civdef wrote: »

That's a weak enough statistic though - can't be too far outside the margin of error - and hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement from a demographic!

I actually kind of agree with you on the point that the anti-muslim stuff was basically electioneering bull**** by him rather than a core believe though - I'd put it down to pandering to low common denominator instincts among his desired electorate. The fact he didn't follow though on it left a lot of them disappointed.

I'm seeing a good bit of similar comment from the 2A community om the states lately. Despite all his posturing during the election he didn't deliver them much, and actually took away bump stocks.

I'm not sure he was much more of an anti-muslim than a pro-christian - both those angles were just hypocritical spiel to get votes.

Well, considering a Muslim organisation did the survey itself and not a professional poll taking company...:)

Yeah the ".Bump stock ban".. Bawl ..Boo Hooo...He took away my useless bit of plastic cos I can't figure out how to waste ammo inefficiently or pull the trigger any quicker. Therefore he is a sellout":rolleyes:
Despite the fact that this is the weakest firearms legislation ever on a statute book that is soo full of loopholes you can drive two artics thru side by side thru it. On a simple basis, only Congress can rewrite legislation to define these as machine guns not BATFE or the DOJ. Nor does it ban a rake of other ammo wasting gadgets.

If they had anything to be grumpy about is that he didn't get silencers off the 200usd NFA ticket or get full concealed carry reciprocity between the States done. Hardly surprising as up to the midterm elections we had enough to deal with "The Russians" and it got lost in the maelstrom.

Don't think he is either pro or anti-Muslim TBH on a personal level. Think he was doing what politicians do. Show you your fears and sell you a cure.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

San Bernardino shooting ...Farook's girlfriend, Malik a Pakistani-born green cardholder,... Farook was 1st gen Pakistan

That's actually one of the ones I referred to.
Farook was born in the US to immigrant parents. So he was a US citizen (2nd gen pakistan). And he would been unaffected by the travel ban, although he was living in the US so wouldn;t have made a difference either way.

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Just looking at this objectively one could argue that Trump’s travel ban was in the interests of public health and safety too, preventing terrorists from Muslim majority countries, like the ones who attacked France several times, from getting into the country. I’m not necessarily saying that is or isn’t my opinion, just that they could be both perceived as being in the public’s health interests.

I understand and agree that's the logic behind it. Not any ingrained issue with islam itself. But there are existing laws to detains suspects, and people of watch lists.
And, the main point was that most of the people who carry out attacks have other citizenship that avoids attention. So they tend to not block very few would be criminals, but block all the law abiding citizens.

Example, the nutters who carried out the attacks in france, Charlie Hedbo shooting, were french citizens born in paris.

Cass wrote: »

Was it in the official ban wording that the Supreme court upheld?

If not then what he believed/believes or called for personally doesn't make a balls bit of difference.

Anything considered as the reason(s) for it after is just supposition.

Disagree. The original comment that started it wasn't about the wording in the EO. It was about Biden's comments on banning travel being hypocritical. It's entirely about comments made, so Trumps own comments should be fair game.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Even in his first quote in the US there is no way you can get away with firing a shotgun or any firearm "thru a door" in a self-defence situation. As you have no visibility of your target or threat. Been enough people done for that,inc LEO for involuntary manslaughter.

Agree with this. Oscar Pistorius springs to mind.

The point is; That if Uncle Joe was to be applying for a firearms license here hypothetically, and he was waffling such advice as a public figure or even an individual, would a Garda Super take this into consideration in his decision to grant or refuse?

But he wasn't in Ireland or referring to Ireland when he said. He was responding specifically to a person who asked about home defense in the US.
So it's a bit silly to hypothetically change his location, but keep the statement intact.

[QUOTE But there are existing laws to detains suspects, and people of watch lists.[/QUOTE]

The word "ban" was disingenuous and media emotive in this case. Bar Syria, which had a permanent ban due to the civil war and the IS being active there,every other country had either a 90 or 120-day suspension of visa issuance.Even Iran was under a 90-day suspension.One of the most vocal US enemies.So hardly a point blank refusal of anyone with a nationality from that country.

And, the main point was that most of the people who carry out attacks have other citizenship that avoids attention. So they tend to not block very few would-be criminals, but block all the law-abiding citizens

.

Do you actually know why there was a suspension of the visas from those countries? All of these people have to be screened as much as possible to make sure their arent a few terrorists in the flood.ergo it overloads the system too and you get false positives, and genuinely innocent people end up on Homeland security no-fly list, which is impossible to get off. As a few Irish people can attest to. So what would you rather have?

Mellor wrote: »

Playing semantics a bit there.
A 90-day suspension is a ban.

A ban doesn’t imply a permanent prohibition.

Yet you just contradicted yourself by saying above a "90 day suspension is a ban" Def Suspension the act of forcing someone to leave a job, position, or place for a usually short period of time as a form of punishment
Then you say a ban isnt
a permanent prohibition...Must mention that one to the minister for justice on the"handgun suspension" which isnt a ban according to your logic here?

T

he 90/120 day order was extended with a subsequent order that was in place 2017-2021. Not an outright ban, but a ban on visas, and as a visa is required. Amounts to the same thing.

But according to your definition, those were "suspended", so not a ban?

What? So in order to prevent a few innocent people from being able to fly to the US. The solution is to ban millions and prevent them from flying to the US. I must be missing something there, because that makes no sense.

Yeah like "millions" of Syrians and Iranians and Yemenis are travelling to the USA every year?? From countries that have the lowest income in the world,they are all denied the pleasure of visiting Disneyland and Las Vegas Hyperbole ...much?

Makes plenty of sense.,from a counter-terrorist viewpoint... If a few countries cant come into another country because they feel it is a risk, and whose Govts have been yelling "Death to American Infidels"...Too bad...And if something did happen the opposition would be the first one bawling about "breakdown in our national security,etc" Cant have it both ways...
But I would be intrigued to hear how t

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[
Yet you just contradicted yourself by saying above a "90 day suspension is a ban" Def Suspension the act of forcing someone to leave a job, position, or place for a usually short period of time as a form of punishment
Then you say a ban isnt
a permanent prohibition...Must mention that one to the minister for justice on the"handgun suspension" which isnt a ban according to your logic here?

Which part is causing confusion guy for?
There is no contradiction there.

You suggested calling it a ban was disingenuous. I’m saying that is incorrect. The word ban doesn’t imply permanent measures. A ban can be permanent or it can be temporary.
Referring to a temporary measure as a ban is not incorrect or disingenuous.

But according to your definition, those were "suspended", so not a ban?

Where are you pulling this definition from?
I think you’ve misunderstood something somewhere. Either word is acceptable, they are synonymous in that context.

If somebody gets caught drink driving, and put off the road. You could say they were banned from driving for 6 months. There is nothing wrong or disingenuous about that.
And picking on details like that is irrelevant semantics.

Yeah like "millions" of Syrians and Iranians and Yemenis are travelling to the USA every year?? From countries that have the lowest income in the world,they are all denied the pleasure of visiting Disneyland and Las Vegas Hyperbole ...much?

As opposed to the amount of people from those populations incorrectly on no-fly lists? A subset that is maybe a fraction of a percent.

The no-fly list point makes no sense, as with the travel ban those people still can’t fly.

Mellor wrote: »

Which part is causing confusion guy for?
There is no contradiction there.

Merriam Webster

Definition of suspension
1: the act of suspending : the state or period of being suspended: such as
a: temporary removal (as from office or privileges)
b: temporary withholding (as of belief or decision)
c: temporary abrogation of a law or rule


ban noun (1)
Definition of ban (Entry 2 of 3)
1: legal or formal prohibition

So which one is it? Obviously these words have two clear separate meanings???

ou suggested calling it a ban was disingenuous. I’m saying that is incorrect. The word ban doesn’t imply permanent measures. A ban can be permanent or it can be temporary.
Referring to a temporary measure as a ban is not incorrect or disingenuous.

A suspension would suggest a set time limit on an activity,a ban suggests something a lot more permanent. Ergo they do not have the same meaning.


QUOTE]If somebody gets caught drink driving, and put off the road. You could say they were banned from driving for 6 months. There is nothing wrong or disingenuous about that.

Correctly they would have been suspended from driving for 6months. In common parlance, a ban is considered a permanent feature. Now, you can argue that it isn't till the cows come home,but in the really-real world,it is accepted as such to the point of it being an impossibility or with great difficultty to overthrow.

As opposed to the number of people from those populations incorrectly on no-fly lists? A subset that is maybe a fraction of a per cent.OTE]

Realistically how many people travel from those countries to the US? The majority being either diplomatic or other elite personnel.And the few token rich families in the US trying to get their relatives out of Trehan or Khartoum

Realistically said this was a sound counter-terrorism manoeuvre, but was hijacked bu the Anti Trump media to try and make a mountain out of a worm cast in blackening him as being anti-Muslim and racist.
The same media whores would be out screaming its al his fault if an atrocity had occurred on US soil then if a genuine terrorist had got thru and something had happened.

The no-fly list point makes no sense, as with the travel ban those people still can’t fly.[/QUOTE]

You didn't understand the point made about the no-fly list or are taking it out of context.I

Found this funny. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the Greens.

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Yeah, the subreddit r/wallstreetbets has bankrupted several hedge funds or at least caused a lot of financial loss. It basically started as hype for a new board in GameStop but then some lads on WSB found out about some hedge funds shorting GameStop and decided to get one over them. I put a bit of money into Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency that WSB managed to hike the prices, and I made about 75% in a day. Also apparently the trading app RobinHood started selling some people's GameStop shares to drive down the price and they even withdrew funds from some people's account, effectively robbing them. I heard some conspiracy theory about Biden having connection with RobinHood executives, but I'm not sure of it's credibility.

I heard that rumour was started by the guy who when interviewed on TV proclaimed Donald J Trump is a genius and that's what the J stands for.

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

I guess that says it all:D:D:D

Nah, it was probably Hunter's new business deal...:eek::D