Japan's top court has approved blanket surveillance of the country's Muslims

a reply to: Swills

First they came for the Muslims and I did nothing...

Funny you should bring that up. Islam parallels nazism in many ways.

Like for instance their hatred of Jews. Did you know that a greater portion of the koran and sunna are anti- jew when compared to Mein Kampf. This is not a friendly ideology to outsiders.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MysticPearl

Your argument in nonsenscical. You are still condemning an ENTIRE religion of BILLIONS.

So you couldn't refute any of it. None of it. You admit you defend pedophiles and drunk drivers.

And where the liberal logic fails is equating acknowledging and confronting a problem to condemning an entire segment of people.

Frankly, you're an accomplice to Islamic extremism, and pedophelia, and drunk driving.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Liquesence

Background checks and blanket surveillance are two completely different things. One seeks to check that someone HASN'T been convicted of a violent crime (DUE PROCESS) or been in a nuthouse, mentally unstable, etc; the other seeks to profile an entire group of people (Muslims) because of the actions of a minority (actual terrorists).

You just summed up gun control.

In case you missed it the first time.

the other seeks to profile an entire group of people (Law Abiding) because of the actions of a minority (actual mass shooters)

I addressed that in the post you quoted. Right after I said what you quoted.

In case you missed it the first time. Or did you simply ignore it?

Answer: How does requiring a background check take away a person's right to purchase a firearm?

Guess you also missed or ignored this:

Answer: Should anyone be able to buy a firearm without any questions or checks about WHO THEY ARE?

Answer: Should people with violent criminal histories be able to still purchase a firearm?

Waiting on your answers.

ETA:
I guess being carded to buy booze also profiles those of age who are trying to buy.
Or being asked for a driver's license to buy a car...
Etc.

That's really your logic?

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MysticPearl

Your argument in nonsenscical. You are still condemning an ENTIRE religion of BILLIONS.

So you couldn't refute any of it. None of it. You admit you defend pedophiles and drunk drivers.

And where the liberal logic fails is equating acknowledging and confronting a problem to condemning an entire segment of people.

Frankly, you're an accomplice to Islamic extremism, and pedophelia, and drunk driving.

Pedophiles and drunk drivers and Islamic extremism?

No, I am not an accomplice to any of those. Your argument makes no sense, still.

a reply to: Liquesence

Answer: How does requiring a background check take away a person's right to purchase a firearm?

Yep.

The biggest reason it's no longer a RIGHT.

A RIGHT is something that people get to exercise without disparagement,or infringement.

Should anyone be able to buy a firearm without any questions or checks about WHO THEY ARE

For over 225 years that EXACTLY how it was in the United States of America.

The Land of the FREE.

Unlike modern day Americans where some people think their RIGHTS come from the STATE.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Swills

First they came for the Muslims and I did nothing...

Funny you should bring that up. Islam parallels nazism in many ways.

Like for instance their hatred of Jews. Did you know that a greater portion of the koran and sunna are anti- jew when compared to Mein Kampf. This is not a friendly ideology to outsiders.

No, you have gone off the deep end. Blanket surveillance of an entire religion parallels nazism. Once a government does that, they do not stop there.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MysticPearl

Your argument in nonsenscical. You are still condemning an ENTIRE religion of BILLIONS.

So you couldn't refute any of it. None of it. You admit you defend pedophiles and drunk drivers.

And where the liberal logic fails is equating acknowledging and confronting a problem to condemning an entire segment of people.

Frankly, you're an accomplice to Islamic extremism, and pedophelia, and drunk driving.

Pedophiles and drunk drivers and Islamic extremism?

No, I am not an accomplice to any of those. Your argument makes no sense, still.

You admitted you are.

Your whole argument is you can't confront a problem because essentially "not all are guilty". And you can't pick and choose when to apply and not to apply that defense.

Can't confront Islamic extremism because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront pedophelia because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront drunk driving because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront sexual abuse in the church because not all priests are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Wouldn't have confronted Nazism because not all Germans are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

The guilty depend on people like yourself to do what they do. You're protecting them. Therefor, an accomplice.

a reply to: neo96

There are laws governing firearms from state to state. I know Texas has strong open carry laws. Other states frown on people walking the neighborhood toting a long gun. I think every state has background checks.

This does not infringe on the right. It does say that they need to check you are not a criminal or mentally insane. Some states say you will have to wait a few days....to avoid 'heat of the moment crimes' that they dealt with in the past.

Some peple do not qualify for the right. In most states, felons can't vote (though there are exceptions).

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Liquesence

Yep.

The biggest reason it's no longer a RIGHT.

A RIGHT is something that people get to exercise without disparagement,or infringement.

For over 225 years that EXACTLY how it was in the United States of America.

The Land of the FREE.

Unlike modern day Americans where some people think their RIGHTS come from the STATE.

You did not understand a very simple question. I did not ask "Does" it take away one's right (because it doesn't, nor does it infringe, because you still have the right), I asked HOW it takes away one's right (which can't be answered with a yes or no).

This, however, IS a yes or no question, which you didn't answer with a yes or no: Should anyone be able to buy a firearm without any questions or checks about WHO THEY ARE?

And again, ignored this one: Should people with violent criminal histories be able to still purchase a firearm?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Swills

First they came for the Muslims and I did nothing...

Funny you should bring that up. Islam parallels nazism in many ways.

Like for instance their hatred of Jews. Did you know that a greater portion of the koran and sunna are anti- jew when compared to Mein Kampf. This is not a friendly ideology to outsiders.

No, you have gone off the deep end. Blanket surveillance of an entire religion parallels nazism. Once a government does that, they do not stop there.

More liberal logic failure.

More surveillance of Germany would have helped prevent nazism.

Islam are the new Nazis. They want to kill anyone who isn't one of their own. And they benefit greatly from everyone else ignoring the problem within. Before you know....many dead and it's too late.

You don't see it, as liberals lack perspective and just stick to defending ideology, but you defend modern Nazism(Islam) and would have defended true Nazism decades ago.

This is so easy you wonder why you don’t see this in the msm.

It’s another proof to me that there is something false about all this terrorism we’ve had since 911.

All they have to do is watch WAHHABI MUSLIMS


I don’t know why they hide this obvious fact.

ALL TERRORISTS ARE WAHHABIS


An Admadiya Muslim, Sufi Muslims, and all other sects don’t even have to be watched.

They've NEVER committed any terrorism


To draw an analogy.

What if for example we had Christian terrorist events and all of them were Catholic.


Why wouldn’t they watch ONLY Catholics

And the Wahhabi sect though doesn't remotely, numerically speaking, compare to the Catholics in terms of numbers.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MysticPearl

Your argument in nonsenscical. You are still condemning an ENTIRE religion of BILLIONS.

So you couldn't refute any of it. None of it. You admit you defend pedophiles and drunk drivers.

And where the liberal logic fails is equating acknowledging and confronting a problem to condemning an entire segment of people.

Frankly, you're an accomplice to Islamic extremism, and pedophelia, and drunk driving.

Pedophiles and drunk drivers and Islamic extremism?

No, I am not an accomplice to any of those. Your argument makes no sense, still.

You admitted you are.

Your whole argument is you can't confront a problem because essentially "not all are guilty". And you can't pick and choose when to apply and not to apply that defense.

Can't confront Islamic extremism because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront pedophelia because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront drunk driving because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront sexual abuse in the church because not all priests are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Wouldn't have confronted Nazism because not all Germans are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

The guilty depend on people like yourself to do what they do. You're protecting them. Therefor, an accomplice.

I never said any of the things you said. You have no proof to believe I have not confronted any of those topics.

Go take a logic class.

a reply to: JoeLowUSA

So you attack me personally, nice. Does that make you feel superior? Good for you, here's a cookie.

That's all I need to know about you though mister joelow. I'll be sure to ignore you from here on out. Have fun reading my posts though!

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: harvestdog

Good for Japan? So because a minority under the guise of Islam commit terrible acts you think all, almost, 2 billion Muslims worldwide are guilty of terrorism? That is so completely ignorant.

Here's a fun fact for you. The NYPD wasted tax payer monies and man hours doing the same thing to Muslims in NY and guess how many arrests or leads they came up with? The answer is zero.

Do you support the Patriot Act, Prism, and the rest of gov't spying on Americans too?

Supporting the Monitoring of people doesn't mean a person thinks they are all terrorists, what an ignorant twist of words and meanings on your part.
The world's Muslims that AREN'T terrorists are not doing anything to stop terrorism, or not doing much, so they should be expecting governments to monitor them. If they can't help flush out their radical brethren, then governments have to do all of it, including monitoring them to stop mass murders you don't care about, except for using it as political empowerment. Our own government is monitoring not only Muslims, but you and everyone else as well, but you voted the guy in who is doing it, so you're one to talk.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MysticPearl

Your argument in nonsenscical. You are still condemning an ENTIRE religion of BILLIONS.

So you couldn't refute any of it. None of it. You admit you defend pedophiles and drunk drivers.

And where the liberal logic fails is equating acknowledging and confronting a problem to condemning an entire segment of people.

Frankly, you're an accomplice to Islamic extremism, and pedophelia, and drunk driving.

Pedophiles and drunk drivers and Islamic extremism?

No, I am not an accomplice to any of those. Your argument makes no sense, still.

You admitted you are.

Your whole argument is you can't confront a problem because essentially "not all are guilty". And you can't pick and choose when to apply and not to apply that defense.

Can't confront Islamic extremism because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront pedophelia because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront drunk driving because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront sexual abuse in the church because not all priests are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Wouldn't have confronted Nazism because not all Germans are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

The guilty depend on people like yourself to do what they do. You're protecting them. Therefor, an accomplice.

I never said any of the things you said. You have no proof to believe I have not confronted any of those topics.

Go take a logic class.

It's the most logical viewpoint.

You sitting here suggesting we can't confront Islam and the threat within because not all are guilty is the exact same thing as sitting back during the rise of Nazism and suggesting we couldn't have confronted the threat within because not all Germans are guilty.

It's as logical as it gets.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Swills

First they came for the Muslims and I did nothing...

Funny you should bring that up. Islam parallels nazism in many ways.

Like for instance their hatred of Jews. Did you know that a greater portion of the koran and sunna are anti- jew when compared to Mein Kampf. This is not a friendly ideology to outsiders.

No, you have gone off the deep end. Blanket surveillance of an entire religion parallels nazism. Once a government does that, they do not stop there.

More liberal logic failure.

More surveillance of Germany would have helped prevent nazism.

Islam are the new Nazis. They want to kill anyone who isn't one of their own. And they benefit greatly from everyone else ignoring the problem within. Before you know....many dead and it's too late.

You don't see it, as liberals lack perspective and just stick to defending ideology, but you defend modern Nazism(Islam) and would have defended true Nazism decades ago.

Islam is not the new nazi. There is a TV show that is titled 'orange is the new black', yet I don't think that is literal.

I don't lack perspective.

You lack humanity is saying 'Islam is the new nazi'. That is disgusting.

a reply to: reldra

Try Reading ALL the Bill of Rights, and the 14th, and say that again.

Infringe,deny,disparage,

the lack of due process, and crimes being proven in courts of law.

Being tried for the SAME crimes twice.

And being held answerable to a capital or OTHERWISE infamous crime.

EVERYONE is verboten under the constitution.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MysticPearl

Your argument in nonsenscical. You are still condemning an ENTIRE religion of BILLIONS.

So you couldn't refute any of it. None of it. You admit you defend pedophiles and drunk drivers.

And where the liberal logic fails is equating acknowledging and confronting a problem to condemning an entire segment of people.

Frankly, you're an accomplice to Islamic extremism, and pedophelia, and drunk driving.

Pedophiles and drunk drivers and Islamic extremism?

No, I am not an accomplice to any of those. Your argument makes no sense, still.

You admitted you are.

Your whole argument is you can't confront a problem because essentially "not all are guilty". And you can't pick and choose when to apply and not to apply that defense.

Can't confront Islamic extremism because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront pedophelia because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront drunk driving because not all are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Can't confront sexual abuse in the church because not all priests are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

Wouldn't have confronted Nazism because not all Germans are guilty and worthy of condemnation.

The guilty depend on people like yourself to do what they do. You're protecting them. Therefor, an accomplice.

I never said any of the things you said. You have no proof to believe I have not confronted any of those topics.

Go take a logic class.

It's the most logical viewpoint.

You sitting here suggesting we can't confront Islam and the threat within because not all are guilty is the exact same thing as sitting back during the rise of Nazism and suggesting we couldn't have confronted the threat within because not all Germans are guilty.

It's as logical as it gets.

No, it's not. I did not say to not confront radical islamic extreemists. Also, that isn't my job, multiple governments, including ours, already are.

Not the same thing. Your average German was not in the nazi party. I am mainly German. Your argument is apples and oranges.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: harvestdog

Good for Japan? So because a minority under the guise of Islam commit terrible acts you think all, almost, 2 billion Muslims worldwide are guilty of terrorism? That is so completely ignorant.

Here's a fun fact for you. The NYPD wasted tax payer monies and man hours doing the same thing to Muslims in NY and guess how many arrests or leads they came up with? The answer is zero.

Do you support the Patriot Act, Prism, and the rest of gov't spying on Americans too?

The world's Muslims that AREN'T terrorists are not doing anything to stop terrorism, or not doing much, so they should be expecting governments to monitor them. If they can't help flush out their radical brethren, then governments have to do all of it, including monitoring them to stop mass murders you don't care about, except for using it as political empowerment.

That's true. We've sat here waiting for the good Muslims to confront the issue yet all we see instead is a record number of mosques being built, recruitment at an all-time high, then when something happens the response of "how could we have known?, we had nothing to do with it" while inside countless mosques they lay the seeds of hate with their anti-infidel rhetoric.

It's actually amusing to see the liberal, PC crowd flip out over "mean" words and suggests there's such a threat in free speech, yet at the same time suggest there's no threat to the anti-Western rhetoric constantly spewed within mosques.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: reldra

Try Reading ALL the Bill of Rights, and the 14th, and say that again.

Infringe,deny,disparage,

the lack of due process, and crimes being proven in courts of law.

Being tried for the SAME crimes twice.

And being held answerable to a capital or OTHERWISE infamous crime.

EVERYONE is verboten under the constitution.

Everyone is prohibited from what?

Being tried twice for the same crime is called double jeopardy. If you are saying that a convicted felon being denied a gun is double jeopardy, you would be incorrect.