Erin really knocks one out of the part at Joe’s
“Tell you what: I’ll support restrictions on the 2nd Amendment to reduce firearms violence the moment you support restrictions on the 1st Amendment to reduce Islamist violence.”
Now note that Erin is being intentionally coy in this comment. Still she REALLY hit it out of the park.
First up, let’s note that there are HUGE swaths of American Citizens that have ZERO protection under the 2nd Amendment. These are felons, people with protective orders, people who have been sentenced to over a year in prison, those who have been committed to mental health treatment by a court of law, and those convicted of domestic violence. You know all the stipulations of the GCA ’68. Oddly when you hear about a shooting in your local news, chances are the dude who pulled the trigger was already a convicted felon.
Also just like removing 2nd Amendment rights doesn’t seem to stop violent people from committing violence, removing the right to a religion does not stamp it out. Just look at the early Christians!
Yeah, there is a LOT of violence being done by Islam right now, but banning it’s practice won’t stop it, just like banning guns does little good for public safety.
Of course like places that have banned guns, good guys comply with the law, so it could be assumed if Islam was banned, all those GOOD Muslims might comply.
….maybe. But it would also be a pretty nice incentive for them to be BAD Muslims….
And remember using the reprehensible actions of members of a group to justify restricting the civil rights of a whole is reprehensible: See worries against a backlash against Muslims.
Unless it’s about guns. Then it’s, apparently, okay to use terrorism/crimes across the ocean to justify taking away the rights of American Muslims (and non-muslims) to own guns.
On the other hand. You do see the “Hate Speech” banners coming out of the woodwork. Funny how anti-blasphemy laws have become a signal of progressives.