What is this "Taqqiya" thing? I've seen this on other forums too.....
It means 'BS'
What is this "Taqqiya" thing? I've seen this on other forums too.....
It's the Shi'ite Muslim concept of "deception".What is this "Taqqiya" thing? I've seen this on other forums too.....
In Islam, Taqiya or Taqiyya (Arabic: تقیة taqiyyah, literally "prudence, fear")[1][2] is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[1][3][4][5] Another term for this concept, kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission.[6][7]
This practice is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.[3][8] The practice is much less prominent in Sunni Islam, but may be permitted under certain circumstances such as threats to life (though martyrdom in such instances is still regarded as more honourable).[9]
It's the Shi'ite Muslim concept of "deception".
Shi'ites have always been a persecuted minority in the Islamic community.
Taqqiya allows them to pretend not to be Shi'ites in order to preserve and spread the doctrine.
From Wikipedia:
I mentioned in another post recently that there is overwhelming antigun sentiment among voters in the region where I live (northern Virginia). That seems to be evident from the antigun stances of all the local politicians, who calibrate their positions based on extensive public and private polling and focus-group testing. Yet I know for a fact that a lot of voters who spout antigun rhetoric are gun owners, even owning AR-15's and other vilified weapons. So what gives? I think a lot of these people, in this affluent area, are simply convinced that the laws won't apply to them, or they will be able to flout them with impunity. It all goes back to a deep prejudice against the gun-loving "deplorables" mentioned by Hillary Clinton. The elites want to punish the "deplorables" through gun control -- and if it adversely affects themselves, they'll deal with that later.This occurs when people live and interact with others that only think like themselves. It happens to both Democrats and Republicans. I call it living in alternate universe.
Swalwell is a voice in the wilderness. No other Democratic candidate has endorsed confiscation, at least not openly. Right now they are pandering to their base, but they know that come November 2020, if they are the nominee, they will have to get the votes of gun owners in swing states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Florida. The smart ones are hedging their bets, such as Kamala Harris saying she would ban imports of "assault weapons." Of course hardly any such weapons are imported.
I submit this article in rebuttal, from a left wing source no less.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/opinion/ar15-assault-weapon-ban.html
Kamala promised, during the first debate, a ban (with implicit confiscation/destruction) with first 100 days after election, and by executive fiat if Congress did not give her a bill to that effect. Warren is on board with confiscation. As is Bernie. Tha latter two have been trying to walk both positions back to prevent further erosion of poll numbers.Biden did just the other day.
Absolutely. Make no mistake, push for gun ban is real.Kamala promised, during the first debate, a ban (with implicit confiscation/destruction) with first 100 days after election, and by executive fiat if Congress did not give her a bill to that effect. Warren is on board with confiscation. As is Bernie. Tha latter two have been trying to walk both positions back to prevent further erosion of poll numbers.
There have been calls for another federal AWB from the other aisle as well.
I've been very carefully parsing the gun statements of all the candidates, and if you analyze them deeply, there's a lot less there than meets the eye. The statements are designed to look radical to the base Democratic primary voters, but to be able to be walked back / clarified for the general election. This is particularly true of Kamala Harris, whose program basically rehashes existing law.Kamala promised, during the first debate, a ban (with implicit confiscation/destruction) with first 100 days after election, and by executive fiat if Congress did not give her a bill to that effect. Warren is on board with confiscation. As is Bernie. Tha latter two have been trying to walk both positions back to prevent further erosion of poll numbers.
NOTHING is ever truly "walked back" when it comes to racially invidious gun controls. It's all just taqqiya in the ultimate service of an absolute governmental monopoly on the means of armed force. What they want can ONLY be imposed by violence, a LOT of violence.I've been very carefully parsing the gun statements of all the candidates, and if you analyze them deeply, there's a lot less there than meets the eye. The statements are designed to look radical to the base Democratic primary voters, but to be able to be walked back / clarified for the general election. This is particularly true of Kamala Harris, whose program basically rehashes existing law.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190802/kamala-harris-and-her-perplexing-anti-gun-ideas
But at this point, voting against him is the same as attacking the Constitution, since there is no possible candidiate who will support it.Voting for this "president" is not the same as supporting the constitution.
Don't know where that "appointment" come from, but using that quote shows you don't know how these things work. In 25 years in law enforcement, I've have never seen due process come before seizing weapons in an emergency, and that's what the president was talking about.I think you mean candidate...
"Take the guns first, due process second." --President Trump
With Democrat candidates, we won't have to worry about that after they confiscate our guns and their appointed judges rule against our remaining gun rights and 2A.Take the guns first, due process second." --President Trump
Actually, no, he wasn't. He was talking about red flag laws.Don't know where that "appointment" come from, but using that quote shows you don't know how these things work. In 25 years in law enforcement, I've have never seen due process come before seizing weapons in an emergency, and that's what the president was talking about.