In your world the terrorists win every time because the person/group committed to the most violence always trumps free "whatever" due to safety concerns. One step at a time until there are no more inconvenient and offensive freedoms remaining.
In your world the terrorists win every time because the person/group committed to the most violence always trumps free "whatever" due to safety concerns. One step at a time until there are no more inconvenient and offensive freedoms remaining.
Exactly!
At some point you say screw it, I've had enough and then you take care of business. It seems that for some, the depravity is so repulsive that they'll give up all for safety. But in the end they have no freedom left and they've lost it all without even putting up a fight. Nope, nope, nope....
No I completely understand and agree with the committed to violence philosophy, I simply think it's reckless and absurd for those unwilling to enact violence to provoke those who will. The Geller scenario would be like me taking my family to the woods(all of us unarmed) and hiring a few hunters to come along with. Let me poke the bear and hope the hunters can protect us. Sure it will probably work out okay, but that doesn't dismiss my stupidity.
I disagree for at least two reasons. One, given the context with what happened at Charlie Hebdo and two, our rights given to us by God and our military trump Islamic intolerance.
I don't understand this post. Your one that says your good with the 1st amendment, but......?
You agree that there are people committed to kill every one of us including your family, and you think hunters can't protect you? Those hunters being armed citizens?
Lets get a little clarification on this.
How do I put this....... Its been iterated here plenty of times: you certainly have the freedom to do lots of things, but you also have to deal with the repercussions(and those actions can be stupid and reckless).
"You agree that there are people committed to kill every one of us including your family....."
Yes
"....and you think hunters can't protect you? Those hunters being armed citizens?"
You believe with 100% certainty that you(the hunter) could dispatch the bear before it maims me or my family after I poke it?
As to the Geller situation(i've already stated this), I believe its reckless and stupid to intentionally provoke someone whom you believe will most certainly retaliate when the person doing the provoking isn't willing to protect those they are putting in danger. We're not talking just talking about political speech here, we are talking about calling out terrorist. Fortunately only one person was injured and was able to save everyone else, but keep doing it and as Lurker said, eventually they will retaliate with far more aggression and innocent people will get caught in the crossfire. Yes, we know terrorists want to kill us and they will likely attempt attacks regardless. Does that simple fact somehow condone giving them a target where innocent people could die?
"You agree that there are people committed to kill every one of us including your family....."
Yes
"....and you think hunters can't protect you? Those hunters being armed citizens?"
You believe with 100% certainty that you(the hunter) could dispatch the bear before it maims me or my family after I poke it?
As to the Geller situation(i've already stated this), I believe its reckless and stupid to intentionally provoke someone whom you believe will most certainly retaliate when the person doing the provoking isn't willing to protect those they are putting in danger. We're not talking just talking about political speech here, we are talking about calling out terrorist. Fortunately only one person was injured and was able to save everyone else, but keep doing it and as Lurker said, eventually they will retaliate with far more aggression and innocent people will get caught in the crossfire. Yes, we know terrorists want to kill us and they will likely attempt attacks regardless. Does that simple fact somehow condone giving them a target where innocent people could die?
Me n you could banter back n forth forever. Its prolly best not to so I'll keep it short for you and a few others on this board.
Go attend a Gellar Cartoon Show. Wear red white n blue and a Jesus fish pin. Take your kids and wife. Bring some flags. Bring some buddies. Bring your guns too. Demonstrate loud n proud. Draw your cartoons. Exercise your Right to free speech. Show them mean old sharia jihad mooslims what you stand for.
And when some "hero" firefighter digs yalls remains out of some podunk county barn, I'll write a thread about yall were cool and stood up for what ya believed in.
Wow....we have reached the point that we chastise those who dare offend muslims. They are winning.......
Who gets to define legitimate? Just like owning a gun, she doesn't need a "good legitimate reason". She simply can because it's her right.
The cartoons are an excuse for an attack. They already hate us for who we are. If we ban cartoons, they will keep finding other excuses until we are them, and even when we are them them they will still find reasons to kill us, as evidenced by their stellar performance against fellow Muslims for not being Muslim enough.
Personally I think she is very close to yelling fire in a crowded theater, but she isn't there yet.
What she did and what members of this board are doing/saying is the equivalent of sacrificing babies at the alter of Christians because it's our right.
Its forcing an issue and hiding behind the right to free speech, same as westboro. Rights are not meant to be hidden behind. Most understand this.....but a few are vocal and like to be perceived as patriots.......that's ignorant pride. But they can buy lil flags and tie lil yellow ribbons on their car......but they won't attend a Gellar art show.
