Thought experiment

One of the stupidest, yet most persistent, arguments that gun-grabbing liberals love to use to make their case for outlawing the private possession and use of firearms is that, if the Founding Fathers had any experience with so-called "assault" rifles and "high-capacity magazines", they would have outlawed them.

In other words, the nanny-statist ninnies who would like nothing better than to get the police to knock down your door and confiscate your guns from you- they would never be brave undignified enough to actually get their own hands dirty, you understand- are simply doing what the Founders themselves would have done in imposing sensible, practical, common-sense limits to dangerous firearms.

They would have imposed these limits, and forbidden citizens from owning these weapons, because "assault" rifles are in and of themselves threatening, noisy, dangerous, difficult to clean and maintain relative to pistols, capable of killing at FAR greater ranges, and responsible for "a large number" of the depressingly common active-shooter incidents that take place in the US every year.

So. In the interests of putting liberal "logic"- I know, I know, but bear with me for a bit- to the test, let's say that argument actually makes sense and is valid and sound and all that. (Hey, I know how hard you're trying to keep a straight face at that one. Work with me here.)

And now let's look at that other beloved shibboleth of liberal logic, "separation between Church and State", which they claim is enshrined in the First Amendment and dictates that Federal, State, and Local governments have every right to keep religion out of the public sphere.

In practice, of course, this means that the Ten Commandments- the moral foundation upon which all of Western civilisation was built- cannot be displayed in public, that public prayer and worship must be regulated and sharply curtailed, and that Christians and to a large extent Jews- but not, be it noted, Hindus or Buddhists or Norse pagans- cannot build statues to the Lord Christ or the Virgin Mother on public lands.

With that being said... what happens if we take the same sort of specific exemption logic that liberals use for the Second Amendment, and apply an example of it to the First?

Well, here is what the 1st Amendment actually says, unedited:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Right. Fair enough. Seems completely unambiguous to me.

But now, let's take the "religion" of Islam.

We know that Islam is utterly hostile to Western norms of civilisation and decency. We know that Islamic law is totally incompatible with a Federalist republican system of government, or with any form of democracy. We know that Islam's views on women, gays, slaves, science, mathematics, music, and a wide range of other subjects remain frozen in the 7th Century.

We know that Islam preaches intolerance, violence, and persecution of non-believer. We know that anywhere from pluralities to strong majorities of the followers and believers of Islam agree with the notion that Islamic law is superior to Western canonical law, derived as it is from Judaic and Christian morality. We know that similar numbers of Muslims agree at least in principle with the notion that holy war against unbelievers is just and necessary.

I'm not making any of this up. Finding the relevant passages, polling data, and examples of the great harm that Islam does upon the world can be found with just a couple of searches. (Use DuckDuckGo, not Google- the former won't track you and try to sell you a bunch of useless shit.)

Therefore, according to the same logic with which these progressive nitwits would like to ban "assault" rifles, Islam should also be banned from the USA.

After all, there are a considerable number of followers of Islam that are threatening, noisy, dangerous, difficult to live beside relative to Jews and Christians, capable of killing for just about any reason (including whether or not you ordered ham on top of your cheese pizza), and responsible for a depressingly large number of crimes and murders both in and outside the USA every year.

Oh, but wait, there is more.

You see, unlike "assault" rifles, which did not exist in the 19th Century, Islam most assuredly did exist back then. The Founding Fathers had a pretty good idea of what Islam was actually like- the country's third President, Thomas Jefferson, engaged in the First Barbary War against Islamic pirates, and his eventual successor James Madison had to finish the job in the Second.

Two of the Founders, including the Father of the Constitution, had direct contact with Islam, and they didn't much care for it.

Therefore, according to liberal "logic", it must be reiterated that Islam must forthwith be banned from the United States of America- the plain and perfectly understandable language of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding.

You see how easy it is to just make shit up that sounds sensible when you're a liberal?

Comments

Popular Posts