Trump wants to stop all Muslims from coming into the US

I saw someone note that it was 25 percent this time around in a discussion on an Israeli news site. It would make logical sense that the percentage would go up in rough step with their overall increase over the last election, especially as fears of mass Muslim immigration and jihadist attacks (such as the deli) are pretty hot-button issues for French Jews.

I thought that myth had died.

The free hugs terrorist guy is only 23 and already did five years in prison for armed robbery. A real winner.

You sure that's not ZZ Top?

Why are you avoiding answering my question coward?

Which question is that? The guy who marries a non practicing muslim? No means no. I would like to see no muslim immigration allowed as there is no reliable way to seporate the 25% who are radicals from the 75% who are not yet radicals. The only reliable way to prevent Islamic Terror is to keep all muslims out.

The reason for that is that all anyone suggests anymore (aside from me) are things that are completely unworkable.

Gun control people want draconian measures for the most part that can never be implemented.

Anti gun control people make idiot suggestions like arming teachers.

Oh, here we go, the same lame shit as last time. I even predicted this bullshit in the post in which I asked it.

The question in this post.

And this post, to which it refers.

Do you support Trump's proposal to deny entry based on religion. Yes or no?

What are you comments on the scenario I described (which is based on a real case I have dealt with)? Would the outcome be fair if the woman in question were denied entry?

Out of interest, what is "draconian" in a proposal for reducing the amount of high powered weapons that are very easy to obtain with very few checks and balances? What is the more effective proposal?

I support there not being any immigration allowed from Muslim countries.

You told me you wanted to be called Shitstain, but don't you think Bigoted Cocksucker would be a more appropriate nickname for you?

And 25% is a gross over estimate of radical murderous fundy Islamists, else a lot more of the world would pretty much be sounding like you.

What makes you think you can easily get "high powered" weapons in the United States?

My proposal was for comprehensive trauma care for people who work in or around high profile public targets (like schools). Not controversial. No constitutional issues. And applicable to things like accidents and natural disasters instead of simply shootings.

That is "Trumpist".

I've heard of checks, but was is a "balance" outside of a reloading scale?

Also, nobody has suggested banning high-powered weapons other than the ones that are already banned, mainly anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns. Assault rifles are very low-powered weapons. That's so they don't kick hard and don't weigh as much, especially the ammunition. As a result, it's not legal to hunt deer with them in some states because you'd have a bunch of wounded deer running around.

A realist would be a good way to put it. Show me how you reliably tell the difference between the 25% who support terrorism and the rest and maybe I will reconsider but until then I am going with first do no harm. That means you don't let any of them in.

No one has a right to immigrate and each country gets to set up its own rules for any reason they please.

Perhaps El Chup is thinking of the AK-47.

The AK-47 has been known for being highly inaccurate and having various problems What makes it popular is that it is extremely reliable and very easy to use.

The US has had a quota system before and can again wrt immigration laws. That was long before Trump.

It's not "pedantic" to note the difference between what you wrote and "...you cunts who ignore people shooting up high schools on a monthly basis, accepting is as just what happens, then go down the full Nazi route when a couple of Muslims shoot up a community centre". One (rightfully) condemns the hypocrisy, the other lumps all Americans together as being 1) collectively responsible for the shootings and 2) collectively considering them as acceptable while going entirely overboard because a couple of Muslims do it.

Your point was good; your way of putting it was not. Not even close.

Yes you were being pedantic. It was damned obvious what he was trying to say and you've been here more than enough time to know he's no bigot.

Sorry, but on this one you're wrong.

^Nope, you Dan and Stallion all sound like smug arrogant cocksuckers that are so holier than thou that your opinions about Americans (painted with your broad brushes) are to be discarded as readily as those of the bigot Shitstain (formerly known as Dinner).

Jesus Christ, take a Prozac, you spaz.

We're just pointing out that hundreds of thousands of people are trying to strike us, and millions more openly support that, so maybe we shouldn't be helping them do it by providing them with a bunch of travel documents, sending a Boeing over to pick them up, flying them here and giving them a nice government job - so they can start building pipe bombs. Then we have to clean up the bodies, repair all the damage, go to the funerals, handle all kinds of paperwork, and spend more on guns.

Wouldn't it be much simpler if they stayed over there instead of blowing people up over here? They could choose to do that, and many do. But our problem stems from the ones who aren't content to sit and do nothing and desperately want to become a famous martyr by turning Times Square into a smoking blood bath. Maybe we shouldn't give them a free shot at it. Maybe we should quit pretending that Islam and terrorism aren't related in any way.

Most Muslims are very nice people under most circumstances. Even the Muslim terrorists are often very nice, and quite funny. But they have this splinter in their brain about having to strike horrifying blows in the name of Islam, and they're happy to die doing it because then they get 72 virgins with tasty vaginas.

Perhaps it would make more sense to hold off on massive Muslim immigration from people who we can't even identify, don't know about, and can't run a background check on (because all their friends and neighbors have long since scattered to the four winds), and see if Europe can handle the ones who've already walked in.

Still can't answer my questions coward?

Jesus Christ. You even quoted part of the anwser and deleted the rest.

You need to take a Prozac too.

About the elderly Iranian woman?

The answer is simple. She can come over once she abandons the religion of the pedophile rapist and camel thief, bowing to a pagan shrine until her path ends in darkness. If she instead opens her heart to the Lord, whose rap sheet was completely clean except for the one treason conviction there at the end, she can not only enter the United States, but can enter Heaven itself when the time comes. All she has to do is renounce the false prophet who conquered the region in an orgy of violence and bloodshed and enslaved it to oppression, murder, and mindless obedience to false teachings.

For Chup:

No one has a right to immigrate and a country can set up any rules it pleases.

But you have also said that you are all for barring Muslims from entering which means you are in lockstep with what Trump is proposing. I can't think of a more un-american idea than to institute a religious test in our immigration policy and thankfully politicians on the left and the right are coming out against this.

For an example of why a country can set its own rules: You have a big huge country next to a little bitty country. If the people in the big country, say Russia, can all move freely into the little bitty country, then the people of the little bitty country get taken over and absorbed because very soon the majority of voters there are immigrants from the big country, and the immigrants might vote as a block for a merger. All those little postage stamp countries could get swallowed up in a wave. The US could pretty trivially take over any island in the Caribbean that way.

Muslims have used that as an actually strategy for centuries. In contested areas you can find imams talking about population numbers and birth rates. You can find Muslims in the streets of Europe taunting the locals about it. Establish a foothold, expand it, and take over when the time is right. They must. It's commanded by the Prophet.

We already have a religious test. The State Department will not admit Syrian Christians - on the basis of their religion.

I agree on one issue but I still don't think the guy is a serious candidate. I would love to see other candidates pick up on immigration reform. Basically, I want us to be much more selective, to prioritize people who can culturally adapt most easily, who are educated, or who have money to invest.

Terrorism is an endemic problem with in Islam and there simply is no reliable way to sort out who is and who is not a radical but we do know about 25% of them agree with the radicals. With numbers like that they just should not be let in.