Immigration

What If Donald Trump Jr.'s Bowl of Skittles Were Gun-Owners?

Fear mongering, despite the pretenses, is a bipartisan project.

|

Twitter

Donald Trump Jr. took after his dad and sent out a tweet that's riled social media up. The tweet was of an image of a bowl of skittles. "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?" the image, branded with the Trump-Pence logo, asked. "That's our Syrian refugee problem."

There are plenty of problems with it—people aren't skittles, there's more than a bowlful of them being admitted into the U.S. each year, a small proportion of them are actually from Syria, not even three are guaranteed to kill you, and the refugees go through a screening process.

Perhaps most importantly, some dangers are the cost of freedom. Countless real world phenomena could kill you, and it would be safest to sit under the bed in your bedroom and never go out into the real world. Progressives had their moment mocking Trump Jr. for his fearmongering, but it is a native language to the left as well. After any prominent enough incident of gun violence, progressive leaders will rile up their base by demanding vague "common sense" gun control and even demonizing law-abiding gun-owners.

So what if the bowl of skittles were made of gun-owners? Would those on the left mocking Trump Jr. "take a handful" then? Both gun ownership (self-defense) and freedom of movement can be considered natural rights, but neither the left nor right in this country accept both as such. When Trump insisted immigration was "not a right" (in the Constitution, it's not), many on the left mocked him. But not only does the left regularly deny that the right to bear arms is a right (in the Constitution, it is), but left-wing politicians like Bernie Sanders have even claimed that open borders were a "right wing ploy." The response that "refugees are people but guns are not" is inadequate—gun owners are people too.

Hillary Clinton has touted immigration reform, but she has not offered anything close to making immigration anything resembling a right. All "comprehensive" immigration reform really needs to do is permit law-abiding individuals to cross the border freely, and perhaps a dismantling of the welfare state to remove perverse government incentives for immigration. But for the left, as for the right, immigration reform is about imposing controls and extending the powers of the federal government.

Trump's unapologetic anti-immigration stand (both the illegal and legal varieties) and overt fearmongering over terrorism certainly makes it easier for Democrats to claim the high ground, but it does not erase Democrats' poor record on immigration (they helped scuttle efforts toward immigration at the tail-end of the Bush administration and it was not a priority when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress) nor their history of fearmongering. Barack Obama ran for re-election in 2012 on a platform that prominently included "killing Osama bin Laden." In Philadelphia last week, he insisted only voting straight-ticket Democrat would keep the U.S. safe, secure, and prosperous. And while his supporters tended to believe things in the U.S. were getting worse (why wouldn't they? Democratic politicians have been telling them so), at least Trump's success at parlaying pessimism in the future into popular support might cause Democratic politicians to reconsider the wisdom of downplaying an objectively bright future.

NEXT: D.C. Circuit Hears Challenges to 'Good Reason' Requirement for Carry Permits

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The funniest thing here is that the “bowl of skittles” thing was originally created and used by radical feminists to explain why hating or fearing men was OK.

      1. Start working from home! Great job for students. stay-at-home moms or anyone who needs an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection.. Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week..Go to the website and click to tech tab and start your work…. this website…. http://goo.gl/C6c5YF

      2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

        ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

      3. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://goo.gl/jPtLqx

      4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,.,.,

        ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

      5. Brilliant! That got retweeted as soon as I read it. Ehhhhcellent.

    1. Damn. Nice job pulling that one out of the memory hole.

    2. So radical feminists and Republicans sound alike? Thank Goddess I picked up this shocked face at Michfest.

      1. The regressive left, LGBT groups, and feminists have long come full circle and turned into even more extreme versions of the conservatives they were created to oppose.

        1. Sort of like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

        2. Like the Pink Pistols?

        3. Or regressive … (anything at all, which is the left…)) with you….

    3. It’s totally different! One is M&M’s, the other Skittles.

      1. Never, EVER, mix these in a bowl together.

    4. I knew it was progspeak at “That’s our * fill in blank * problem.”

    5. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

  2. This analogy is ridiculous. Everyone knows it would be the brown ones that would kill you.

    1. Van Halen knew this years ago.

    2. Momma always said, life’s like a bowl of skittles.

  3. and perhaps a dismantling of the welfare state to remove perverse government incentives for immigration

    Perhaps, but not necessarily eh?

    1. The important thing for Reason is that Democrats like them so don’t hold your breath.

    2. Yeah no pressure or anything. First let’s get the open borders thing worked out, then after the flood of Latin America’s poor finally arrives in full to exploit that perverse incentive, we can try to get them on board with the idea of cutting those guarantees to benefits they disproportionately enjoy at our expense.

      1. Fun fact: these things can be done simultaneously.

        1. I appreciate your optimism.

        2. Nope, one of those must be done first….

  4. So what if the bowl of skittles were made of gun-owners? Would those on the left mocking Trump Jr. “take a handful” then?

    Way to get the Democrats on board with the Skittles analogy, Mr. Ed.

    1. 1. Legal gun owners are actually statistically less likely to commit crimes than the general population. Muslim immigrants and Muslims in general commit violent acts of terror far out of proportion to their percent of the population. Indicates maybe not smart to go full Angela Merkel here.

      2. Right to keep and bear arms right there in constitution and applies to US citizens, government may not infringe. There is no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US, government may set any rules it likes including ban.

      1. Oh, you and your logic!

      2. Thank you for pointing out the flaws in the analogy.

        1. You’re right that Mr. Ed’s analogy is flawed.

          If the analogy matched the original case perfectly, it wouldn’t be call an “analogy”, would it?

          1. The analogy doesn’t match where it matters, to anyone who actually understands why gun rights are important.

      3. Point 1 is a load of nonsense. I will rebuff your ‘statistics’ any hour, any day.
        It’s clever that you’re comparing apples and oranges though: “crimes” vs. “violent acts of terror”

        The 2nd sentence of Point #2 is valid though. As a society/country, the People (US citizens as defined under US laws with authorities given by the US Constitution) should have the right to decide if they would welcome someone (a non US citizen) in their ‘home’.

        Without getting into the statistical details, my vote is for open immigration though.

        1. Crimes by licensed gun owners

          Legal gun owners about a third of the population, commit less than 1% of gun crimes.

          Muslim terrorist attacks in the US.

          Quite the body count for only 0.9% of the population.
          Please, show me your statistics and a comparable “violent acts of terror” score in relation to population percentage for some other group, since you want apple to apples.

          1. You’re still comparing overall crime rates to the specific crime of terrorism. Do you not understand the difference?

            1. Of course I do, and if you only look at terrorism, then Muslims come off even worse in comparison.

          2. Let’s talk about your numbers.

            Approx 31% of US households have legally owned guns.
            There are 2.6 people per household in the US, let’s assume that ALL of them are legal gun owners, so that’s 82.5 million people.

            Over the last 30 years, there were about 700k of ‘violent crimes’ (you said ‘crimes’ but I narrowed it down to ‘violent’ crimes) per year. 1% is 7k per 82.5 million legal gun owners. That’s 0.0085%.

            There were 84 ‘Muslim terrorist attacks’ (as you described it) over 45 years in the US per your source (A high percentage of them I do not consider as ‘terror’ but just regular crime. Let’s count them all anyway to support your argument). That’s 1.91 cases per years, then divided by 0.9% of the US population (which is 3.3 million). That’s 0.0001%.

            You used a lot of apples to oranges comparisons, but those were your numbers.

            1. By the way, my statements were not about gun owners being good/bad. They were not about people of different religion/race/gender etc …

              My statements were to purely challenge the ‘statistics’

              1. Which confirm legal gun owners are less likely to commit violent crimes than the general population and Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terrorism and mass murder than the general population, which is the point. I don’t know what you think you’re proving.

                1. “Indicates maybe not smart to go full Angela Merkel here”

                  Just applying your logic that it would still be 8.5 times smarter than the ‘legal gun owners’ thing we have going on.

                  Again, I personally think it’s an apple to orange comparison behind the conclusion, but it’s your comparison.

                  1. Oops, I meant 85 times.

                    1. Still bad at logic, I see. Gun owners make up about one third of the population, yet commit only 1% of the violent crimes, therefore much less likely than general population to commit violent crime, therefore gun owners not a risk. Muslims make up less than 1% of the population yet commit the majority of mass killings and terror attacks, way out of proportion to their population, therefore more Muslims is an increased risk. I think the only reason you fail to grasp this is because you are being deliberately obtuse because you don’t like what it shows.

                    2. “Still bad at logic, I see. Gun owners make up about one third of the population, yet commit only 1% of the violent crimes” — No dispute there.

                      “Muslims make up less than 1% of the population yet commit the majority of mass killings and terror attacks”
                      — ‘mass killings and terror attacks’: even by the some of the most generous classification in the sense of supporting your argument, they are 0.027% of violent crimes.

                      The arithmetic simply does not support your attempt to make one ‘group’ sound better than another.

                    3. He’s right that you are comparing apples to oranges, but he (deliberately?) isn’t pointing out how to correct it.

                      You’ll have to insert your own numbers, but try it like this:

                      “Gun owners make up about one third of the population, yet commit only x% of the mass killings and terror attacks….

                      “Muslims make up less than 1% of the population yet commit the majority of mass killings and terror attacks….”

                      That will make your point and demolish his, other than the apples v. oranges bit.

                    4. Better:

                      “Gun owners make up about 33% of the population and commit x% of the mass killings and terror attacks….

                      “Muslims make up less than 1% of the population and commit x% of the mass killings and terror attacks….”

                      Then go from there.

        2. Um, no. Point 1 is widely proven. The only point that clouds the numbers is the gun-suicide rate, but once you take out self-harm, legal gun owners use guns criminally less than the general population.

          1. Technically, successful suicides are not crimes, so they shouldn’t be included in any listing of gun crimes.

            Attempted suicide is a crime, but not successful suicide, on account of when they do it right, there’s no one to prosecute.

          2. Yes, because you cannot kill yourself, or we will take your corpse to court. Er, Uh, people who knew you to court, and such, ’cause……1

        3. A certain type of libertarian sees a country as just an arbitrary piece of geography that anyone in the world has a right to.

      4. The freedom of movement being an inalienable right argument is thrown around quite a bit. It is the basis for the open borders position.

        My freedom to go where I wish is greatly limited by others rights of ownership. I cant just wander around anywhere I like, walk into any random house and enjoy the air conditioning. In the same way our country belongs to us, the citizenry, and we can grant invitations or refuse entry to anyone we see fit.

        Anyway you slice it, Open borders philosophy just doesnt hold water.

        1. You’re absolutely right.

          Except for “Open borders philosophy just doesnt hold water.”

          I don’t think that statement is necessarily inaccurate, but you may need to define what you mean by “open borders philosophy”.

          Because as a citizen of this country, I have to right to grant invitations as much as you have the right to not grant invitations. So we must somehow find common grounds.

          1. A good start and finish to this debate would be chucking the immigration policy clusterfuck we have now and construct a sane, navigable one. I think we could find common ground there. I don’t know anyone who has argued for complete isolationism. Objecting to the status quo is not an objection to immigration.

        2. The freedom of movement being an inalienable right argument is thrown around quite a bit.

          If the open borders people took this seriously, we could not screen at the border for disease, criminal history, or anything else. We could only limit people’s right to move here after a trial with due process and everything.

          So, I don’t really believe most of them take it seriously.

      5. 2. Right to keep and bear arms right there in constitution and applies to US citizens people under US jurisdiction, government may not infringe.

        It’s “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, not right of US citizens.

        And, of course, the US Constitution applies only on those territories under US jurisdiction.

  5. Just when I thought this election couldn’t get any dumber… the media goes and totally redeems itself!

    1. This.

      I predict not a day will go by before the Trayvon Martin dogwhistle bullshit starts up.

  6. Kind reminds me of Muhammad ALi’s quote on white people:

    “There are many white people who mean right and in their hearts wanna do right. If 10,000 snakes were coming down that aisle now, and I had a door that I could shut, and in that 10,000, 1,000 meant right, 1,000 rattlesnakes didn’t want to bite me, I knew they were good… Should I let all these rattlesnakes come down, hoping that that thousand get together and form a shield? Or should I just close the door and stay safe?”

    1. The M&M analogy appeals to my love of brevity.

      1. Ali was evidently not into the whole brevity thing.

      2. If you set speed limit at 2mph, you will no longer have car ‘accident’ related deaths

        If you never fly again, it is virtually impossible for your to die in of a plane crash

        If you do not use a computer, you can never be hacked via a computer.

        So what was the point about the Skittles?

        All of us can make our lives safer instantly right this moment! But what is the cost?

        1. All of us can make our lives safer instantly right this moment! But what is the cost?

          We’re going to save a whole lot of money on M and Skittles!

        2. Yes, it is a cost benefit analysis.
          Cost = increased likelihood of infiltration by terrorists and subsequent terror attacks.
          Benefit = ?
          What advantage or benefit do we actually gain by bringing them here? What do we lose if we don’t?

          1. The benefit of open immigration is the ‘feel-goods’ for a bunch of childless progs who have nothing else in their life that provide any meaning.

          2. “Benefit = ?”

            That is a valid question.
            Obviously you’d fully know (at least I hope) of your economic losses from not flying again.

            I don’t know the answer to that, and I haven’t read a research paper on that either (yet).

          3. “Benefit = ?”

            You seriously can’t think of a single benefit?

            1. No, can you? What do we get that we don’t already have that justifies the risk of taking in these people?

          4. Hold on. Are we talking about open immigration, or are we talking about accepting refugees from a specific and ongoing current crisis? People are conflating the two. They are not the same issue.

            1. Sounds like this whole debate is; should we take in members of a cult who worship a sociopathic warmongering pedophile? A cult that overall hates America, hates homosexuals, and subjugates and enslaves women?.

              No fucking thanks. The above list is not even close to complete, either.

    2. Or he could just parachute out the door. Parachutes are usually white, though, so maybe not.

  7. I’m not sure I’d make too much of that screening process, given the 800 immigrants who were accidentally granted citizenship the other day.

    1. So, they’re … no longer … *poisoned* Skittles?

    2. Look, government may be wasteful, arrogant, and generally incompetent if not downright malicious when it comes to fighting wars or enforcing laws or administering welfare or regulating trade or building literally anything, but we can totally trust them to secure the borders okay?

      1. By that logic you can’t trust them to leave the borders free either.

          1. It makes sense if you read “free” as “lightly regulated” which is understandably not how libertarians generally define “free” but is what is often meant by “open borders”.

      2. Conscripting employers into enforcing immigration laws is totally okay, because muh welfare.

          1. It’s both, really. Also taxes.

            Somebody has to pay for all those SSI and SSDI recipients. It’s not like most of them ever did.

      3. but we can totally trust them to secure the borders okay?

        When I asked that question a while back, I was told “that’s why refugees spend years in camps”. I believe that response was “assurance” that the vetting was thorough.

      4. Look, government may be wasteful, arrogant, and generally incompetent if not downright malicious when it comes to fighting wars or enforcing laws or administering welfare or regulating trade or building literally anything, but we can totally trust them to secure the borders vet immigrants okay?

        1. Someone thinks vetting immigrants and securing the border are two different things. Oh.

          1. Is it not part of the process of letting people in?

            Oh.

            If it isn’t, that’s a much bigger problem.

            1. I think the troll is trying hard to act like “securing the borders” is the same as “vetting immigrants”, which is clearly wrong.

              1. Yeah, I figured. If he’d bothered to ask, instead of defaulting to stupid sarcasm, I’d have told him I’m cool with letting everyone in, but vetting them completely and as effectively as possible. Doesn’t really meet the definition of “securing” the border when it’s utterly and totally open, but hey, gotta sarcasm sometimes when you don’t understand the argument I guess.

                1. My mistake, the “utterly and totally open” border that involves “vetting…completely.” Of course.

                  1. Yeah, letting everyone in but knowing as much as possible about them are totally at odds with each other…

                  2. “My mistake”

                    It was. Get used to it because you’re a moron and it’s gonna happen a lot.

          2. Someone thinks vetting immigrants and securing the border are two different things.

            Unless you completely close the borders to all immigrants, you have to pick and choose the ones you let in.

            This is known as “vetting”. So, yes, in the real world, they are both parts of the same thing.

            1. Securing the border is ambiguous — it can mean letting nobody in or only letting in those you deem acceptable. So they can be two separate things, but aren’t necessarily.

              Personally, I prefer the meaning where they are parts of the same thing.

    3. Yeah, even the heads of the FBI, CIA and NSA have admitted the refugees can’t really be adequately vetted. And I see no reason to to bring them here when even Angela Merkel admits they are being used to infiltrate terrorists. What does the country gain by bringing them in? What do we lose if we don’t? When did libertarians get so far away from the principle of some other country’s conflicts and issues not being our problem?

      1. What do we lose if we don’t?

        The Unifying Power of Diversity?!

      2. Look, the ultimate and only important issue right now is creating deliberately creating chaos in foreign lands, disrupting tens of millions of live, and then bringing the people from those lands here so that they can strain social systems and carry out terrorist attacks in revenge, thus plunging the West into a permanent police state. Anything else would be insane and inhumane.

        1. It’s all a part of Hillary’s impressive foreign policy experience.

    4. Yep. The screening process is pure horseshit. There is no documented history for the vast majority of the people from the places in the ME and no government entity to ask. They are taking people’s word, that is all. The word of people who have institutionalized lying to fool infidels.

      Screening process, my ass.

      1. The important thing is for bureaucrats to be able to fill out the forms and say “vetted”.

    5. I’m not sure I’d make too much of that screening process, given the 800 immigrants who were accidentally granted citizenship the other day.

      You’ve hit upon another important difference between refugees and gun ownership that makes this a crappy analogy.

      Gun owners become that way through the free market. Refugees do not.
      If the government distributed guns as they saw fit, that would be a better comparison.

  8. “..it would be safest to sit under the bed in your bedroom and never go out into the real world.”

    Not for this guy.

    1. That’s just wrong.

  9. Is somebody asking you to pay to import gun owners? This doesn’t translate over. Suppose 50 people in my neighborhood were great, and one was a killer. I wouldn’t unlock my door, let alone drive them to my house and give them room and board. But I don’t give a shit what they do elsewhere.

    1. I dont live in Dearborn, MI.

  10. Another reason why you should trust federal investigators to suss out the bad apples: Ahmad Khan Rahami’s Father Told Police in 2014 His Son Was a Terrorist, Officials Say

    Two years before the bombings that Ahmad Khan Rahami is suspected of carrying out in New York and New Jersey, his father told the police that his son was a terrorist, prompting a review by federal agents, according to two law enforcement officials.

    The father, Mohammad Rahami, in a brief interview on Tuesday, said that at the time he told agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his concern, his son had just had a fight with another of his sons and stabbed the man, leading to a criminal investigation.

    “Two years ago I go to the F.B.I. because my son was doing really bad, O.K.?” he said. “But they check almost two months, they say, ‘He’s O.K., he’s clean, he’s not a terrorist.’ I say O.K.”

    He added: “Now they say he is a terrorist. I say O.K.”

    1. This guy is all over the place.

      A reporter asked, “Do you think your son is a terrorist?”
      “No,” Mohammad Rahami said. “And the F.B.I., they know that.”

      I’d love to know just how many potential Islamic terrorists they are interviewing that they now have let two slip through after investigations. Just shows how futile it is to begin with.

      1. He doesn’t seem to have a very meticulous grasp of English, and it sounds like he’s hastening to distance himself from his son. He doesn’t want to be seen as having been involved.

        1. He doesn’t want to be a Skittle.

      2. Two? Did you forget the Boston Marathon bombers, at least one of whom was murdering folk?

        1. But enough about mooninite scandal.

        2. …and the San Bernadino attacks, in which the perp was a government employee.

  11. I think better than the gun-owner analogy is this:

    There are a bunch of cars on the road, a few of them are being driven by drunks. Are you still going to work today?

    1. But the analogy is more like, there’s a few drun drivers on the road, so we should we should pour liquor down people’s throats and put them behind the wheel because IDK- love and happy or something. The fact that some X percentage of Americans has a risk of being killers hardly justifies importing another population with an even higher risk of being killers.

    2. How about: There are a bunch of cars on the road, a few of them are being driven by drunks homicidal maniacs. Are you still going to work today?

      1. If I’m still allowed to keep a loaded weapon on the front seat…then yeh, probably.

    3. There are a bunch of cars on the road, a few of them are being driven by drunks. Are you still going to work today?

      I”m driven to drink out of fear of other drunk drivers out there. Which in turns actually leads me to a drunken drive.

      1. Hang on, are you admitting you’re a terrorist?

    4. I…don’t really think the analogy can be saved.

      1. It’s been skittled.

        *** bites lip ***

    5. There are a bunch of cars on the road, a few of them are being driven by drunks. Are you still going to work today?

      Try this, to get closer:

      There are a bunch of cars on the road, and a few of them are being driven by drunks. We know that a handful of bars put a lot of drunk drivers on the road that kill people. Do we want give people from those bars a free gas card?

  12. Vote for Hillary and then principled conservatives downballot. Ensure 4 years of gridlock until Rand Paul can ascend the throne.

    Reason – tell us more about these fabled ‘principled conservatives’.

    Jill Stein trembles at the thought of this message.

      1. 60 eggs in an hour was a better stunt.

        1. +1 cold drink

    1. Where is the Gary Johnson word cloud?

      1. “What’s a word cloud?”

        *** ducks ***

      2. Kinda hard to make a cloud of of the word “pot”.

        1. *** giggles uncontrollably ***

          1. *Falls down giggling*

        2. You forgot “Aleppo”.

          1. A Leppo definitely doesn’t appear in the cloud.

      1. Some of them, he assumes, are good people.

  13. freedom of movement can be considered natural right[s]

    This is where I part company with orthodox libertarians. I’m happy to let people in who demonstrate some sort of willingness to not lift the contents of my wallet, but no, I don’t believe that everybody has the “right” to come here.

      1. Sure, you can ask.

          1. Anyone whose property they have to cross/use to get to you.

            1. …and if they don’t cross someone’s property to get to my house, or did you trespass on your way to work today?

    1. And there is an important difference between freedom of movement within a country, and freedom of movement between countries.

      1. How so? Does the country create this freedom of movement for its subjects?

        1. Yarp.

          Oh, wait, you were asking if it’s right that they do it?

          Sorry, that’s another subject.

          1. No, it’s this subject. The subject is libertarian orthodoxy/principles. What ought to be from a libertarian’s POV, not what is.

            1. Well, I agree with you then. The country doesn’t “create the freedom of movement”. Not within 10,000 miles. They just exercise the power and restrict your freedom of movement.

        2. I think the standard disagreement has to do with property ownership and negotiating freedom of movement across land someone else owns.

          I haven’t seen it fleshed out to my satisfaction, frankly.

          1. How is that any different for the immigrant vs the citizen?

  14. My friends call me Skittles; wanna taste the rainbow?

    1. That rainbow effect is just an oily residue from the mold/fungus/bacteria.

  15. There’s a bowl (or basket) of people exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. Some of them will use their guns to commit crimes. And not just cops, some of the people misusing their guns are regular citizens.

    There’s a basket of people exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Some of them will misuse their freedom of speech to recruit terrorist bombers, and to chalk “Trump 2016” on a college sidewalk.

    There’s a basket of foreigners with no ties to this country and no right to enter. Some of them will kill Americans if we admit them to this country.

    Do you see how that last one wasn’t like the others?

    1. There’s a basket of foreigners with no ties to this country and no right to enter

      That’s called begging the question.

      1. Fair enough –

        A basket of foreigners whose only claim to enter the country is a law giving the executive the discretion to admit refugees, and who have no natural-law right to wander from one country to another, only the treaty right not to be sent back to a country where they’ll be persecuted. But they can exercise that right in any country other than the one where they would be persecuted.

        1. ctrl+c, ctrl+v

          1. You’re clearly an Alt-Ctrl freak!

  16. Mmmmm, Skittles

    1. Skittles, Spree, SweetTarts. The Holy Trinity.

  17. Many of these terrorist acts can be better understood as a rebellion against the religion of the parents. In this case, the father pressured the son to get married. And this was the son’s response. It’s a very similar story as San Bernardino. “You want me to be a good Muslim, dad? Careful what you wish for!”

    1. Yet another reason to ban young men.

      1. You forgot ‘and rape the women’. You can do it:

    2. Oh, I see. So terrorists are just sad kids whose parents didn’t hug them enough. Thanks for clearing that up. Funny how most American kids rebel against their parents without killing random strangers in a fit of pique. Must be something about their upbringing. I wonder if they’re taught differently with regards to people who have different views than them? Particularly in the field of religious views…

    3. Also, The Crusades were just a misunderstanding between Popes and the moody teenage priests. Urban II says “Take the garbage out!” and an angsty Peter the Hermit assumes he means rid Europe of Muslims.

  18. It’s amazing how progressives forget all about the precautionary principle once the subject changes from global warming to Muslim immigration–not that Krayewski is doing that here.

    Trump has a number of principles on his side. For one, his primary concern appears to be about protecting our rights from foreign terrorists. That syncs nicely with the idea that if the government has any legitimate purpose at all, it’s to protect our rights. If we have a military, an immigration policy, etc. to protect our rights from foreign threats, then they’re doing their libertarian job by minimizing the threat of terrorism–so long as how they’re doing it is in harmony with the Constitution.

    The question MIGHT then become whether discriminating against people because they’re Muslims is constitutional. The correct answer to that question is “no.

    . . . but that isn’t the question Trump is asking. Last I read, Trump’s position was in his nomination acceptance speech:

    “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.”

    http://tinyurl.com/hyon5en

    Nothing in there about Muslims.

    1. How to do links so that everyone else can see where it actually goes before clicking on it (for about the zillionth time; Ken, this is not rocket science and I’m probably older than you, so no excuses):

      [a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skittles”]This here text will appear in orange and is a clickable link.[/a]

      Use angle brackets, aka less-than and greater-than symbols, instead of the square brackets I use in the example above.

      Those tinyurl links could go anywhere, so smart people don’t click them.

      1. It’s a good thing they don’t click them, too, because most of my links go to Turkish porn.

        1. yes, yes they do.

      2. It would be even better if the site gave us tools to create links, and not have us rely on learning to code in html. I do know html, I just didn’t expect to have to type it all out myself, which greatly increases the possibility of human error.

  19. Immigration from countries where anti-American terrorists are thick as flies and we can’t tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys–is like a bowl of Skittles.

    Screw anybody and everybody who says the United States government should discriminate against anybody on the basis of being Muslim.

    But suspending immigration from countries that are rife with anti-American terrorists is not discrimination on the basis of being Muslim.

    1. “I didn’t ask to be born in a country rife with anti-American terrorists!”

      1. And I didn’t ask for women to find me irresistible.

        It just turned out that way.

        Meanwhile, the legitimate purpose of government is still to protect our rights from foreign threats–regardless of where you were born or whether you chose to be born there.

        1. Well, OK.

          But you’re missing out on a lot of foreign women!

    2. Someone who is a Christian running for their life from Egypt is not likely going to be a terrorist are they? Ken, people from Syria or Afghanistan are not prone to be terrorists because they are from there. If they were, non Muslims from those countries would also be likely to be terrorists. They are prone to be terrorists because they are Muslims.

      Again, the facts are what they are. Some percentage of Muslims are going to radicalize and it is virtually impossible to tell which ones will and which ones won’t. Given that reality, we have two choices; not let any Muslims in the country or let them in and live with terrorism. That is a lousy set of options but sometimes life is like that.

      1. The First Amendment doesn’t say it only protects religions that are a net benefit to society.

        It does, however, prohibit the government from discriminating on the basis of religion.

        1. With Muslims that are born here, you have a point. But we are talking about immigration. No one has a constitutional right to immigrate here. And the country most certainly can discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes to immigration.

          You are just assuming that there is some constitutional right or human right to immigrate to the country. Sorry but I and most other people don’t assume that. The country has every right to pick and choose who it lets come here.

          1. “No one has a constitutional right to immigrate here.”

            I’m not saying that they have a right to come here. I’m saying the government doesn’t have the right to discriminate against them because of their religion.

            I’m also saying that the government has a libertarian duty to protect our rights from foreign threats–and that extends to suspending immigration from countries with a large number of anti-American terrorists.

            The State Department actually puts up a list of countries where Americans shouldn’t travel, among other reasons, because of the danger of anti-American terrorists.

            http://tinyurl.com/jcshc4p

            For goodness’ sake, if Americans shouldn’t travel to a country because of anti-American terrorism, maybe we shouldn’t let people from that country immigrate here.

            1. I’m not saying that they have a right to come here. I’m saying the government doesn’t have the right to discriminate against them because of their religion.

              Which is another way of saying they have some measure of a right to come here. You are claiming that everyone in the world has the right to enter America without the government discriminating against them on the basis of their religion.

              I’m also saying that the government has a libertarian duty to protect our rights from foreign threats–and that extends to suspending immigration from countries with a large number of anti-American terrorists.

              Except that the problem is not the countries it is Islam. You would happily say a Muslim has a right to come here if they just happen to be from the right country. That is absurd. A Muslim from Europe is no more or less likely to radicalize and turn into a terrorist than one from Afghanistan. And a Christian from anywhere is much less likely than any Muslim.

              You are just trying to deny reality Ken.

              1. You are just trying to deny reality Ken.

                “Reality” does not override the First Amendment. The government can make all sorts of tests, about loyalty, allegiance, affiliations, etc. But it can’t make a religious test. Don’t like it? Amend.

                1. I am fine with it. But the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to people who are not citizens and don’t live here. You don’t like it, amend the constitution. But please stop pretending the Constitution applies where it clearly doesn’t and was never intended to.

                  1. The First Amendment applies to Congress and, by logical extension, to every agent of the U.S. Government. It does not matter who would be affected by the law. The law cannot exist, period. You can’t turn “Congress shall make no law” into “Congress shall make some laws, but only for immigrants” by wishful thinking.

              2. No, saying that the government doesn’t have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion is not another way of saying that immigrants have a right to come here.

                It just isn’t.

                “Except that the problem is not the countries it is Islam.”

                That’s your opinion.

                Even if it’s correct, that doesn’t really matter.

                Do you imagine that the First Amendment only applies to religions that are a net benefit to society?

                Do you imagine that the First Amendment only applies to speech that is a net benefit to society?

                I’m not here for your benefit and neither are my rights. If what I’m doing in exercising my First Amendment rights isn’t of net benefit to you, then too bad for you!

                Do you imagine that the government should discriminate against Baptists or Scientologists if they can be shown to be a net negative for society? Do you imagine that the government should discriminate against the Bible or pornography if either can be shown to be a net negative for society?

                1. The government has no right to discriminate against anybody on the basis of their religion–regardless of whether what they’re doing is of a net benefit to society.

                  I don’t care if nuns refusing to provide birth control to their employees is a net negative or a net positive–it’s their right to follow their own religion without interference from the government anyway. I don’t care if Christian fundamentalists refusing to bake cakes for gays is good or bad for society–they have First Amendment rights the government should respect anyway. I don’t care if Seventh-Day Adventists refusing to carry a gun after they’re drafted is good for society or not–Adventists have rights that should be respected regardless of whether what they’re doing is good for society.

                  Your problem isn’t with Muslims.

                  Your problem is with the First Amendment.

                  Apparently, you don’t believe in it.

                  If the Second Amendment were shown to be a net negative for society, would you turn against it tomorrow?

                  1. Our rights only matter if they’re popular or a net benefit to society is Tony-think.

                  2. The BOR doesn’t protect people overseas. If it did, the government couldn’t wage war and would owe people due process for everything. You are so dumb about this I can no longer debate it with you.,

                    1. Where does that say anything about people overseas?

                      It applies to our government.

                      Full stop.

                      Being an American citizen lets you enter the country, hold certain offices, and vote–and that’s about it.

                    2. “Congress shall make no law”

                      indeed, it does say that. And taken without any context of the law, you’d might be right… maybe

                      you’re not for the same reason John is saying but first let’s take your literalist approach and I can show you even just how you’re saying you still wouldn’t be right

                      – A policy discriminating on religion probably wouldn’t be a law per se. The executive branch of government has discretion, and this would just be them exercising their discretion
                      -I feel like there was another thing but I can’t remember it now

                      However, what John is saying is salient and the over-arching fact here. Laws, even constitutions, CAN ONLY APPLY TO THE CITIZENRY OF ITS COUNTY.

                      If a citizen in Bhutan is denied the right to own a gun, can he sue the American government for denying him his 2nd amendment rights? If a Venezualan journalist is denied the right to write what articles he wants, can he sue the American government? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

                      Foreign people are not afforded the protections of our laws until they are inside the borders of the United States, and even then our laws specifically limit their rights at various stages of matriculation, ending at full citizenship.

        2. For persons under the jurisdiction of the US. The government can place restrictions on immigration into the country on any basis, including religion. That does not constitute “the establishment of a religion, or the free exercise thereof”.

          1. The First Amendment, unlike some of the other Amendments, does not say anything about the people who are “protected” by it, because it is a prohibition on the government’s actions not a protection of the people per se.

            The government cannot administer religious tests, period*. Maybe they should have the power, and if so then amend the Constitution. As it stands, they don’t.

            * = The “Amish exception” notwithstanding.

            1. ah, but see, Trump corrected his position from “Muslims”, to those from countries with terrorism issues. And refusing immigrants from Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc, is perfectly kosher with the constitution. Well….not “kosher”….but you get the idea.
              In fact, we already ban immigration from some countries, so its not a new thing.

          2. As long as the First Amendment applies to the government, it applies to what the government does.

            And if we’re able to restrict immigration from Syria, Iraq, and all the other places that represent a significant terrorist threat to Americans, then what do you care anyway?

            If you want to use the federal government’s immigration policy to keep out some religion–regardless of whether you can effectively defend America from immigrating terrorists by an entirely constitutional policy–then don’t be surprised to see people object to your plan on First Amendment grounds.

          3. Indeed. Nobody is talking about banning Muslims any more. Pretending they are is a distraction, at best.

            1. Was that intended as sarcasm?

      2. I don’t understand why people are so bent over a barrel about banning Muslim immigrants. Just ban the countries that they come from. It a) doesn’t run afoul of the First Amendment and b) has the same practical effect. It’s not the “open borders” solution but it is strongly supported by legal precedent.

        1. What’s the point of keeping America safe from terrorist immigrants if you can’t discriminate against Muslims, too?

          1. I’m not particularly arguing the merits of it. Maybe John’s right and Muslims are a problem wherever they come from. Ok, well, then you have to amend the Constitution. I didn’t write the fucking thing, but I know what it says.

            “Congress shall make no law”

            1. +1

              I might add that for me, when I say I’m a patriotic American, when I tear up at Arlington, respect the sacrifices made by people I’ve known and met in the service of their country, etc., etc., one of the biggest reasons for that is the First Amendment.

              When I say America is a great country that is worth fighting for and should be defended, the First Amendment is a big part of what I’m talking about.

              America isn’t like Australia, Canada, and the UK, and one of the biggest reasons for that is because they don’t have the First Amendment and we do. Get rid of the First Amendment, and we’ve lost a lot of what makes America special.

              And getting rid of what makes America special because we’re scared of Muslims would be both treasonous and cowardly.

  20. The people who did the attacks in San Bernadino, Orlando and this last one were all naturalized citizens who at the time of their naturalization would have passed any reasonable vetting process. And all of them were economically fairly okay and were by any reasonable definition assimilated. The fact is some non zero number of Muslims are going to radicalize and do something awful and there is no reliable way to tell which Muslims will do that. Your chances of having an Islamic terrorism problem and the seriousness of that problem varies directly with the number of Muslims you have in your society. Have a lot of Muslims like France and you will have a very serious problem. Have a significant number but not a large minority like the US and you will have some problems but less than what France has.

    That is just reality. That doesn’t’ necessarily mean that we should not let any Muslims into the country. It does, however, mean, that the price of doing so is going to be some amount of terrorism. Lying and pretending that is not the case and that we can somehow “vet the bad ones” or the Muslims we get will be different than the Muslims every other country gets doesn’t help the matter. Whatever the solution to this problem is it isn’t going to be found by lying and pretending reality is different than what it is the way Ed does here.

    1. I guess we know why you’re in the basket.

      1. To get the hose again?

      2. Yes. And the other thing that infuriates me about this post is that Ed criticizes the analogy and then responds by making a flawed one himself. If they were gun owners, the answer would be different because gun ownership is a Constitutional right. Immigration is not. Ed thinks it is but really can’t explain or defend why other than to say he thinks that it is. He just assumes as much and makes a flawed analogy based upon it.

        1. I guess we need to start waging war on the entire world right now because if the Constitution protects non-citizens, well, people all over the world are being denied all sorts of rights the Constitution protects. We have to either invite the entire world and/or invade the entire world to protect those rights!

          Sheesh.

        2. I guess we need to start waging war on the entire world right now because if the Constitution protects non-citizens, well, people all over the world are being denied all sorts of rights the Constitution protects. We have to either invite the entire world and/or invade the entire world to protect those rights!

          Sheesh.

          1. The government is not obligated to, and is indeed discouraged from, crusading across the world to impose Enlightenment liberalism. Not giving != Taking.

            The government doesn’t have to let anyone in. The “uniform rule of naturalization” could be that no person not born here has any right to come or stay here. But if the government admits some, it can’t refuse any of them for the specific reason of religious belief.

            Fortunately, there is a process for revoking or curtailing that prohibition: amendment.

            1. It makes no sense that the government has to allow immigrants/refugees whose belief system is that the country should be destroyed because that belief system has a religious component.

              1. It makes no sense that the government has to allow immigrants/refugees whose belief system is that the country should be destroyed because that belief system has a religious component.

                The government can refuse entry to people who hate the government, or want to see it destroyed, or even just don’t respect the laws and institutions of this country, even if the reasons are religious in origin.

                “Are you a Muslim?” and “Do you want to see shariah law imposed in the U.S.?” are two materially different questions, even if you think they mean the same thing.

                1. The government can refuse entry to people who hate the government, or want to see it destroyed, or even just don’t respect the laws and institutions of this country, even if the reasons are religious in origin.

                  Not by your logic, because the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment would apply, so the government can’t refuse them based on their speech and opinions, no matter how odious. Of course, this reasoning is just as flawed as thinking they can’t be refused for religious reasons, because in either case they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so the government can apply any test it wishes to exclude them from entry.

                  1. Are you even trying to read what I’m writing?

                    1. Yes, in fact I even quoted you. So are you saying the “free exercise” clause applies to would-be immigrants but the “freedom of speech” clause does not? Or are you claiming all of it applies, including other amendments, just for logical consistency.

                    2. No, I’m saying the establishment clause applies to the government at all times and in all ways.

                    3. No, I’m saying the establishment clause applies to the government at all times and in all ways.

                      Then so should all of the other amendments and clauses, otherwise you are being logically inconsistent. Which would mean if the government can’t deny entry based on religion, it also can’t deny entry based on free speech, or national origin, or anything else that is protected by the amendments and clauses. Which is absurd applied to immigration. Which is my point.

            2. But if the government admits some, it can’t refuse any of them for the specific reason of religious belief.

              I keep seeing this asserted and not supported, or supported weakly.

              Pointing to the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion isn’t good enough, largely because reading it the way you do contradicts a specific, stated power of the government, regulating immigration.

              1. Pointing to the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion isn’t good enough, largely because reading it the way you do contradicts a specific, stated power of the government, regulating immigration.

                The entire purpose of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights (and many of the other Amendments, too) is to limit the specific, stated powers of the government. The contradiction is by design.

                If it would inarguably be an establishment violation outside of the context of immigration, then it is still an establishment violation even in the context of immigration, because the 1A makes no such contextual distinction.

                1. Absurd, because foreigners not under the jurisdiction of the US have no right to not be refused entry based on any test the government wishes to apply. Otherwise we would be in the absurd position of not being able to refuse entry based on country of origin, because that would violate equal protection. In fact, just about any test to exclude foreigners could be found to violate the constitution if it was applied in such a manner.

                  1. It has nothing to do with the rights of the would-be entrants and is entirely about the specific prohibition in the First Amendment on establishing religion.

                    There is no Constitutional prohibition on the government restricting migration from certain countries, or for reasons other than (even if related in some way to) religion.

                    You are not reading what I’m writing.

                    1. There is no Constitutional prohibition on the government restricting migration from certain countries

                      There is if you want to claim that the amendments supercede the Article 1, section 8 power, which would mean that restricting based on national origin would be an equal protection violation. Unless you are saying that only the free exercise clause of the first amendment supercedes Article 1, section 8, but no other clause or amendment, including the free speech clause of the first, which would be logically inconsistent.

                    2. The equal protection clause contains specific wording about jurisdiction. It’s not remotely comparable.

                    3. Fine, let’s restrict it to the free speech clause, then. Or just the entire first. Then you still wouldn’t be able to deny entry based on someone’s speech and writings about how America is horrible and should cease to exist, etc. etc. Which of course is wrong.

                2. If it would inarguably be an establishment violation outside of the context of immigration, then it is still an establishment violation even in the context of immigration, because the 1A makes no such contextual distinction.

                  The amendments make no such distinction because it is not needed, the constitution specifically calls out the power of the government to set rules for immigration in Article 1, Section 8.

                  1. Oh FFS read the sentence immediately preceding what you quoted.

                    Yes, the government has the power. The Amendments limit that power.

                    1. Oh FFS think through what you are saying. If the first amendment free exercise clause applies, then ALL the amendments and clauses apply, including free speech, equal protection, etc. etc.

                    2. No rule based specifically on religion can be applied. Period. It’s not fucking complicated. You keep bringing up all this other bullshit that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

                    3. Or maybe explain why you can’t exclude based on religion, but you can exclude based on speech, or based on national origin, which would violate free speech and equal protection, respectively.

                    4. Because establishment of religion is specifically called out in the First Amendment. The special pleading is in the text not made up in my head.

                    5. And other things are also called out in the first and other amendments, such as free speech, free press, which you apparently believe CAN be used to exclude. You are not being logically consistent.

                    6. Yes, the government has the power. The Amendments limit that power.

                      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

                      Does the ICE rejecting persons based on their religion constitute congress establishing a state religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof? Why no, no it doesn’t.

                    7. Does the ICE rejecting persons based on their religion constitute congress establishing a state religion…?

                      Yes, it does. The government cannot do that. Period.

                      Find another reason to exclude the person, or change the Constitution.

                    8. kbolino|9.20.16 @ 3:54PM|#

                      Does the ICE rejecting persons based on their religion constitute congress establishing a state religion…?

                      Yes, it does. The government cannot do that. Period.

                      Find another reason to exclude the person, or change the Constitution

                      Or maybe you should change the constitution so it actually says what you want it to say. That is not congress making a law to establish a state religion. Now you are just claiming it says something it obviously does not just so you can have your pony.

            3. But if the government admits some, it can’t refuse any of them for the specific reason of religious belief.

              Its a good thing nobody is proposing that, then.

              1. Its a good thing nobody is proposing that, then.

                … except the people who are

                I mean seriously, can you at least read some of the fucking thread?

                1. I think he’s being sarcastic.

            4. it can’t refuse any of them for the specific reason of religious belief.

              That’s an assertion, not an argument. Please back it up.

              1. dude do you not get it?

                You’re saying the 1st A’s prohibition on the government making any laws dealing with religion (not that the religious wording is meant to be that broad, it is actually just specificaLLY talking about making a state religion only, not any laws that mention religion) means that they can’t apply a religious test to immigrants

                that would ALSO mean YOU LITERALLY COULDN”T EXPECT IMMIGRANTS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS as a pre-condition for coming into the country because the SAME AMENDMENT also specifically protects “freedom of speech”. So not only would you NOT be allowed to restrict siomeone if they said they hated America, you also couldn’t restrict someone if they refused to answer ANY questions and just played the quiet game. since not-talking is a form of speech.

                Gerstanlicht? Dumbass. The same amendment ALSO talks about speech. Your logic takes one to absurd conclusions

  21. Wanting to more thoroughly vet immigrants does not equal anti immigration

    1. *New* Thorough immigrant vetting process announced! Outdoor wilderness adventure hike’s with tour guide STEVE SMITH!

  22. I’m having a hard time getting outraged over a analogy that fairly accurately summarizes a position and doesn’t actually call people skittles. I may disagree with the position, but that is the argument. Hey here are a bunch of people to let in, many are great, a small number will kill people. Is it worth the risk? Are there other factors, is it a deeper issue? Sure, but for the most part it’s just a question of is it worth the risk?

    To answer his question though, depends on the odds. Skittles are awesome, and worth some level of risk.

    1. The analogy is spot on. He wasn’t saying people are skittles. The question is whether Ed is really so dense he doesn’t understand that or just too dishonest to admit the validity of the analogy and face the implications of such? I honestly am not sure.

      1. Just pick out all the brown skittles!

        Problem solved.

        NEXT!!!

      2. 95% of the Lefties are complaining that people have been called Skittles and it is just so disgusting.

        It’s been a long time since I saw anyone on the left talk about issues. It’s all feelings and outrage.

        1. I just have to repeat this:

          “It’s been a long time since I saw anyone on the left talk about issues. It’s all feelings and outrage.”

          Thank you. Nail head, meet hammer.

    2. Often, people yell the loudest about arguments that they don’t have good answers for. Its an excellent analogy and some people will say yes and some people will say no to the question it asks. Maybe only one will kill you, maybe zero in this bowl and six in the next. It is fair for the person running for President to have a position on immigration that reflects that it isn’t all upside.

      1. You are exactly right Brett. The problem with reason is not so much their position but their complete dishonesty in refusing to admit there is are downsides to open borders.

        1. The whole argument is dishonest from one end to the other.

        2. It is the one topic that we Libertarians seem to consider only utopian parameters for, rather than the real world. In a world filled with even Libertarian leaning people, open borders would be a non-issue…we don’t live in that world. Now, that being said, the closed-borders side of the group seems to be very reluctant to do an actual and realistic cost/benefit analysis of an open-borders policy.

    3. unless you are a diabetic

  23. That bowl of candy thing is a totally sucky analogy. A better analogy would be: One of these is fatal, but you don’t know which one; would you buy a bag? That “three will kill you” is ambiguous – you don’t know whether the lethal dosage is a single poisoned candy or three poisoned candies.

  24. In the case of gun ownership it is the skittles who get the vote though. And enjoy the benefits of gun ownership personally. (though I’m sure the benefits of having a big chunk of 3rd world culture and problems relocate to your neighborhood are quite spiffy too). But once enough people do not care to own guns themselves it becomes a decent analogy, and I’d bet at that point that the public will probably vote the right away from the minority who want to personally own guns.

  25. Listen, there’s so much fail in the “what if the skittles were gun owners” transfer of the metaphor.

    1. Gun owners are citizens. They are the ones whose rights the Constitution is intended to protect.
    2. Immigrants are citizens of other countries. They have their own governments to protect/abuse them. We have no obligations to allow them into the country, no less refrain from judging/profiling them as we do so.

    1. You have no obligation to fly them over and welcome them here. But what authority do you have to stop them?

      Because the glorious commune of the people have decided to bar them entry?

      1. Well to be technical, in the glorious commune of today he would be promptly arrested if he did try to bar them entry to the country. And sued into bankruptcy if he tried to bar them entry into a business he owned. Also eventually arrested and imprisoned if he tried to prevent the glorious commune from taking his money to spend on them.

        The only thing he gets is a vote in the glorious commune’s decision making process, in return for all the rights it took from him without consent.

        But if we pretend all that didn’t exist and we had some kind of libertarian paradise, then yeah, there would likely still be those who wanted to restrict the guests others allow on their own property.

    2. “1. Gun owners are citizen…”

      Not necessarily.

  26. “and the refugees go through a screening process.”

    IT’S OKAY TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT’S FOR DIVERSITY!

  27. The current administration decides who gets to become refugees. Sorry, if I don’t trust them. I also wouldn’t trust them to decide who gets to be a gun owner. Fuck this analogy.

  28. How do we import more Skittlettes from Venezuela?

  29. Thousands of people die from food poisoning every year. So unless you’ve become a subsistence farmer, you grab a handful of the potentially fatal Skittles multiple times a day, every day.

    1. Now you know why I don’t eat them.

  30. It’s really fucking fascinating that any person can call themselves a Libertarian and not see the issue here.

    The Patriot Act was passed in direct response to 9/11. Muslim terrorists stole our Constitutional rights from us. Because of them the government listens to our conversations and monitors our internet activity.

    Completely forget the fact that there are some of them trying to kill as many innocent people as they can. What about our rights, you shit-stain?

    1. Uh, do the 535 members of Congress (House+Senate) have no agency? The votes that put the USA PATRIOT Act into effect did not come from Muslims.

      1. If not for Muslims attacking us, the bill would not exist.

        “Passed in direct response.”

        1. And if we had honest politicians who upheld the Constitution, the bill would not exist.

          1. If we weren’t attacked by Muslims, the bill would not exist.

            We always had dishonest politicians who did not uphold the Constitution.

            The variable is the killer Muslims.

            This is not a debatable fact.

            1. I ascribe agency where it belongs. The terrorists are to blame for their actions. The politicians are to blame for theirs.

        2. No shit.

          But the attack didn’t pass the bill, 218+ votes in the House and 51+ in the Senate did.

          1. I thought the other response didn’t make it through.

            1. You mean the one involving dropping nukes?

        3. You mean, held in reserve for just such an occasion.

          1. Meaning it required the occasion.

  31. 4 dead and 100 grievously injured in the Boston Marathon bombings didn’t ask to eat tainted skittles did they?

    We’ve got plenty of criminals here. We don’t need to import more.

    Particularly if they bring an antipathy to our way of life.

    And many do.

    When there are too many here that share that antipathy towards our way of life you will find that you’ll have to start to assimilate to their way of life.

    You really want to do that?

    1. Right.

      Immigration can be good. It’s good if we bring in people who are better than the current people we have no choice about, ie native born.

      The problem is there’s this big swath of people who wants to just let anyone in regardless of what they bring with them. It seriously weakens the argument for immigration being good.

  32. Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right.

    Moving to the US from a foreign land isn’t. All (legal) people importation is done at our whim.

    1. And their should definitely be scare quotes around “our” there

  33. what if i told you that by allowing people to have babies, some of them might wind up hurting other people in the future, or even being assholes. wouldn’t you agree we should eliminate reproductive rights?

    sorry, i don’t have colorful graphics…use your imagination.

    1. I’m on board.

  34. I can’t be the only one thinking of taking two and calling it a day.

  35. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  36. “Trump’s success at parlaying pessimism in the future into popular support might cause Democratic politicians to reconsider the wisdom of downplaying an objectively bright future.”

    Depends. Another decade of sub-2% annual economic growth will take its toll on the country, and will likely lead to even more people like Trump and Sanders coming out of the woodworks.

  37. So what if the bowl of skittles were made of gun-owners? Would those on the left mocking Trump Jr. “take a handful” then? Both gun ownership (self-defense) and freedom of movement can be considered natural rights, but neither the left nor right in this country accept both as such

    Freedom of movement across borders is a “natural right” in that your government can’t keep you from leaving your country. It is not a “natural right” in the sense that other countries are obligated to admit you.

    As for gun ownership in the US, it isn’t an explicit right; rather, it is simply not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government to restrict it.

  38. If it was gun owners the question would be one if one out of every thousand handfuls would kill you and 5 out of every handful would save your life?

    Does Reason really not think it matters that a few out of every handful of religious muslims are looking every day for the best way to murder non-Muslims?

    It’s actually a lot more than a few. Over 50% of Muslims in every western country desire the imposition of sharia law, structured at every turn to accommodate and impose orthodox Islam’s very explict instructions to commit endless mass murder “until all religion is for Allah alone” (Koran verse 8.39).

    Conspiracy to commit murder is a CRIME, justifiably barring all religious Muslims and all who are likely to be religious Muslims, which is ALL Muslims, given the near impossibility of distinguishing moral Muslims from the murder conspirators. Most of the non-religious Muslims feign religiosity in order to avoid being murdered by the religious, while the most religious often feign non-religiosity in order to evade interdiction (as laid out in the al Qaeda guidebook).

    We all know about Reason’s doctrinaire libertarian open borders idiocy, but do you really have to stand with the Islamofascist Obama? And please represent Trump honestly. He is not against “immigration both legal and illegal.” Like all sane people, he is against illegal and MUSLIM immigration.

    1. Yeah. I don’t really dislike Trump’s immigration policy. He has toned down his rhetoric on Mexicans, which is good. I like Mexicans. His economic policies on the other hand…

      But yeah, allowing followers of a death cult who worship one of the most evil, totalitarian pieces of shit to ever walk the earth as their prophet into the country is ridiculously stupid. It shouldn’t even be a debate among sane people.

  39. the difference between Trump and Clinton is just a matter of degree

    Hillary wants to restrict 95% of muslims from entering America, while Trump wants to restrict 99%

    without any restrictions on immigration, we would have 10 million muslims entering America each year..It is reasonable to debate how many muslims we should allow to immigrate each year.

  40. Except gun owners don’t have a club whose purpose is to kill non-members. Or a how to book. Gun owners submit to the Skittles quality control process and get marked so any LE can see they’ve passed the reject course. Gun owners don’t chant Death to America on TV or fly foreign flags of groups who have declared war on the U.S., its people and ways of life. Gun owners don’t have a rule book which encourages the use of lying and subtrefuge to achieve their stated goals.

    Gun owners and Muslims is like comparing Skittles and M&M’s as has been pointed out here already.

  41. I just wrote a wonderful commentary on this piece. Good one, Ed.

    Then I hit “submit”, and saw “There was a problem posting your comment.”

    “Ensure Comment has at most 1500 characters (it has 2551).”

    Goddamn it. EF that. I’m not even going to try to edit that down.

    What the hell, Reason? Storage space in 2016 just too expensive?

  42. Um, people have a constitutional right to bear arms.

    Syrian refugees don’t have a right to come into this country.

    1. And there you have it.

      The issue here is that it’s not a matter of ME choosing to take a risk at eating the Skittles, it’s that politicians are DEMANDING I eat my share of Skittles whether I want to or not. That I do not like.

      We have no obligation to let ANYONE into this country, no matter where they’re from. If these people are truly decent, moderate muslims… MAYBE they should grow a pair and kill all the nut jobs in their own home countries and save them from being shit holes? That’s what I would do for America if it ever came down to it.

      There should at least be a decent background check done on anyone coming into this country, which is not happening now, and frankly is probably damn near impossible for people coming from some of these extremely screwed up countries. If and when we can half way properly figure out WTF is going on then perhaps we can let people in that are confirmed to be sane and decent people. Until then let them deal with their own problems as I have no moral imperative to help them deal with them by force.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.