Dilemma

[ ] Ban all Muslims, because a few of them are terrorists.
[ ] Ban gun ownership, because of a few of them shoot up schools.

Pick both or pick none. Explain your cognitive dissonance when only picking one.

We need to let Muslims in, and get rid of violent killing machines.

check'd

>1 post by this ID
Sage

THAT is some stonecold liberal logic right there, explains why your party is in the shitter

During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.
Fucking OP is top fag.

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Muslims are not.

Islam is a dangerous, regressive ideology. They become dangerous as a whole once there's too many of them.

Ones in the Constitution. One isn't. Idiot.

Irrelevant. This is the only argument.During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.
Fucking OP is top fag.

Legal gun owners statistically commit less crimes than the average citizen and make up about 30% of the population.

Meanwhile 1% of the population makes up 50% of all acts of mass violence.

Really makes you think.

ban these slide threads, get in here!

1st amendment protects Muslims
2nd amendment protects Guns
???????

Everyone knew the Russia thing was bullshit the moment it was suggested. What's the point?

Guns don't cause a disproportionate amount of violence compared to other fatal weapons like knives

muslims however do cause disproportionate terrorism

Checkmate trannies.

Ban the muzzies keep the guns. Such an easy option. How is this even bait lol?

Ban all gun ownership.

>Cognitive Dissonance

Because I'm a brainwashed libtard

>cognitive dissonance

A religious ideology vs A tool used to kill
Not equivalent

No tard it happened the other way around.
FIRST democrats wanted to ban guns because of a few tards with guns.
THEN muslims with guns and cars and knives and bombs and incompatible beliefs need to be banned

>they've learn how to manipulate digits

That's why THISIs the only arguement.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

m8 i took a shot. the digits were luck.

That's comedy gold a Canadian thinks a US Consititional right is irrelevant.

Your entire country is irrelevant.

The state can't sponsor (or, by some definitions, prosecute) a religion BUT that only applies when they are in the country. If the constitution applies the way leftists think it does we would have to invade every country on earth because of constitutional infractions.

What a waste of trips

but what if that religious is completely against what the constitution is about

>islam is not a tool used to kill
ISIS seems to base their whole thing on it faggot.

>The state can't sponsor (or, by some definitions, prosecute) a religion
Yes just like how you can only own a gun if you are in a militia, under some definitions

Constitutions are the only reason the Muslims got into our countries in the first place.
Any other point can be argued other than THIS"During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot."
This is the only argument that cannot be debunked.

guns are already here by the HUNDREDS of millions.

criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns from south america and the black market if they are banned for non criminal americans.

muslims are from countries OUTSIDE the united states.

there are no rights in the united states for non citizens.

banning something that isn't here to begin with (3 million) is not the same as banning something the permeates (300 million) the entire society.

Irrelevant, it's a fucking loophole.
THIS is the only argumentDuring the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

I pick some of a and some of b, anyone preaching non-secular Islam is kicked out and crazy people aren't allowed to own guns. Also, keep the really cool stuff at a gun club.

Muslims are not a means to the end that is my own self-defense. They are partially-sentient, acting beings, not objects.

1st amendment:
hereby we proclaim that borders and nations are invalid and everyone should be let in the country regardless of how unfit for life in civilization he is

oh wait, it doesnt say that

>1st amendment protects Muslims

who are already citizens of the country

It was a fairly recent ruling thay determined that prosecution was the same as sponsorship is all I meant.

Also, grammatically, the definition you are talking about is impossible.

Of course, had to be americans to seriously discuss this trivial useless topic.

Ban all muslims so they can't shoot up schools.

Why are they coming to a country antithetical to their beliefs? This very reasoning exactly echoes that Muslims are incompatible with Western civilization. They must go back.

Irrelevant, This is only argument.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

Fuck off. The "crazy stuff" is almost NEVER used in murders. Rifles, of all kinds not just "assault", are the source of less than 200 gun deaths a year, which are mostly suicide.

Nao

We want legal both, but we need right to shoot anyone who pulls out muslim in a public. You can have muslims as long as you will keep them in safe and protect children from playing with them and you will take full responsibility if your muslim fires by accident.

the difference is a gun doesnt choose to kill people like a muslim does

Get rid of Niggers to get rid of gun violence.

Irrelevant, this is the only argumentDuring the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

[x] Option 3: Discard liberalism-egalitarianism, restore monoethnic tribal society, suppress and remove all minorities, free gun ownership for your people!

...

The only argumentDuring the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

DELETE THIS!!!!!!

During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

Banning muslims is to stop multiculturalism you retarded faggot

I am a citizen of the USA, where I live. This is the only argument.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

Its not a hard choice or a sign of cognitive dissonance because banning all muslins is simply not the same as banning a gun. Although its funny if you are a libshit and you actually that.

Banning all muslims can also be argued in other ways, you are simply strawmanning it for trolling purposes. How about i dont want a fucking Mosque instead of a church in my town? Hows that for a reason? Or i dont want rapegangs roaming around public schools? Get fucked and sage. in all fields

When Canada stole my triples.

Gun murders are rare here, it's mostly stabbings, stranglings and bludgeoning.

Regardless, it's to prevent you even thinking about carrying your own personal automatic weapon you bought walking down the streets. After a gun licence, gun club membership and maybe some army stuff, after all that you can get pretty much anything here.

See how this works? If I had mental health problems or had flunked through the army or whatever I wouldn't own guns.

>firearms course

Yeah.... no

I was a multiple gun owner before ever taking a course.

You don't need to take any kind of firearms course for rifles and shotguns.

Only when you want a concealed carry permit (and some states don't even require a course for this) might you need a short formal class.

But yes, "kill all infidels" isn't really the kind of religion I want to be around.

'gun ownership' can't shoot, it's an abstract concept

I am an American my dude. It's burger time. Now my opinion matters because USA is where I live.
This is the only argument.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

Here's the thing. We don't need Muslims. What do they actually contribute? How does importing more benefit us?

Meanwhile the gun problem is more of a genie is out of the bottle type thing. They exist, they're not going away. Just like anything else, if you make them illegal, criminals will still get them. And then you have a population where all the law abiding citizens are unarmed and the criminals have guns.

This is reductio ad absurdum. Muslims aren't guns, they're too totally different things. It's funny though because the way you set up this question you implying Muslims are just tools for killing people.

Sorry, we need guns to protect ourselves from the muslims

> How about i don't want a fucking Mosque instead of a church in my town?

Who cares what some rural uneducated Trump voter wants?

Are you ok with banning mosques? Then you are being unconstitutional. The right to gather in a religious place is in the constitution.

So the constitution does not matter? Then be consistent and say goodbye to your dated militia clause. You can not cherry pick from the constitution to suit your wants. Or if you do, at least admit that you have inconsistent beliefs.

My pappy taught me how to use, assemble and clean muh gun. This counts as a firearms course. I live in America, and I am a USA citizen. It is burger time... my dudes. This is the only argument.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

Why do guys keep saying "firearms course"?

This is a meme.

Pretty much no state requires anything other than showing your drivers licnese to walk out of the gun shop with a rifle, shotgun, and handgun (after the 2 week waiting period for the handgun only).

States only require a course when you want to conceal carry your handgun. And some states have even dropped this requirement.

Firearms course isn't required.

Read "gun owners"

Reddit spacing, go faggot. I am a USA guy. USA USA USA. This is the only argument.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.
Burger... Time.

"the government has the right to tell me if I think the right things enough to own a weapon"

Jesus fucking christ. There is zero correlation between murders and gun ownership. Places with constitutional carry, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm in public concealed, the longest amount of time have some of the lowest murder rates in our country. Plus we have more niggers.

See
Burger Time. This is the only argument.
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

I've been criticized for my spacing as well.

What's wrong with inserting a space to clean things up?

Is it any worse than you pasting the same "burger time" idiocy? More than once even.

>Who cares what some rural uneducated Trump voter wants?
you'd best start caring, loser party

Burger time in USA my dudes. The only argument is:
During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.
I am not a Canadian. USA USA USA. Burger time!

Where does it state in the Quran that all non-Muslims should be killed?

Actually, the Quran states:

> "It is permissible to fight against oppression and persecution. This does not apply only to Islam and Muslims, because everyone has the right to worship God. God says, “To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they are wronged and verily God is Most Powerful for their aid. [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right [for no cause] except that they say, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure” 22:39 – 40

Now compare the above reasoning with gun owners stating that they need a gun to protect themselves in case they are oppressed / in threat of violence?

Not so different, at all.

While we are at it ban all knifes because some are used to kill people ...
You are a donkey, sir.

Yeah, except we benefit from civilian gun ownership. It allows us the natural right to protect ourselves and keeps tyranny at bay.

We don't benefit at all from Islam. The two are not similar and your mind is very childish if you think so.

>you will kill the unbelievers wherever you find them
Ring any bells?

That's like saying: Ban Muslims because someone choked on a Berlin kebab once.

Do you think Adam Lanza could have cleared out that school with a kitchen knife?

FUCKING SLIDE THREADS. FOCUS ON THE SETH RICH LEAKS YOU IDIOTS. SHILLS ARE STORMING US RIGHT NOW.

Guns have a useful purpose, muslimes don't.

>Taqiyya, the post.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]

>Here's the thing. We don't need Muslims. What do they actually contribute? How does importing more benefit us?
BUT HOW WILL WE SURVIVE WITHOUT ALL THOSE THIRD WORLD DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS?

Islam started science, I'll have you know. Mathematics and the scientific method came from Muslims! Obviously the accomplishments of centuries ago translate into the demography of modern-day Islamic society lel

Oy

I am and American, it is burger time. USA USA USA.During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.

Importing hordes of people who don't mesh into our society isn't constitutionally protected. Gun ownership is. Nigger.

...

>Ban all Muslims, because a few of them are terrorists.
>Ban gun ownership, because of a few of them shoot up schools.

False equivalency. Guns provide a means to protect oneself. They have utility, and that utility far outweighs the risks of allowing them. On the contrary, having more Muslims does not benefit my country in any way. They are an unnecessary risk.

The actual verse is:

"And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush.".

As such it does not apply to Christians and Jews, but to pagans: polytheists.

And the next verse (the sura has 9 verses):

"If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety".

You also take it out of the context: It was written during a tribal war.

Vey

>ban guns because because murder happens
>ban knifes because murders happen
>ban hammers because murders happen
>ban any kind of blade or tool because murders happen
>ban food because people choke on it
>ban water because people drown in it
>ban penises because rapes happen
Let's ban all the things because if you want one thing banned you need to also ban other things because reasons

During the firearms course they don't hand out a book that says all non-firearm owners should be shot.
It is burger time. I hate maple syrup.

Guns shoot up schools on their own, really activates my almonds.

Question needs to be ban all muslims because a "few" of them are terrorists and ban all humans because a few of them turn to mass murder.

Islam is an ideology. Gun ownership is a constitutional right in the USA. They aren't even remotely similar.

you cant ban guns in the US given how large and multicultural it is. If I lived in the US I can tell you I would want to own a weapon to defend myself.
Remove all the non-europeans and I am sure most Americans would not have the same need for gun ownership (except for hunting and collecting).

also one could argue that guns are a part of American burger culture while Muslims are not. Same with Alcohol in Denmark. People die more of it than any other drug and we will never ban it because its so ingrained and part of our history and culture that Danes would really not be Danes without it.

It's actually more like "ban muslims because they're a hostile, rapidly expanding demographic that is resistant to integration and hold extremely authoritarian religiontard values. Also many more are/sympathize with terrorists than any other ideological group."

>muh context
Don't give a shit. Vast numbers of muslims wherever they're present in their little enclaves believe in violent retaliation to fucking Muhammad cartoons

Eihoofd! Freedom of religion is a constitutional right too.

>Explain your cognitive dissonance
>Not realizing those are two very distinct and different threat levels
"A few" being the 40% that push for Sharia Law, that means Billions want you dead simply for being a faggot, OP. Would you really be okay with knowing that HALF of the people that got off the plane want you dead? I'm being serious.

>Muh school shootings
How often do those happen in comparison to terrorist attacks? Are you paying attention to only US terror attacks or global terror attacks? Because I can say with confidence, hundreds are killed on average every week via terrorism while it will take several months before dozens are killed from a lone gunman, which is usually dead within the day.

OP, the left needs to fix its shit. It's time you stopped making fun of the right and checked yourselves or you won't have a party to vote for by next election.

Ban all Muslims, no brainer.muslims aren't people

So, children - what have we learned today?
That analogies are stupid!

I dont know your laws but if that is true then ive just lost the last bit of respect ive held for burgers.
>Freedom of Religion
what does that even mean? You can believe and practice any belief without needing approval?

Well you already want to ban gun ownership so by that logic you should want to band Muslims too.

For citizens. You can still deny entry based on faith.

That still doesn't change the fact that Islam and gun ownership aren't comparable.

I am actually of the position that we should not ban gun ownership, nor freedom of religion. I do think gun ownership is stupid, unnecessary to own a semi-automatic, but I am consistent.

In the US, more than 10,000 Americans will likely be killed in gun murders this year. Another 20,000 will likely be lost to gun suicide. The total number of gun deaths and violent injuries will be close to 100,000.

America's gun problem is far larger than mass shootings...

Sure, you can find other reasons to ban Muslims. But to use the trope that: some Skittles in the bowl will be dangerous, applies to gun owners too.

>Eihoofd! Freedom of religion is a constitutional right too.
Problem is that Islam is wholly antithetical to that right. Vast numbers of them seek to impose their fairytail onto legislation, and when the demographics of a country is replaced by them, your constitution won't mean fuck all when the majority wants a theocracy. That document isn't infallible, least of all to them.