Mohammad cartoon contest in front of a Phoenix Mosque. What are your thoughts?

I didn't see anything offensive or obtuse about that statement. So what if he's a super-strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment? I doubt he's getting all teary-eyed over being called "one of those 2nd Amendment people," since I doubt he's ashamed of it.

If anything, it was simply an informative statement, explaining why it makes sense they would disagree. That's an awfully strong response to a simple and truthful statement.

Then you talk about being rude and inconsiderate, and follow it up with an "Obummer" comment. C'mon, man. Be better than that.

And yes, some of our laws suck and should be abolished, while others support a legal framework that is exceptional and the envy of much of the world.

I guess my point here is that I don't get what you're upset about. None of that seemed out-of-line or shocking at all.

I'm glad we finally have something to agree on LCDR (Join to see)

SFC Matthew Parker , I suggest you read the SCOTUS decisions in Heller v D.C and McDonald v Chicago and then read your state's gun laws. As far as I know, New Jersey's gun laws are still in the process of undergoing constitutional challenge and that is why they remain in effect. The DC and Chicago governments also stated their gun laws were constitutional until they were told otherwise by SCOTUS. And there are a lot of people living in New Jersey who are not happy about having their constitutional rights trampled on by their state government. Since you and others in New Jersey are happy with those gun laws, you just validated my point that some in New Jersey don't understand constitutional rights. And last time I checked it was not unlawful to talk about another state's laws.

As far as disrespect to the LTC, you are correct; I was an ass. I'll apologize to him. However, we both did not have valid points; he was incorrect as he stated the rally was not protected speech when it actually was.

LTC Bink Romanick , although I disagree with your assertion of what is protected speech, I apologize for the disrepectful manner in which I worded my response. You didn't deserve that, and I am truly sorry.

Hey Roger...Good to see you brother..No one's saying all Muslims are terrorist but....The majority of terrorist are Muslim. 75-85 % of Muslims= Peace loving.15- 25% apx = Radical. 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world...Somewhere in the 175-300 MILLION = RADICAL ISLAM....Peaceful majority..Irrelevant..will not speak out against or fight against..19 hijackers brought America to it's knees in 01..2 locked down Boston into Martial Law and Boston CHEERED as they left...1 beheads woman in OK..175-300 Million....I guess I could be wrong,am I ?

LRSU James! you are not wrong from where this old F Co Trooper sits

What kind of an attitude is that? A rather poor and limited one indeed! As Christian I don't just simply "suck it" when I'm faced with complete idiots and crazy people who mock my beliefs! Besides, I respect people of other religions who are peaceful! This includes people of the Muslim faith! As if all Muslim people are at fault for the destruction and aggression and misery that some cause in the name of the religion (f.e. ISIS)!

TSgt Jones,
Seriously, you think I don't disagree with SSG Ayscue & SFC James according to my comments?

Let me help you,
Line 1. "No your post was not well said, in fact your wrong, totally wrong."

Point 2. You think I condone it?
"Christians did commit atrocities" so the word atrocities means I condone the act does it?

Last point, "It was Christians that shot a Muslim woman holding a baby, dumped her in a mass grave and buried her still alive. The baby suffocated in her mothers arms under the dirt". That sound like I condone it? I still wake up with visions of that baby in her mothers arms, dirt in her lungs and dying of suffocation. You read any joy from that do you?

Now for your post, Islam is a religion, not a people that need to prove anything.

So the Muslims who attend this mosque need to "show they are truly a peaceful people and politely show their disappointment in a legal manner that does not involve murder or destruction" How about the jack ass standing across the street with the AR-15 yelling anti- Muslim hate speech, you know the American exercising his 1st amendment right to be a ass, does he need to "show we are truly a peaceful people and politely show his opinion as to the drawing of the profit in a legal manner that does not involve murder or destruction"

If you go in front of some church's in the US and burn a bible you just may get murdered. There is a extremist Christian minister in Florida who will shoot you in the face. His words not mine.

We have the freedom to disagree with some ones speech, but you do notice its not the Muslims with the guns at this event right? You going to tell them murder and destruction is a big no no.

I don't subscribe to the premise that criminals are "made" to do their crimes because they were incited by the victim. But in this case the organizers have been outspoken about attempting to provoke Islam by rubbing their nose in the First Amendment. What they fail to see is that there is a very big difference between being provacative and actually trying to provoke. They are unnecessarily placing themselves and their guests at risk, and that is unacceptable, in my opinion.

1SG (Join to see) i respect your point, but they are grown men and women and they are not breaking the law. This is no different then the idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church but no one has the right to hurt them. This goes the same way. Adults handle our problems with words, not violence or IED's. Is this moral, maybe not, but is it their right to assemble?...YES!

Oh, I get it, SFC Joseph James. But these jokers just loved the attention they got last time and now fancy themselves some kind of "freedom fighters".
Their choice to have their next event across the street from a mosque was purposeful. That, my friend, is jackassery.

The Westboro people are complete loons who are reviled by all. If it wasn't for Phelps' family, there wouldn't even be a "church". Now that Fred Phelps is dead, we have mercifully not heard much from those scumbags.

I understand the analogy and that free speech means that idiots get to talk too, but common sense should break out at some point. I hope the Phoenix PD is ready for the likely gong show that will ensue.

That I agree with wholeheartedly! I just hope lessons aren't learned the hard way. I do believe some people need to learn that they are in America not the Middle East. Violence is not the answer to what offends you. Thanks for a great reply.

LTC Paul Labrador I certainly agree with your latest statement, more so than the previous one. I believe I've clearly stated elsewhere in this question, the recognition that these actions ARE indeed inflammatory, and that it's not something I would engage in.
Though you are correct, that one might expect to get punched in the nose after uttering a racial epithet, it is also true that the person who initiates force might expect to be charged with the crime of Battery for his actions.

I agree, these actions are purposely being perpetrated to illicit a reaction, but also to illuminate the fact that our First Amendment protects one's right to say things that others disagree with, or may choose to be offended by.

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated for much the same purposes. Should his speeches and demonstrations have been curtailed as well? I'm certain that many of that time, thought of his message as something that perhaps shouldn't have been spoken of, or demonstrated on en mass, in public. His speech was protected, and rightly so.

I understand it's easy to look at people who are more radical than we, and to see their message as nothing more than demagoguery, particularly when we might disagree with the message, but the principles laid out in our Constitution are meant to apply to all, and so long as one peaceably demonstrates, so long as one uses speech, and not force, the rest of us are free to listen, or to ignore.

Regards Sir.

Interesting that the same sort of thing is happening in Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/antiislam-protesters-and-antiracism-activists-clash-in-melbourne-20150531-ghdfot.html?utm_content=buffereecda&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

There is an element of fundamentalist Muslims who believe violence is an acceptable means to covert us "non-believers" to their "one true faith". They constitute a serious threat in the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia... here in the US (and probably in Australia), your about 100 times more likely to die from gangs/violence linked to the illegal drug trade that Muslim extremists.

That's not to ignore that likelihood that there may be dozens of people of the Islamic faith (out of roughly 2 million in the US) who pose a threat to innocent civilians. It's just to point out that in the overall scheme of things, the threat they present in the US is miniscule.

10-15 years ago I would agree, it would be fairly easy to simply walk across the border and do whatever... these days it takes a little more effort. That said, if you have the money to hire a good coyote, you are probably going to make it across. I have heard a lot of rumors about terrorists crossing the southern border, however I've yet to see any reliable evidence.

Emotionally, I feel the same way you do, but I still cannot fathom it ever being a good idea to start curbing freedom on the merits of how we merely feel about something. And yes, it would still be imposing a standard that doesn't legally exist.

The protests and the cartoon contest are all governed by the right to free assembly, free speech, and in the application of derivative Texas law, the self-defense implications of the 2nd Amendment.

You can rightly identify them as xenophobic bigots, but it's not legally relevant. You can call them "a vigilante posse," but that's a subjective definition with no legal standing, either. Incitement is really what we're talking about, and it has an established legal standard of "imminent lawless action." The *only* legal standard that matters with regards to incitement was decided in BRANDENBURG V. OHIO, and later clarified in HESS V. INDIANA. Protesting outside a mosque, even while exercising Texas open carry law, does not rise to meet incitement, according to the legal standard, as clarified in HESS, that there must be a *direct* call for *immediate* violent action. If that kind of "intelligence" would emerge for law enforcement, then they would be empowered to shut it down. But it's a tough threshold.

None of this means that I disagree with you on the moral implications of this. It is xenophobia. It is bigotry. I know how I'd feel if a group was outside my synagogue on my way in this morning. It would be terrifying for my community, in the way I imagine it is terrifying for members of that mosque. But if the established lines aren't crossed, the state cannot intervene without it being a gross abuse of power. And then you give the devil his breakfast, as just like the Westboro Baptist trolls, they are just waiting for that opportunity to get the frenzied media attention that would ensue from the inevitable chain of lawsuits.

Good comment. Well reasoned, and well written. Only one problem with your facts. The demonstration was in Arizona, which has had Open Carry and concealed carry without a permit for ages. Texas just passed Open Carry for concealed carry permit holders, and while open carry is legal in the state, it allows cities and counties to adopt ordinances that limit or prohibit open carry. Good job.

SGT, that's a hell of a response and counter-argument afterward. Nicely done.
Also, as a native of eastern PA myself, I've got to say Elizabethtown isn't a bad place to stop by when I'm in those parts. I'm sure they're proud to call you theirs.

Maj Peery - thanks for the correction - I don't know how I missed that this was Arizona, and not Texas.

There are no civilian laws against hate speech, just incitement. Organizations like the Southern Policy Law Center put out lists of "hate groups," which is the Constitutionally viable response - organizations using free speech to counter free speech.

WBC doesn't bring guns that I am aware of.

Maj Peery, guilty or not you are suffering from guilt by association for talking like some kind of irrational bigot.

SFC Koeller, you are correct, as far as I know. But the intent of the WBC protesters is the same as the intent of the Phoenix mosque protesters. They want to draw attention to their "cause". You may not be aware, but the Phelps/Roper clan have used both legal and illegal means to intimidate their opponents. They are some fairly nasty people. Fred is now deceased, but his kids carry on the cause. The "church" is mainly a family enterprise.

Given the location, you could expect that perhaps 30% of the people at the Phoenix shindig will be armed, whether invited by the organizer or not, and many will be carrying openly. It's legal there, you know.

And for those of you who want to get personal, I think this deal is stupid. But it is also legal. Live with it.

SFC Robert Wheeler "Common sense is not so common", as there is a great difference between what may inherently seem to make sense to an individual on the face of a matter, vs a rational conclusion based on a deeper analysis.

Claiming that a non-violent, provocative expression/action is an act of endangerment, is claiming that violence is a rational response to a lack of violence or lack of credible threat of violence, in my opinion. It also assumes that the recipient(s) of the provocation WILL react violently (i.e. irrationally), and that this reaction is outside the control of the recipient(s); that is, that the recipient is incapable of reason and merely reacts blindly to stimuli, like a mindless savage or brute.

Given that violence is never a rational response to a non-violent action or to the lack of a credible threat of violence, it is also irrational to shift the responsibility for a violent response from the responder to the non-violent provoker. It doesn't matter how bigoted or insensitive or mean the provoker is; a lack of force can only rationally be met with a due lack of force, just as force can only rationally be met with due force.

And in my opinion, to assume that someone will inevitably over-react is more of an insult to them than anything one could say about the non-violent provoker. Because to assume someone cannot control their emotions/reactions is equivalent to assuming they are a savage (i.e. incapable of reason/sub-human). Now, I do acknowledge that people regularly choose to abandon reason and react irrationally to provocation; but given that they are capable of and have a responsibility to use reason (as it is homo sapiens' primary survival mechanism), the only person who can be rationally held responsible for an over-/irrational reaction is the person who carried out that reaction.

SSG (Join to see) By yelling fire in a theater, one is announcing (honestly or dishonestly), what would be a credible threat to one's physical safety. If these a**hole demonstrators are not making or announcing a credible threat to the physical safety of their target audience, but merely insulting/taunting/etc, then how is that in any way comparable? Such an analogy also assumes that the target audience of the demonstrators has no free will, and simply reacts to stimuli mindlessly, like savages or animals.

I agree that this guy is trying to elicit an overreaction from the local muslims, but the key here is "over-" reaction. I think those that overreact will be putting themselves on a lower level than him, and only furthering his cause. But if the targeted muslim individuals can adhere to reason and refrain from violence, then Ritzheimer's actions will only serve to highlight his idiocy.

1st Lt Matt A. They are creating a creditable threat to people safety by creating a situation that puts people at much higher levels of risk. You have a bunch of armed right wing extremists taunting people in front of their place of worship... they know that among those they are taunting is a very small percentage of people who are prone to violence in the face of such provocations. Something as innocent as a backfiring car at the wrong moment could have resulted in people losing their lives.

SSG (Join to see), claiming the provokers are creating a credible threat, necessarily presumes that at least one recipient of the taunting will abandon reason and react violently. It then also presumes that the provoker(s) are responsible for that individual's choice to abandon reason in favor of their emotions, which makes no sense in my opinion. How can you make someone else's choices?

Who's is responsible for an initiation of violence, the person who chose to be violent or someone else? If someone else, then we must conclude that the initiator of violence has no free will or capacity for reason, and that their actions are predictably dictated by outside stimuli, and that the person producing this stimuli knew this about the violent individual. Given that humans' primary survival mechanism is reason, it is rational to assume that a living adult is capable of using reason. Thus, the rational answer to the question is that the initiator of violence is the one responsible, because they have the capacity to understand and limit themselves to due force or due lack of force, but chose to cross the line anyway.

Is it rational for a person to start shooting upon hearing a back-firing car? Only if we accept that it is rational to open fire without a defined threat, to fire blindly, to direct violence at that other than a determined source of equivalent violence, to have no respect for life. I think a person can only rationally use force, in a proportional reaction to an initiation of force; which by default requires the proportional reaction be directed at the defined source. I take this opinion because I think force is meaningless without credible threat of death or pain, people cannot exercise reason under credible threat of death or pain, reason is our means of sustaining our lives, that we each only have one choice (to live or not to live) from which all others follow, and that removing our ability to exercise this choice is the ultimate immorality. As such, I think a deadly reaction to a back-firing car would be irrational, and the only person that can be held responsible for an irrational action is the one who committed it. I do not think blame can rationally be shifted to a non-violent provoker.

Correct. This goes way beyond freedom of speech.

"I get butthurt pretty often, but I don't shoot anyone."

^ THIS! *thumbs up*

MAJ Keira Brennan, I think assuming that non-violent provocation is reckless, requires assuming there's a good chance of the recipient behaving unreasonably/irrationally/out-of-proportion/etc. I agree that people often over-react and/or behave irrationally...however, one's propensity to react irrationally does not excuse them from their responsibility to behave rationally. The blame cannot rationally be shifted to the non-violent provoker, in my opinion.

We cannot maintain this culture that values victimhood and attempts to disown personal responsibility, I think it is unhealthy for the future of individual liberty.

I couldn't be more agreeable to that. I would say that coming armed (exercising that right) does nothing but raise the pucker factor. I do think that the event and invitation to come armed is about as reckless thing I've heard in in a long time. But when in Arizona.

Even peaceful people when they are being pushed, and pushed, and pushed, and teased and provoked over and over again, it doesn't surprise me when some of them are driven to the point when they will lash out!

SPC Ei McS, it doesn't surprise me either, as people abandon reason all the time. But who besides the individual abandoning reason, can logically be held responsible for doing so?