Quote:
Originally Posted by 37L1
No, I can't. What is it, pray tell??
|
(responds after noting the sarcasm...)
The bottom line is that you end up taking the good with the bad. You can't punish the bad without punishing the good.
To deny people who follow Islam the rights and privileges you would extend to other US citizens is antithetical to what I thought we hold true in the Constitution.
Keeping tabs on people doesn't reduce violence nor does disarming them. Those willing to do harm are always going to find a way to do so. A higher fence simply forestalls an attack by requiring the attacker to now dig under as opposed to going over to attack.
The media plays a part in skewing a picture of the reality in order to incite people to act by tuning in...and unfortunately in angering them up. This has been happening long before TV/radio, and the Internet. The attacker in Florida isn't being labeled by his religion is he?
The problem is that any population/individual who feels threatened and does not have an ability to redress their problems will turn to violence. I'm in no way excusing personal responsibility for one's actions or in anyway condoning violence. I'm stating that it's not hard to stir someone to violence and the Muslim population like any other is not invulnerable.
Want to raise the standards for getting into the military or school, to have employment in the United States in order to start weeding out some population deemed as dangerous or undesirable? Fine. We'll also be weeding into that population those that aren't going to do harm and who can contribute positively.
And we have a double standard.
A Muslim kills someone in the United States-we label a terrorist.
A guy kills his coworkers because he was let go-we say he's having a bad day and its understandable...