How can people support both 2nd Amendment Rights and Donald Trump's anti-Muslim comments when these two stances contradict each other?
Gun rights activists often use the 2nd Amendment to support their cause. They argue that any type of gun regulation infringes on their Constitutional rights.
At the same time, Donald Trump's recent comments about banning Muslims from entering the country are a flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment.
My questions is especially for people who use the 2nd Amendment to argue for gun rights but also support Donald Trump. Do you see this as a contradiction? How do you justify it? Do you value the 2nd Amendment over the 1st Amendment? I'm genuinely trying to understand.
Jeff D2015-12-09T07:22:06Z
Favorite Answer
Sorry, but the first amendment doesn't say anything about immigration. Modern Supreme Court decisions such as Arizona v. United States have held that Congress has plenary (virtually absolute) power to regulate immigration. In fact, in current immigration law Congress has already granted the President the authority to suspend entry of any or all aliens on any basis the President deems fit. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which provides:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
I do not support Trump, nor do I fall into the category of persons you are seeking to answer your question, but I am interested in what you asked, so I will answer. I do not see how Trump's suggestion that the US stop travel into the US of nationals from Islamic dominated nations violates the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition. Trump's idea is to limit movement into the US by our enemies. Granted it seems to be based on a test of religion, but he is not limiting the practice of that religion, just the movement into the US of foreign nationals. Past presidents used similar actions to address security issues when the nation was threatened by an enemy. I am not saying it is the best solution, but it isn't something that cannot be considered. We need to talk about all options, including those that limit travel. We should air the pros and cons of all ideas. I do not find Trump's idea so very outlandish that it should not be even spoken about. Look at what we are dealing with. IS and copycat organizations are real threats, and need serious responses. Maybe Trump is not the best spokesperson for the solutions, but he is willing to speak about what many consider real solutions. It is good to air all views, and vet them.
Democrat 'people' do not support 2nd Amendment Rights, Obama will not even ask Pakistan about the 'little lady' as his solution seems to be: Restrict the gun rights of the law abiding, so he doesn't need to check those allowed in by Democrats. Donald Trump is not doing background checks, only 'homeland security people hired' by the Obama homeland security, and they seem to have GONE BACK to the pre 9/11 'Clinton vetting process.'
I would like to know where in the 1st Amendment it says that foreigners have the constitutional right to come to America, expect the government to provide their needs and ignore all laws in favor of Sharia law. That is what is happening in Europe! As a result they are destroying the cultures of the countries and overwhelming the resources of those countries. Trumps suggestion isn't anti Muslim , it is anti terrorist. ISIS itself has said that they intend to hide among the refugees from Syria and enter various countries undetected. All Trump proposes is to halt the immigration until the incompetent federal government comes up with an system to screen the refugees. If you think that is a bad idea you are an idiot.
How is the 1st amendment violated by immigration restrictions? Our country has the sovereignty to decide what type of immigrants come in. Our 1st amendment implies that our government cannot establish a state religion nor can it keep others from practicing theirs. This has zero to do with the beliefs of an outside population that have a portion of members who openly proclaim ill intents. If you really want to see a culture and people who disdain the 1st amendment, look at the people who push for sharia law.