Ground Zero mosque analogy

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jboritzki

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 10, 2009
    160
    16
    Beech Grove
    I'd like to know how many of these politicians and people currently supporting the Ground Zero Mosque because it is their right to build it there, spoke out against the NRA rally that was held near Columbine after the school shooting. The rally and the mosque both had First Amendment rights but neither was wise or considerate to the horrific events that happened at either place.

    Most gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens that have a right to own and use firearms and also the right to speak about guns and their 2nd Amendment right. The Columbine shooters were not law abiding and not responsible. They were nut cases and they used firearms to murder as many people as they could. Given what happened there, I think the NRA should have relocated their rally further away from Columbine. It would not have made the NRA look guilty of anything. It would have made them considerate to the feelings of the people that lost loved ones.

    Regular Muslims did not fly jets into the towers at ground zero, a radical faction that practices the same religion but in a more radical way did that. Kind of like responsible gun owners and criminals that have guns. Now we have a lot of the same people that said the NRA was wrong to have their rally or convention near Columbine, even though it was their right to have it there, saying that it is ok for the mosque to be built at ground zero because it is their right to build it there. They've decided to ignore any consideration to those people that lost loved ones there.
     

    Cru

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 4, 2010
    6,158
    36
    Noblesville, IN
    I agree with your analogy.

    I will probably get flamed for this, but I think your analogy shows that the group has the right to put their mosque wherever they want.

    I say as long as they don't use any government funds, then we can't deny them the right to put their building wherever they want (as long as they don't violate any codes, or laws or what not.)

    They should be held to EXACTLY the same laws and rules as everyone else. If they can't see that building there offends people, then in all reality, they are hurting their cause more than helping it. In the end it only harms themselves.
     

    tradertator

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Jul 1, 2008
    6,783
    63
    Greene County
    I agree with your analogy.

    I will probably get flamed for this, but I think your analogy shows that the group has the right to put their mosque wherever they want.

    I say as long as they don't use any government funds, then we can't deny them the right to put their building wherever they want (as long as they don't violate any codes, or laws or what not.)

    They should be held to EXACTLY the same laws and rules as everyone else. If they can't see that building there offends people, then in all reality, they are hurting their cause more than helping it. In the end it only harms themselves.

    I do not have a problem, nor do I feel that I have the right to stand against the muslim center being built near ground zero. I think the first amendment of our constitution is as important as any of the others. The Oklahoma City bombing was done by Christian terrorist, not christians. I would have no problem with a christian center being built in the same vicinity of where that bombing occurred. Using that same logic, I cannot stand against this mosque being built, simply because I do not agree with their religious views.
     
    Last edited:

    beararms1776

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 5, 2010
    3,407
    38
    INGO
    I'm not sure about that but somewhere I read (some years back) that when ground was conquered they would construct a Mosque. I don't recall what your refering to.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    To build a Mosque there would represent conqured ground. Is this correct?

    In what city would one find the "Dome of the Rock" mosque?

    ;)

    I'm not sure about that but somewhere I read (some years back) that when ground was conquered they would construct a Mosque. I don't recall what your refering to.

    Let me google that for you

    (note: in getting this address, I discovered it's not actually a mosque but a shrine for pilgrims. Live and learn.)

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I've said this over and over, and I'll keep saying it.

    Illegal? No.
    Irresponsible? Yes.

    True.

    And to the OP's point, was the NRA rally done to in any way point up the fact that the denial-of-rights position was at least in part what caused the Columbine massacre to occur? (John Lott, IIRC, published that one of the killers from Columbine was watching a bill before the CO legislature that he opposed strongly... A bill that would have relaxed restrictions on carry. I'm not sure if that bill would have made the school OK to carry in lawfully. The bill was to be heard the day of the massacre and obviously was not passed.)

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    techamber

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 10, 2010
    15
    1
    I agree with your analogy.

    I will probably get flamed for this, but I think your analogy shows that the group has the right to put their mosque wherever they want.

    I say as long as they don't use any government funds, then we can't deny them the right to put their building wherever they want (as long as they don't violate any codes, or laws or what not.)

    They should be held to EXACTLY the same laws and rules as everyone else. If they can't see that building there offends people, then in all reality, they are hurting their cause more than helping it. In the end it only harms themselves.

    Agreeing with this. If you deny the building of the mosque based on prejudice then we have agreed to throw away our beliefs because of fear.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,735
    113
    Michiana
    I do not have a problem, nor do I feel that I have the right to stand against the muslim center being built near ground zero. I think the first amendment of our constitution is as important as any of the others. The Oklahoma City bombing was done by Christian terrorist, not christians. I would have no problem with a christian center being built in the same vicinity of where that bombing occurred. Using that same logic, I cannot stand against this mosque being built, simply because I do not agree with their religious views.
    Spread disinformation much?
     

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    I don't think this is a 1A issue, because this mosque is a monument more than anything else. It's a zoning issue for the local government to decide.

    Until we decide as a country that everyone has soverign right to their property (which they currently do not), then it's up to the locals to decide if this building should be allowed.

    The Federal government has made no law concerning the the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Therefore, IMO, this does not run afoul of the 1st amendment.

    Just one man's opinion.

    If these people can build a mosque that honors the "martyrs" of 9/11 then I should be allowed to build whatever the hell I want on my land too. Obviously, I can't, so they can't either.
     

    MWCMT

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jun 30, 2010
    114
    16
    South
    I think one major problem with the mosque is the imam involved and where the funding is coming from. The imam has said many things that are inflammatory. He refuses to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah, known terrorist organizations.

    Do a Google search for “ground zero mosque imam” and read about him.

    He is currently on a “good will” mission to the middle east, funded by our tax dollars. I wonder what the liberals would say if the State Department funded a Christian or Jewish good will mission.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,735
    113
    Michiana
    He is currently on a “good will” mission to the middle east, funded by our tax dollars. I wonder what the liberals would say if the State Department funded a Christian or Jewish good will mission.

    When have you ever known libtards to be so concerned with religious liberties before this mosque case? When have you ever known them to be unconcerned with issues of the separation of church and state? The Imam Rauf must be really something to be turning them around on these issues. I wonder what it could be...
     

    jboritzki

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 10, 2009
    160
    16
    Beech Grove
    I just wanted to point out that people like Michael Moore(on) attacked the NRA because the NRA did not consider the feelings of the people of Columbine. Now Michael Moron is supporting this mosque being built. It's the exact same thing. If Moore believes that the feelings of 1 group are more important than the rights of another group, then why isn't he sticking with that? That was his position over the Columbine thing. Now his position has done a 180 degree turn. Now he is supporting the groups rights over the feelings of another group. He, like all liberals, are hypocrites. It's not just Moore either. It's all of these liberals that are supporting this mosque. Bloomberg tramples all over the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms but wants to support the rights of the mosque builders.

    It just shows how much these liberals hate America and our traditions and how much comfort they want to give to our enemies. Not that muslims are enemies, but they know damn good and well how happy it will make Osama and the other crazy terrorists to see that mosque built there.

    And the stupid ho wife of the leader of this thing is going to tell us that they are trying to build bridges? Build bridges my ass lady! You're pissing everyone off. How is that going to help you build a bridge? For the record, I think this mosque is a bad bad idea. Go build the damn thing someplace else.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I think one major problem with the mosque is the imam involved and where the funding is coming from. The imam has said many things that are inflammatory. He refuses to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah, known terrorist organizations.

    Do a Google search for “ground zero mosque imam” and read about him.

    He is currently on a “good will” mission to the middle east, funded by our tax dollars. I wonder what the liberals would say if the State Department funded a Christian or Jewish good will mission.

    Just a friendly note: This is beginning to push the envelope on religion which will get this thread locked, not because we're moving to Western religions/beliefs but because the focus would then change from a free speech issue to one centering on religion.

    Thanks for understanding and keeping it on topic.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Ramen

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 9, 2009
    488
    16
    I don't think this is a 1A issue, because this mosque is a monument more than anything else. It's a zoning issue for the local government to decide.

    Until we decide as a country that everyone has soverign right to their property (which they currently do not), then it's up to the locals to decide if this building should be allowed.

    The Federal government has made no law concerning the the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Therefore, IMO, this does not run afoul of the 1st amendment.

    Just one man's opinion.

    If these people can build a mosque that honors the "martyrs" of 9/11 then I should be allowed to build whatever the hell I want on my land too. Obviously, I can't, so they can't either.

    I heard the "zoning laws" argument yesterday on the radio, that we don't have true property rights anyway, so why should we pick and choose which to enforce?

    I agree that is it wrong to pick and choose where we will apply our anti-property laws and when we won't, but this could be a great time to put a spotlight on the mass infringement government puts on property rights.

    I don't see how fighting tyranny with tyranny is going to get us more liberty. :dunno:
     
    Top Bottom