If you think about it... the first right kinda supports the second. If the people are armed, it is harder for those in power to force their beliefs on others. Not a different perspective at all.
Let's think about what you wrote here regarding beliefs being forced on people...in modern times, more people have been persuaded than forced into beliving a political (or social) agenda. Sure, there is always the absolute power of the state (or government) which can and will use force if necessary. But I dare say more people 'go along with the flow' willingly without having beliefs forced upon them because they are unarmed. And often, by not protesting or shaping an opposition, people go along with things because it is less trouble for them...laziness? Your thoughts? Oh- and now that the 'Muslim card' has been played in this thread, give me your take on that society as well in the context of use of force.
The Muslim world supports freedom of religion, thought, and expression. The consequences of exercising those freedoms can be quite harsh.
Lip service? Sure, we're all free to do this and that, as long as we recognize the limitations...or suffer the consequences. But it would appear that tolerance in most Muslim societies is limited; dump a load on Allah and see where you end up (quickly, too). So the question is: do Muslims really shape their beliefs openly and freely, or is it that the use of force against them (real or imagined) weighs in heavily?
IMHO, the apparent level of repression in the Muslim world shapes the public view, and certainly many of their beliefs as well. I do beleive there is resistance and private thought, but it would be an exceptional (and short lived) person to be openly critical. We are talking a society willing to murder a young girl for simply speaking about education for women.
I dare say that the NEA has outdone the NRA. The NEA has led a new revolution and has transitions us in the absence of arms. The NRA and a lot of people have sat silently over the years. Enjoying the warm feeling that comes from cold steel. Now, a fire needs lighting before we have but each other to embrace and shed a tear for freedoms lost.
That's what we're seeing, sad but true. However, is the violence done by 'society' or by a handful who hold a very constricted conservative view, and takes great pains to make certain they are not caught? Here, I'm not talking about the Taliban, who execute in broad daylight.
I don't know Charles. All I can reference is what I see on the tube and read from various sources. The "faithful" are very vocal and visible. Any oposition is under our radar. The public persona is not one of tolerance and love in spite of admonitions to the contrary.
Rick looks to have taken the discussion for me, but I will add my .02 The point of my comment gets complex pretty quick I guess. Using the Muslim world for this example, those women cannot 'bare arms' without serious repercussions. Now this completely has to do with a society that has not had the ability to separate church and state. Much like Europe probably was back in the day. If you take our bill of rights, and apply them to this discussion, I think the 1st amendment is the most powerful, but it is completely supported by the intent of the second amendment. The women in the picture, and the Muslim world as a whole does not have the options of what we guarantee in the first amendment, in part because the general population does not have the rights provided in the second amendment. I believe they go hand in hand. Opposite sides of the same coin if you will.
Now going into your comments about society, and accepting certain reality with out protest. That is the true issue. The rights we list in our constitution and amendments are just putting our societal beliefs on paper. I don't believe in the current Muslim world, they can take the first step of truly separating Church and state.
Oh I get it all right. It's a dig stemming from the left's attitude toward the NRA or anyone that believes in the Second Amendment. The left has always looked at those freedoms as ignorant. So far, from what we've seen, the left hasn't developed enough intelligence to understand how important those freedoms are. They are after all, "enlightened intellectuals" that are wise beyond their years. (Or so they think)
