To me, this is the most disturbing part about this line of argumentation. Not just that it’s almost certainly woefully wrong for a number of reasons I’m glad to get into*, but that it implies that many people are essentially willing to condone or commit domestic terrorism if they don’t get the government they want.
Hey Common Tater, what would need to happen before you’d be on the side of the guy who walks up to the White House lawn and starts opening fire on government officials? Or tries to plant a bomb in a statehouse?
*(one notable one: there’s a good reason Glasznost quickly destroyed the Soviet Union. An important part of dictatorships is making sure that people don’t know how collectively pissed everyone involved is. When you have the Stasi breathing down your back, are you likely to tell your neighbor how you feel about the government? Also, you’re up against the entire freakin’ armed forces; that does not end well for you guys!)
Any time one person feels compelled to force their illogical, delusional beliefs on others, that’s radicalization
Christianity just has a more efficient PR/advertising department than the competing illogical belief systems, makes it appear to be less malignant than other B.S.
Forced? What do you think missionaries do? I’ve been on 3 mission trips. We built houses for the poor. I was the only one in our group that spoke any Spanish (and mine is barely passable) so there was no witnessing. We’re far more concerned with getting people fed, clothed and safe than we are what their beliefs are.
I don’t think it is just this. Some of the products are more difficult to polish than others, so some of the PR departments have an easier task. Islam’s destructive nature is more obvious that Christianity’s, due to the profession of the originator, and thus Christianity’s negative effects are more insipid.
As far as public attitudes changing after the attack, the subtle shift I have noticed is exemplified by Huff Post hipsters sharing Sam Harris memeson social media.
Did you read the OP? Did you actually read my response to it? Which part of my post was incorrect? Which part was “Nazi-draconian”? What does “Nazi-draconian” even mean?
You’re wrong to say that, “Maniacal Muslims Slaughter Innocents for No Reason”. I’m sure that these maniacal muslims believed they had very good reasons for murdering innocent people at a Christmas party.
I’m pretty sure that the cato institute’s reasons for the low marks are not in line with yours. Free society for them is fairly libertarian and not likely to line up too well with your definition.
It will be interesting to watch the GOP twist itself into knots to maintain the status quo. They are going to be forced into a position of defending the rights of suspected terrorists in purchasing guns.
Several presidential candidates, including Christie, Trump and Kasich are already breaking ranks and saying that this may be a necessary gun control measure.
What wins out? Their love of guns or their xenophobia? Stay tuned!
To Obama’s question, “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?”, I would respond as Volokh has:
I’m in favor of the Democrats politicizing the hell out of this most recent incident.
In other words, I’m not sure why Republicans hate America so much that they are encouraging suspected terrorists to have semiautomatic weapons. They should really have a more realistic vision of the hatred that these foreigners have for our American freedoms. Don’t you think it’s time to stop these Islamicist enabling Republicans or do you hate America?
I’m not sure if this is intended to be clever or is just poorly crafted parody. In any case, Democrats politicizing the hell out of every incident they can is par for the course. It’s just that they are bad at it.
Any other Constitutional rights we should take away based only upon suspicion? Did you see what it takes to get on the terror watch list? This is a softball waiting to get hit out of the park.
An argument I agree with. If the government wants to ban someone from possessing a firearm, ban them from flying on an airliner, ban them from operating a business bank account, jail them or even drop a Hellfire missile on their heads, I am not going to say that they cannot justify this by making their case. But they do need to make that case. I refuse to simply take the government’s word for it that their actions are justified by secret reasons, because we all know what the federal government does when it has that kind of power.
You say “even the cops are pissed”, but I distinctly remember several Sheriffs a calling on citizens to carry at all times. Our local Sheriff, Sheriff Grady has publicly stayed that citizens should arm themselves. I’m on my phone or I would link to the quotes, but a simple Google search should bring them up.