```
Although I agree with the fundamentals behind your argument, arguing for stronger enforcement of the constitution, I think it is important to apply the interpretation of the constitution equally across all Amendments. I appreciate your argument involving interpretation of the constitution, but the rhetoric of the constitution does not explicitly specify that the 2nd Amendment applies to foreign affairs, and to jump to such a conclusion is dangerous. furthermore, I did not see any citations or specifics regarding your claim that America has a "lack of human rights". The Muslim Ban was introduced as a way to promote national security interests, at the expense of travel to and from the Islamic countries. I would challenge the idea that traveling to and from the United States is a "basic human right". The rhetoric you chose to describe the "Muslim being terrorists" is a clear example of a reduction fallacy, where you disingenuously attempt to discredit the President's rhetoric in the interests of promoting the idea that the Executive Action is racist. The semantics of the Executive Order never explicitly stated the term "Muslim", and instead targeted specific countries that have a high rate of foreign terrorist activity. To extrapolate this action as a "Muslim" ban is dangerous, irresponsible, and shows a lack of intellectual honesty. As for your argument regarding "pro-life" being a predominantly Christian movement, I would challenge you to consider the notion that "pro-life" is merely an interpretation of when life begins, and not a religious phenomena.
```
