Arkansas gun range becomes the first to exclude Muslims

[BillyVance 34]

Interesting... http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-beheading-isis-threats-arkansas-firing-range-become-first-exclude-muslims/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

Yes, there are legal issues with the owner doing this, specifically going against the US Constitution and its amendments guaranteeing equal rights and banning discrimination...

But, I can understand her concerns.

And for those of you that disagree with her stance, let me review some history...

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

Now today... technically we are at war... with Muslim extremists. Have they not declared "holy jihad", in other words "war" on us?

The U.S. Govt cannot cover the entire U.S. watching out for suspicious behavior and tapping phones and spying. There are just too many Muslims currently living here. Most of them are indeed peaceful and minding their own businesses, but how sure are we that there aren't going to be some fuckstick pissed off at the U.S. for what we're doing in the Middle East and try to find ways to train for attacks? Lest we not forget how some of the 9/11 hijackers trained at flight schools here in the U.S. and used that training to fly the planes into the WTC, Pentagon and a field in PA.

I say she can do what she wants with her business. It's a private business. Not everybody is going to agree with her.

Unfortunately, I do not think Obama has the balls to take drastic measures similar to what FDR had to do during WWII in regards to the Japanese. I surely hope something does not happen that could have been prevented.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[kallend 1,623]

BillyVance

Interesting... http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-beheading-isis-threats-arkansas-firing-range-become-first-exclude-muslims/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

Yes, there are legal issues with the owner doing this, specifically going against the US Constitution and its amendments guaranteeing equal rights and banning discrimination...

But, I can understand her concerns.

And for those of you that disagree with her stance, let me review some history...

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

Now today... technically we are at war...

I must have missed the required declaration by Congress.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I say she can do what she wants with her business. It's a private business. Not everybody is going to agree with her.

That was precisely the argument that lost in federal court in the 1960s during the civil rights battle. It's settled law now for 50 years. Let it go already.

As for whether the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans should be held up as an example of a net positive or a net negative, the moral (and legal) conscience of the nation has long since deemed that to be settled as well.

These positions have long since been relegated to the ash-heap of history, where they should remain.

[BillyVance 34]

kallend

***Interesting... http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-beheading-isis-threats-arkansas-firing-range-become-first-exclude-muslims/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

Yes, there are legal issues with the owner doing this, specifically going against the US Constitution and its amendments guaranteeing equal rights and banning discrimination...

But, I can understand her concerns.

And for those of you that disagree with her stance, let me review some history...

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

Now today... technically we are at war...

I must have missed the required declaration by Congress.

Semantics.... We are fighting a war, period.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[quade 3]

BillyVance

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.?

EO 9066 isn't something we should be "proud" of nor is it something we should use as a model for the future. The ancestors of the vast majority of US citizens came from somewhere else. At one time or another quite a few of them have been ostracized. People from Germany, Italy, Ireland, China . . . just about everyone except the British. This is not the way forward.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

BillyVance

******Interesting... http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-beheading-isis-threats-arkansas-firing-range-become-first-exclude-muslims/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

Yes, there are legal issues with the owner doing this, specifically going against the US Constitution and its amendments guaranteeing equal rights and banning discrimination...

But, I can understand her concerns.

And for those of you that disagree with her stance, let me review some history...

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

Now today... technically we are at war...

I must have missed the required declaration by Congress.

Semantics.... We are fighting a war, period.

In which case anyone suggesting that generals should resign in protest is committing treason, and a general who quits is being mutinous..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Boomerdog 0]

I must admit, I don't know how to call this one. But it ought to be interesting as we watch the litigation unfold.

[DanG 1]

I think this gets my vote for Most Disturbing Post of the Year.

Congrats.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

***... technically we are at war...

I must have missed the required declaration by Congress.

I find the misuse of the words "technically" and "feasible" to be rampant. We should just delete those two words from the dictionary - they are more frequently used exactly 180 degrees from the real definition than the real defs are.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

I think this gets my vote for Most Disturbing Post of the Year.

you clearly don't attend to many Bonfire posts then

.
.
.

not that there's anything wrong with that......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,623]

More Americans are murdered by their fellow firearm toting citizens in a typical 4 month period than have been killed in all terrorist attacks since before 9/11/2001.

Maybe this range should first exclude gun owners.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

rehmwa

******... technically we are at war...

I must have missed the required declaration by Congress.

I find the misuse of the words "technically" and "feasible" to be rampant. We should just delete those two words from the dictionary - they are more frequently used exactly 180 degrees from the real definition than the real defs are.....

In before quade chews your ass off for suggesting this...

/edited to add:

kallend

Maybe this range should first exclude gun owners.

This is the other reason why I think this is a terrible move. It sets a stupid and reactionary restriction on firearms usage that isn't based on fighting any actual statistical trends. This is the same kind of crap we have to deal with from legislators. And the support it gets has the same roots as all the idiotic gun laws out there: "Well, doesn't affect me..."

[lummy 4]

BillyVance

And for those of you that disagree with her stance, let me review some history...

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up thousands of Japanese immigrants and herd them into incarceration camps for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

and 40 years later, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties act of 1988.

The act granted each surviving internee about US$20,000 in compensation, with payments beginning in 1990. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" as opposed to legitimate security reasons.[1] A total of 82,219 received redress checks.[2]

And in 92, George Bush allocated another 400 million for Japanese interns and officially apologized to Japanese Americans who were interned on Dec 7th. 1992.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

BillyVance

...I say she can do what she wants with her business. It's a private business. Not everybody is going to agree with her.

Unfortunately, I do not think Obama has the balls to take drastic measures similar to what FDR had to do during WWII in regards to the Japanese. I surely hope something does not happen that could have been prevented.

First off - No, she can't "do what she wants." If she was excluding blacks, or women, or any other group, she'd be in the wrong. As she is here.

And I certainly hope Obama doesn't "have the balls" to unilaterally deny a group of people basic civil rights, force them to abandon huge amounts of legally held property, force them into concentration camps, and on and on.

FDR didn't have to do it. There's pretty much zero indication that any acts of sabotage were prevented by the internment of the Japanese-Americans.
It was a horrendous action based on unreasonable fears and hysteria.

And just about every reasonable historian has agreed that is was terribly, terribly wrong.
Note that the US government has apologized and paid compensation to the survivors. That's a pretty good indication that it was not a correct action.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

Quote

I find the misuse of the words "technically" and "feasible" to be rampant. We should just delete those two words from the dictionary - they are more frequently used exactly 180 degrees from the real definition than the real defs are.....

That stuff literally makes me shit my pants.

- Dan G

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi John,

From your link: "You know what, I can't add anything to that. But do let me reassure you on this: A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes . . ."

This is why Pres. Truman fired Gen. MacArthur.

JerryBaumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi joe,

Quote

It was a horrendous action based on unreasonable fears and hysteria.

I was one year old at the outbreak of WW II. I have talked to my mother numerous times about this and she still defends it. My dad, who served in the Navy in the south Pacific, went to his grave calling them 'Japs.'

There was a very strong belief, here on the west coast, that the Japanese were going to invade the mainland.

IMO the fears were somewhat 'reasonable.'

Jerry Baumchen

[quade 3]

JerryBaumchen

There was a very strong belief, here on the west coast, that the Japanese were going to invade the mainland.

IMO the fears were somewhat 'reasonable.'

Then you didn't do the math.

Japan could never have invaded mainland US. They never had the man power. They could possibly bomb it, but their efforts there were mainly symbolic and pointless.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

JerryBaumchen

Hi joe,

Quote

It was a horrendous action based on unreasonable fears and hysteria.

I was one year old at the outbreak of WW II. I have talked to my mother numerous times about this and she still defends it. My dad, who served in the Navy in the south Pacific, went to his grave calling them 'Japs.'

There was a very strong belief, here on the west coast, that the Japanese were going to invade the mainland.

IMO the fears were somewhat 'reasonable.'

Jerry Baumchen

Hi back at you Jerry.
There were a lot of that sort of beliefs at the time.

They were not based in reality.

The Japanese themselves said that they had no intention of invading the "Lower 48." They knew that the armed populace would present an insurmountable challenge.
Their main aim was to push the US out of the Western Pacific and Asia.

The level of racial hatred of the "Japs" or "Nips" was pretty intense. Vastly different cultures, religions, values not to mention appearances.

It was far, far more intense than the animosity that was shown towards the Germans.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[RonD1120 58]

What about the civil rights of the combat vet ordered off the Lake Wales DZ for having "Infidel" tattooed on his leg? The DZO won out because it is a private business and she makes the rules as to who may use her DZ.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

RonD1120

What about the civil rights of the combat vet ordered off the Lake Wales DZ for having "Infidel" tattooed on his leg? The DZO won out because it is a private business and she makes the rules as to who may use her DZ.

This was already discussed and explained at length in the thread about that:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4467058;search_string=tattoo%20infidel;#4467058


The law of the land is that business owners may exclude people who display slogans reading (or even blatantly implying) "nigger and raghead hater", but may not exclude actual niggers and ragheads. It seems you'd prefer the converse, but I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.

[jtiflyer 0]

BillyVance

Interesting... http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-beheading-isis-threats-arkansas-firing-range-become-first-exclude-muslims/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, did the U.S. not round up HUNDREDS OF thousands of Japanese immigrants US CITIZENS and herd them into incarceration camps Prisons for fear of Japanese attacks from within those communities on the U.S.? That was an extreme measure, to be sure, but we were at war.

Fixed this for you. My whole family was shipped off from their farm to a prison in Utah. Never got their land back when released, they were forced to start over from nothing.


ETA: As for the Range owner, good on her. Not sure about state law, but in CA the most retarded of states you can refuse service to a customer.

[Shotgun 1]

I am curious how she plans to know whether people are Muslim or not.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Not sure about state law, but in CA the most retarded of states you can refuse service to a customer.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. You may not so refuse if it violates either The Federal Civil Rights Act or California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Not surprisingly, the grey areas sometimes have to be fought out in court.

Article on topic: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

[DanG 1]

Quote

Fixed this for you. My whole family was shipped off from their farm to a prison in Utah. Never got their land back when released, they were forced to start over from nothing.


ETA: As for the Range owner, good on her. Not sure about state law, but in CA the most retarded of states you can refuse service to a customer.

I'm a little taken aback that you would support discrimination based on nothing but religion given your family history.

"And when they came for me, there was no one left..."

- Dan G