Gun Ban / Immigration Ban = Double Standard?

[regevdl]

To preface, I am taking a complete Devil's Advocate position.  Although no liberal in my encounters has made this argument and not sure if they would even connect this dot, it came to my mind and wanted to be well prepared in advanced in case this argument comes up and figure out how to rebut it with strong, consistent arguments. 

 

I imagine one day a liberal to come and argue....hey... you want to lift bans on guns, which can be used dangerously, so why not lift bans on immigration since only some immigrants are dangerous.

 

Is there a equivilency to argue here?

 

How would one counter?

[Mrdthree]

Tell them you dont think immigrants should be banned. At least as long as the immigrants speak decent english, dont want to ban guns, respect the constitution, and believe in capitalism.

[dsayers]

The word "ban" denotes people issuing commands backed by threats of violence to other people. That's the only double standard I see.

[Pod]

I think I've heard this before.  The ban on guns is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd amendment.  The immigration ban is neither constitutional or unconstitutional because the constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens. 

[AncapFTW]

To preface, I am taking a complete Devil's Advocate position.  Although no liberal in my encounters has made this argument and not sure if they would even connect this dot, it came to my mind and wanted to be well prepared in advanced in case this argument comes up and figure out how to rebut it with strong, consistent arguments. 

 

I imagine one day a liberal to come and argue....hey... you want to lift bans on guns, which can be used dangerously, so why not lift bans on immigration since only some immigrants are dangerous.

 

Is there a equivilency to argue here?

 

How would one counter?

Immigrants can act on their own.  Guns don't.  Guns are tools used to sometimes do crimes.  Immigrants are people that sometimes choose to do those crimes.

[EclecticIdealist]

I think I've heard this before.  The ban on guns is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd amendment.  The immigration ban is neither constitutional or unconstitutional because the constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens. 

Actually, the Constitution affords protection to non-US Citizens; however, non-US Citizens do not have an unalienable right to immigrate or enter the country at will. US Citizens do have an unalienable right to property and self-defense, and the provision in the Second Amendment guarantees against the Federal (and the State Governments actually) from infringing upon these rights by depriving the people of their right to their property (to keep arms), and the ability to bear such property in self-defense.

[dsayers]

the Second Amendment guarantees against the Federal (and the State Governments actually) from infringing upon these rights by depriving the people of their right to their property (to keep arms), and the ability to bear such property in self-defense.

What do you say regarding the empirical evidence of tens of thousands of infringements that challenges the conclusion that a piece of paper has power? Will you revisit your conclusion?

[EclecticIdealist]

I would say that your question is disingenuous, insipidly stupid, and below the quality one should expect from a person of your intellect. I will defer to your judgement as to whether or not it is a question that was asked with integrity. Supposing however that it was, I would say:

 

The Constitution for the United States of America is no mere piece of paper or document, it is an idea. It is the contractual obligation upon the federal government instituted to protect the unalienable rights of the People of the united states of America from infringement by powers both foreign and domestic. As an idea, it only has the power it is imbued with by the belief and will of the People. It represents the hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers of a Nation built upon the principles of Universal Individual Sovereignty in a manner they hoped would best guarantee the protection of such Sovereignty to all. It was enacted by imperfect individuals in an imperfect manner. It only has the power we give it by our consent and demand from our elected and appointed representatives and officers. It also, unfortunately, is as weak as the apathy, indifference, and ignorance of the People required to give such consent and make such just demands of those delegated with power and authority to act on our behalf.

 

I recognize that you do not esteem the Constitution to be of any value, that you consider it to be nothing more than a piece of paper, so discussing it any further with you would be utterly pointless.

[dsayers]

I would say that your question is disingenuous, insipidly stupid, and below the quality one should expect from a person of your intellect. I will defer to your judgement as to whether or not it is a question that was asked with integrity.

Thank you, kind sir. The original version of my post was to just provide for you the fact that your conclusion was flawed. However, for the benefit of those looking on who might not realize you have a burr in your saddle, I decided to occupy a higher road and express it in the form of giving you a chance to exhibit integrity. Only for you to demonstrate why you only deserved being told what the answer was. Brilliant!

 

I recognize that you do not esteem the Constitution to be of any value, that you consider it to be nothing more than a piece of paper, so discussing it any further with you would be utterly pointless.

Yeah. Wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your fantasy of being able to tell somebody, "You get to rule us, but you can't tell us to do X, Y, or Z." Or the idea that if a "right" was "inalienable," it wouldn't need defending. There isn't a militia out there making sure everybody is succumbing to gravity evenly because that truly is inalienable.

[RichardY]

Gun ban in France, 70+ dead in another terror attack this time in Nice.

[EclecticIdealist]

Thank you, kind sir. The original version of my post was to just provide for you the fact that your conclusion was flawed. However, for the benefit of those looking on who might not realize you have a burr in your saddle, I decided to occupy a higher road and express it in the form of giving you a chance to exhibit integrity. Only for you to demonstrate why you only deserved being told what the answer was. Brilliant!

I would hate for you to make a simple mistake on a turn of phrase. The term is "burr under the saddle". Just remember that next time, you wouldn't want to pull a Biff Tannen.

 

Also, your dazzling intellect has completely baffled and befuddled me. Perhaps you would be so kind as to walk me through how you took the higher road and expressed  "the fact that your conclusion was flawed" in a form that gave me the "chance to exhibit integrity" rather than not. Clearly, I am unworthy of your magnanimous beneficence, so I am asking you to be gracious. Also, please explain to me how I should have responded that would have exhibited integrity as it is my desire to do so going forward.

 

Yeah. Wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your fantasy of being able to tell somebody, "You get to rule us, but you can't tell us to do X, Y, or Z." Or the idea that if a "right" was "inalienable," it wouldn't need defending. There isn't a militia out there making sure everybody is succumbing to gravity evenly because that truly is inalienable.

That must be exactly what I was doing without realizing it.Thank you so much for explaining that to me, because all this time I have obviously had it completely backwards. I never realized that the Constitution actually placed rulers over me, not servants beneath me. I see now that I have been completely wrong in my thinking this whole time. Thank you for enlightening me on this matter.

 

Additionally, thank you for correcting me about inalienable rights. All this time I was thinking rights were synonymous with the authority that comes from Universal Individual Sovereignty, not actual physical entities subject to physical forces like gravity. I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

 

Since you must be right about all these things, you can't possibly believe in Universal Individual Sovereignty as the concepts unalienable rights or authority and Universal Individual Sovereignty are inalienable from one another, which leaves me wondering, if you don't believe that each person has the authority of self-rule, and you obviously don't believe in the authority of anyone else ruling over you individually or collectively, does this mean that you are an absolute anarchist who doesn't believe in any rule at all, or have I misunderstood something you've stated?

 

How does the notion of anarchy square with the idea of morality? You've indicated in other posts that you believe moral rules to be binding, but how does that work? How are morals binding if there are no rulers to enforce these rules? How can they possibly be binding at all? Are moral rules inescapable forces of nature like gravity? Do moral rules or laws actually prevent people from stealing, raping, assaulting, and murdering the same way that gravity causes masses to accelerate towards each other? That doesn't seem to be the case; I'm just so confused now, and I need your dazzlingly brilliant intellect to enlighten me and show me what and how I should think in order to think and act with integrity, because clearly I have no idea on my own.

[Worlok]

Comparing one ban to another are somehow equivalent relies solely on the fact that they are bans. You have to argue that bans are inherently immoral. 

 

Rape. If you ban it, enforcement of the ban can rely entirely on self-defense. If the ban is by definition and function enforced solely by defending yourself from rape, the ban cannot be immoral. At the very most, if the ban relies on a state for enforcement, you have to argue that rape was okay.

 

Pretty cut and dry, I think.

[dsayers]

Rape. If you ban it

Allow me to play devil's advocate for the sake of mental exercise if I may. To me, the word ban indicates an opinion. Rape is internally consistently is an objectively true statement. Opinion does not apply. Bans are inherently immoral because they are predicated on people existing in different, opposing moral categories. Just because a ban targets something that is objectively "wrong" doesn't mean the ban is just. Does that make sense?

[shirgall]

Gun ban in France, 70+ dead in another terror attack this time in Nice.

 

And three interesting facts stem from this incident:

 

1. the driver had a gun and grenades, despite restrictions on such items

 

2. A hero tried to get into the cab and stop the driver, and the driver shot at him, fended him off, and continued his spree

 

3. two weeks before the incident, French police were given permission to be armed on the Prom (as a result of the assassination of the police chief and his partner), which may have led to the event being stopped more quickly than before

[Worlok]

Allow me to play devil's advocate for the sake of mental exercise if I may. To me, the word ban indicates an opinion. Rape is internally consistently is an objectively true statement. Opinion does not apply. Bans are inherently immoral because they are predicated on people existing in different, opposing moral categories. Just because a ban targets something that is objectively "wrong" doesn't mean the ban is just. Does that make sense?

 

I could be wrong, but that seems very poorly worded... I would say, and probably everybody else would agree that rape is in objectively true. As it requires 2 parties involved, it can be internally consistent with the rapee, but the raper can be oblivious to any morality of the actions, although understanding that it is unwanted rather than the morality of it can be used to fulfill that definition. This allows your statement to be true and remove morality as a relevant point to the rape.

 

A ban is a legal basis or common agreement that something should not be done and punishment should ensue if it is done. This doesn't require any sort of morality. As with contracts and any other sort of agreement. If everybody votes that wearing black shoes is wrong and you should get shot if you wear black shoes, then you basically have a contract not to wear black shoes or people can shoot you. Regardless of whether or not all the members of the community and the contract they all agreed to was based on an opinion on black shoes or not is not necessary to the contract that they shan't be worn.

 

Bottom line, a ban can simply be an agreed upon basis for which an item, act, event, etc. is not allowed within certain context. No morality or opinion is required for an agreement or contract to occur. That isn't to say that you won't have opinions or morally agree on any given contract or agreement, just that whatever your views are, you may still create a contract in either opposition or support either morally, within your opinion or both. For example, pro-contact pedophiles think that talking to and even making physical contact with children isn't bad and maybe even good. Possibly to the point of violating children. Supposing you take all morality and point of view out of it. Offer the piece of crap $5million a year to not speak to a child, but he is to be monitored at all times. There is no coercion. If he agrees, he will see no children and will even support a law against pedophiles being within 1 mile of a minor. clearly these are both detrimental to his sexuality and point of view. However, this hypothetical scum would be very inclined to take $5mil a year and never see a human child again. Maybe no pedophile will ever see a child because of him supporting that law, but he himself is inclined regardless of the other scumbags missing out.

[Quadrewple]

..."you want to lift bans on guns, which can be used dangerously, so why not lift bans on immigration since only some immigrants are dangerous."

 

Is there a equivilency to argue here?

 

"You choose to eat sugar, which is bad for you, so why not also choose to live a sedentary lifestyle, which is also bad for you?"

 

To answer would likely involve you taking your present life circumstances into consideration.  To answer your Devil's Advocate question would reasonably involve the same:  "I if do not like the immigrant, do I have the right to use my freedom of association to ostracize him, economically and otherwise?"  The answer is No in many parts of the world.  Someone owning a gun in no way gives them a legal right to violate your freedom of association, whereas an immigrant does have that legal right.

[dsayers]

I could be wrong, but that seems very poorly worded... I would say, and probably everybody else would agree that rape is in objectively true.

"Rape is in objectively true" is nonsensical. Something to keep in mind when accusing others of poorly wording something. Also, citing what you THINK everybody else would agree with is a profound lack of integrity, and indicative of your understanding that your "argument" cannot stand on its merits alone.

 

A ban is a legal basis

Legal means that people will not initiate the use of force against you in the name of the State. It is arbitrary and therefore opinion just as I have already pointed out. You're disagreeing with me by making my point for me.

[Feral Human]

The only bans or "common sense gun control" I support is the gun control act of '68, which makes it a crime for violent felons & documented nut cases to own guns. Self defense is the #1 most basic & fundamental of ALL Human Rights. In fact it goes beyond Human Rights & extends to every living being in existence. If you walk up to a dog & randomly begin soccer kicking it in the ribs, does it not have the right to rip a chunk of meat from your leg?

 

We can lift the ban on Islamic immigrants once the war on terror has been won. The fact that firearms are so easily available in the U.S. is one of the strongest reasons why we need a ban on Islamic immigrants in the first place. The acts of ISIS terror that have happen on U.S. soil so far have been carried out by actual citizens who were born here so if we can't trust our own citizens of Islamic heritage there's absolutely no way to be sure of an immigrant coming directly from the regions where front line combat is taking place. Even if an immigrant is sincere at first how can we be sure they won't be influenced by ISIS propaganda afterwards when our own citizens have been radicalized?

 

ISIS has sworn to infiltrate our country with it's soldiers & as long as we are at war with terror we have to take them seriously. Personally, I believe the war on terror is bull shit & it is simply an excuse to carry out a war on freedom & the fact that ISIS terror attacks are being used as an excuse to take away guns is the strongest evidence I have for my position. If you're at war you fight to win & opening your country to "refugees" from the enemies territory at a time when the enemy has sworn to infiltrate it's soldiers on our soil is proof our leaders are not taking the war on terror seriously & evidence the actual target is gun rights & freedom itself.