In Trump, pro-gay rights Republicans see a new hope

[Chosen Daughter]

In answer to your question yes, I believe in my signature line.  You are saying that we have to approach this Constitutionally.  I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar by any means, but first of all, I don't see this as not allowing a 'religion' into this country but not allowing people from a select region that have known terrorists in this country. Clearly, the first Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  That amendment and the Constitution applies to its citizens.  Further, establishment of religion means that a state or the federal government cannot set up a church nor can they make beliefs of a particular religion the law of the land.  It has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing a religion into this country.  The government cannot force its citizens to practice a particular religion or stop practicing a particular religion; hence the term separation of church and state.

If the Constitution states that we have to allow people into this country, please advise me as I am not aware that it does.

I am not a Constitutional scholar either.  But this question is being debated by scholars right now with conflicting idea's of whether it is Constitutional or not.  What to do with the Muslim citizens?  The Orlando shooter was a born in American Radical Islamist.  And Americans are being radicalized over the internet.  So I question whether that would be effective or would it stir more radicalism.  And again if we determine it lawful to deny based on religion when is it going to be Christians??

[TomSea]

Remember this: the gunman fired over 250 rounds using 30 round magazines.  He reloaded multiple times, in the dark, amid the screams and confusion, and kept on firing.  If one person in that club had a concealed handgun on them they could have explosively evacuated that muzzie's cranial cavity and stopped the slaughter.

Instead, the club was a politically correct and well known no-gun zone.  This is likely a primary reason why the shooter chose that club.  There are plenty of gay Americans who understand clearly what just went down and are as outraged at the Dhimmie response as all of you are.

Bars are tricky per gun laws; 41 states have laws where guns can be allowed into bars and restaurant bars. At the same time, a lot of people don't want to go into bars that allow guns and that is why they are not allowed. Think of some of the rough bars that there are around; people don't anyone to be able to walk in with a gun even with what happened in Orlando.

Biker bars, probably some Western bars on a Saturday night and so on; in this area, the laws are not as straight-forward.

[Chieftain]

Bars are tricky per gun laws; 41 states have laws where guns can be allowed into bars and restaurant bars. At the same time, a lot of people don't want to go into bars that allow guns and that is why they are not allowed. Think of some of the rough bars that there are around; people don't anyone to be able to walk in with a gun even with what happened in Orlando.

Biker bars, probably some Western bars on a Saturday night and so on; in this area, the laws are not as straight-forward.

Great points, and it demonstrates how deeply political correctness has penetrated and compromised our safety.  Gun free zones represent magical thinking, and are no more of a protection than a clearly marked bike lane is to a bicyclist. 

One instance can be made out as a singular event and talked away for any number of reasons.  But God forbid, we have repeats of this atrocity, it will highlight all of the previous gun control talking points as the BS they really are.  Ditto for the American myth of the "Religion of Peace".

 

[Henry Noel]

One instance can be made out as a singular event and talked away for any number of reasons.  But God forbid, we have repeats of this atrocity, it will highlight all of the previous gun control talking points as the BS they really are.

 

Fear not: there will be more. The problem isn't the Second Amendment, but the First. So long as disaffected whack-jobs can attain a worldwide stage upon which to air their grievances, these acts of mass murder will continue. Of course I'm not waiting for the media to start crying out for limitations on their press rights, but that's where we'd have to start if we were really serious about putting an end to this nasty phenomenon.