There are approximately 3.3 million Muslim Americans. After the attack in Orlando, The Times reported that the F.B.I. is investigating 1,000 potential “homegrown violent extremists,” a majority of whom are most likely connected in some way to the Islamic State. If everyone on that list is Muslim American, that is 0.03 percent of the Muslim American population. If you round that number, it is 0 percent. The overwhelming number of Muslim Americans have as much in common with that monster in Orlando as any white person has with any of the white terrorists who shoot up movie theaters or schools or abortion clinics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/aziz-ansari-why-trump-makes-me-scared-for-my-family.html



the constitution mentions 'religion' just as clearly as it does bearing 'arms'


how do some of the people who are so passionate about defending and having no compromise on one seem so compliant in attacking or supporting compromise of another?

You have to start somewhere.

My perspective is that I have about a 0% percent chance to win that Iphone6 from that health survey that the NYTimes opinion article sent me to upon clicking it. Gotta play to win though

OK... so the " the F.B.I. is investigating 1,000 potential “homegrown violent extremists,” a majority of whom are most likely connected in some way to the Islamic State"....just as important is the number they never investigating like the two in San Bernardino. Equally as important are the people they investigated and clear more than once like the guy in Orlando...who eventually carried out his carnage in the name of the Islamic State.

If those "1,000 potential “homegrown violent extremists,”, a majority of whom are most likely connected in some way to the Islamic State" each killed 10 people does it really matter what percentage of the Muslim community they represent?

The constitution does guarantee freedom of religion just as grants citizens the right to bear arms. It doesn't grant anyone the right to kill others who don't have a gun, just as it doesn't give anyone the right to kill others in the name of religion as part a caliphate. The difference is if a person commits certain crimes that don't involve guns they lose their constitution right to bear arms. If a person pledges their allegiance to ISIS, or any other religiously driven extremist group, they don't lose their constitutional right to practice any religion.

It appears The Times is attempting to downplaying a threat that is KNOWN to exist. An overwhelming number of white people aren't members of the Klan but that doesn't diminish the threat. An overwhelming number of black and Hispanic people don't belong to gangs but that doesn't diminish the threat.

its not a downplay,, its being conscience of when a persons acts are attributed to 'individuals' vs when its attributed to groups of people


the threat is terrorist, and we have domestic and international,, that's the point

going after all muslims for the nutcases that pop up amongst them is just the same as if all white males were targets for the likelihood that the next serial rapist or domestic terrorist will happen to be white



not downplay,, but a call for consistency

Hell man...I clicked the link and got a shot at an IPhone or IPad...no IPads in stock so I went for the Iphone....playas gone play

good luck in your endeavor,,,lol

now,, pat me on the back for not whinging of how you are not posting what I think you should or how the thread has been 'hijacked'

Hey...Ill share half of that IPhone use with ya if I win

And apologies for the hijack.... was surprising from a NY Times article though

trust , it truly is not something I sweat at all,,,not trying to be funny

enjoy your entry,,,

What rational person is "going after all muslims" or even blaming all Muslims?????

Every group is comprised of individuals.....and when individuals commit terrorist acts in the name of a group and/or the group takes credit for what an individual does there is no separation or distinction between the individual and the group.
If hit man killed someone after being order to by the boss of a Mafia family there is no separation of the individual pulling the trigger, the boss and the Mafia family. When Mafia hits were a common occurrence the FBI and police actually did something that is taboo and politically incorrect today, they actually used profiling to find the perpetrators.

You can read the article any way you want, I see it as attempting to downplay the threat, specifically in the name of liberal political correctness.

isis kills muslims and non muslims

so tell me, if a white man killed a white man out of allegiance to a group that espoused to be protecting white men


would it make sense to put all white men under a suspicious umbrella,, although many of them were being targeted themselves?

people who say all muslims are evil

islam is evil

muslims should be watched in their place of worship,,,,etc,,etc,,etc

Who IS PUTTING ALL MUSLIMS under one umbrella??????

find people who are doing the things I gave as examples,, its not a thread made to call out anyone individually

OK...hold your breath while I find examples to prove your point.

you don't have to prove my point

I asked a question


why do people who are so adamant about defending and having no compromise on one constitutional protection so quick to compromise or separate themselves from defending the other?

its fine if you have no answer,,,,if the shoe doesn't fit,, don't wear it,,

People aren't rational and objective except when it suits their purpose in a controlled exchange...like the internet.

Other than that

That's great.
....do the "some of the people who are so passionate about defending and having no compromise on one seem so compliant in attacking or supporting compromise of another?" actually know there are approximately 3.3 million Muslim Americans?
Or is it a case of "well, I know it, so everyone else must know and accept it."

Do they see 2 different issues?
1. "Attack on the 2nd amendment by American politicians!"
2. "Attack on America by foreign Muslims!"

Do they see "Muslim Americans" as "Americans?"
Or do they see "Muslim Americans" as "foreigners that happen to live in America because Obama doesn't enforce the border laws?" and therefore may not feel the constitution applies?

Plus

That's great.
...What percent of the population are "some of the people who are so passionate...etc.?"

If it's a tiny percent of the population that is "passionate about defending...so compliant in attacking" (while also realizing the "constitutional conflict") then you might as well ask "why do some people like strawberry jam and don't like grape jelly? They both like sugar and flavor! Hypocrites!"


No.
But it would make sense to put all left handed white men under an umbrella, or inter all german american or japanese into an internment camp during wwi&ii, or all blonde hair white men.

It makes sense and is basic human nature to look for whatever you can to differentiate the "problem" from what is perceived to be "normal."


It would be more accurate to say "going after all Muslims for the nutcases that pop up among them is just the same as if everyone with a mental illness were targets for the likelihood that the next serial rapist or domestic terrorist will happen to have a mental illness."

And that's happening now. So there is consistency.

well, thank you,, consistency is important to me

and I also do not support going after the mentally ill,, but instead helping people with illnesses of any type,,,