country they are departing from.

The president does neither has the right nor the power to stop people from buying/selling assault weapons. That would be Congress and they would need to pass a constitutional amendment.

How are the two things even remotely similar?

guns cant rape

An rifle is an object. Can't kill on it's own.

A Muslim will find any object they can use to kill Non-Muslims. Truck bomb rifle knife.

This is bait if you honestly believe this.

Are you trying to say people from muslim majority countries are dangerous, like weapons?

Das racis man.

Because now we have a president to actually enforce the laws

Assault rifles cant strap bombs to kids

SHALL

vs

fuck off

One is a tool owned by citizens, the others arent citizens.

Governments are servants of their citizens. They have a responsibility to protect the rights and lives of their people.

I don't get it. They're nothing alike. Why do I have to explain how they're different? One is an object that I can own. The other is a person from another country.

There's no correlation there.

/thread

One is constitutionally protected and the other isn't?

Because a country can decide who is to come to come to the country. It is a privilege, not a right.

An assault weapon ban is restricting rights of the people in the country.

Nigger.

Muslims pull their own trigger.

No such thing as assault weapons

The alternative to both is to have stringent background checks. It's completely possible in the case of assault rifles, not so much in a country without a functioning government.

US citizens have the right to own firearms

Non US citizens do not have the right to enter the US it is simply a privilege granted which can be taken away at any time

Rifles can't put it's radicalized kids in your children's classrooms and convert everyone to the power of Allah.
Rifles can't convince misguided teens to join ISIS.
Rifles can't bomb shit.
Rifles can't promote extremist behavior.
Rifles can do one thing. Fire bullets towards things that YOU aim for.

The US could tell its border agents to deny all foreigners and it still wouldn't violate the constitution as long as US citizens could still enter

The muslim ban was badly worded and badly implemented.

They're literally coming out with this shit at the very beginning of the administration to make them seem more reasonable in six months when they start rolling it all back. By the end of 2017 you'll see them lower the scale of the Wall, release statements saying how great muslims are, and putting out 'common sense' gun control laws.

They're just playing the game in a different way than previous regimes.

This will not happen. Trump is our guy.

Legally, one is protected by the constitution and the other is not. That is really all that matters.

On another level, certain guns are banned/heavily restricted for being too dangerous to be among the normal public. View these banned countries like machine guns, and you will see that:
1. We should have stricter gun rules for no real reason, because very few guns are going to be used against people. Just like these islamic countries and attacking the populace.
or
2. We should lift the silly restrictions on firearms because the logic in banning them is not grounded in statistical facts, just like the muslim ban.

B-b-b-but user! Emperor Trump is being intentionally misleadingly misquoted.

He proposed a ban until stronger vetting measures could be instituted.
Why can't that sound reasonable?

I don't have a human right to just come into your country, thats not how it works.

If I was a member of the IRA, it would be right to ban me considering my organisations ideological record.

So why should this be any different?
Islam IS different.

That said, a Christian with a gun is just as dangerous to a community as a Muslim with a gun if they both have the same intent to cause harm.

The American president's first responsibility is to his own people, not to kowtow to would be economic migrants terrorists and religious representatives.

Why are you STILL elevating special rights for the religious? You don't see how this could possibly negatively impact you all in the future?

Really?

REALLY?

>1 post by this ID

These fucking shill threads. If the OP wanted an answer to this question, he should've read the 3 other threads asking the same fucking question.

Sage.