I don't get it...
I don't understand...
Someone, please help me make sense of it all.
We're supposed to be on constant alert against Terrorists.
We are warned to report suspicious packages in depots
and on trains,
We are told we should understand, and not be upset when our data is read;
"It's just to keep us safe from potential danger".
Yet, People carry guns and semi-automatic weapons openly in public,
People threaten others openly in social media and on-line.
After an attack, mass shooting, rape, abuse, any egregious (sic)
act of violence everyone goes on about prior signs of danger and madness, unaccountably missed warning signs.
But... we're supposed to overlook the glazed eyed person armed to the teeth at the grocer,
the people carrying pickets with violent or racially charged depictions of the President,
the "Sovereign Citizen" rhapsodising about violently overthrowing the government,
the lunatics posting threats of violence, death, and terrorism online.
Because... "Freedom of Speech"... The lawyers petitioning the Supreme Court say so.
What if the Supreme Court agrees?
Someone tell me how we are supposed to recognise the deranged, violent, or the extremists speaking out from our neighbours, or the police?
Anyone?
Ronda R. Scott-Marak
© 2 December 2014
I am not afraid. I am honestly befuddled as to how we're supposed to go forward being instructed to be wary and watchful while at the same time legally ignoring all warnings.
ReplyDeleteStill asking the question: we're told to be watchful for signs of potential mass violence in a world of mass violence. That I understand but then we are surrounded by legally endorsed actions that are identical to those we are supposed to report. How the Hell is someone, anyone supposed to know when to duck and play dead, call 911/999 depending on country, or calmly finish one's task and go home to change one's pants?
ReplyDelete