• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armed protesters stalk peaceful Muslims at Texas mosque to show force[W:371, :587]

sangha said:
Stalking is a crime and words can be used against you in a court of law
Click to expand...

Yes but this is not stalking. Real stalking is something that is very different and is actually a mental disorder in the DSMV thusly:

Definitions



in short, this is just more misuse of a word to fear monger people so the anti gunners can have more ammo to take away your firearms.

As usual.
 
Grim17 said:
Carrying firearms is constitutionally protected.

Did they:
a) Threaten to shoot those people?
b) Fire those weapons at any time?
c) Point their weapons at anyone?
d) Point their weapons at the Mosque?

In my opinion, those people carrying firearms was there way of saying that they are willing to fight for their country and won't tolerate Islamic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Again (you might want to read the thread)... "no one here is saying they dont have the freedom or right to do their ****ing bigoted actions, and no one is calling for there to be a law to stop them...." Post #7 This is "Driven by bigotry, xenophobia, and Islamophobia and the only action they can resort to is to validate their bigotry, xenophobia, and bigotry by a show of force."... And Lets come together as a nation and as basic humans to speak out against such petty actions these "protestors" are exemplifying." Post #9
 
sangha said:
Stalking is a crime and words can be used against you in a court of law
Click to expand...

True...BUT:

1. Protesting publicly is not "stalking" nor is it a crime. The story does not say anything about the members of this mosque being "stalked," or that anyone was charged (or even suspected) of any crime.

2. Words can only be used against you in court if either submitted as testimonial evidence, or if the issue is libel/slander. Otherwise than in court? Not so much.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Yes but this is not stalking. Real stalking is something that is very different and is actually a mental disorder in the DSMV thusly:

Definitions



in short, this is just more misuse of a word to fear monger people so the anti gunners can have more ammo to take away your firearms.

As usual.
Click to expand...

Your link deals with the psychological definition, not the legal definition.

Ironic, given your claim that *I* misused the word :lamo
 
Captain Adverse said:
True...BUT:

1. Protesting publicly is not "stalking" nor is it a crime. The story does not say anything about the members of this mosque being "stalked," or that anyone was charged (or even suspected) of any crime.

2. Words can only be used against you in court if either submitted as testimonial evidence, or if the issue is libel/slander. Otherwise than in court? Not so much.
Click to expand...

And here are his words
I’m not going to lie. We do want to show force.
Click to expand...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Again (you might want to read the thread)... "no one here is saying they dont have the freedom or right to do their ****ing bigoted actions, and no one is calling for there to be a law to stop them...." Post #7 This is "Driven by bigotry, xenophobia, and Islamophobia and the only action they can resort to is to validate their bigotry, xenophobia, and bigotry by a show of force."... And Lets come together as a nation and as basic humans to speak out against such petty actions these "protestors" are exemplifying." Post #9
Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about the BLM movement?

Because that small group of protesters in Texas aren't dividing the nation and tearing it apart, but the BLM movement sure in the hell is.


.
 
Grim17 said:
Carrying firearms is constitutionally protected.

Did they:
a) Threaten to shoot those people?
b) Fire those weapons at any time?
c) Point their weapons at anyone?
d) Point their weapons at the Mosque?

In my opinion, those people carrying firearms was there way of saying that they are willing to fight for their country and won't tolerate Islamic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Well I mean we knew you wouldn't condemn extremist right wing arseholes.

This intimidation to you against a minority is... bravery?

That's ****ed.
 
sangha said:
And here are his words
Click to expand...

Please quote accurately.

“They’re mostly for self-defense or protection,” Wright said, eyeing his 12-gauge. “But I’m not going to lie. We do want to show force. … It would be ridiculous to protest Islam without defending ourselves.”
Click to expand...

When taken in context, the speaker seems to be saying that he believes Islam is a violent religion (as we see exemplified by many recent news reports). That he and the other protestors are going armed to demonstrate a willingness to meet force with force. I don't see it as him saying he was there to use force against the mosque.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah... why is this always the argument?

No one is saying they don't "Have the right".

But it's also freedom of expression to call them dumbasses for doing it.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. And, it would appear that they are going WAY overboard. However, as long as no one was hurt, or directly threatened, well... that's America for ya. the good, the bad, and the ugly all at once.

Sharia court in the Mosque? So what if there is? Anyone that's been to a church council meeting has sat through a religious court of sorts.
 
Grim17 said:
Do you feel the same way about the BLM movement?
Click to expand...
How are you comparing the BLM movement to this? In what way? What variables?

Because that small group of protesters in Texas aren't dividing the nation and tearing it apart, but the BLM movement sure in the hell is.


.
Click to expand...
You ****ing kidding me? You are this delusional Grim?
rvdk3t.png
 
Manc Skipper said:
What would happen if the Americans being stalked stood their ground?
Click to expand...

First, they would have to have been actually stalked. However, they did stand there ground here, and nothing happened other than an article to sell papers and a thread to complain about them on the interwebz.
 
The 1st amendment grants them the right of freedom to protest.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Of course it is. And, it would appear that they are going WAY overboard. However, as long as no one was hurt, or directly threatened, well... that's America for ya. the good, the bad, and the ugly all at once.

Sharia court in the Mosque? So what if there is? Anyone that's been to a church council meeting has sat through a religious court of sorts.
Click to expand...

Directly threatened?

Really, that's your defense ? You have to be directly threatened in order to have any valid complaint ?

You agree with sundown towns then, since there's no direct threat ?
 
Beaudreaux said:
First, they would have to have been actually stalked. However, they did stand there ground here, and nothing happened other than an article to sell papers and a thread to complain about them on the interwebz.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question at all.

What if Americans who were being stalked stood their ground ?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Please quote accurately.



When taken in context, the speaker seems to be saying that he believes Islam is a violent religion (as we see exemplified by many recent news reports). That he and the other protestors are going armed to demonstrate a willingness to meet force with force. I don't see it as him saying he was there to use force against the mosque.
Click to expand...

That's just a sad excuse. Do you bring a gun to watch someone get executed? After all, they're dangerous!

The reality is that there was only danger of gun violence because some fearful ignorant fools felt the need to bring guns. They're being delusional, i'm ashamed that any American would defend them.
 
Absentglare said:
That's just a sad excuse. Do you bring a gun to watch someone get executed? After all, they're dangerous!

The reality is that there was only danger of gun violence because some fearful ignorant fools felt the need to bring guns. They're being delusional, i'm ashamed that any American would defend them.
Click to expand...

The reality is, YOU THINK there is a danger of gun violence. I don't agree.

That's the wonderful thing about America, we can agree to disagree....

Oh wait, maybe not if some P.C. special interests have their way. Then I must either agree with YOUR point of view or shut up and keep my opinion to myself.
 
If it weren't for the people in Texas and Florida Jerry Springer would never had enough guests to have a television show.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The reality is, YOU THINK there is a danger of gun violence. I don't agree.

That's the wonderful thing about America, we can agree to disagree....

Oh wait, maybe not if some P.C. special interests have their way. Then I must either agree with YOUR point of view or shut up and keep my opinion to myself.
Click to expand...

Bringing guns brings the willingness to use guns brings the possibility of guns being used.

I swear, sometimes it's like you're arguing that up is down, that the sun is dark, or that 1+1=0.
 
Absentglare said:
Directly threatened?

Really, that's your defense ? You have to be directly threatened in order to have any valid complaint ?

You agree with sundown towns then, since there's no direct threat ?
Click to expand...

If there's no direct threat, there is no threat. A perceived threat is not a threat, only a perception. Is that what you meant? If not, then I'm not sure what's twitching your nose here, but I'd be glad to try to a answer you again if you'd reword your concern?
 
Beaudreaux said:
If there's no direct threat, there is no threat. A perceived threat is not a threat, only a perception. Is that what you meant? If not, then I'm not sure what's twitching your nose here, but I'd be glad to try to a answer you again if you'd reword your concern?
Click to expand...

Do you agree with sundown towns?

Towns that tell black people they better leave before the sun goes down [or they'll get shot]? After all, the threat is not direct...
 
Risky Thicket said:
If it weren't for the people in Texas and Florida Jerry Springer would never had enough guests to have a television show.
Click to expand...

Don't forget us here in North Carolina. My wife has had two cousins on his show - no ****. Probably shouldn't have told that.
 
Absentglare said:
You didn't answer the question at all.

What if Americans who were being stalked stood their ground ?
Click to expand...

They have a right to protect themselves. But, what does that have to do with this thread, since no one was stalked in this actual event?
 
Absentglare said:
Do you agree with sundown towns?

Towns that tell black people they better leave before the sun goes down [or they'll get shot]? After all, the threat is not direct...
Click to expand...

That is a direct threat. Are you seriously conflating these situations?
 
sangha said:
Your link deals with the psychological definition, not the legal definition.

Ironic, given your claim that *I* misused the word :lamo
Click to expand...

The legal definition IS based on this definition, otherwise it would not be a crime.

And it is very typical of you people to be disingenuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom