Both sides like to CLAIM the primary intent is some kind of political message or some noble cause of "free speech". Both instances are basically full of ****. While I don't doubt it's part of the intent for both, the primary intent is simply to anger, piss off, mock, and thumb their nose at those they have an issue with...be it muslims or the religious in general or christians.
Much like I often view many of those instances as extremely chlidish and juvenile, I see this particular one similarly. However, just like those others, they absolutely should have the right to do it with an expectation that they won't have ILLEGAL consequences ventured upon them for it.
It is ENTIRELY unreasonable to expect to do an action like this and expect there to not be negative consequences.
While it's naive to think that illegal consequences can't happen, it's at least reasonable to assume that they shouldn't.
Like so many instances where illegal violence occured....creating such a situation does not "invite" or "cause" violence or suggests the person "had it coming", but it absolutely is an action that increases ones *RISK* of having violence perpetrated against them. Pointing that out isn't being an "apologist" or "victim blaming" but is simply dispassionately dealing with reality.
Imagine if Walmart owned access to all the streets in your town. You can go to Target or the mom and pop downtown if you want, but all the roads leading there require a toll, whereas the roads leading to Walmart are free. That is not the avenue the internet needs to go down.
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
So, will the G wish to ban 7.62x39 ammo now?