Topic: Arkansas shooting range declares itself a "Muslim-free zone"

[Glock32]

An Arkansas woman who owns a shooting range has declared the facility off limits to Muslims:

In an act that will no doubt result in lawsuits, The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas, has declared itself a “Muslim free zone” due to concerns over domestic Islamic terrorism. The ban was announced yesterday by range owner Jan Morgan in an article posted to her web site where she cites ten points justifying her position.

Among the points cited are prior attacks in the United States that the federal government refuses to classify as terrorism, including the Fort Hood attack, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the last week’s Oklahoma City beheading. Morgan has also received death threats in the past for her writing about Islam.

Another incident that weighed heavily in Morgan’s decision was an incident at her firing range several weeks ago, which she relayed to Bearing Arms this morning.

Morgan claims that two Muslim men who spoke only broken English came to her range and requested to rent semi-automatic firearms and ammunition. One of them could not produce any identification showing that he was in the country legally, and the other had a California driver’s license. Neither had any apparent firearms training.

Rest of article:

http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-beheading-isis-threats-arkansas-firing-range-become-first-exclude-muslims/

[IronDioPriest]

I hope it turns out well for her. It's going to take people willing to risk big things, if we're ever gonna escalate things to where they need to be.

[Glock32]

This is where Libertarians go full retard, which they have a tendency to do.  I'm referring to the moral opprobrium being hurled at her by the libertarian types who seem to think 1st Amendment protection of religious freedom includes a seditious political cult dedicated to destroying those very freedoms.

[Libertas]

Meeeooow!   

This Caleb Giddings of GNM must be one of those Libertarian's Glock is talking about...

Last time I checked, the important text of the 2nd Amendment didn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed – unless you’re black, Muslim, or gay.”

What an asshole!

What this jackhole will not admit is that as a result of Federal Law and SCOTUS review, it now says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed – unless you’re talking about the 21st century version of the 18th century assualt rifle, people who live in certain cities, people who work in certain buildings, people who are not a certain age, etc etc" you POS!  So of course this jackhole's only recourse since the truth is so inconvenient is to throw the racists/homo cards!  Disingenous little prick!

Negative stereotypes?  Last I heard butthead, in general, blacks were not blowing up people and hacking heads off, nor are gays, but hey look, Muslims are ALL THE DAMN TIME!!!

And, what happened to private business being able to call their own shots about who they allow in their places of business, eh?  Is Starbucks going to be forced to allow gun-toters?  Are all these souless buildings going to allow gun-toters?  This is where the stupidity and hypocrisy of the Left's relativism implodes and double-standards are explained away as necessary...

IMO anybody who sues should be shot down (heh!) immediately, the damned case should not even see the inside of a courtroom!

[Glock32]

Yeah, I was referring exactly to that guy and all the likeminded commenters at his article.  They keep dismissing the idea that as a business owner she can refuse service to anyone by referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then of course a nice heaping dose of insinuation that anyone who thinks such probably longs for the days of "No Negroes" signs.

But that's kind of at the heart of this isn't it?  If one does not have freedom to discriminate, even in ways most people find objectionable, how much freedom does one actually have?  Whose business is it?  Hers?  The state's?  Or some nebulous "society"?  Without freedom of association, most of our other freedoms are watered down.

I think what irks me the most about the moral preening on display is the earnest naiveté and gullibility.  They act as if Islam is no different than a denomination of Christianity.  They forget that our constitutional rights are implicitly built on reciprocity.  We enshrine religious freedom and forbid the state from oppressing any particular religious group.  But what about religious groups who have no intention of reciprocating with everyone else?

There's a term for this which escapes me, but it refers to one who is so beholden to technicality of language that they become oblivious to its actual meaning.  It's like someone who refuses to take an antibiotic because of the bacteria's right to life.

[IronDioPriest]

There's a term for this which escapes me, but it refers to one who is so beholden to technicality of language that they become oblivious to its actual meaning.

 

Clinton?

William Jefferson Clinton On The Meaning of "IS"

[Libertas]

WaTimes article on this, the comments are as you might expect littered with droppings from libiots...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/30/arkansas-shooting-range-declares-itself-a-muslim-f/#!

[Glock32]

I'm still having a hard time articulating what it is about the negative reaction from "our" side that so pisses me off.  I think it's because it's such an instructive example of how "our" side has a tendency to swallow and internalize the premises of liberal arguments, and also how it demonstrates such a failure to recognize the emerging New Reality.  The New Reality is that Islam needs to be identified for what it is, so that we can begin to inoculate this culture against it.  When the Framers wrote the 1st Amendment, fresh in their minds were all the sectarian wars in the Old World and the tendency of Protestant and Catholic states to oppress their citizens who adhered to the "wrong" version of Christianity.  Honestly I don't think they really considered that "church" would ever mean anything other than versions of Christianity. I certainly don't think any of the Founders would have seriously considered the possibility of extending those protections to the Barbary Corsairs who were then the scourge of the Mediterranean. The reality of importing Islam into a multi-faith society with a secular government is being played out in Europe right now -- and they're still a small minority there. You can well imagine how much worse it will be as their numbers grow. It is critically important to throw down a marker and identify this. That so many who are nominally on our side refuse to comprehend this is just one of those  moments.

I think what really irks me though is that they're not simply stating that she will have an uphill battle in terms of legal technicality (which I agree is the case) but that there's a certain gleefulness about it. "Our" side has this annoying habit of seeking approval from popular culture by sacrificing individuals who stand against the current. Even though this woman may have a difficult legal battle, her sentiment is absolutely correct.

[Libertas]

It is the same for the freedom from vs freedom of religion argument people have let the Prog's get away with...if not for some obscure black-robbed jackass paraphrasing an obscure Jefferson letter to some local Baptists completely out of context, the purge of Christians from the public square would not be so offensive as it is today.

The quote -

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

Context!  Only an asshole or a fool focuses on the latter and discards the rest!  A real thinking individual knows context, knows the religious wars fought over two continents, knows the Founders feared state religionss like England's Church of England (a clear establishment of!) as well as those who would make their nation a vassal of a Religious leader like the Roman Catholic Pope (who dominated many European capitals with loyal Papists!)...so to allow assholes and fools to bastardize this into driving all semblance of religion from public is in a word unconsionable.  It should be reversed, with violence if necessary.  To persecute Christians with it on the one hand and allow a murderous, rapist, psychotic death-cult like Islam to hide behind it with the other is the ultimate offense, and it is unforgivable!

Our Founders ALL knew, this nation is incomaptible as anything but a Christian nation, at the time of our Founding we were predominately Christian, there were other faiths and non-believers, but they were a small minority and were not bothered with because they were not bothering the majority!

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Show me where the murderous, raping, psychotic Islaminals are morally or religiously compatible for freedom!!!  Nobody can!  Nobody!!!

[richb]

No range should be forced to take all comers.   Even with "civil" rights laws as a businessperson,  you still have the right to refuse service even in the age of Obama (no shirt, no shoes, no service).    Only she knows her business and no second guessing should be allowed by the government.   

I imagine,  ranges are required by various laws and regulations (and insurance rules) already,  to turn away people who don't seem "right" or are clearly unsafe.   In that way she is following the law.   More importantly she is keep her range as safe as possible.   

Even if the state doesn't hassle her over this policy,  I am sure some fed will stick his or her nose in this.   She will likely have to become a "private" club and even that won't stop some of the bleeding hearts from persecuting her.

And yes, we need to break the habit of seeing things the "liberal" way.   We lose every time when they set the ground rules. 

[warpmine]

I'm still having a hard time articulating what it is about the negative reaction from "our" side that so pisses me off.  I think it's because it's such an instructive example of how "our" side has a tendency to swallow and internalize the premises of liberal arguments, and also how it demonstrates such a failure to recognize the emerging New Reality.  The New Reality is that Islam needs to be identified for what it is, so that we can begin to inoculate this culture against it.  When the Framers wrote the 1st Amendment, fresh in their minds were all the sectarian wars in the Old World and the tendency of Protestant and Catholic states to oppress their citizens who adhered to the "wrong" version of Christianity.  Honestly I don't think they really considered that "church" would ever mean anything other than versions of Christianity. I certainly don't think any of the Founders would have seriously considered the possibility of extending those protections to the Barbary Corsairs who were then the scourge of the Mediterranean. The reality of importing Islam into a multi-faith society with a secular government is being played out in Europe right now -- and they're still a small minority there. You can well imagine how much worse it will be as their numbers grow. It is critically important to throw down a marker and identify this. That so many who are nominally on our side refuse to comprehend this is just one of those  moments.

I think what really irks me though is that they're not simply stating that she will have an uphill battle in terms of legal technicality (which I agree is the case) but that there's a certain gleefulness about it. "Our" side has this annoying habit of seeking approval from popular culture by sacrificing individuals who stand against the current. Even though this woman may have a difficult legal battle, her sentiment is absolutely correct.

This is why our side has such problems getting TEA Party candidates elected. We're fighting wioth one hand tied behind the proverbial back regarding intellect. They don't call the GOP the stupid party for nothing my friends. These same asshats would have stuck wit the Tories at the time of the Revolution.