extremist muslims get lit up in texas

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you say so. There are many disenfranchised groups who would say otherwise. Freedom from oppressive groups, whether they be militants or bureaucrats, isn't something that's won and done.

Other than the police, can you please name for me one militant group on our shores that is actively suppressing the local population? I agree that disenfranchised groups exist, and that we need to update certain laws so that they no longer unequally target those living in poverty, but that's unrelated to the situation that has occurred here.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To say we don't need to be vigilant about protecting everyone's rights, even the rights of the hatemongers, is as ignorant as the hatemonger's bigoted messages. Just as it's their right voice their idiotic opinions, it's your right to counter their idiotic opinions with rational argument, or just ignore them.

Simply voicing ones opinion is a far cry from holding a hate-filled revenge rally at an educational facility because a Muslim outreach program took place there a few months prior. Pamela Geller offered an award based on hatred, not free speech. It is her right, but we do not need more people like her exercising that right with the aim to achieve the same results. We do not need copy cats.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't be selective about whose rights you protect.

Who is protecting the rights of the civilians in this scenario? Innocent bystanders were not injured in the Garland incident, but if we allow the tension to scale up, it is inevitable that casualties will occur.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's the first step away from freedom.

Violence and hatred are not synonymous with freedom. If you continue to take divisive action against your neighbor, one of you will never be free. Pamela Geller is advocating war based on the controversy that her campaign against Islam has started. If we go to war against our neighbors on her behalf, our neighbors will not be free. Freedom is for everybody. Not just white Christians.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Women here have the right to vote, the right to an education, to drive, to dress as they please. Maybe we should take away those rights since they might provoke an attack.

Those do not seem like hate-filled actions to me.

[Big_Japan]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Those do not seem like hate-filled actions to me.

outlaw trolling

clearly all trolling is "hate"

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Other than the police, can you please name for me one militant group on our shores that is actively suppressing the local population? I agree that disenfranchised groups exist, and that we need to update certain laws so that they no longer unequally target those living in poverty, but that's unrelated to the situation that has occurred here.

Pretty sure those that attacked the rally with assault rifles can be considered militant.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Simply voicing ones opinion is a far cry from holding a hate-filled revenge rally at an educational facility because a Muslim outreach program took place there a few months prior. Pamela Geller offered an award based on hatred, not free speech. It is her right, but we do not need more people like her exercising that right with the aim to achieve the same results. We do not need copy cats.

The rally holders were well within their rights to their peaceful assembly. They did not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who is protecting the rights of the civilians in this scenario? Innocent bystanders were not injured in the Garland incident, but if we allow the tension to scale up, it is inevitable that casualties will occur.

The guards that were there. The police that were there.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Violence and hatred are not synonymous with freedom. If you continue to take divisive action against your neighbor, one of you will never be free. Pamela Geller is advocating war based on the controversy that her campaign against Islam has started. If we go to war against our neighbors on her behalf, our neighbors will not be free. Freedom is for everybody. Not just white Christians.

I'm not agreeing with her. But she can scream her rhetoric all day long as it's her right and not violating anyone else's rights. It's everyone's right to listen to her or not. It is nobody's right to murder people at a peaceful assembly and everyone's right to defend themselves from people who attack them, provoked or not.

These terrorists are just assholes who want to kill people. If it's not about cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, they'll find some other reason. Being scared of them does not justify taking away people's rights.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Women here have the right to vote, the right to an education, to drive, to dress as they please. Maybe we should take away those rights since they might provoke an attack.

I do not agree with oppressing women. If you wish to go to Saudi Arabia and fight for their basic human rights, be my guest. Take the rest of these spineless keyboard warriors with you. I think the lot of you are all talk with no action.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Those do not seem like hate-filled actions to me.

You don't have to be on the hating side of things for it to be a provocation.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I do not agree with oppressing women. If you wish to go to Saudi Arabia and fight for their basic human rights, be my guest. Take the rest of these spineless keyboard warriors with you. I think the lot of you are all talk with no action.

And what are you doing? Pretty sure this is a discussion forum where we discuss and exchange opinions. Don't take it so personally that nobody agrees with your idiotic ideas. It's your right to voice them anyway.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty sure those that attacked the rally with assault rifles can be considered militant.

That doesn't really scream active oppression to me...

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The guards that were there. The police that were there.

The same outcome cannot be guaranteed every time.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is nobody's right to murder people at a peaceful assembly

Nobody has said it was. But we can be responsible in the future and not allow people to try to copy her rally with the intent on drawing more fire.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These terrorists are just assholes who want to kill people.

Terrorists? Is this describing Pamela Geller, the extremists that attacked at the Garland rally, or someone else? Seems ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Being scared of them does not justify taking away people's rights.

We also have the responsibility to protect civilians from senseless violence.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And what are you doing? Pretty sure this is a discussion forum where we discuss and exchange opinions. Don't take it so personally that nobody agrees with your idiotic ideas. It's your right to voice them anyway.

I'm not the one advocating for violence here... Thank you for your concern, though.

[Big_Japan]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We also have the responsibility to protect civilians from senseless violence.

Speech != violence

if ever speech and violence are equated, the elements equating them are what needs removed. not the speech.

Our Constitution guarantees this.