Hypocrisy

>owning an object vs subscribing to a legal/philosophical/political system
Your comparison is ridiculous.

>ignore that people have the right to practice their religion
I wasn't arguing against the right of citizens to practice their religion. Your question was kinda ambiguous and I chose to specifically address the issue of non-citizens.

You can't blame a Tool

You can point faults (Blame) in a culture and what it creates

Because he is a fucking Cred Forumstard. He judges others on standards that he doesn't apply to himself.

To clarify, I don't think most of the people who oppose Islam would argue that legal Muslim citizens should be prevented by law from practicing Islam. Just that there shouldn't be so many of them becoming citizens in the first place.

But that's demanding 100 evilness from every group ever. There was the one good person in Sodoma anyway.
What really matters is the group being able to selfcontrol. Muslims don't stop others in the very end. Gun ownership on the other hand does deter crime, as the biggest shootouts happen in gun-free areas.

Not an argument.
Doesn't address his argument.

look what Muslims are doing to gays

Having a gun is not an Ideology

>few radicals

Are you sure?

Muslims kill people. Guns kill muslims.

But guns actually serve an important purpose

Its not a first ammendment right to become a citizen of another country

"Few" radicals?

Islam comes from a book its an ideology

a gun is a tool there is no ideology to die for
it dus not instruct you to do things

you just generalised all people who arent for gun-control, maybe some of them dont generalise about muslims at all

also, guns dont blow up by themself

/thread

Compare the 2nd amendment to the 1st amendment if it makes you feel any better. The point still stands.
The police stop crazies with guns, just like they stop radical muslims. Ordinary muslims can only do so much, they can't just take the law into their own hands. Create some muslim organization that function like the police and perhaps you'll find that they'll bust more radicals than ever before.

that is irrelevant to the argument at hand cuck

Islam is its own political ideology. Islam cannot coexist with the west just as democrats and communists can't coexist with humanity.

>Not an argument.
everything you posted so far is also not an argument.

You say stuff like this:

>Unless every single one of them uses it to commit crime and thus forfeits this right, you can't take it away from everybody.
But you refuse to apply the same priciple to muslims. That is what i was referring in

>He judges others on standards that he doesn't apply to himself.

Guns protect us. Islam does not. Knifes are useful for cooking. Islam is not. Christianity helps the west flourish. Islam did not. Islam in itself is about killing innocents. It says so in the Quran. It does not say on my gun "shoot up a school". It does say kill the infidel in the Quran.

Irrelevant. Muslims in your country are under the protection of the 1st amendment. Stop moving the goalpost.
The 2nd amendment is an ideology. Compare the 1st and 2nd amendment if it makes you feel any better.

I want to be able to be a gun owner. I don't want to be a muslim.

/mental gymnastics

Islamic ethics are fundamentally defective.

Easy
0 guns - non-zero gun killings
0 muslims - 0 muslim killings

>Christianity helps the west flourish
you had me until this

The second amendment prevents tyranny.

Islam doesn't.

But it says in the Quran. If you don't like the Quran then just don't be a Musilm. Christianity is better suited.

That's just your opinion. There are plenty of different interpretations of the Quran and demoninations of Islam. There are those who aren't advocating political Islam. Now you are generalizing again.

Sweden has very strict gun ownership. Why don't you generalize about Muslims? You already do gun owners?

the second amendment is a right not an ideology
again it dus not instruct you to do anything it just gives you the right to own a gun

>Muslims in your country are under the protection of the 1st amendment.
Muslims are not under any protection because they are not people.
>The 2nd amendment is an ideology.
No its not. Neither is the 1st amendment.

Well, for one, muslims believe in an outdated ideology thats been at war with the west for hundreds of fucking years. Islam is scum.

See What you just said is like implying that all Christians follow the same principles as the KKK or CI.

>everything you posted so far is also not an argument.
It's clear why your post is not an argument (it's purely a personal attack), but it seems like you can't explain coherently why my argument is not an argument.

>But you refuse to apply the same priciple to muslims. That is what i was referring in
Yes, but I specifically explained why there's no reason to apply the same principles in both cases. Owning a gun is a right. Entering America is a privilege. I'm sure we can both agree that collectively revoking a right based on a generalization is an injustice. Can you explain why collectively revoking a privilege is?

and look at all Muslim country and say is their ideology tolerant compatible with the west?

What is the penalty for deciding you don't want to be a gun owner any more?

What is the penalty for deciding you don't want to be a Muslim any more?

These

When you see stats like this, its ok to generalize.

Did you even read the entire post?He explains how the main difference in this situation is right vs privilege
Rights only apply to citizens

Sweden is amongst top 4 countries in Europe when it comes to guns-per-capita. It's not as strict as you think. Step outside Cred Forums and learn a thing or two.
The second amendment ( ideas regarding gun policy) is an ideology.
>Muslims are not under any protection because they are not people.
So that's what this discussion has come to. Guess it ends there then. You have nothing else to contribute with.

>Sweden has very strict gun ownership.
Lie. Sweden has one of the largest number of guns per capita in the world.

Why are Cred Forumstards always so ignorant of the world?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

>There are muslims who condemn the actions of the radicals.

And the muslims actually in a position to do anything about it refuse to or protect the terrorists.

>Sweden has very strict gun ownership.
Still we are in the top 10 countrys of gun owners per capita
But i feel like we would have a more flourishing hunting community if the regulations were cut atleast a little

If a Muslim breaks into my house I can use a gun to drive him away. I can not do the same by keeping another Muslim in my house. You should follow this advice Sweden.

In the west people don't mix politics and religion. It doesn't matter which religion you have. It's your own private business and nothing more.

there are also different forms of islam sunni Wahhabi and shia some are more radical than others

the are comperable to Catholicism and protestant

That study actually shows that westernized muslims aren't as radicalized as those in the middle-east. It proves that it's not Islam that is the problem, but the socialization.

"A few" is not over a thousand years of "a lot".

News, videos, pictures, polling, entire conflicts, beheadings, stonings, "sexual emergencies", slavery, sex trade, and more are evidence that it's not just "a few". May want to get your silly argument straight.

Does anyone actually generalise ALL gun owners? I mean no one lumps together the good cop or the average farmer with the gun nut or thug.

Anything can be a weapon. Ultimately it's people who make the choice to kill. If you want to ban guns, why not trucks? Or diesel and fertilizer? Bad people are going to commit crimes regardless. Especially if they have the motivation to do so. Now if only we knew what that motivation was?

>Rights only apply to citizens
There are muslims citizens so I don't see your point.
Are you suggesting they take the law into their own hands? Because I'd reckon you would be complaining about that as well, calling them "criminals". Stop being such a hypocrite.

>Yes, but I specifically explained why there's no reason to apply the same principles in both cases.
the western governments enforce individual freedom of religion.

>Entering America is a privilege.
We are not talking about immigration you Cred Forumstard. Read OP again. We are talking about generalizations

Who the fuck even mentioned immigration? Why are you strawmanning?

> Can you explain why collectively revoking a privilege is?
Where did i say this?

those Muslims are also giong to silence your freedom of speech to speak out against islam

>Compare the 2nd amendment to the 1st amendment if it makes you feel any better.
This is another nonsense argument that nothing you're claiming follows from. How does the fact those two rights exist do anything to change the fact that you're trying to compare owning something entirely apolitical and devoid of ideology to a rigorous system that defines effectively every aspect of life for it's followers?

also, the majority of muslims aren't very comfortable with the lifestyle of the west. They don't approve of it - and this is not an exception, it's based on the values of those things.

The same is not true about gun owners. Well maybe it is in Sweden, but not when guns are relatively mainstream.

See You're using statistics you don't even understand.

No the second amendment is a god given right that the american government upholds

>about it refuse to or protect the terrorists.
So who is fighting ISIS, you fucking Cred Forumstard?

They still are highly illogical and radicalized compared to local population or did you forget that more people showed up to protest the charlie hebdo cartoon than the terrorist act following it? Or that Muslim communities hid the Paris attackers?

>law written by man
>god given
thats as retarded as saying its an "ideology"

also most Muslims who immigrate from Muslim countries have a hard time adapting to western stander ts

#blacklivesmatter

#policebrutality

#prayforharambe

Really made me think.
Why dont we get rid of their socialization by killing them off?

30 percent of french Muslim put shariah law over French laws

Read the constitution.

Ideology is a collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society. It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's beliefs, goals, expectations, and motivations. An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision that is followed by people, governments, or other groups that is considered the correct way by the majority of the population, as argued in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies). It can also be a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of society such as the elite to all members of society as suggested in some Marxist and critical-theory accounts. While the concept of "ideology" describes a set of ideas broad in its normative reach, an ideology is less encompassing than[clarification needed][vague] the ideas expressed in concepts such as worldview, imaginary and ontology.[1]

>They still are highly illogical and radicalized compared to local population or did you forget that more people showed up to protest the charlie hebdo cartoon than the terrorist act following it?
That's because their parents come from these countries and by have an influence on their children. Over time this primary socilization will diminish because of the strong secondary and tertiary socialization. It's what happened to christianity in the west.

>It proves that it's not Islam that is the problem, but the socialization.

No, it proves that savage muslims are the biggest problem, because they act out on their wishes

If the "western muslims" don't defend their religion, they aren't even real muslims.

it might say in the constitution that its god given, but just because it says something in a book or on a paper doesnt make it so

Cause Muslim extremists are acting on the beliefs of Islam.

Mass shooters are acting AGAINST the beliefs of gun-owners.

>We are not talking about immigration you Cred Forumstard. Read OP again. We are talking about generalizations

OP is completely ambiguous, but since he's talking about generalizations, I gave one example that is highly relevant to current events where generalizing all Muslims is perfectly fine while generalizing gun owners is not. You, on the other hand, are literally taking about nothing because almost no one is proposing that legal Muslim citizens should be denied the right to practice Islam.

>Owning a gun is a right
Freedom of religion and innocent until proven guilty are also rights.

have you ever read the quran Muslim parents brainwash their kids with the book from birth to adulthood

But user Swede, your the one generalizing.

Muslims are dirty people with dark skin, and should be enslaved like the sand niggers they are. Freedom is a mistake.

>self defense isnt a natural right
Dont you have a bull to prep swede?

cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/pew-144000-us-muslims-say-suicide-bombings-civilian-targets-often-or

Pew: 8% of U.S. Muslims Say Suicide Bombing, Violence Against Civilian Targets ‘Often’ or ‘Sometimes Justified’

i do agree it is hypocritical to generalise

>swede doesn't understand the constitution or bill of rights.

That's okay. You don't need to understand those things because you don't have them.

See

>But user, you generalize all muslims based on the actions of a few radicals. What makes your generalization any more valid?
Examination of religious texts.

Actually, it proves that radicalization is a product of secondary/tertiary socialization. That's why westernized muslims aren't as radical, because they are exposed to different things. Over time they will become even less and less radicalized, to the point where they are as harmless as christians.

It's all in those statistics that the Americans posted.

Violent Muslims disagreeing resulting is huge civil wars. Great argument Saddam didn't gas the Kurds or anything

A gun is freedom that you can hold in your hand. A Muslim is a primitive, useless piece of vermin which should stay in its own environment. They do nothing to improve our country. The second amendment is the amendment which guarantees all of the others. Free men decide what powers they shall permit the government to have, NOT the reverse.

>natural
>same as god given
way to move the goalpost

maybe, but i do want them

Please open a dictionary and look up the definition of "hypocritical", then explain how it applies to my post.

>OP is completely ambiguous
No it's not. It's as clear as can be. Why is it ok to generalize muslims based on the actions of few and then demand that people should not generalize gun owner based on the actions of a few?

Have you read it?

Most people in ISIS are illiterate.
We were in school during the Iraq war, they were trying not to get killed.

They don't know what the Quran says, they just know what people told them it says

>That's why westernized muslims aren't as radical, because they are exposed to different things.

yeah, they aren't real muslims anymore. subverted like the rest of us.

Takeaway from this: MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS ARE DANGEROUS

That's so many muslims in the west recently came from the middle-east so they still suffer from the socialization there. I told you, over time this will go away/diminish because of the strong influence from the new society they live in.

I think you should read up on socialization because you don't seem to know what it is or how it functions.

the only reason Christians are as radical as Muslims is because you where free to critecise them without sjw screaming racist

yes former muslim here

>Ownership of an inanimate object that has been law since the founding if this nation 200+ years ago
Vs
>Allowing your home yo be flooded with people that not only have an extreme ideology but also reproduce like roaches and want to kill you

Nope

>gun ownership is comparable to a religion that has not evolved beyond the 12th century

???????

> Why is it ok to generalize muslims based on the actions of few and then demand that people should not generalize gun owner based on the actions of a few
Yes, and I've given you an explanation of when and why it is okay, complete with a practical example. Are you literally retarded?

Gun owners aren't indoctrinated in a (((religion of peace)))

Not all muslims follow the same interpretation as you or the radicals. That's you generalizing.

Don't you have a problem when people say all christians secretly follow the same interpretation as the KKK? Of course you do, because it's a generalization.

You're just a hypocrite.

we are writing the year 2016, you no longer need weapons - just tolerance and love

The difference is you can't use the good muslims to blow up the other muslims. They just wont do it.

So when are you going back to your country?

>that has been law since the founding if this nation 200+ years ago
freedom of religion and innocent until proven guilty too

That is what we are saying. you are being hypocrite.

this

>Don't generalize all Muslims because of radical extremists

>gun owners are all crazy and violent murderers. only police should have guns

>all police are racist murderers

liberalism is literally retardation

>Why is it ok to generalize muslims based on the actions of few and then demand that people should not generalize gun owner based on the actions of a few?
Because guns aren't a political, legal, and philosophical ideology you moron. You can criticize Islam on a purely scholarly basis by reading their texts and accepted interpretation without ever having to look at the action of a single Muslim.

i was born here mulatto dads belguim

If I buy a gun their isn't a piece of paper that says "Kill anybody else that doesn't have a gun to be a gun owner". It is the gun owners own choice to do that.

When I join Islam It says right in the book to kill non believers among other things. That's how we generalize it.

Then their are "Muslims" who only partly follow what the Quran says thinking they are true, pure Muslims when they are not. That's why they keep killing each other, cause one group forgot to take out the garbage on Monday instead of Tuesday like Allah commands it.

We could greatly reduce deaths by implementing a somewhat (but not impossibly) lengthy and burdensome licensing scheme for handguns. Same with reducing the impact of mass shootings with licensing required for semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines.

Don't get me wrong, I think an average citizen should be allowed to own anti-tank weaponry and machine guns. But they should have to prove themselves first.

1) Guns serve a greater purpose that outweighs a few niggers shooting up each other
2) Muslims serve us no greater purpose. Why should I go out of my way to bring them here?
3) There is no correlation between amount of guns and violent crime rates
4) There is a correlation between amount of muslims and rape/terrorism rates

I'll be totally honest, there is a very important reason you should expel Muslims from Europe and it goes beyond current levels of terrorism:
The simple fact is that a country with extremely divided cultures becomes very fragile and eventually becomes prone to riots and civil war, with the outcome being one dominant culture, and with the way Europe is blindly moving forwards, that dominant culture will be an Islamic one.

>Because guns aren't a political, legal, and philosophical ideology you moron.
so? what as this got to do with the example?

>You can criticize Islam on a purely scholarly basis by reading their texts and accepted interpretation without ever having to look at the action of a single Muslim.
True. But what we are talking is about generalizations. You demand that gun owners should not be generalized and then generalize muslims

Again, you fail to understand that there are different interpretations of the Quran. Not everyone follow the violent version (comparable to the KKK or CI). The vast majority of westernized muslims follow the peaceful version (comparable to modern protestantism and catholicism).

99% ruins the good 1%. it's same with niggers

doesn't matter. go back to Morocco

>Why should I go out of my way to bring them here?
Who is talking about immigration?

and how come "moderate Muslims" say that the are true Muslims when the drink tolerate gays some dont even pray tree times a day respect woman's rights

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>be you
>why is it okay generalize muslims but not gun owners?
>someone explains that sometimes it's okay to generalize and sometimes it isn't, depending on whether or not it results in an injustice
>literally agree with the provided example demonstrating this observation
>inexplicably call the opponent a hypocrite
Low IQ in action...

>westernized muslims
Lel

>owning guns is a right
>killing infidels isn't
who is the semen demon?

What part of the Bill of Rights guarantees all muslims around the world the right to immigrate to the US?
It doesn't.

What part of the Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to own firearms?
The 2nd Amendment.

This is so simple that it is hard not to hate liberals.

MUSLIMS REFUGEES:
>could be a jihadist
>could have intent to injure/kill citizens

GUN:
>is a gun
>has no intent, lays theres

then why dont the want to reform it? like the old testament and the new testament

That's what I meant by different Muslims partly following what the Quran says. Just saying they are not as "true and pure" to the book as they think they are but they are still Muslims, just in a different group.

not an argument burger

Yo what the hell barbosa

>Nationalist View holocaust promoter fag is back

Awwww man, I was hoping you finally killed yourself.

You truly are a piece of shit on this board.

We're not talking about muslim immigration.

i dont have a duel citizenship
and i only have a Belgium passport.

Your hash sucks.

>different interpretations of the Quran
It's no different than cafeteria Christians.

Perhaps that is what is taking place right now or in a near future? Do you think the christian reformation happened over night? It was a gradual transition.

not an argument

Owning a gun and a violent ideology are really incomparable.

As facetious as I'm being, I'm pretty sure that quoting an amendment (or at least part of it) is actually an argument.

believe me that not going to happen crazie sjw are yust going to scream you down while som jihad i bombs you Islam is a lot stronger than christainety

Then specify what you're talking about. Preferably something that is somehow relevant and not stormfag strawmen. I challenge you.

>so? what as this got to do with the example?
It's a ridiculous comparison, and the reasons why should be obvious.

>True. But what we are talking is about generalizations. You demand that gun owners should not be generalized and then generalize muslims
Because conveniently for us Muslims have organized themselves into monolithic groups like the OIC and Muslim Brotherhood and these groups are very clear on exactly what they believe. If a Muslim is a member of one of these groups then it's safe to assume they hold their beliefs which are radical by western standards.

>its the same as saying if you critice Islam where gone kill you

also radicalization in Belgium is at an all time high lots of young kids are converting to fight for isis

who funds the radicalisisers???? you know

Kill yourself chinkoid.

...what?

Read the post I originally quoted, you dipshit.
It's a guy talking about regulating gun ownership.
Which can be considered infringement.

The Second Amendment... ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Generalizations in general. You think your generalizations are O.K. because of arbitrary criteria you chose. Why isn't their generalization O.K? Because their arbitrary criteria doesn't align with yours?

muslims don't have to be registered into a database and get a license before they are allowed to exercise their first amendment right, yet I do before I am allowed to exercise my second amendment right. If it's ok for the government to scrutinize me for choosing to buy a gun, then why is it not ok for the government to scrutinize someone for choosing to practice islam?

See kids, this is what happens when you put too many black dicks in all the wrong orifices.

>this man owns a phone
>this makes him equivalent to someone who is part of a death cult

>If a Muslim is a member of one of these groups then it's safe to assume they hold their beliefs which are radical by western standards.
And if they don't? There are plenty of muslims who don't tie themselves to these groups. Why is it O.K. to group them with those who have?

if you critice Islam it can be considered an infringement on the first amendment

The want to bear arms is the desire for a right many people died for

The want to be muslim is a choice, and pretty much the most retarded one you can pick in 2016

I actually reverse your argument: if you support scrapping the 2nd amendment by stripping people of their guns you should have no problem scrapping the 1st as well by banning religionofpeaces

>Generalizations in general. You think your generalizations are O.K. because of arbitrary criteria you chose.
How is the question of whether a generalization causes an injustice or not an "arbitrary criteria" for determining whether a specific instance of a generalization is morally wrong?

>Pro-gun supporters condemn the actions of a few crazies
>"Moderate" Muslims don't condemn the actions of any of the thousands of murderers who commit murder in the name of the religion they share

No it can't. Fuck Islam

You haven't even read the quran, and neither have half its followers. They aren't really muslims, if they were, we'd be fucked. And we are beig fucked by the ones that do read it.

Additionally, this was a discussion of gun control and islam. You're asking me to discuss christianity, as though I have qualms with bastardizing it. But I don't, so your point falls flat on its face.

No, it cannot. You really need to look up freedom of religion.

did you not read my other posts? i hate islam

Then the vast majority of the Muslim world considers them apostate Muslims and would sentence them to death with all the gays for failing to adhere to the correct Quranic interpretations. If they don't like the idea of being grouped in with effectively every Muslim outside of western countries then I suggest they leave the religion.

:^)

...

Pretty easy to understand there buddy. Now if these were the numbers and we didn't have any happenings like killings, rapes, attacks etc then sure. But we do... may want to go tell your boy servant to warm up your goat for ya.

The second ammendment doesn’t tell you to kill nonbelievers.

No? Not stopping them worshipping.
Criticizing it isn't making a law about it.

That's like saying if I own a patch of land I can't kick someone off it for saying 'fuck the jews' or 'Donald Trump is a nazi' because 'Freedom of Speech!.'

fucking israel, your land is muslim, suck a cock, i hope they will kill you and your whole disgusting breed

Thanks, Achmed. We'll probably kill the rest of your family back in Palishitstain next round. :)

If you let them immigrate very slowly that "can" work. If they come too quickly they form their own shitty communities. Just look at the no go zones in tons of cities in Europe. You're really fighting for a shit team Ahmed. Facts, statistics, and history are not on your side. You could obviously sway sjw retards but generally we are not them.

Because justice is subjective and so is morality (from a secular perspective). Since most western nations today are secular in the sense that they all have seperation of church and state, I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

I'm pretty sure a larger percentage of Western people are willing to agree to "death for adultery." So many betas with glass egos think that side action is the end of the world.

I love how you create the argument so you can seem intelligent, but in reality you're winning an argument with yourself.

Debatable, but I'd still like to hear from Sweden how a majority of muzzies saying they support something isn't sufficient evidence to say a majority of muzzies support something.

But still. The fact that they support this crap is still enough to tell them "fuck off back to your own country." How many westerners have to die before they are "socialized" enough?

>Because justice is subjective and so is morality
I disagree, but I'll accept it for the sake of the argument because it doesn't help your case. If you want to "prove" that generalizations are always morally wrong, you can't do it because you just said morality is subjective. If you want to prove that I'm somehow a hypocrite, you need to show that I'm somehow violating my own principles of justice by making distinctions between different instances of generalizations. You can't do either, so you lose automatically.

> you generalize all muslims based on the actions of a few radicals.
< Nope. We judge them on what being Muslim means, if it didn't mean anything then why/how could you be one. Muslims (followers of the tribe-cult called Islam) are a more dangerous form of soulless tool than a gun.

Guns are inanimate tools. We treat them as such. The wellbeing and reasoning behind the person with the gun is a different issue.
...fucking hoplophobes

One's a religious ideology, one is a piece of metal.

they aren't equivalent because it's not possible to destroy all guns

Here's an answer, swede cuck. I can generalize muzzies because I fucking feel like it. In an us vs them scenario, I choose my tribe, the west. Deal with it and shove your feelings up your ass.

>"People who advocate gun-control are stupid. You shouldn't generalize all gun-owners based on the the actions of a few crazies."
>But user, you generalize all muslims based on the actions of a few radicals. What makes your generalization any more valid?

OP, prepare your buttcheeks.

Gun control advocates are people with a radical belief that they can steal from, and attack the rights of innocent, law abiding gun owners who have them no personal harm. They believe doing this is right and just. Once they have completed their work they will be rewarded by ruling their own gun free utopia.

Now how is that belief much different than the Muslim extremists and their sharia law zones?

You just compared apples to apples and you asked us why do we know they are both poisoned.

Facts bear out the association of radicalism and terroristic violence with Islam. Beyond the disproportionate rate of terrorist attacks among the muslim population, surveys of muslims show wide support of such attacks, whereas legal gun owners are one of the most peaceful, law-abiding demographics by far.

...

underrated post

Russia. US is arming them. Israel is directing them.

>What makes your generalization any more valid?
2000+ years of history

Except it's not just a few.
Islam is entirely incompatible with western culture.

Except western muslims were raised in western countries and somewhat managed to integrate.
You're cherrypicking the best example to win the argument.
Pathetic.