Terrorist attack kills 50 in Orlando, Florida

That's not what Five Second Pose was arguing.
What he said was: if we assume that gun laws will only keep guns out of honest people's hands, but not those of determined criminals or terrorists,
then immigration laws will only keep honest Muslims out, but determined terrorists would still find their way into the country.

In my opinion, it is necessary to acknowledge that we are at war with Islamic extremist terrorists. And it is necessary to fight this war resolutely and effectively. But it would be foolish to declare war on Islam itself. All that would do is create a lot more angry young men to follow Al-Baghdadi, both in America (do you really think you can deport all Muslims?) and Europe, and in the 30-40 countries with a Muslim majority or large minority.

-It's a lot harder to hide your nationality than it is to hide a gun, you know. Determined terrorists will find their way in and be arrested on sight before they can even get to a crowded area if there were a Muslim ban, because at that point only the terrorists or persons of interest WOULD still be in the country, the rest would be gone. They can't just hide in a crowd of innocent Muslims when none are supposed to be left in the country.

-If they were that close to switching sides anyway, I question their allegiance in the first place. If violence is the only answer for that many of them, then it just further proves my point that they are all the problem and the seeds of that violence are in every last one of them.

And you recommend that America just seal its borders and then watch as all the NATO assets in Europe fall into Muslim hands?
If, as you believe, all Muslims are hell-bent on destroying Western culture, then that is way more suicidally stupid than allowing Iran to continue its nuclear program.

I said it wasn't my first choice because it's not my first choice, it's just the choice that is the least extreme. The most efficient choice would be to "excise the cancer", so to speak, which is a very apt euphemism for this particular case, because cancer always grows back eventually unless you wipe it out completely. That's too extreme for most everyone, and I understand that that will never happen, so I'm just floating much less effective solutions that are feasible. If even temporarily banning them until we get them under control is too extreme then I don't have a solution that would make any difference, we probably won't be destroyed simply because of the amount of guns the average southern American has even if the government does try to ban them, but it will be a war, and not just over in some other country, here. Likely, the government will either refuse to fight it or will actively aide the invaders and call us crazy or xenophobic or whatever, but so be it, the government isn't the end all and be all of everything, if things have to be taken into our own hands it can be done.

So, yes, allowing them to gain NATO's resources is crazy, but we can't interfere with the EU, at least not until they have completely broken down and can be deemed to be essentially wiped out. Other countries that have decided to do these things are currently not our problem, the US and only the US is our problem, we can pick up the pieces but that's about the extent of our influence. Allowing them to infiltrate here would only hurt our chances of retaliating when eventually that happens, because they will start hitting us internally and externally at the same time.

Jewish (and, by extension, Christian) sacred texts contain all sorts of bloodthirsty injunctions and laws.
One does not change sacred texts that were supposedly written by God Himself (or dictated to His prophets).
One reinterprets them. Religious scholars are really good at interpreting whatever is written to mean whatever they want it to mean. Just look at the history of Christianity, and the many different flavors it had and has, all claiming to follow the same scriptures.

I agree, you are supposed to reinterpret them. The Talmud is the most insanely xenophobic book ever written, it outright says that all people who are not both followers of the book AND pureblooded are less than cattle and can be killed for simply WALKING in front of a pureblood. (Most) Jewish people don't follow that pomegranate anymore, they decided that it was not in their best interest to continue down that path when they are such an extreme minority in the world. If they were in the population position of Muslims, I'm not sure they would have changed it; that's just how religion is, unless there is an existential threat to the entirety of the followerbase, they WILL GENERALLY NOT CHANGE. And that obviously includes all religions. Christianity only changed because it had to in order to survive. The difference between all of those and Islam is that the majority of them live in a wasteland, they have very few opportunities in life, and thus are very easily controlled into doing things that are not in the best interest of their own survival. Living in hot, dry, sandy areas and being trampled by the upper class for your entire life isn't exactly an ideal environment to raise rational individuals in the first place. Education is slowly helping bring them up to a level of self sufficiency, but it's clearly not working quickly enough, they are for the most part still living in a bubble from a thousand years ago in terms of their mentality, even as the gain semi-current technology.

That's a whole different discussion and quite irrelevant to the current issue.
I'll just point out that people have done, and continue to do, horrible things in the name of all sorts of ideologies and allegiances that have nothing to do with supreme beings. Just look at the hooligan soccer fans in France right now. It seems to be part of human nature. We can't excise it, we need to learn to control it.

I would argue that certain sports that create riots such as soccer have reached near insane cult levels to begin with, it's basically formed a pseudo-religion.



I'd like to add that many of these solutions I am suggesting are, while violent, not the same TYPE of violence that terrorists commit; fighting defensively is simply different, it is used to protect oneself from a clear threat when all other options have been exhausted. We have been dealing with these people for too long, it's clear that things are not going to change, so I consider that the threat is so prevalent that nearly any action can be seen as fighting defensively at this point (at a national level, for clarification).