Are Politicians Just Using Muslims to Ban Guns?

Ryan Lau | @RyanLau71R

Last Friday, a lone gunman entered two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, opening fire and killing 50. All of these people were innocent Muslims who were simply partaking in Friday prayer. As a result, many politicians across the globe are calling to end hate towards Muslims and increase gun control. Particularly in the United States, though, most of these voices are wildly inconsistent. The majority of Congress, according to voting records and funding they accept, cares very little for Muslims. Or, at least, they have no regard for the ones overseas. In reality, it looks like quite a few politicians are simply using Muslims as a tool to ban guns.

Without a doubt, the social media statements of officials play a key role in American politics. Though not in any way legally binding, of course, influence still exists. Especially with popular rulers, words can inspire many people and be an important voice in times of turmoil. But take this as a fair and hopefully unsurprising word of advice: don’t believe everything they tell you.

Don’t Fall for the Sympathy for Muslims

Since the New Zealand tragedy, countless politicians have voiced their support for the community. Many have joined together to condemn hatred, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. But some, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Dianne Feinstein, have clear past actions that don’t quite line up with their statements. Below are each of their tweets.

Now, at a simple look, it appears that all of these statements are benevolent and caring. Maybe they are. Nobody except for those three people is inside of their heads, and we can’t exactly guarantee their mental states; the very notion is scientifically impossible. Unfortunately for these politicians, though, we can come really close. It doesn’t look good for them.

Back in 2001 and 2003, Feinstein, Clinton, and Biden were all United States Senators. On two fateful days, these three voted in favor of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, their votes have majorly contributed to the deaths of over half a million people. Admittedly, there was no way for them to know the exact death toll, but it was blatantly obvious that tens of thousands at least would perish; that’s how war works. But these three, along with many others, voted for it anyway, showing a complete disregard for Muslim lives. It is an absolute insult to Muslim communities for any politician who enabled mass slaughter to pretend to suddenly care.

Your Guns, On the Line

Since the Christchurch attacks, the New Zealand government has taken some extensive gun control action. On Wednesday, the legislature approved Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s measures, making the ban on most semi-automatic weapons permanent. This comes in spite of the fact that New Zealand, with its relatively lax previous gun laws, had quite low crime rates.

Following these actions, the gun control debate in the United States has reignited itself. Though neither party is a champion of gun rights, and neither is the NRA, Democrats generally support even more gun control than Republicans do. All three of the above politicians have emphasized it in the past; Feinstein even wrote the decade-long assault weapons ban. Clearly, these politicians, as well as many more on both sides of the aisle, are looking to restrict access to guns. After all, President Trump himself signed a bump stock ban into effect.

With that in mind, take another look at the situation at hand. None of these politicians have any value for Muslims in Muslim countries; they send bombs and troops to regularly slaughter civilian and soldier alike. On the contrary, they appear to greatly value gun control. So, why are we supposed to believe that this time, it’s about the Muslims?

Prove To Us Otherwise

The above politicians have never seemed to care about Muslims when it really matters. 50 people dead is a tragedy, but half a million is a genocide, especially when up to 266,000 of them were civilians. Why do those 50 people matter so much more? What makes their lives more significant than the ones they voted to end? Two key differences come to mind; these people are from a first-world, allied country, and they are useful for political ends.

Simply put, the first of these is simply not feasible. Feinstein’s comment proposes standing against hate, but shooting bullets at children in third-world countries apparently is still acceptable. Clinton’s tweet mentions heartbreak for the global Muslim community which she authorized drones to decimate. And Biden’s request to not let mosques turn into murder scenes is tepid when he voted for that very occurrence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This leaves open the second possibility as somewhat feasible. Once again, we can’t see into these politicians’ heads, but the facts line up fairly well. The only way to prove otherwise is to consistently advocate for Muslim lives. Regardless of their beliefs about guns, they cannot claim to stand for Muslims while bombing them. If they want this talking point to have any merit, they need to start by addressing the most severe injustices: the wars they voted for.


71 Republic takes pride in distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

One thought on “Are Politicians Just Using Muslims to Ban Guns?”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.