Police ended up killing a guy named Usaama Rahim who had apparently plotted to behead Pamela Geller, the staunch Muslim critic who had recently drawn fire (literally) when she hosted a “draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas. The two Muslims who had opened fire on the event were quickly neutralized by security.
In reaction to this case involving Rahim plotting to murder Geller, CNN wanted to know if Geller herself felt responsible for “stoking the flames” of anger from Islamic militants. Host Erin Burnett asked, “Do you on some level relish being the target of these attacks?”
Just imagine for a second a gay pride parade in San Francisco being targeted by some “anti-gay” extremist. Maybe this extremist intended to set off a number of explosive devices that would have killed a dozen parade participants and injured dozens of others. But at the last minute, police were able to shoot and kill him right before he set off the explosives, and the attack was thwarted.
Let’s say these parade participants were interviewed on CNN. Can you imagine Erin Burnett asking them, “Do you on some level relish being the target of these attacks?” Then, she might explain that this ostentatious flaunting of their deviant behavior, while legal, is what offends so many people. And while what this “anti-gay” extremist was plotting to do was evil, shouldn’t they feel a little responsible for these attacks, knowing full well that their public displays outrage others? The parade participants would likely be floored by the questions, wondering why they weren’t automatically treated as the innocent victims that they were. They’d lecture the interviewer about the 1st Amendment rights that they have, which they’d describe as absolute, regardless of what other “extremists” and “bigots” believe. They wouldn’t let the actions of some “hater” convince them to quit expressing themselves.
No, that would never happen. But I think it’s the same sort of thing. Say what you will about Pam Geller. Maybe you think that just because certain things are legal doesn’t mean that they’re wise things to do.
I think the same about open carry demonstrations. There was a case the other day of a guy walking around in the Atlanta airport with an AR-15 and a 100-round drum. I don’t think he was demonstrating. He was just dropping his daughter off. It was perfectly legal, but come on. Don’t you think that’s a little ridiculous? Carrying a concealed handgun is one thing. But open carrying a rifle with a 100-round drum, while totally legal – and I’m glad it’s legal – isn’t necessarily wise, especially in this day and age. How are people going to react? How are legislators going to react? They’re going to react by infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
It’s just the way it is in this backwards culture. Gay pride parades are not only legal, but you’re labeled a hateful bigot if you speak out against them. They’re totally protected and supported by the media. Open carry demonstrations are also totally legal (in certain states), but you’re looked at as a domestic terrorist if you voice your support for them.
Likewise, what Pam Geller has done is completely legal – as legal as gross gay pride parades, and not to mention totally family-friendly – but our culture blames her for any terrorist attacks that she and others may have to endure. That’s like blaming homosexuals for the actions of an “anti-gay extremist.” Liberals can’t have it both ways.