I know the difference. I also know that making what someone says a crime when that speech is not actually attached to a real live crime gives an awful lot of power to people who might be interested in keeping certain other people from being heard. It's a Libertarian thing. Sometimes you like to sound like that's what you really believe in.
We already have laws that makes what people say a crime in certain situations. But you already knew that. When radical islam has declared war on us, we should do the same.
I just got back from the doctor. My doctor is from Pakistan. She is most certainly a Muslim. She's also an ace, and saves dozens of American's lives every year, including some of Irish extraction with the associated genitalia deficiencies. Plus she's smoking hot. Now, because someone who obviously knows as much about Islam as Cornhusker knows about decent food utters a few magic words, she's got to be hassled everywhere and held to account for that dipshit's actions? I'm not saying profiling can't happen per se, I'm just saying we need to be honest about what the costs really are. Why does a law abiding American citizen who happens to be a Muslim have to suffer because some weak-minded asshole criminal causes an atrocity she has nothing to do with? That logic seems to work wonders whenever some squirrel eating gun nut is afraid his pet firearm is at risk.
Surely there's a difference between encouraging people to kill gays or other groups of people and saying god is great. You're not convincing me of anything here. I will agree that I'm a dick though.
You're not a dick. My point is that this guy says a few magic words and all of a sudden he's symbolic of radical Islamic extremism, when the reality is he most likely couldn't read the Koran. But because of what he said, we're totally comfortable infringing on law abiding American's first amendment rights in the name of safety and security. Again, I'm not arguing profiling isn't warranted. If Muslims are responsible for a statistically significant portion of these events, then that's the breaks. But lets just be honest about it and acknowledge that their rights to religious freedom, speech, association and privacy are all on the table. Not to mention their right to keep and bear arms. Maybe it's really necessary. Again, that's an interesting position for a Libertarian to take.
Hot chicks benefit from Hot Chick Privilige which supersedes Muslim discrimination. She's clearly not as smoking hot as you claim if she risks being discriminated against for being Muslim.
Here's the thing. If we were to declare war on ISIS and Al-Queda and all these pricks we could have taken this faggot - who gave the FBI reason to investigate him and put him on trial for something. In the mean time, he can't buy a gun since he's under federal trial for wartime crimes. I'm imagining a bit here. If he's found not guilty, fine. At least he had his due process. I lean mostly libertarian, but I understand there are limits to freedom of speech. I certainly don't believe encouraging people to kill groups of people is covered.
How is "declaring war on ISIS" going to change things? If I have an ISIS t-shirt I'm committing a crime? Do we prosecute every Muslim American to make sure they aren't dangerous? You said it yourself. The FBI investigated him twice and came up with nothing. Because he was not really associated with ISIS or Al Qaeda or anyone else. He was some loser dipshit. And are you advocating that we declare war against our own citizens? Some of your second amendment buddies will have some interesting ideas about what happens when that goes down.
It sends a clear message that if you're patronizing or supporting the enemy you'll be brought up on charges. It's entirely possible I'm wrong on this one, but can't one be charged with a crime for being the enemy once we've declared war?
Disagree. I'm sure there is more than one reason and the most common would probably be that the AR-15 is among the current tools of choice for the maniacal monsters who believe they have a job to do which involves killing the innocent. Does the "fun" some get out of target shooting justify the proliferation of "military" type weapons among civilians?
I am pro gun, I don't understand why anyone needs an ar15. But I am not ready for the slippery slope of taking the right away either. People only read half of the 2nd amendment.. It also gives us other rights should the government become what it's not supposed to be ( too late). For those situations you would have needed an assault rifle
It appears now his being a Muslim was even less than a "convenient reason" but more of a bragging, look-at-me-I'm-a-tough-guy posturing. It is impossible to simultaneously back Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Isis - different groups with opposing goals. He happened to have an Islamic envelope hanging around he decided to conveniently tuck his self-loathing homosexual insanity into to prove in his own twisted mind he was something other than a withering coward. When he told his father he was disturbed by seeing two guys kissing he was probably just seeing how receptive the old man would be if he ever developed the balls to come out of the closet.
If that were the main reason he would have just killed him self. The Isis poison was running thru his blood stream ... He referenced it enough the fbi investigated him.
It seems like you're really bending over backwards to somehow make a liberal/conservative argument over that which it isn't. Whether the conservatives you cite are Muslims, Baptist, Catholics or Orthodox jews the common thread is that they expect others to alter their lives to align with their beliefs. Liberals, on the other hand, simply want each group to have the freedom to worship as they see fit without dragging everyone else into compliance.
Isis poison? Maybe. but he apparently knew nothing of what Isis stood for other than hate and that was good enough for him. Killing himself alone would have simply proven he was weak but his spree, in his twisted mind, was used to try to convince himself he had a purpose, but every victim wore his face.
This is kind of problematic. In order to stop the terrorism it's apparently going to be necessary to piss all over law abiding Muslim American's first amendment rights. If they take umbrage, the second amendment means they should be able to blast away at this injustice?
