View Full Version : Hypothetical: What Would Happen If I Refused Sales To Muslims...?
With the ATF, and a surprising amount of people in the gun community, urging FFLs to refuse any transaction they don't feel good about, not to mention those who argue civil liability this is a big one for me.
First "muslim" is not a race. It's a belief and really no different than other beliefs like those held by the KKK. If I had a stated policy that I would not sell to members of the KKK, even those who aren't prohibited persons, I'd probably make the national news as "the gun store who cares..."
BUT if I change a single variable and refuse to sell to muslims because they seem to engage in a disproportionate amount of terrorism, can maintain scary long social relationships and then show up at the Christmas party and indiscriminately whack out co workers who thought they were friends, or as we've seen in a recent case have scholarship students one day "go radical" and attempt to kill as many teachers, students and bystanders as possible, even though many of the same were trying to make that persons life better.
That is the part that concerns me, there seems to be no distinction between friend and foe and you are either muslim or the enemy and your death can be rationalized because muslims elsewhere are dying.
Probably the worst thing I can imagine is being somewhere in the supply chain that led to a muslim terrorist involved shooting. Objectively I know if I refuse the sale they will probably just go someplace else, especially if they are NOT a prohibited person.
So what would happen IF:
1. I asked prospective buyers if they happen to be muslim? This would not be profiling, I'm well aware of all the suburban white kids who see ISIS as the new CRIPS to emulate, not to mention the true believers like Lindh and Bergdahl.
2. I refused the sale without even conducting a background check on the basis of being a member of a hate group.
And then what happens when I one day refuse a sale to an LEO who just happens to be a practicing muslim or a female muslim who is genuinely needing a means of self protection after trying to leave an abusive husband.
Everyone says, use your common sense, but that isn't always easily applied in a one size fits all manner.
You'll probably get sued into oblivion. You'll be the secular version of Christians getting sued and financially destroyed for not wanting to get involved in sodomite fake marriage.
Leaveammoforme
11-30-16, 03:11
I think the issue you'd run into is people screaming about profiling. Profiling keeps nature in check but for some reason is taboo in our hoity-toity advanced civilized society. Which I think is garbage.
Everybody has seen a woman who clutches her purse a little a closer, a guy who moves to an opposite side of an isle or knows a person who out right refuses to go certain places. They're profiling whether they will admit or not.
Daddy zebra to baby zebra: "Stay away from that lion, she'll eat you". Simple, lesson learned and applied to daily life.
I knew a guy who's family bounced out of Iran during the Contra stuff. The look, the smell and the full blooded Iranian swagger. It was interesting watching people profile him. But, I guarantee those people would deny any racism or preconceived notions if they were confronted. He took it in stride, just happy to be here. He never once complained. I assume he understood why it happened but he never let on that it bothered him.
I think your screening tactic would be understood by some denied customers and be controversial to most.
I 100% agree with your idea. But, I profile until someone proves me wrong.
There is a range that denies muslims entry. It is owned by a woman and I want to say it's in Arkansas. I'd check into how her business is doing. I'm sure it's booming.
RetroRevolver77
11-30-16, 03:29
You can't discriminate based on religion.
Just eat bacon, openly and handle whatever it is you're selling with your greasy hate filled fingers.
There is a big difference between denying a sell to a specific individual after applying sound judgment and logic (i.e. not selling a gun to a woman whose mother just warned you that she is mentally ill and plans to murder her father), and discrimination based on ethnicity or religion. That difference is probably measured in the millions of dollars in legal fees, judgements, or settlements.
First in the USA today, I would say don't verbalize it by asking straight out are you a muslim. East Africans look different from the rest of Africans, faces more sharp angles than the rest of Africans which have more rounded faces.
So you get a potential client that looks eastern African and you are concerned. It is simple, hey man where are you from originally ? I have a friend that has been to Ethiopia a bunch of times and he loves it there. They answer no I am Somalian, then you know.
If they look Middle Eastern you can ask them how the gun back home are, and they will probably tell you where they came from.
You can profile in an intelligent manor like we do in Israel, or you can bungle and ask your potential client. " Hey dude you a hadji terrorist, I don't sell no guns to people I think are hadji's you want a ham sandwich."
I have read enough of your post to know your not dumb, so make it a game you play in conversation and in subtle ways see how much information you can get out of the person. Most people love to talk even terrorist.
If a potential terrorist comes into your shop he is under a higher stress level as they have already mentally committed to crossing the line. Use this to your advantage, be nice and ask innocent but probing question.
I will tell you when I am tan and walk into a gun store, they really can't tell where I come from. So I work it into the conversation very quickly that I am Israeli and I have seen their attitude change in the blink of an eye.
Which doesn't worry me, as I don't want a terrorist buying guns in the USA either.
You can't discriminate based on religion.
Just eat bacon, openly and handle whatever it is you're selling with your greasy hate filled fingers.
I think one of the reasons that woman at the gun range was successful is because she proved that it's not a religion but a theocracy. Something about how it controls every aspect of their life not just religion is how she was able to deny services to people who by their every single waking principal are starkly in contrast to the values of a constitutional republic
Singlestack Wonder
11-30-16, 08:22
I would tell them their background check failed.....
skywalkrNCSU
11-30-16, 09:11
The constitution is pretty clear in that we have freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. If the only reason to deny a sale is the persons religion then I do not think that is a reason to deny a sale, otherwise we are doing the same thing that we decry, putting arbitrary limits on the second amendment.
There was a gun shop here in FL that did the same thing as the Jan Morgan shop in Arkansas. There was a lawsuit by CAIR, but the judge tossed it on grounds that CAIR was unable to show that any of its members were harmed by the policy. PS: the owner of the shop is a POS, shady as can be, and certainly it was all a publicity stunt, but AFAIK the policy stands.
The constitution is pretty clear in that we have freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. If the only reason to deny a sale is the persons religion then I do not think that is a reason to deny a sale, otherwise we are doing the same thing that we decry, putting arbitrary limits on the second amendment.
Dude, you won't get anywhere in life practicing objectivity and principled thinking!
The constitution is pretty clear in that we have freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. If the only reason to deny a sale is the persons religion then I do not think that is a reason to deny a sale, otherwise we are doing the same thing that we decry, putting arbitrary limits on the second amendment.
This ^
Everyone has the right to self defense. Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims look middle eastern. I work with a bunch or Russian Turk Muslims. They don't look Muslim and one is even pasty white with blond hair. They all drink, smoke, party...etc..they'll even eat pork so long as you don't tell them it's pork (their words). Good guys who work hard trying to make a living and provide for their families.
Now, if the guy is acting weird, can't come up with proper paperwork (assuming green card and not citizenship), asking weird questions then yea I'd deny him too
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
With the ATF, and a surprising amount of people in the gun community, urging FFLs to refuse any transaction they don't feel good about, not to mention those who argue civil liability this is a big one for me.
First "muslim" is not a race. It's a belief and really no different than other beliefs like those held by the KKK. If I had a stated policy that I would not sell to members of the KKK, even those who aren't prohibited persons, I'd probably make the national news as "the gun store who cares..."
"Muslim" isn't just a belief, it's a religion, therefore a protected class. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under the Federal law (Civil Rights Act of 1964).
So, good luck with that.
So if you sell a gun to the next Dylan Roof, did your Muslim screening process work or fail? Yoni has it nailed. Use predictive profiling on EVERY buyer and inherent bias isn't needed. If the person wanting to buy is actively pinging your sonar, don't sell. Don't give a reason to them because you owe them nothing. All that does is help a potential threat hone their skillset to deceive the next seller.
I think the issue you'd run into is people screaming about profiling. Profiling keeps nature in check but for some reason is taboo in our hoity-toity advanced civilized society. Which I think is garbage.
Everybody has seen a woman who clutches her purse a little a closer, a guy who moves to an opposite side of an isle or knows a person who out right refuses to go certain places. They're profiling whether they will admit or not.
Daddy zebra to baby zebra: "Stay away from that lion, she'll eat you". Simple, lesson learned and applied to daily life.
This is the way I see it:
Profiling is taking into consideration attributes that a person has and making a determination based on the totality of circumstances whether to investigate further.
Where profiling often goes off the rails is that it often turns into stereotyping - going to the other side of the street to avoid EVERY black person because they are dangerous. Stereotyping is a way to simplify thinking, it is not infallible, and is often incorrect.
Your example of the Zebra is instinctive behavior, not profiling by taking all things into consideration. In essence it is stereotypical behavior. In the Zebra's case the instinct is correct.
If you think about it, one evolutionary notch above instinct is intuition. Although many would say they are one and the same, I disagree. Instinctive behavior would cause me to avoid all black folks because they are different than me; it is the same reason many folks tend to shy away from disabled folks - they are different.
Intuitive behavior, on the other hand, allows us to avoid a specific black person (or person of any color) because of subtle deviations from the norm, e.g. on the street the person glances about (witness sweep); the person looks at you quickly, sizing you up; the person glances at your briefcase or purse. Call it subconscious profiling if you like.
Someone with switched on SA (SteyrAUG in the circumstances we are discussing) would probably be able to articulate the totality of behaviors that gave them the belief that something was amiss.
Some folks, on the other hand, just know something doesn't feel right. The smart folks among this group pay heed. Those acting in the interests of political correctness often ignore intuition at their own peril.
Other folks, are simply so unaware that nothing registers on them. They are totally surprised when things go south.
With the ATF, and a surprising amount of people in the gun community, urging FFLs to refuse any transaction they don't feel good about, not to mention those who argue civil liability this is a big one for me.
This is the premise to challenge. It's a false criteria regardless of what follows.
If an FFL was to refuse a sale to someone, they should be smart enough to not state the reason for the refusal, but should also be aware that even if they don't admit that they're discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and all the other things that constitute a "protected class", a complaint can still be filed if someone discerns a pattern of discrimination.
Averageman
11-30-16, 10:16
The constitution is pretty clear in that we have freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. If the only reason to deny a sale is the persons religion then I do not think that is a reason to deny a sale, otherwise we are doing the same thing that we decry, putting arbitrary limits on the second amendment.
I like to talk to people, I usually really like to talk to "Gun People".
The ability to perform an interrogation in an inoffensive way is practiced daily by all of us. We use these methods to get an idea of who we are dealing with and how we choose to deal with them further, think of it as a "Soft Interrogation".
If you were to say, I don't do that, well, you do, you just don't realize you're doing it.
If I were selling guns, I wouldn't hesitate to use this same method and perhaps refuse some people. That is likely why I'm not, nor ever will own a gun store.
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 10:17
I don't have the statistics right here in front of me, but I watch the news, and... wouldn't it make more sense to discriminate against the Blacks?
Like... x1000?
skywalkrNCSU
11-30-16, 10:19
I like to talk to people, I usually really like to talk to "Gun People".
The ability to perform an interrogation in an inoffensive way is practiced daily by all of us. We use these methods to get an idea of who we are dealing with and how we choose to deal with them further, think of it as a "Soft Interrogation".
If you were to say, I don't do that, well, you do, you just don't realize you're doing it.
If I were selling guns, I wouldn't hesitate to use this same method and perhaps refuse some people. That is likely why I'm not, nor ever will own a gun store.
No doubt we all do that and I would certainly walk away from a private sale if I didn't feel good about it. On that note, and I believe what you inferred, someone in the business of selling guns doesn't necessarily have the legal ability to do that, especially in regards to the topic in the OP.
diving dave
11-30-16, 10:25
Not to mention, in radical Islam it is perfectly acceptable to lie and deceive the" infidel"...So if they had any inkling they would just lie anyway.
Averageman
11-30-16, 10:34
No doubt we all do that and I would certainly walk away from a private sale if I didn't feel good about it. On that note, and I believe what you inferred, someone in the business of selling guns doesn't necessarily have the legal ability to do that, especially in regards to the topic in the OP.
There are various ways you could legally cover your behind in such a situation without incurring any risk to your business.
The quickest and easiest would be, "I was sure he was intoxicated and/or had smelled of alcohol/marijuana when he spoke with me in regards to a purchase."
And again, this is why I don't sell guns to the G.P. from a store front where anyone can walk in off of the street. I would treat every public sale as if I were making a private sale, where to me, character counts.
There are various ways you could legally cover your behind in such a situation without incurring any risk to your business.
The quickest and easiest would be, "I was sure he was intoxicated and/or had smelled of alcohol/marijuana when he spoke with me in regards to a purchase."
And again, this is why I don't sell guns to the G.P. from a store front where anyone can walk in off of the street. I would treat every public sale as if I were making a private sale, where to me, character counts.
Lying would be a way to "legally" cover your behind?
Averageman
11-30-16, 10:51
Lying would be a way to "legally" cover your behind?
If I were to be faced with selling a firearm because it is politically correct to someone I felt was morally sketchy and perhaps a danger to others, or telling a lie to justify my choice to not sell, the lie would be more palatable than the alternative.
There was a gun shop here in FL that did the same thing as the Jan Morgan shop in Arkansas. There was a lawsuit by CAIR, but the judge tossed it on grounds that CAIR was unable to show that any of its members were harmed by the policy. PS: the owner of the shop is a POS, shady as can be, and certainly it was all a publicity stunt, but AFAIK the policy stands.
That had to do with legal standing, not the actual merits of the case.
If I were to be faced with selling a firearm because it is politically correct to someone I felt was morally sketchy and perhaps a danger to others, or telling a lie to justify my choice to not sell, the lie would be more palatable than the alternative.
Not judging the morality, only the legality.
So if you sell a gun to the next Dylan Roof, did your Muslim screening process work or fail? Yoni has it nailed. Use predictive profiling on EVERY buyer and inherent bias isn't needed. If the person wanting to buy is actively pinging your sonar, don't sell. Don't give a reason to them because you owe them nothing. All that does is help a potential threat hone their skillset to deceive the next seller.
^This. This right here sums it up perfectly.
I wouldn't refuse to sell to someone because they were Muslim, or any other religion. I would refuse to sell to someone if I had reason to doubt that their intentions were good. I don't care if they are a lily white albino member of the Whitey McWhitey organization, or if they have horns growing out of their head. Their religion, skin color, accent, or any other arbitrary trait would not be the reason for my refusing a sale.
And whatever my reason for refusing the sale, as glocktogo articulated, there is no reason or obligation to share it. "No thank you. Good bye."
Further, if you refuse a sale and then that person goes home and gets killed by and estranged lover, that is not on you. Because they waited to buy a gun until the very day some nut job was going to kill them is not your fault. It is theirs. They should have prepared for this eventuality buy buying a gun, storing it safely for their situation, taking classes to learn how and when to use it properly, learning how and when to carry it properly, and practicing with it on a regular basis. If they failed to do all of the above, and things are so bad, and the threat so imminent that they went to a gun store to buy a gun, but were refused for some reason… if all of that takes place and then they go home to a waiting ambush anyway, then they are stupid. If a person knows that someone is out to get them, and they don't have any viable means of self defense, and they walk right into their assailants waiting arms anyway, that is never going to be the fault of the LGS.
In CA we have a 10 day waiting period. Guess how many people tried to go buy a gun when the L.A. riots broke out, only to find out that the libs they elected prevented them from being able to buy a gun for self defense on the day they might need it. How many lawsuits were filed against the state for people not being able to immediately get a gun for self defense? None. It doesn't work that way. Its not the states fault and its not the LGSs fault that the person didn't know the law, and didn't prepare ahead of time. The state was not liable for any harm that came to any such person.
If you sell an object to someone legally qualified and cleared to buy it, and that person does something illegal with it, you, the seller, are not liable. In the same way, if you refuse to sell an object to someone, for whatever reason, and that person is later harmed by a violent criminal, you are not liable for that. You are not liable for other people's criminal acts in either case. This, however, doesn't mean that you can't act in good conscience and good faith, to try to prevent harm to others in a sensible way. And it doesn't mean you can't use your intellect to deny a sale that should be denied (based on whatever your criteria are), but avoid legal issues by being smart about your denial and the reasons for it.
Averageman
11-30-16, 11:21
Not judging the morality, only the legality.
And that's why I don't have a Gun Store.
In my opinion (and since this is hypothetical that's all that counts), legality has it's basis in morality. What is moral, should be law, what is lawful should be moral. If I object to providing a good or service to an individual because I feel that morally, they may endanger my Community by abusing that good or service, my decision to not provide a good or service to a customer should be legal.
That's not popular I'm sure, but it would allow me to sleep at night with a bit of peace.
In my opinion (and since this is hypothetical that's all that counts), legality has it's basis in morality. What is moral, should be law, what is lawful should be moral.
"Should be" is often different from "is".
Averageman
11-30-16, 11:28
If you sell an object to someone legally qualified and cleared to buy it, and that person does something illegal with it, you, the seller, are not liable. In the same way, if you refuse to sell an object to someone, for whatever reason, and that person is later harmed by a violent criminal, you are not liable for that. You are not liable for other people's criminal acts in either case. This, however, doesn't mean that you can't act in good conscience and good faith, to try to prevent harm to others in a sensible way. And it doesn't mean you can't use your intellect to deny a sale that should be denied (based on whatever your criteria are), but avoid legal issues by being smart about your denial and the reasons for it.
Articulated much better than mine.
What is legal now, isn't always morale, what is morale, may not always be legal. That we have allowed our system to separate morality from legality and have removed in some cases the right of the seller to choose between the two is simply wrong.
If you come in to purchase a gun from me and for what ever reason I choose to not sell, that should be on me and be without legal ramifications.
Averageman
11-30-16, 11:31
"Should be" is often different from "is".
And having been here a bit and having read a few hundred of your posts, I would guess that when faced with a similar decision, based on your common sense and not a religious or racial bias, you Sir, would make a similar decision when it came to providing the same gun to someone that you felt questionable about.
Articulated much better than mine.
What is legal now, isn't always morale, what is morale, may not always be legal. That we have allowed our system to separate morality from legality and have removed in some cases the right of the seller to choose between the two is simply wrong.
If you come in to purchase a gun from me and for what ever reason I choose to not sell, that should be on me and be without legal ramifications.
Different people see morality different than you and me. And those people occasionally are in charge of creating the laws, and interpreting the Constitution under which we all have to live. We can be frustrated, and rant about it, and work to change it. I have a glimmer of hope that this recent election is the beginning of just that.
And having been here a bit and having read a few hundred of your posts, I would guess that when faced with a similar decision, based on your common sense and not a religious or racial bias, you Sir, would make a similar decision when it came to providing the same gun to someone that you felt questionable about.
You sir, are absolutely correct.
I don't have the statistics right here in front of me, but I watch the news, and... wouldn't it make more sense to discriminate against the Blacks?
Like... x1000?
Most gangbangers I've known (yeah quite a few) didn't need a NICS approval where they bought their guns.
I have a few black friends, a couple are close friends. They dress and talk like I do, and absent the acquaintance, nothing would give me pause Re: selling a firearm to them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 12:15
Most gangbangers I've known (yeah quite a few) didn't need a NICS approval where they bought their guns.
I have a few black friends, a couple are close friends. They dress and talk like I do, and absent the acquaintance, nothing would give me pause Re: selling a firearm to them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most Terrorists don't either. (especially without no-fly, no-buy in effect)
I have a bunch of Muslim friends, many are close friends. Some dress and talk like I do, and absent the acquaintance, nothing would give me pause Re: selling a firearm to them.
That's so cool that we're diverse together!
If we are talking about an individual entrepreneur blacklisting a group as a business practice, it would make much more sense to disarm the Blacks, as you are literally thousands of times more likely to be a victim of violent crime at the hands of the Blacks (that happen to be thug) than you are to be a victim of of a Muslim (that happen to be terrorist).
This is not racist. This is backed up by the facts. Also, I do not advocate discrimination on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality (you guys know this). There might be a law, and there might be a way around that law- it doesn't concern me, because as an American, I'm not conceiving ways to deprive my fellow American his or her rights, and as a business operator, I'm not trying to come up with reasons to not serve my customer's needs. I don't need to google it, because it's not going to have an impact on me doing the right thing as a Patriot.
Overarching comment- what a sad and terrible shit show this country has become...
Outlander Systems
11-30-16, 12:31
We're focusing on the symptoms and not the problem.
Psychopaths, Terrorists, and Brigands can have all the guns they want; if the population is sufficiently armed, everywhere, the consequences of the aforementioned scumbags being armed are rendered mostly irrelevant.
In lieu of profiling, I would encourage the OP to sell the living shit out of guns to EVERYONE legally eligible to own one. I'd also massage the conversation toward the importance of CC, as well as the importance of competent, practical, instruction in the deployment of the firearm.
The answer to preventing future shootings/stabbings/etc. is NOT profiling, or ceding more power/money to a government; it's open-source counter-insurgency and distributed defense.
In regards to recent police assassinations, a sensible solution would be for the police to offer training to the local civilian population and allow armed ride-alongs for successful graduates of the Civilian Police Academy. I know for a fact there would be dudes willing to serve an auxiliary, unpaid, role in providing immediate, free, assistance to LEOs. Hell, states could waive CC licensing fees if the possessor is willing to provide X number of hours of community service in providing voluntary support to LE.
Most Terrorists don't either. (especially without no-fly, no-buy in effect)
I have a bunch of Muslim friends, many are close friends. Some dress and talk like I do, and absent the acquaintance, nothing would give me pause Re: selling a firearm to them.
That's so cool that we're diverse together!
If we are talking about an individual entrepreneur blacklisting a group as a business practice, it would make much more sense to disarm the Blacks, as you are literally thousands of times more likely to be a victim of violent crime at the hands of the Blacks (that happen to be thug) than you are to be a victim of of a Muslim (that happen to be terrorist).
This is not racist. This is backed up by the facts. Also, I do not advocate discrimination on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality (you guys know this). There might be a law, and there might be a way around that law- it doesn't concern me, because as an American, I'm not conceiving ways to deprive my fellow American his or her rights, and as a business operator, I'm not trying to come up with reasons to not serve my customer's needs. I don't need to google it, because it's not going to have an impact on me doing the right thing as a Patriot.
Overarching comment- what a sad and terrible shit show this country has become...
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 12:53
We're focusing on the symptoms and not the problem.
In lieu of profiling...
Your response assumes that the goal of such action is to be a part of a solution to a problem.
I read something different in the OP.
Averageman
11-30-16, 13:03
Most Terrorists don't either. (especially without no-fly, no-buy in effect)
I have a bunch of Muslim friends, many are close friends. Some dress and talk like I do, and absent the acquaintance, nothing would give me pause Re: selling a firearm to them.
That's so cool that we're diverse together!
If we are talking about an individual entrepreneur blacklisting a group as a business practice, it would make much more sense to disarm the Blacks, as you are literally thousands of times more likely to be a victim of violent crime at the hands of the Blacks (that happen to be thug) than you are to be a victim of of a Muslim (that happen to be terrorist).
This is not racist. This is backed up by the facts. Also, I do not advocate discrimination on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality (you guys know this). There might be a law, and there might be a way around that law- it doesn't concern me, because as an American, I'm not conceiving ways to deprive my fellow American his or her rights, and as a business operator, I'm not trying to come up with reasons to not serve my customer's needs. I don't need to google it, because it's not going to have an impact on me doing the right thing as a Patriot.
Overarching comment- what a sad and terrible shit show this country has become...
But then what about the rights and the obligations of the business owner?
The property in the business, is owned by the business owner. Do they or do they not have a right to refuse a sale? If they feel they have a legitimate concern, do they not have an obligation not to sell? What are the property rights of the Owner of the business in this case?
Because you have a right to own a gun, do I have a obligation to sell it to you under any conditions? If the answer to that is "Yes", then how is it that the government isn't simply sending me a free gun after all it is my right?
A business owner selling guns doesn't control the rights of potential customers by refusing a sale, they simply control the right to refuse service. The Customer can simply shop elsewhere and exercise his rights.
If you after some consideration refuse service for what ever reason, should you be required to explain that reason in a court room? It is your property, it should simply be your choice.
You know after reading the thread about "Stupid Stuff I heard in a Gun Store", I would be likely as not to have thrown half of those people out the front door. If I thought they were a legitimate hazard to the community I would do the same and then call my CLEO about my concerns.
Outlander Systems
11-30-16, 13:18
Society's pretty shitty at legitimately solving problems. If we can put a man on the freaking moon, we can conjure up a way to combat violent members of society without infringing upon Constitutionally enumerated Rights.
Shit's not rocket surgery.
The interesting thing about home-slizzle, aka, The Recent Shooter/Knifer/Crusher(depending on which fake news site you visit), is that he recently played the "innocent victim" card, and was, "afraid to openly pray."
“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.”
Everyone's a nice, peaceful [insert religious/political idealogy here] until they blow up a pressure cooker, kill abortion doctors, assassinate LEOs, or shoot up a black church.
Sounds like the OP should just bump up his general liability coverage, and rock on.
If the, "experts" can't figure out the basic strategy of fighting an open-source insurgency with an open-source counterinsurgency, they can remain stuck on stupid until they figure it out.
In the interim, they can continue to wear ribbons, and put up Gunbusters signs as 21st-Century Talismans and Gargoyles.
Your response assumes that the goal of such action is to be a part of a solution to a problem.
I read something different in the OP.
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 13:24
Do they or do they not have a right to refuse a sale?
The Customer can simply shop elsewhere and exercise his rights.
Exactly.
We all know that when a person is planning a major crime, minor and accessory crimes are of no consequence to them, and it's very easy to obtain a firearm via theft, online message boards, or black markets.
Additionally one business owners decision to blacklist a race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality does not make it impossible for a member of that group to simply take their business elsewhere.
...nor do acts of terror total up to a significant percentage when it comes to the number of people getting shot in America.
Essentially the desire is to create a "Whites Only" lunch counter... because it makes the owner of that business feel good. Simple as that.
Will other anti-Patriotic citizens patronize such a business? I think the answer is a definite YES- due to the shit state of our country at this time.
So should it be legal to restrict your business dealings to white/ male/ protestant/ native born/ cisgendered/ heterosexuals? I don't know. I don't care.
If you're living a good and honest life, treating your fellow American with love and respect, and cutting straight deals where you can look another person in the eye without bullshit maneuvering and telling of lies, then you don't need the law to guide what you do or how you live.
Most Terrorists don't either. (especially without no-fly, no-buy in effect)
I have a bunch of Muslim friends, many are close friends. Some dress and talk like I do, and absent the acquaintance, nothing would give me pause Re: selling a firearm to them.
That's so cool that we're diverse together!
If we are talking about an individual entrepreneur blacklisting a group as a business practice, it would make much more sense to disarm the Blacks, as you are literally thousands of times more likely to be a victim of violent crime at the hands of the Blacks (that happen to be thug) than you are to be a victim of of a Muslim (that happen to be terrorist).
This is not racist. This is backed up by the facts. Also, I do not advocate discrimination on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality (you guys know this). There might be a law, and there might be a way around that law- it doesn't concern me, because as an American, I'm not conceiving ways to deprive my fellow American his or her rights, and as a business operator, I'm not trying to come up with reasons to not serve my customer's needs. I don't need to google it, because it's not going to have an impact on me doing the right thing as a Patriot.
Overarching comment- what a sad and terrible shit show this country has become...
Yeah my point was that the folks you see on the news perpetrating the crimes (the blacks as you call them) are typically not the ones buying from ffl. The guy from Orlando did, however. I think at least the handguns used by the San Bernadino turds were legally possessed as well. May be wrong on that. Nidal Hassan bought his gun legally.
I'm well aware you weren't making an overall commentary about blacks and crime. Just pointing out that in the vast majority of cases, they aren't worried about nics checks. And that, of the recent cases anyway, the Muslim terrorists would be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
11-30-16, 13:38
Until it doesn't work and this guy comes in to make a purchase;
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/11/29/20-year-old-north-carolina-planned-murder-hundreds-isis/
“Justin Sullivan planned to kill hundreds of innocent people. He pledged his support to ISIL and took calculated steps to commit a murderous rampage to prove his allegiance to the terrorist organization,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge John A. Strong, of the Charlotte, North Carolina, office, as quoted by the Associated Press.
Reuters reports that Sullivan has also been accused of murdering his elderly neighbor, John Bailey Clark, using a .22-caliber rifle he stole from his stepfather. Clark was found buried in a shallow grave behind his house, with three gunshot wounds to the head.
Sullivan said he robbed Clark of $689, which he intended to use for the purchase of an AR-15 rifle and ammo for his shooting spree, but he has not formally confessed to Clark’s murder. The FBI found the stolen .22 rifle, along with some muddy clothes, a black ski mask, and a lock pick kit, hidden in the crawlspace of the Sullivan family home when they arrested him.
So if I said "this kids as nutty as a squirrel turd" and threw him out, I would be wrong?
He certainly doesn't fit the narrative, but I would guess in two minutes he would be hitting the bricks.
I like to talk to people, I usually really like to talk to "Gun People".
The ability to perform an interrogation in an inoffensive way is practiced daily by all of us. We use these methods to get an idea of who we are dealing with and how we choose to deal with them further, think of it as a "Soft Interrogation".
If you were to say, I don't do that, well, you do, you just don't realize you're doing it.
If I were selling guns, I wouldn't hesitate to use this same method and perhaps refuse some people. That is likely why I'm not, nor ever will own a gun store.
I go back the Sacramento couple who worked with their victims for months and even complied with local CA bullet ban restrictions. I don't think an hour interview would have raised any flags, but they showed up at the Christmas party and killed co workers just the same.
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 13:55
Yeah my point was that the folks you see on the news perpetrating the crimes (the blacks as you call them) are typically not the ones buying from ffl. The guy from Orlando did, however. I think at least the handguns used by the San Bernadino turds were legally possessed as well. May be wrong on that. Nidal Hassan bought his gun legally.
...and who sold the pressure cookers to the Tsarnaev brothers?
Christopher Dorner legally possessed his SBR and suppressor before publishing his manifesto and getting his SLAY on. He was also Black. James Eagan Holmes legally purchased his AR. Adam Lanza stole his from his mom. Dylan Storm Roof legally procured his firearms. Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold stole their firearms. Elliot Rodger legally bought his guns...
Why is any of this important? Which events do you cherry pick, and what is your conclusion? Why control the objects and not the actions of Evil people? ...and if you are going to control the people, why control them in groups or categories based on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality rather than specifically target the actions of Evil people? How much control should you get, and where do you get it from? Who says so?
Is a "Whites Only" lunch counter less likely to be robbed, and thus the owner should be allowed to lawfully discriminate?
Would the majority of financial crimes go away if the Jews were not allowed to participate in markets, trade stocks or instruments, or even hold bank accounts?
Is there a right under the constitution to be able to buy and sell stocks and financial instruments?
It doesn't matter, because if you're living your life right and conducting honest dealings, you don't need to be confined within the law, or guided by it.
...and who sold the pressure cookers to the Tsarnaev brothers?
Christopher Dorner legally possessed his SBR and suppressor before publishing his manifesto and getting his SLAY on. He was also Black. James Eagan Holmes legally purchased his AR. Adam Lanza stole his from his mom. Dylan Storm Roof legally procured his firearms. Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold stole their firearms. Elliot Rodger legally bought his guns...
Why is any of this important? Which events do you cherry pick, and what is your conclusion? Why control the objects and not the actions of Evil people? ...and if you are going to control the people, why control them in groups or categories based on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality rather than specifically target the actions of Evil people? How much control should you get, and where do you get it from? Who says so?
Is a "Whites Only" lunch counter less likely to be robbed, and thus the owner should be allowed to lawfully discriminate?
Would the majority of financial crimes go away if the Jews were not allowed to participate in markets, trade stocks or instruments, or even hold bank accounts?
Is there a right under the constitution to be able to buy and sell stocks and financial instruments?
It doesn't matter, because if you're living your life right and conducting honest dealings, you don't need to be confined within the law, or guided by it.
Lol...DAMN!
You said blacks were more likely than muslims to need profiling, due to what you see on tv. My position is that most gun crime committed by blacks or anyone else is not with legally purchased firearms. Except for the majority of the most recent Islamic terrorist attacks.
My argument is with that...not discrimination as a whole. My personal beliefs regarding discrimination line RIGHT UP with what you just posted. Muslims included.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
KalashniKEV
11-30-16, 14:14
My position is that most gun crime committed by blacks or anyone else is not with legally purchased firearms.
Oh, that's totally not true.
The vast majority of gun crime is committed with legally obtained firearms. Way more than half, and that's from several sources including the FBI.
The topic is depriving a group or category of Americans based on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality their 2A rights... rather than specifically target the actions of Evil people.
I call BS for all the reasons listed above- you are 1000x times more likely to be a victim of Black-thug-violent-crime than you are to be a victim of Muslim-terrorist-terrorism... because even though you are statistically more likely to have a lot of wacky stuff happen to you than be a victim of terrorism, even if you were a victim of terror 1) you might fall to the blade or bomb 2) they might just use a stolen gun 3) they might be able to obtain a legal gun... and one person's head-up-ass business practices are not going to prevent them from purchasing elsewhere.
We know all-of-these-things.
The only reason why this is even being discussed is because setting up a "Whites Only" lunch counter might make the business owner feel good... and probably will attract some similar minded folks to show up and order a sandwich.
Well....strong, yet very hard won, opinions time.
Kev is exactly right. More right than he knows. Over the years, I've become acquainted with Muslims. Friday Muslims more than anything. Their greatest fear was to get murdered durimg a robbery. Of them all, only one kept a gun.
If we really wanted to pick and choose; refusing blacks would have far greater impact than refusing "Muslims".
Muslim is a religion. I knew a couple who honestly became highly irreligious.
If you mean heavily accented persons from 3rd World Countries, that's another goat to rope and most would be ineligible without papers.
But the dude with the grill helping his baby momma pick out "her" gun?
Yeah....he's certainly upstanding.
Black Criminality is the elephant in the room that refuses to be properly addressed in an intelligent and mature manner.
There's what the Black 'Community' wants you to think....
What the White Guilt media wants you to think....
And how it really is....
The first two just want self important drama. The reality is that you have several generations hewn on drugs, alcohol, single mothers, multiple siring of children, poor schools, and being taught from day one that white folks and especially the police are the bad guys.
Like Felecia trotting her kid in tow making it a point to tell little Daequan "Dat poleese gonna put you in jail" For no reason and with no context.
So school sucks, is for squares, and guns and money are actual power.
As was mentioned, denying a black sale wpuld be more likely to prevent domestic violence, juvenile murder, and armed robbery.
Much more than some dude in a tracksuit who may "Allah Akbar" somebody. Which certainly occurs, but makes national news due to its rarity.
A black male kills another black male. Ho Hum, what's the weather and sports scores.....
So we buy into the sensationalism, but not the reality.
What have we done today to prevent or cure Black Criminality?
Where are the fathers? The Education? The de-incentivization of government programs?
Call me "racist" but I can tell who had a father growing up and who didn't. Who was part of a crew and who wasn't. And most certainly who had a mind of their own and wasn't brainwashed.
I am a very harsh critic of unvetted, unaccounted for "refugees". I think there are a lot of wealthy Muslim and Shariah Countries who refuse to take them and wonder why.
But on that same coin, freedom is dangerous.
I, by virtue of living in the Bible Belt, have known people who I call the Christian Taliban. How do you know that Remington .243 or that Stevens shotgun won't be used on an Abortion clinic?
It's happened more than once.
I don't envy FFLs, but on the same token; FFLs are merchants beholden to guidelines. ATF says you can refuse any sale at any poimt for any reason. But if a NICS check clears, it clears. Blame the FBI. Not yourself.
Because I'm sure the guy who sold Mr. Ohio State his car or machete didn't overthink it.
Oh, that's totally not true.
The vast majority of gun crime is committed with legally obtained firearms. Way more than half, and that's from several sources including the FBI.
The topic is depriving a group or category of Americans based on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality their 2A rights... rather than specifically target the actions of Evil people.
I call BS for all the reasons listed above- you are 1000x times more likely to be a victim of Black-thug-violent-crime than you are to be a victim of Muslim-terrorist-terrorism... because even though you are statistically more likely to have a lot of wacky stuff happen to you than be a victim of terrorism, even if you were a victim of terror 1) you might fall to the blade or bomb 2) they might just use a stolen gun 3) they might be able to obtain a legal gun... and one person's head-up-ass business practices are not going to prevent them from purchasing elsewhere.
We know all-of-these-things.
The only reason why this is even being discussed is because setting up a "Whites Only" lunch counter might make the business owner feel good... and probably will attract some similar minded folks to show up and order a sandwich.
So you're telling me that the gang violence in Chicago, for example, is being perpetrated by legally obtained guns? C'mon Kev.
I do however agree that one is more likely to be a victim of black/white/Latino/Asian/whatever crime than a terrorist attack.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
11-30-16, 14:45
The vast majority of gun crime is committed with legally obtained firearms. Way more than half, and that's from several sources including the FBI.
The topic is depriving a group or category of Americans based on race/ gender/ religion/ national origin/ sexuality their 2A rights... rather than specifically target the actions of Evil people.
Even more reason then for a seller to have the right of refusal.
Just no and a big bucket of "GTFO my Store."
I would agree with this; It doesn't matter, because if you're living your life right and conducting honest dealings, you don't need to be confined within the law, or guided by it. but I still want to as the seller say no.
That kid up in post #42, I gotta say, yep, I would have shown him the door.
WickedWillis
11-30-16, 14:59
You'll probably get sued into oblivion. You'll be the secular version of Christians getting sued and financially destroyed for not wanting to get involved in sodomite fake marriage.
Lol, well then. Tell us how you really feel.
You have the right to refuse service to anyone. You don't have the right to discriminate based on race, religion, creed or sexuality according to the US constitution. So you can refuse service because you don't agree with who other people ****, or who the worship, you just cannot openly say that's why you are refusing them service. I don't feel they should be able to legally retaliate either unless you went all hate crime on their ass. It's a slippery slope, with a tight rope walk.
Lol, well then. Tell us how you really feel.
You have the right to refuse service to anyone. You don't have the right to discriminate based on race, religion, creed or sexuality according to the US constitution. So you can refuse service because you don't agree with who other people ****, or who the worship, you just cannot openly say that's why you are refusing them service. I don't feel they should be able to legally retaliate either unless you went all hate crime on their ass. It's a slippery slope, with a tight rope walk.
The U.S. Constitution, though having many good parts, is anti-Christian. And you may not know this, but for guys like me it's not THE ULTIMATE law in my life. If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the Constitution about discrimination, would probably have more to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I go back the Sacramento couple who worked with their victims for months and even complied with local CA bullet ban restrictions. I don't think an hour interview would have raised any flags, but they showed up at the Christmas party and killed co workers just the same.
San Bernardino, not Sacramento.
However, point is taken.
The U.S. Constitution, though having many good parts, is anti-Christian. And you may not know this, but for guys like me it's not THE ULTIMATE law in my life. If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the Constitution about discrimination, would probably have more to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nope. Not Constitutional. Can't discriminate on the basis of:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[1]
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Nope. Not Constitutional. Can't discriminate on the basis of:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[1]
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those all Federal statutes, not part of the Constitution? If you want to say that by Federal statue these things are so, fine. I would also say that the courts have determined these laws to be "Constitutional". But to say according to the "U.S. Constitution" implied that the Constitution actually says those things.
WickedWillis
11-30-16, 16:45
The U.S. Constitution, though having many good parts, is anti-Christian. And you may not know this, but for guys like me it's not THE ULTIMATE law in my life. If I'm not mistaken, there is nothing in the Constitution about discrimination, would probably have more to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Freedom of religion, also means freedom from religion, keep that in mind.
Freedom of religion, also means freedom from religion, keep that in mind.
You define freedom differently than me. Since the Bible is my ultimate "Constitution", both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are one of the things in the Constitution that make it anti-Christian.
WickedWillis
11-30-16, 16:51
Nope. Not Constitutional. Can't discriminate on the basis of:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[1]
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Could these also be translated to the 9th amendment of the constitution? I could be interpreting it incorrectly though.
WickedWillis
11-30-16, 16:54
You define freedom differently than me. Since the Bible is my ultimate "Constitution", both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are one of the things in the Constitution that make it anti-Christian.
So the Constitution should read "You MUST be a Christian!" to be pro Christian? I'm not saying it caters to Christianity, but I don't feel that it's anti-Christian either. I dunno.
So the Constitution should read "You MUST be a Christian!" to be pro Christian? I'm not saying it caters to Christianity, but I don't feel that it's anti-Christian either. I dunno.
I would say to be pro-Christian the Constitution should first recognize that Jesus Christ is the king of the nation, not the people, and secondly that the 1st amendment be changed to reflect a non-political polytheistic bent. There are other things.
[QUOTE=TomMcC;2418307]I would say to be pro-Christian the Constitution should first recognize that Jesus Christ is the king of the nation, not the people, and secondly that the 1st amendment be changed to reflect a non-political polytheistic bent. And that His law is the law of the land. And yes I understand I am alone, and I mean really alone here QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TomMcC;2418307]I would say to be pro-Christian the Constitution should first recognize that Jesus Christ is the king of the nation, not the people, and secondly that the 1st amendment be changed to reflect a non-political polytheistic bent. And that His law is the law of the land. And yes I understand I am alone, and I mean really alone here QUOTE]
The US constitution is neither pro nor anti Christianity. It was written in a way that makes that explicit.
What you are describing is a Theocracy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But then what about the rights and the obligations of the business owner?
The property in the business, is owned by the business owner. Do they or do they not have a right to refuse a sale? If they feel they have a legitimate concern, do they not have an obligation not to sell.
Sure, as long as they aren't doing so on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.
I would say to be pro-Christian the Constitution should first recognize that Jesus Christ is the king of the nation, not the people, and secondly that the 1st amendment be changed to reflect a non-political polytheistic bent. There are other things.
Not a universally held opinion, and one that the framers of the Constitution took great pains to step around. They weren't creating a Theocracy.
Could these also be translated to the 9th amendment of the constitution? I could be interpreting it incorrectly though.
"All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" ought to cover it, you would think, but it apparently didn't.
youtube video of that guy going around to muslim bakers and asking them to bake a gay cake
every single one said no
muslim butcher can you butcher this pig every one said no
now if you switched that around you would be in trouble
Apply your own judgment however the hell you see fit. Just don't verbalize your thoughts or tell them to anyone.
TacticalSledgehammer
11-30-16, 21:49
Take a look at the new found love for the 2nd amendment by liberals as well. Many of them are now buying guns to "protect themselves from discrimination" while others are trying to stage a civil war. So along with Muslims, you may wanna begin screening liberal looking people about why they're buying the firearm.
You define freedom differently than me. Since the Bible is my ultimate "Constitution", both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are one of the things in the Constitution that make it anti-Christian.
The way you describe it, being anti-Christian is a good thing. I disagree with your premise in its entirety.
Averageman
11-30-16, 22:52
Apply your own judgment however the hell you see fit. Just don't verbalize your thoughts or tell them to anyone.
My thoughts exactly.
I would say to be pro-Christian the Constitution should first recognize that Jesus Christ is the king of the nation, not the people, and secondly that the 1st amendment be changed to reflect a non-political polytheistic bent. There are other things.
Jeezus...many Muslims agree with you completely except for one minor point.
Sure, as long as they aren't doing so on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc.
But...and again HYPOTHETICALLY...what if a chosen religion is one of those things that gives someone "genuine concern"? According to ATF guidelines, at that point, I am all but obligated to refuse to complete the transaction.
There is a whole list of criteria where I am obliged to refuse a sale concerning straw purchases. This includes a guy pointing out a gun and then having another person make the purchase. I can't count the number of times a new female shooter has brought in a knowledgeable person to help her make the purchase. But ATF thinks it's always a case of a "prohibited person" getting a second party to make a "straw purchase."
So again, what if a FFL genuinely is worried and it's mostly about the guys religion. If they sold a gun to the next Gay Nightclub shooting, I doubt anyone is going to come screaming to the dealers defense and I doubt the AG is going to simply refuse to review the case out of respect for first amendment considerations regarding religion.
But thankfully, somebody posted something showing me that religious extremism isn't exclusive the muslims so that gave me a truck full of perspective to ponder.
I don't know how you tell. Special agents have interviewed the last few shooters, lots of people were aware of the Boston bombers, I'm sure lots had contact with the 9/11 hijackers.
I don't know how you tell. Special agents have interviewed the last few shooters, lots of people were aware of the Boston bombers, I'm sure lots had contact with the 9/11 hijackers.
Well there is another fatal flaw, the person being asked could simply lie to you. If a muslim told me he was mexican I probably couldn't tell the difference in most cases if he wasn't dressed the part.
[QUOTE=TomMcC;2418311]
The US constitution is neither pro nor anti Christianity. It was written in a way that makes that explicit.
What you are describing is a Theocracy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no such thing as neutrality, it's a delusion. The scriptures don't allow it. One is either for Christ as king or not. And this is why the Constitution is anti-Christian. As for Theocracy, biblically there would be a separation of the church and state, but not an absolute one. The church and state would work together. A model would be Old Testament Israel during the reign of David. A king not being necessary, but a national church and state working together.
If an FFL was to refuse a sale to someone, they should be smart enough to not state the reason for the refusal, but should also be aware that even if they don't admit that they're discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and all the other things that constitute a "protected class", a complaint can still be filed if someone discerns a pattern of discrimination.
I have a sign in my shop stating that I can refuse to anyone for absolutely no reason. The few people I've had to bust it out on had to get a police escort because they always think they are on "public" property and don't have to leave.
Maybe have a sign stating that "All weapons in this store are lubricated using 100% recycled bacon grease". That way you can say you were just being environmentally concious.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those all Federal statutes, not part of the Constitution? If you want to say that by Federal statue these things are so, fine. I would also say that the courts have determined these laws to be "Constitutional". But to say according to the "U.S. Constitution" implied that the Constitution actually says those things.Yes. Very good. Thats what I said. That's what I meant but I said "not constitutional". Those rights are provided by legislation, not guaranteed under the Constitution.
I have a sign in my shop stating that I can refuse to anyone for absolutely no reason.
It's a nice sentiment.
[QUOTE=JC5188;2418323]
There is no such thing as neutrality, it's a delusion. The scriptures don't allow it. One is either for Christ as king or not.
Yeah, I'm going to side with Jefferson and Adams and vote "not". I frankly don't care whether or not the constitution is labeled as anti-Christian. I would never want to see a Christian version of sharia law governing the United States.
KalashniKEV
12-01-16, 08:32
...what if a chosen religion is one of those things that gives someone "genuine concern"?
If a muslim told me he was mexican I probably couldn't tell the difference in most cases if he wasn't dressed the part.
Good point.
The Mexicans are leading the Muslims in beheadings by hundreds-to-one on this continent. I'm sure on the subject of gun crime they are also in the thousands-to-one, like the Blacks.
What if Mexican is a cause for "genuine concern?"
You're failing to address the elephant in the room as Firefly pointed out- if your "genuine concern" were in any way "genuine" you would be forced, by logic, to blacklist the Blacks and the Mexicans.
It is simply a hatred for your fellow American based on their faith- masquerading as a false "concern."
[QUOTE=TomMcC;2418473]
Yeah, I'm going to side with Jefferson and Adams and vote "not". I frankly don't care whether or not the constitution is labeled as anti-Christian. I would never want to see a Christian version of sharia law governing the United States.
Not sure how that quoted me...TomMc wrote that.
I agree with you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know how you tell. Special agents have interviewed the last few shooters, lots of people were aware of the Boston bombers, I'm sure lots had contact with the 9/11 hijackers.
I worked everyday for several years with two guys. One molested his step-daughter, the other with a great deal of forethought, killed his wife. I didn't think they were a danger to those around them.
There is no such thing as neutrality, it's a delusion. The scriptures don't allow it. One is either for Christ as king or not. And this is why the Constitution is anti-Christian. As for Theocracy, biblically there would be a separation of the church and state, but not an absolute one. The church and state would work together. A model would be Old Testament Israel during the reign of David. A king not being necessary, but a national church and state working together.
Yeah, we saw how well that worked out in just about every instance since then. Spanish Inquisition anyone? Even one of Christendom's greatest leaders was a bastard child in the eyes of the Church, who waged civil wars against his own people in order to advance Christianity. Given your interpretation of "neutrality", I'm extremely happy the Constitution is "anti-Christian". You are welcome to follow that interpretation, but you've no right in this country to have a national church lording it over others. You're in the wrong country for that garbage. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Hmac;2418518]
Not sure how that quoted me...TomMc wrote that.
I
I agree with you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry. I knew that....apparently I mis-attributed it somehow.
Yeah, we saw how well that worked out in just about every instance since then. Spanish Inquisition anyone? Even one of Christendom's greatest leaders was a bastard child in the eyes of the Church, who waged civil wars against his own people in order to advance Christianity. Given your interpretation of "neutrality", I'm extremely happy the Constitution is "anti-Christian". You are welcome to follow that interpretation, but you've no right in this country to have a national church lording it over others. You're in the wrong country for that garbage. :rolleyes:
You have a truncated view of history. The Papacy was and is a tyranny. But ancient Israel was not a tyranny under the good kings. There were quite a few European kingdoms under protestant kings that were not tyrannies. Actually under God's economy I have every right to promote a theonomic view of a nation, you actually sound like a leftist when you say I don't have a "right". Where exactly do you think rights come from?
sevenhelmet
12-01-16, 10:33
Yeah, we saw how well that worked out in just about every instance since then. Spanish Inquisition anyone? Even one of Christendom's greatest leaders was a bastard child in the eyes of the Church, who waged civil wars against his own people in order to advance Christianity. Given your interpretation of "neutrality", I'm extremely happy the Constitution is "anti-Christian". You are welcome to follow that interpretation, but you've no right in this country to have a national church lording it over others. You're in the wrong country for that garbage. :rolleyes:
Agree with this 100%. A basic desire for freedom of religion is why we had Pilgrims in the first place. If we go down this road, we'll essentially become the same problem we rail against. Saying "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and on our money is very different from having a religious-based government. I am a baptized Christian, but I find historical and modern examples of religious government disturbing. When religion crosses the line into controlling every aspect of citizens' lives via government, it usually ends up becoming an excuse for governments to deny basic rights to some portion of their citizens who are perceived as a threat to the regime. Isn't that exactly what most of us here abhor?
As to the original subject of this thread, I think any FFL denying a sale to a customer based solely on the fact that they are a Muslim in this media climate would be instant national news and death by a thousand cuts for the dealer. That said, I don't think a dealer should ever feel obligated to sell a firearm (or anything, for that matter) to someone who gives them a bad vibe.
Yes. Very good. Thats what I said. That's what I meant but I said "not constitutional". Those rights are provided by legislation, not guaranteed under the Constitution.
It's a nice sentiment.
[QUOTE=TomMcC;2418473]
Yeah, I'm going to side with Jefferson and Adams and vote "not". I frankly don't care whether or not the constitution is labeled as anti-Christian. I would never want to see a Christian version of sharia law governing the United States.
Interesting, since most of at least early American law flowed from a Biblical view of law. U.S. law flowed out of primarily English law,which was heavily based upon the Bible. To call Biblical law "sharia" is just simple abuse. It implies that Christians like me would implement my views by violence, which is quite the opposite. The kingdom of God doesn't come by the sword, gun or bomb, but by the Spirit and Gospel. If God were so pleased to convert 95% of the U.S. population to a unified, orthodox faith, would we have the "right" to change the nature of our magistracy and it's relationship to the church? Should we as Christians have to suffer the rightness of continued baby murder, and sodomite marriage? You may prefer the system we have now, but I wonder if you can justify it's rightness or goodness from your fundamental axiom.
The above quote is not mine, but Hmac's.
KalashniKEV
12-01-16, 10:45
The kingdom of God doesn't come by the sword, gun or bomb, but by the Spirit and Gospel.
That's nice.
Would you describe it then, as... a Religion of Peace?
LOL
Mullah Pence will reward you greatly once this Trump character is dealt with by God's righteous will.
Agree with this 100%. A basic desire for freedom of religion is why we had Pilgrims in the first place. If we go down this road, we'll essentially become the same problem we rail against. Saying "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and on our money is very different from having a religious-based government. I am a baptized Christian, but I find historical and modern examples of religious government disturbing. When religion crosses the line into controlling every aspect of citizens' lives via government, it usually ends up becoming an excuse for governments to deny basic rights to some portion of their citizens who are perceived as a threat to the regime. Isn't that exactly what most of us here abhor?
As to the original subject of this thread, I think any FFL denying a sale to a customer based solely on the fact that they are a Muslim in this media climate would be instant national news and death by a thousand cuts for the dealer. That said, I don't think a dealer should ever feel obligated to sell a firearm (or anything, for that matter) to someone who gives them a bad vibe.
The Pilgrims didn't promote the idea or believe in the idea of "freedom of religion" as you are presenting here or what a typical Southern Baptists believes. They were fleeing the persecution of the Arminian Anglicans (they were Calvinists). Anglicanism being another form of tyranny upon the church. And the idea of government not being based upon "religion" is impossible. All government is the outworking of "religious" worldviews, even the atheistic axiom is essentially a worldview beyond so called empirical proof. Law is the working out of peoples religious views. Government is religion by other mean simply put. In the case of the U.S. the founders instituted political polytheism, similar to ancient Rome. Law itself was still primarily based upon the scriptures, but that has been fading over time.
That's nice.
Would you describe it then, as... a Religion of Peace?
LOL
Mullah Pence will reward you greatly once this Trump character is dealt with by God's righteous will.
Kev the Christian
Your're a funny guy. You say you know Christ, you tell me.
KalashniKEV
12-01-16, 10:55
Kev the Christian
Your're a funny guy. You say you know Christ, you tell me.
Jesus is my homeboy.
[QUOTE=JC5188;2418543]
Sorry. I knew that....apparently I mis-attributed it somehow.
No biggie. Just wanted to note it for posterity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have a truncated view of history. The Papacy was and is a tyranny. But ancient Israel was not a tyranny under the good kings. There were quite a few European kingdoms under protestant kings that were not tyrannies. Actually under God's economy I have every right to promote a theonomic view of a nation, you actually sound like a leftist when you say I don't have a "right". Where exactly do you think rights come from?
They come from God, not the church. The only reason we still have them now in this country is because of your spuriously described "anti-Christian" COTUS. I revere it less than God, but FAR more than any church you could ever conceive. If being anti-theocrat is "leftist" to you, then I'm a leftist and damned proud of it! :D
It's a nice sentiment.
Interesting, since most of at least early American law flowed from a Biblical view of law. U.S. law flowed out of primarily English law, which was heavily based upon the Bible. To call Biblical law "sharia" is just simple abuse. It implies that Christians like me would implement my views by violence, which is quite the opposite. The kingdom of God doesn't come by the sword, gun or bomb, but by the Spirit and Gospel. If God were so pleased to convert 95% of the U.S. population to a unified, orthodox faith, would we have the "right" to change the nature of our magistracy and it's relationship to the church? Should we as Christians have to suffer the rightness of continued baby murder, and sodomite marriage? You may prefer the system we have now, but I wonder if you can justify it's rightness or goodness from your fundamental axiom.
No, and you don't suffer anything you don't willingly participate in. Christian views have routinely been implemented through violence, throughout two millennia of history. You can't refute history. YOU might not want to use violence, but you can be sure not every so-called "Christian" on your team will agree.
The Pilgrims didn't promote the idea or believe in the idea of "freedom of religion" as you are presenting here or what a typical Southern Baptists believes. They were fleeing the persecution of the Arminian Anglicans (they were Calvinists). Anglicanism being another form of tyranny upon the church. And the idea of government not being based upon "religion" is impossible. All government is the outworking of "religious" worldviews, even the atheistic axiom is essentially a worldview beyond so called empirical proof. Law is the working out of peoples religious views. Government is religion by other mean simply put. In the case of the U.S. the founders instituted political polytheism, similar to ancient Rome. Law itself was still primarily based upon the scriptures, but that has been fading over time.
A great deal of your "Christian" based law is actually pre-Christ pagan law, canonized and codified through the writings in the Old and New Testaments. There is nothing new under the sun and moral codes predate Christ.
KalashniKEV
12-01-16, 11:16
They come from God, not the church.
Wrong.
They don't "come from" anywhere, and there are no "god given" rights.
They are simply "present" as man exists in a state of nature.
No, and you don't suffer anything you don't willingly participate in. Christian views have routinely been implemented through violence, throughout two millennia of history. You can't refute history. YOU might not want to use violence, but you can be sure not every so-called "Christian" on your team will agree.
This sounds so familiar...
Could McTom have inadvertently sparked the most illuminating and enlightening thread in the history of M4C General Discussion?
A great deal of your "Christian" based law is actually pre-Christ pagan law, canonized and codified through the writings in the Old and New Testaments. There is nothing new under the sun and moral codes predate Christ.
There are also the exact-same-rules found in religions that had no contact with Christianity, and didn't go Pagan ---> Christian.
I believe the retort is that the one-true-God, who happens to be the god of the Hebrews, put it in their God's ear, or is their God, or something like that.
It is simply a hatred for your fellow American based on their faith- masquerading as a false "concern."
Doesn't seem like you read the second to last sentence of my original post.
It's kinda sad whenever it starts devolving into religious pissing matches.
If someone says they are a Christian, for whatever that is worth, I take them at their word.
This Crucible John Proctor Heretic spiel is gay and full of full blown AIDS dipped in weaksauce.
I've known some "god-fearing" boys in the Bible Belt that no shit make the Taliban seem liberal and free spirited with flowers in their hair.
I knew one winner in particular who:
-Wouldn't "allow" his wife or daughter to wear pants or have short hair
-Always had a Bible verse for everything
-openly called for abortion clinics to be bombed
-claimed he was 'automatically forgiven' for anything because he talked to God everyday
-hit up his church for money and bragged about it
We weren't friends and ol buddy got caught up getting someone not his wife pregnant and laid on his Jimmy Swaggart.
The world as it stands is a depressing place. But while it isn't my religion if someone wants to be Muslim and doesn't be a dick about it. Game on.
Like Apostle John of the Beatles once said, "Whatever floats your boat as long as it doesnt sink mine"
Interesting, since most of at least early American law flowed from a Biblical view of law. U.S. law flowed out of primarily English law,which was heavily based upon the Bible. To call Biblical law "sharia" is just simple abuse.
In the old days, before we knew any better, almost everything was based on the Bible. Those days are long gone, ever since about 1787 when a group of enlightened Americans rejected the Kingdom of God as a governing principle in favor of the Constitution of the United States of America.
We ain't goin' back.
[QUOTE=Hmac;2418561]
No biggie. Just wanted to note it for posterity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys have some funky things going on because I quoted JC & Hmac's name came up. There must be an issue with the site.
You guys have some funky things going on because I quoted JC & Hmac's name came up. There must be an issue with the site.
It started with one of Tom's posts and carried from there. There's an extra QUOTE header behind the correct one that you have to strip out before posting. Click edit on your post and you'll see it up top.
It started with one of Tom's posts and carried from there. There's an extra QUOTE header behind the correct one that you have to strip out before posting. Click edit on your post and you'll see it up top.
Yeah, I saw it & left it on purpose.
thepatriot2705
12-01-16, 12:28
There is a big difference between denying a sell to a specific individual after applying sound judgment and logic (i.e. not selling a gun to a woman whose mother just warned you that she is mentally ill and plans to murder her father), and discrimination based on ethnicity or religion. That difference is probably measured in the millions of dollars in legal fees, judgements, or settlements.
And here lies the bullshit. The federal government should have no ****ing right to tell you who you have to hire, sell to, etc. What happened to the "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service?"
If a business doesnt want to hire whites or asians or blacks, etc , that is their call, not big brother. I for one am sick and tired of being told how to run a business by the federal government.
Parts of the civil rights act are fundamentally unconstitutional but apparently no one gives a damn anymore.
I'll leave this with a reagan quote. "history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers."
thepatriot2705
12-01-16, 12:30
This ^
Everyone has the right to self defense. Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims look middle eastern. I work with a bunch or Russian Turk Muslims. They don't look Muslim and one is even pasty white with blond hair. They all drink, smoke, party...etc..they'll even eat pork so long as you don't tell them it's pork (their words). Good guys who work hard trying to make a living and provide for their families.
Now, if the guy is acting weird, can't come up with proper paperwork (assuming green card and not citizenship), asking weird questions then yea I'd deny him too
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Islam is not a religion. It is a violent ideology. Lets get that straight. It was founded by a pedophile and only spread through violence.
Islam is not a religion. It is a violent ideology. Lets get that straight. It was founded by a pedophile and only spread through violence.
Umm...what? Where did I mention religion?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
thepatriot2705
12-01-16, 12:36
Umm...what? Where did I mention religion?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Meant to quote post above you.
Averageman
12-01-16, 12:50
Religion isn't a big part of my Life.
I can understand both sides to the issue though and thankfully, both are protected under the same Constitution.
I'm a grouchy old man. Everyone I meet starts off as a dirt bag and trust and respect aren't a given, they're earned. I wouldn't sell a gun to a dirt bag, so likely I wouldn't sell a lot of guns.
It might not make a lot of sense, Kev has rightly pointed out, nearly anything can be weaponized, even pressure cookers. To me there is something different about a gun though.
It's not about color, religion, national origin or whatever, it's generally about a feeling I get about people. If I don't think they're right, I don't care who they are, I would turn in to the gun equivalent of "The Soup Nazi" and "No Soup for you" would be my motto.
KalashniKEV
12-01-16, 12:58
Christianity is not a religion. It is a violent ideology. Lets get that straight. It was founded by a homosexual and only spread through violence.
FIFY.
(Also, everyone was a "pedophile" back then)
Doesn't seem like you read the second to last sentence of my original post.
The second to last sentence is:
And then what happens when I one day refuse a sale to an LEO who just happens to be a practicing muslim or a female muslim who is genuinely needing a means of self protection after trying to leave an abusive husband.
What happens if I won't sell cars to Asians... and one who isn't a fan of Pearl Harbor/ Kim Jong Un/ the North Vietnamese Army and has a clean driving record really, really needs to get to work on time and take weekend trips?
1) Doesn't matter, my individual business practices have no effect on an entire industry. Because of this plainly obvious fact, my policy is obviously not based in a "genuine concern" to save life and prevent disfigurement, or even fender benders, but rather in my own bigotry. I can, however, wrap this in fraudulent "concern" so I don't look like a bad American.
2) I am still a P.O.S.
This has already been discussed, the new turn on this thread is much more interesting...
If someone says they are a Christian, for whatever that is worth, I take them at their word.
But... Sheikh Osama and McTom say that within the one-true-faith there exist a chosen few who can determine who is an apostate...
C'mon, you gotta at least be down with this because how else can you derive the authority to draw the line, put "the other" on the opposite side, and rage against them?
If you aren't down with all this religified bullcrap you'd have to do it by race... or as we do today- Political Affiliation.
In the old days, before we knew any better, almost everything was based on the Bible. Those days are long gone, ever since about 1787 when a group of enlightened Americans rejected the Kingdom of God as a governing principle in favor of the Constitution of the United States of America.
We ain't goin' back.
Someone said the same thing in Iran in the 1970s.
We must break the nose of these folks when they raise their heads, or else things will escalate.
When the revolution happens and it's time to grab your gun and get in the street, a true Patriot isn't going to know who to shoot.
CrazyFingers
12-01-16, 12:59
A few years ago, I was walking across a bridge and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish or Muslim?" He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Averageman
12-01-16, 13:01
A few years ago, I was walking across a bridge and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish or Muslim?" He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Well at least you didn't sell that bastard a gun.
sevenhelmet
12-01-16, 13:38
When the revolution happens and it's time to grab your gun and get in the street, a true Patriot isn't going to know who to shoot.
So much this.
[QUOTE=JC5188;2418590]
You guys have some funky things going on because I quoted JC & Hmac's name came up. There must be an issue with the site.
Yep same here
So now I quoted ryno, and it appears I'm talking to myself. Lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kev.....bubie...we agree lol.
Perhaps I should have said "When a person claims a religion, I take them at their word"
They could claim Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Snake-Handling, or Voodoo.
I don't care. It doesn't really grant them an 'in' with me nor grants them automatic stripes from me.
I just nod and say "good for you".
But when people start talking about de-fagmentation camps, shock therapy, stonings, honor killings, bombings, etc ad nauseum. That elicits a very unfavorable reaction from me regardless of denomination.
I consider myself, in as unpretentious way as I can, a Zen Christian. I like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, I'm all about the New Testament which reformed a lot of the unneeded fire and brimstone, but moreover I accept that there are things in life that can be changed and things that can't. The things that can be changed are to be tempered and shaped. The things that can't are to be endured as mere moments in time.
At risk of getting preachy, my personal quest for enlightenment and my personal relationship with what I consider God is just that. Personal.
I dont believe in these hierarchies or holier than thous.
My deal is that you are free to believe whatever you like provided you dont cram it down other people's throats.
A Taliban is a Taliban regardless of denomination.
I dont personally agree with abortions and am pretty ambivalent towards homosexuality. If they get their rocks off, great.
But when you start blowing stuff up, shooting doctors, sodomizing the Jews, children, not letting chicks drive or wear hot clothes, gay bashing, and all that; then we have a very serious, very real problem that simply won't go unaddressed.
What Would Will Rogers Do?
What Would Will Rogers Do?
He would like them.
Kev.....bubie...we agree lol.
Perhaps I should have said "When a person claims a religion, I take them at their word"
They could claim Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Snake-Handling, or Voodoo.
I don't care. It doesn't really grant them an 'in' with me nor grants them automatic stripes from me.
I just nod and say "good for you".
But when people start talking about de-fagmentation camps, shock therapy, stonings, honor killings, bombings, etc ad nauseum. That elicits a very unfavorable reaction from me regardless of denomination.
I consider myself, in as unpretentious way as I can, a Zen Christian. I like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, I'm all about the New Testament which reformed a lot of the unneeded fire and brimstone, but moreover I accept that there are things in life that can be changed and things that can't. The things that can be changed are to be tempered and shaped. The things that can't are to be endured as mere moments in time.
At risk of getting preachy, my personal quest for enlightenment and my personal relationship with what I consider God is just that. Personal.
I dont believe in these hierarchies or holier than thous.
My deal is that you are free to believe whatever you like provided you dont cram it down other people's throats.
A Taliban is a Taliban regardless of denomination.
I dont personally agree with abortions and am pretty ambivalent towards homosexuality. If they get their rocks off, great.
But when you start blowing stuff up, shooting doctors, sodomizing the Jews, children, not letting chicks drive or wear hot clothes, gay bashing, and all that; then we have a very serious, very real problem that simply won't go unaddressed.
What Would Will Rogers Do?
You got something against Pastafarianism? ;)
You got something against Pastafarianism? ;)
After Maruchan discontinued Tomato flavor, hell f-ing yes.
FSM Delenda Est :p
This devolved quickly.
I think being suspicious of muslims is prudent. If someone wants to call it profiling, racisim/bigotry or the like **** 'em.
But if you were open about it in a place of business then you can rest assured the SJWs will come for you.
1) Doesn't matter, my individual business practices have no effect on an entire industry. Because of this plainly obvious fact, my policy is obviously not based in a "genuine concern" to save life and prevent disfigurement, or even fender benders, but rather in my own bigotry. I can, however, wrap this in fraudulent "concern" so I don't look like a bad American.
All I can say is you are wrong about your assumptions. No way I can prove that, so I'll just say you are wrong.
This devolved quickly.
I think being suspicious of muslims is prudent. If someone wants to call it profiling, racisim/bigotry or the like **** 'em.
But if you were open about it in a place of business then you can rest assured the SJWs will come for you.
Maybe I'll just open a bakery and start making wedding cakes.
sevenhelmet
12-01-16, 16:02
Maybe I'll just open a bakery and start making wedding cakes.
Exactly. SJWs have undermined a lot of things. The business owners' old "right to refuse service to anyone" is one of them.
Maybe I'll just open a bakery and start making wedding cakes.
I hear it's not safe.
In the old days, before we knew any better, almost everything was based on the Bible. Those days are long gone, ever since about 1787 when a group of enlightened Americans rejected the Kingdom of God as a governing principle in favor of the Constitution of the United States of America.
We ain't goin' back.
You know better? Really. What is it that we know better now? I actually think people are generally stupider concerning much of civics these days.
They come from God, not the church. The only reason we still have them now in this country is because of your spuriously described "anti-Christian" COTUS. I revere it less than God, but FAR more than any church you could ever conceive. If being anti-theocrat is "leftist" to you, then I'm a leftist and damned proud of it! :D
No, and you don't suffer anything you don't willingly participate in. Christian views have routinely been implemented through violence, throughout two millennia of history. You can't refute history. YOU might not want to use violence, but you can be sure not every so-called "Christian" on your team will agree.
A great deal of your "Christian" based law is actually pre-Christ pagan law, canonized and codified through the writings in the Old and New Testaments. There is nothing new under the sun and moral codes predate Christ.
You make a lot of assertions, most which show a different view of history than I have. But so far all you've shown me is that you really don't like my views. Can you show that they are objectively wrong? Maybe you can show me your standard of right and wrong so that I can analyze it, size it up, see what I think in comparison to my own standard....the Bible.
This devolved quickly.
I think being suspicious of muslims is prudent. If someone wants to call it profiling, racisim/bigotry or the like **** 'em.
But if you were open about it in a place of business then you can rest assured the SJWs will come for you.
Devolved? Do you think that a thread predicted on denying commerce to an entire group of people based only on their religion started on a high note?
BTW, there is a difference between being suspicious of Muslims and saying that you will deny business services to Muslims.
Maybe I'll just open a bakery and start making wedding cakes.
You sure stirred a hornet's nest. And supplied a baseball bat.
skywalkrNCSU
12-01-16, 16:42
You make a lot of assertions, most which show a different view of history than I have. But so far all you've shown me is that you really don't like my views. Can you show that they are objectively wrong? Maybe you can show me your standard of right and wrong so that I can analyze it, size it up, see what I think in comparison to my own standard....the Bible.
Perhaps it has to do with the whole, "you have to have faith" thing? I'm sure according to you the Bible is the word of God. How do you know this? Well the Bible says so. Who wrote the Bible? Well man did. But it was inspired by God you say, well who told you that? Oh the same people that wrote it. The same people who also wrote that no man could be perfect except for Jesus (who didn't write the Bible).
So really, we just have to have faith that the same people who said no man except for Jesus can be perfect wrote a perfect text that is the word of God and we all have to live according to that. Let's not get into the issue of translating that text because that just adds more confusion.
In you're previous posts you had no problem calling out abortion and homosexuality yet I didn't see any mention of people coveting, lusting, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. All sins are equal in the eyes of the lord so why do you consider certain things others do so much worse than things you likely do? That whole plank in the eye thing I guess.
And this is coming from someone who believes in the Christian faith, I just don't see a problem questioning things that don't make much logical sense. To force your beliefs, something you can't prove any more than any other religious (or not) person, as the law of this nation is downright ludicrous and terrifying. Luckily the founding fathers prevented that.
You sure stirred a hornet's nest. And supplied a baseball bat.
I don't think he stirred up the hornets, I think he was very concerned about how he was to treat a segment of the population. How we treat others seems to always be a very messy, and sometimes difficult endeavor. If only we had some clear cut rules and guidelines for such things. Something that doesn't change with the whims of men.
Maybe I'll just open a bakery and start making wedding cakes.
That case pissed me off so bad.
Let's dope our scopes a bit, shall we?
Gun dealing is inherently a risky business for the conscience.
For the multitudes who buy and use weapons responsibly, there are always people who may at time of sale seem squared away but end up killing themselves or someone else.
Not even buy....some people just rentat a range and eat a gun.
Same with the guy at ACE hardware selling machetes to Julios. Could be guys working under the table to do landscaping or something far more sinister. He don't know.
FFLs arent cops, mindreaders, or seers.
Nor should they be.
I'm sure the guy who sold the Orlando PODS that MCX feels like crap every day, but ostensibly (key word) he looked like a clean cut guy who did armed security.
How can you tell someone's religion or belief from a 15 minute encounter.
There are biker types with tattoos and permanent mean mugs who will probably go to Heaven a lot easier than I will and I like to think I'm an okay guy.
It's easy to be like the Army Surplus guy from Falling Down.
He was chumping out the homos who were probably going to buy something and helped out the crazy guy who ended up killing him.
I'm not an FFL, probably won't ever be, but I say let your conscience be your guide.
Perhaps it has to do with the whole, "you have to have faith" thing? I'm sure according to you the Bible is the word of God. How do you know this? Well the Bible says so. Who wrote the Bible? Well man did. But it was inspired by God you say, well who told you that? Oh the same people that wrote it. The same people who also wrote that no man could be perfect except for Jesus (who didn't write the Bible).
So really, we just have to have faith that the same people who said no man except for Jesus can be perfect wrote a perfect text that is the word of God and we all have to live according to that. Let's not get into the issue of translating that text because that just adds more confusion.
In you're previous posts you had no problem calling out abortion and homosexuality yet I didn't see any mention of people coveting, lusting, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. All sins are equal in the eyes of the lord so why do you consider certain things others do so much worse than things you likely do? That whole plank in the eye thing I guess.
And this is coming from someone who believes in the Christian faith, I just don't see a problem questioning things that don't make much logical sense. To force your beliefs, something you can't prove any more than any other religious (or not) person, as the law of this nation is downright ludicrous and terrifying. Luckily the founding fathers prevented that.
I'll get back to you on this...got to go to work.
Let's dope our scopes a bit, shall we?
Gun dealing is inherently a risky business for the conscience.
For the multitudes who buy and use weapons responsibly, there are always people who may at time of sale seem squared away but end up killing themselves or someone else.
Not even buy....some people just rentat a range and eat a gun.
Same with the guy at ACE hardware selling machetes to Julios. Could be guys working under the table to do landscaping or something far more sinister. He don't know.
FFLs arent cops, mindreaders, or seers.
Nor should they be.
I'm sure the guy who sold the Orlando PODS that MCX feels like crap every day, but ostensibly (key word) he looked like a clean cut guy who did armed security.
How can you tell someone's religion or belief from a 15 minute encounter.
There are biker types with tattoos and permanent mean mugs who will probably go to Heaven a lot easier than I will and I like to think I'm an okay guy.
It's easy to be like the Army Surplus guy from Falling Down.
He was chumping out the homos who were probably going to buy something and helped out the crazy guy who ended up killing him.
I'm not an FFL, probably won't ever be, but I say let your conscience be your guide.
So, we have 2 threads in close temporal proximity dealing with the same topic - common sense on the part of the local FFL. In both, the same verbiage gets thrown around - words like mind readers, investigation, seers, and the like. In both threads, the same actors are simultaneously suggesting that anyone who passes a NICS check be allowed to purchase, while wondering what would happen if they denied sells to entire groups based only on religion. That, along with a 3rd thread regarding stupid shit overheard at the gun store, makes me think that we have come a long way from Jefferson's concept of a well regulated militia.
Truth be told, most people with a lick of common sense are not expecting FFLs to be cops, seers or mind readers. They just expect that FFLs also use a little common sense. That means refusing sells to specific individuals who, for what ever sound reason, seem out of sorts. That includes people whose family members call saying that the patron is mentally unstable (not a common occurrence for my local, high volume FFL), or other indications that the weapon will be used for unlawful purposes.
For those who think this is unreasonable or onerous, stay out of the gun dealing business. You are a liability to us all. There are plenty of competent FFLs who exercise sound judgement daily, and in doing so have prevented countless crimes by not arming a criminal or idiot. You don't hear about them not because the FFL was Insector Clouseau or never sells to X group, but because they exercised common sense. Do reasonable FFLs sometimes miss the boat? For sure as nobody is perfect. But the public expects reasonable, not perfection. Fortunately, the vast majority of FFLs are hitting the mark given so few lawsuits like the one from the other thread.
Outlander Systems
12-01-16, 18:26
Hypothetical: What if you could carry a gun on you, so hidden, it was like the footsteps of a Navy SEAL?
Hypothetical: What if you could carry a gun on you, so hidden, it was like the footsteps of a Navy SEAL?
We'll consider that my payback for the Brokeback.
That holster looks lame and I want to punch the narrator
Outlander Systems
12-01-16, 18:35
Yes!!!!!! LOL!
That shit drives me up a wall.
https://youtu.be/CjjdTno_9L0
We'll consider that my payback for the Brokeback.
That holster looks lame and I want to punch the narrator
EDIT:
At the end of the day, we all have our little opinions but no real solutions.
To answer Steyr's initial HYPOTHETICAL question with my opinion (FWIW):
If you discreetly opted not to sell to Muslims but didnt broadcast it like that one doofus and made it a talking point to get controversy......nobody would really know. Possibly not even care.
ATF says you can deny any sale at any point for any reason. I would think, gleaning Steyr's personality from his written demeanor, that he could likely refuse someone and have them think "gee he's probably just an asshole. I'll go to Joe's Hock Shop and get a Hi Point instead. fck yo couch" vs "Oh SNAP! He's RACIST! What's the number to CNN/MSNBC/CAIR!?"
(I dont mean that negatively. Just that he can be smarter than the average bear if need be)
It's his store/FFL. The people I use, I get to know more or less. Be it regular or semi regular. They know I get ammo and accessories from em and chew the fat.
I recall going to Adventure Outdoors. I do NOT have a twang (Most peg me for someone "back East" if I'm more relaxed in my speaking.) They were getting sued/effed with by Bloomberg and treated me like that Korean guy treated the black dudes in Menace II Society. Had they not had what I really wanted; I'd have walked and haven't been back since. At that point they were playing cop and IIRC had a piece done on them by 20/20 or Dateline. I can certainly understand their tension but I dont have time for it. I hear they have lightened up a lot since their move but, I have no interest in patronizing them from that one encounter (they wanted my home and work number which ATF does not need nor require). And again this was 9 or 10 years ago. They did NOT treat Cooter Brown buying a Remington 770 like they did me. And I was wearing a collar shirt, slacks, and tie (was coming a training class).
So....They probably thought I was narcking on their stash when really I just wanted a 10mm handgun.
I hear it's not safe.
Nobody gets their door kicked.
Devolved? Do you think that a thread predicted on denying commerce to an entire group of people based only on their religion started on a high note?
BTW, there is a difference between being suspicious of Muslims and saying that you will deny business services to Muslims.
Given your education, I have to assume you are deliberately ignoring the word "hypothetical", this is a thought exercise and not an avocation of anything.
Not once did I ever state I was going to "do anything", never did I state I was going to "deny business services" to anyone.
Yes!!!!!! LOL!
That shit drives me up a wall.
https://youtu.be/CjjdTno_9L0
You mother****er.
It's 1944, your entire family is in an internment camp, yet you're kicking Nazi ass in the 442nd RCT. Hypothetical or not, being guided by vague notions of suspicion based on ethnicity, religion, or whatever is simply bullshit, as per the historical record.
Given your education, I have to assume you are deliberately ignoring the word "hypothetical", this is a thought exercise and not an avocation of anything.
Not once did I ever state I was going to "do anything", never did I state I was going to "deny business services" to anyone.
I was careful to describe what the thread was predicted on, not what you were actually doing or hoped to do. Although we often disagree, I'm certain that you are a bright guy (probably the sharpest sense of humor on the forum). Thus, I generally view threads like this as you intentionally beating that hornets nest with a bat.
Per Sensei,
While I don't question your worldliness, lots of people slip through the cracks because they are definitive psychopaths.
How many times have you heard someone say "Well he or she was the last person I'd ever thought would do (insert heinous act here)"?
We have all heard those stories. My point is that a far more common story is people saying, "Yep, not surprising. That guy was always a douche."
If I were an FFL and some random chick called me up saying so and so is crazy....
I would take all her info, not proceed, and call police and inform them of XYZ. If it is legit, homeboy doesn't buy from me.
If not, a case will get made on her for harassment.
And you would be very reasonable in doing so - far more reasonable than those who would simply ignore the warning because a NICS check was passed.
I also dont capisce your Jeffersonian 2nd Amendment deal. Are youbsaying we should all drill on weekends like in Switzerland or that we should be more Laissez-faire in weapons restrictions?
Just curious
Jefferson had a very evolved notion of what it meant to be well disciplined. It went beyond practice and drills, and incorporated the principles that cornerstone the founding of UVA.
So, we have 2 threads in close temporal proximity dealing with the same topic - common sense on the part of the local FFL. In both, the same verbiage gets thrown around - words like mind readers, investigation, seers, and the like. In both threads, the same actors are simultaneously suggesting that anyone who passes a NICS check be allowed to purchase, while wondering what would happen if they denied sells to entire groups based only on religion. That, along with a 3rd thread regarding stupid shit overheard at the gun store, makes me think that we have come a long way from Jefferson's concept of a well regulated militia.
Truth be told, most people with a lick of common sense are not expecting FFLs to be cops, seers or mind readers. They just expect that FFLs also use a little common sense. That means refusing sells to specific individuals who, for what ever sound reason, seem out of sorts. That includes people whose family members call saying that the patron is mentally unstable (not a common occurrence for my local, high volume FFL), or other indications that the weapon will be used for unlawful purposes.
For those who think this is unreasonable or onerous, stay out of the gun dealing business. You are a liability to us all. There are plenty of competent FFLs who exercise sound judgement daily, and in doing so have prevented countless crimes by not arming a criminal or idiot. You don't hear about them not because the FFL was Insector Clouseau or never sells to X group, but because they exercised common sense. Do reasonable FFLs sometimes miss the boat? For sure as nobody is perfect. But the public expects reasonable, not perfection. Fortunately, the vast majority of FFLs are hitting the mark given so few lawsuits like the one from the other thread.
I think in most if not all cases, the ffl in your scenario has only delayed the crime. Really Doc, you already know that someone determined to do something will get it done. If they are denied one place, they will go to another. This is evidenced by the large metropolitan areas with the draconian gun laws, that still lead the nation in gun violence.
Gun control of any kind does not prevent crime. Unless you can confiscate 100% of the guns already in circulation, it never will.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sensei, Could you edit and remove my quote about aforementioned person.
While there is an example there....I have had second thoughts on broadcasting that person's woes to make a point.
And more to your point, Jefferson had a lot of good ideas that we can be inspired from but he wasn't the last word.
I am not responsible for anyone else's actions but my own.
I was careful to describe what the thread was predicted on, not what you were actually doing or hoped to do. Although we often disagree, I'm certain that you are a bright guy (probably the sharpest sense of humor on the forum). Thus, I generally view threads like this as you intentionally beating that hornets nest with a bat.
Honestly, it was born of the other thread and I encountered an immediate contradiction. ATF has me "on point" for everything including "patriot groups" but for some reason Islam never seems to qualify as a risk factor.
I understand it's not "every Muslim" but given the examples we've seen where even those in uniform (unlike the Nisei division mentioned by another) are wiling to engage in acts of terrorism against those they serve with.
As a result I began to wonder what can I do to minimize "risk" associated with selling a firearm to somebody that subscribes to a religion with a problem track record. When does "being vigilant" cross the line into "denial based upon a "wholesale qualifier."
Pretty much I already answered the question for myself. Anyone seeking to obtain a firearm for purposes of terrorism is probably sophisticated enough to effectively lie about their intentions. I honestly don't know who is what until they start speaking a different language or wearing a specific manner of dress. Wouldn't be the first person with blond hair and blue eyes that spoke "farsi" that I've encountered.
It's 1944, your entire family is in an internment camp, yet you're kicking Nazi ass in the 442nd RCT. Hypothetical or not, being guided by vague notions of suspicion based on ethnicity, religion, or whatever is simply bullshit, as per the historical record.
Where is the like button.
You make a lot of assertions, most which show a different view of history than I have. But so far all you've shown me is that you really don't like my views. Can you show that they are objectively wrong? Maybe you can show me your standard of right and wrong so that I can analyze it, size it up, see what I think in comparison to my own standard....the Bible.
It's really pretty simple. I'm spiritual but not religious. I don't expect anything of anyone else I wouldn't be willing to demand of myself. When someone doesn't measure up to my standards, I shrug and drive on. When they trespass against me I do something about it. Same goes for someone in my circle. Outside my circle, I observe and report, only willing to intercede in extreme cases. If someone is doing something I consider immoral, I judge them but it's not my place to punish them or correct their behavior. I'm highly intolerant of hypocrisy and bullies. If someone wants to let their freak flag fly, so long as they're not hurting anyone its none of my business. I lead by example and beyond that, people are on their own.
Now is didn't owe you an explanation of who I am, but I have given it willingly. I've judged you and you're free to reciprocate, but you will NEVER be morally or ethically empowered to modify my views or free will. The fact that you even consider it preferable to have a religion controlling my behavior in the United States without my willing participation, places you squarely in my shrug and drive on category. Feel free to do the same with me! :)
Where is the like button.
Difference is...
1. Nobody has interned innocent Muslims and talk of "contemplating the reservations" about selling firearms to Muslims is a long way from putting anyone in camps.
2. Islam is not a race, you are not born Muslim, it's a belief. It's a choice.
3. The Nisei division never had an instance where they shot up everyone they were serving with on their own base.
4. We also interned a lot of Germans and Italians but nobody seems to worry about that.
5. There were incidents that contributed to fear of Japanese Americans. They aren't well known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
And not that it justifies the internment of any innocent person, but we treated those people a hell of a lot better than American or UK civilians living in areas occupied by the Japanese were treated.
Perhaps it has to do with the whole, "you have to have faith" thing? I'm sure according to you the Bible is the word of God. How do you know this? Well the Bible says so. Who wrote the Bible? Well man did. But it was inspired by God you say, well who told you that? Oh the same people that wrote it. The same people who also wrote that no man could be perfect except for Jesus (who didn't write the Bible).
The scriptures never actually try to prove anything by the standards of the unregenerate. It either is or isn't your fundamental presupposition that the Bible is true. As my confession says the Bible is self authenticating.....Either God causes you to believe it or He doesn't. There would never be enough evidence, whatever that might be, to convince the unregenerate mind to believe it.
So really, we just have to have faith that the same people who said no man except for Jesus can be perfect wrote a perfect text that is the word of God and we all have to live according to that. Let's not get into the issue of translating that text because that just adds more confusion.
Yes, faith is essential, but it isn't a blind faith. The proof is in the pudding...in other words, what worldview can be built from the axiom "the Bible is true". Well, an entire, coherent, and logical worldview can be built. It's impossible to build anything worldview wise from let's say an atheistic axiom. Men can't justify any knowledge at all without the Christian God. They are stuck in a completely subjective state...objectivity is beyond his grasp...what is real becomes impossible to take hold of. But one one word from a totally objective omniscient being is a connection to reality.
In you're previous posts you had no problem calling out abortion and homosexuality yet I didn't see any mention of people coveting, lusting, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. All sins are equal in the eyes of the lord so why do you consider certain things others do so much worse than things you likely do? That whole plank in the eye thing I guess.
First of all, idolatry is the root of every other sin, but in the context of this thread I didn't bring it up. The reason I did mention these two sins is because they are national sins. They are extremely public, and exhibit the national degeneracy on a massive scale. Not only do millions commit these sins, but millions approve of those that commit them. As for one sin being worst than other sins.....I think so. Which is worst, hating your neighbor unjustly or actually murdering him.
And this is coming from someone who believes in the Christian faith, I just don't see a problem questioning things that don't make much logical sense. To force your beliefs, something you can't prove any more than any other religious (or not) person, as the law of this nation is downright ludicrous and terrifying. Luckily the founding fathers prevented that.
Why do you think I would force people to accept any of this. I have explicitly said this change would only come by God's grace put forth in the Gospel. Since you bring up logic, what is illogical about Christianity? Proof? Is the continued existence of the Jews as a distinct people for the last 3500 years, when multiple nations have tried to exterminate them...proof? Can anyone actually prove how the universe came into existence? Can an atheist prove there really is no god from his irrational premise? Can morality actually exist without God? How does matter and energy, physical stuff, produce abstract concepts like mathematics, and logic? If you really believe in the God of the Bible, do you really believe He exists and owns everything thing including every person that has ever existed? I don't believe in luck, but what did the founders save us from.....God? Why are unbelievers the only ones qualified to make law? They really can't justify any law they make since they can't justify any knowledge they think they possess...it's completely arbitrary.
It's really pretty simple. I'm spiritual but not religious. I don't expect anything of anyone else I wouldn't be willing to demand of myself. When someone doesn't measure up to my standards, I shrug and drive on. When they trespass against me I do something about it. Same goes for someone in my circle. Outside my circle, I observe and report, only willing to intercede in extreme cases. If someone is doing something I consider immoral, I judge them but it's not my place to punish them or correct their behavior. I'm highly intolerant of hypocrisy and bullies. If someone wants to let their freak flag fly, so long as they're not hurting anyone its none of my business. I lead by example and beyond that, people are on their own.
Now is didn't owe you an explanation of who I am, but I have given it willingly. I've judged you and you're free to reciprocate, but you will NEVER be morally or ethically empowered to modify my views or free will. The fact that you even consider it preferable to have a religion controlling my behavior in the United States without my willing participation, places you squarely in my shrug and drive on category. Feel free to do the same with me! :)
I'll focus on the key sentence in your answer, IMO........"If someone is doing something I consider immoral,". So my question would be how do you know something is immoral, what informs this "knowing"?
Honestly, it was born of the other thread and I encountered an immediate contradiction. ATF has me "on point" for everything including "patriot groups" but for some reason Islam never seems to qualify as a risk factor.
I understand it's not "every Muslim" but given the examples we've seen where even those in uniform (unlike the Nisei division mentioned by another) are wiling to engage in acts of terrorism against those they serve with.
As a result I began to wonder what can I do to minimize "risk" associated with selling a firearm to somebody that subscribes to a religion with a problem track record. When does "being vigilant" cross the line into "denial based upon a "wholesale qualifier."
Pretty much I already answered the question for myself. Anyone seeking to obtain a firearm for purposes of terrorism is probably sophisticated enough to effectively lie about their intentions. I honestly don't know who is what until they start speaking a different language or wearing a specific manner of dress. Wouldn't be the first person with blond hair and blue eyes that spoke "farsi" that I've encountered.
I'm a little confused in you determination.....is it the foreign language that is the key to denial?
I'll focus on the key sentence in your answer, IMO........"If someone is doing something I consider immoral,". So my question would be how do you know something is immoral, what informs this "knowing"? The Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis of western morality. Discerning that morality, living your life by it, and writing laws based on it doesn't require require any particular set of religious beliefs.
Why do you think I would force people to accept any of this. I have explicitly said this change would only come by God's grace put forth in the Gospel. Since you bring up logic, what is illogical about Christianity? Proof? Is the continued existence of the Jews as a distinct people for the last 3500 years, when multiple nations have tried to exterminate them...proof? Can anyone actually prove how the universe came into existence? Can an atheist prove there really is no god from his irrational premise? Can morality actually exist without God? How does matter and energy, physical stuff, produce abstract concepts like mathematics, and logic? If you really believe in the God of the Bible, do you really believe He exists and owns everything thing including every person that has ever existed? I don't believe in luck, but what did the founders save us from.....God? Why are unbelievers the only ones qualified to make law? They really can't justify any law they make since they can't justify any knowledge they think they possess...it's completely arbitrary.
Welp, per your logic, I've been living in a nonexistent reality. Guess my mind is blown now.
Wow.
Averageman
12-02-16, 08:04
The Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis of western morality. Discerning that morality, living your life by it, and writing laws based on it doesn't require require any particular set of religious beliefs.
Very well put.
Difference is...
1. Nobody has interned innocent Muslims and talk of "contemplating the reservations" about selling firearms to Muslims is a long way from putting anyone in camps.
We're talking about a hypothetical - and patterns of thought. Internment camps did not spring fully formed out of nothing.
2. Islam is not a race, you are not born Muslim, it's a belief. It's a choice.
What then are you using to base your initial concern about someone being Muslim? You see a dark skinned man with a full beard in a track suit... Or are you applying a standard set of questions to everyone who walks in and wants to purchase a firearm?
3. The Nisei division never had an instance where they shot up everyone they were serving with on their own base.
If a single member of the 442nd had done something like this, would it negate the contributions of everyone else? Cause you to disband the RCT and arrest everyone? Again, we're in hypothetical land here...
4. We also interned a lot of Germans and Italians but nobody seems to worry about that.
We should worry about that. The Irish as well were NOT welcomed with open arms in the early 19th century.
5. There were incidents that contributed to fear of Japanese Americans. They aren't well known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
The weight of history still does not tip a different way.
And not that it justifies the internment of any innocent person, but we treated those people a hell of a lot better than American or UK civilians living in areas occupied by the Japanese were treated.
You're right, no justification, and not exactly a high bar for the US to have to clear.
The Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis of western morality. Discerning that morality, living your life by it, and writing laws based on it doesn't require require any particular set of religious beliefs.
Does not Judeo-Christian have a specific meaning? Something like "morality based on the Bible"? It seems to me that if a person is going to say that "thou shalt not murder" is objectively true, then that person would seek the one who made it objectively true.
Does not Judeo-Christian have a specific meaning? Something like "morality based on the Bible"? It seems to me that if a person is going to say that "thou shalt not murder" is objectively true, then that person would seek the one who made it objectively true.
It's not objectively true. It's subjectively true. The rules of all cultures are only true relative to the morality of that culture.
But yes. The Judeo-Christian ethic has roots in the Bible. And the Torah. But the reason that it's true for western society is because mankind made it true. And then they wisely separated governance from religion because they understood that Theocracy is ultimately destructive to society.
CrazyFingers
12-02-16, 11:39
Of course, civilizations that predate and/or had no contact with Christianity also had laws that any reasonable human would consider obvious.
Code of Hammurabi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)
Traditional Chinese Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_law)
Classical Hindu Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Hindu_law)
Common sense dictates that there are fundamental truths obvious to civilized humans that are completely independent of any particular mythos.
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 12:28
Of course, civilizations that predate and/or had no contact with Christianity also had laws that any reasonable human would consider obvious.
Common sense dictates that there are fundamental truths obvious to civilized humans that are completely independent of any particular mythos.
I tried to hit that in Post #90. The retort is that the same God gave them the ideas.
It doesn't change the fact that the United States of America was founded on Enlightenment thought, specifically concepts of Liberty and Natural Human Rights, and has no "Judeo Christian" basis at all.
Nowhere in our founding documents is this even mentioned.
CrazyFingers
12-02-16, 12:39
The retort is that the same God gave them the ideas.
In a discussion with someone being logically consistent, they must then admit the equal possibility that it was in fact Ganesha, or Odin, or Zeus who actually gave the authors of the Bible their ideas.
Somehow I doubt that admission is forthcoming.
I'm a little confused in you determination.....is it the foreign language that is the key to denial?
I was unable to arrive at a suitable determination. I'm stuck with the fact that anyone who would be truthful about an inquiry isn't going to be a problem and anyone intent upon terrorism is probably capable of effectively lying to me.
We're talking about a hypothetical - and patterns of thought. Internment camps did not spring fully formed out of nothing.
You are correct. My error.
What then are you using to base your initial concern about someone being Muslim? You see a dark skinned man with a full beard in a track suit... Or are you applying a standard set of questions to everyone who walks in and wants to purchase a firearm?
That was one of the roadblocks I encountered. I was unable to arrive at any satisfactory "risk indicators."
If a single member of the 442nd had done something like this, would it negate the contributions of everyone else? Cause you to disband the RCT and arrest everyone? Again, we're in hypothetical land here...
At the time, it probably would have had dramatic repercussions. But at the time, the Nisei were distinguishing themselves and probably would have died to prevent anything like that.
We should worry about that. The Irish as well were NOT welcomed with open arms in the early 19th century.
The weight of history still does not tip a different way.
You're right, no justification, and not exactly a high bar for the US to have to clear.
No argument here. Was just adding perspective.
I tried to hit that in Post #90. The retort is that the same God gave them the ideas.
It doesn't change the fact that the United States of America was founded on Enlightenment thought, specifically concepts of Liberty and Natural Human Rights, and has no "Judeo Christian" basis at all.
Nowhere in our founding documents is this even mentioned.
Every societal construct in the western world has its roots in Judeo-Christian thought. I do absolutely agree however, that Enlightenment thought was the impetus behind framers' concept of a Constititutional government, and especially the separation of Church from State.
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 13:17
Every societal construct in the western world has its roots in Judeo-Christian thought.
Nope.
None of them do.
In fact, nowhere in our founding documents will you see any reference to "Judeo-Christian" anything.
(Did I already say that? Are we all just saying the same things over and over?)
Nope.
None of them do.
In fact, nowhere in our founding documents will you see any reference to "Judeo-Christian" anything.
(Did I already say that? Are we all just saying the same things over and over?)
Is there some place in those documents that refers to "Enlightenment thought", or the Age of Enlightenment as a founding principle?
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 13:26
Is there some place in those documents that refers to "Enlightenment thought", or the Age of Enlightenment as a founding principle?
YES, as a matter of fact!
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" comes from Locke. (...and that's just right off the top of my head)
Did you know that every Judeo-Christian construct in the has its roots in the KalashniKEV family recipe for Chicken Cacciatore? It's an old recipe. Real old. As old as we've been eating chickens. (...and there's just as much evidence for that)
Must everything devolve into theology?
I'm outtie 5000 from this one
But Kev is making solid points
Ah...never mind. The argument is getting a bit circular.
Must everything devolve into theology?
I'm outtie 5000 from this one
But Kev is making solid points
When the subject is philosophical...yes.
YES, as a matter of fact!
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" comes from Locke. (...and that's just right off the top of my head)
Much as I hate to agree with Kev, he is spot on here. John Locke in "Two Treatises of Government" spells it out. No less than Voltaire called Locke the wisest of men.
Ironic that I would get that education in a Christian school from a book "The Christian History of the United States".... In a class called "Rudiments" (7th grade)
Much as I hate to agree with Kev, he is spot on here. John Locke in "Two Treatises of Government" spells it out. No less than Voltaire called Locke the wisest of men.
Ironic that I would get that education in a Christian school from a book "The Christian History of the United States".... In a class called "Rudiments" (7th grade)
I agree with him too, although I'm not sure about the cacciatore. But a lot of what Locke wrote was inspired from the bible. The whole JC ethic is pervasive in western thought, inspiring even Locke. The concepts are not mutually exclusive, and not one or the other.
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 15:36
Much as I hate to agree with Kev, he is spot on here. John Locke in "Two Treatises of Government" spells it out. No less than Voltaire called Locke the wisest of men.
LOL. Homeboy walked right up to a surface laid anti tank mine and tried to insert the tilt rod into his anus.
BOOM!
Ironic that I would get that education in a Christian school from a book "The Christian History of the United States".... In a class called "Rudiments" (7th grade)
Yeah, but nobody learns anything in school anymore... and then they come out into the world and onto internet message boards with nonsense they saw in a Facebook meme or what some fake alternative-news-source told them.
It's not objectively true. It's subjectively true. The rules of all cultures are only true relative to the morality of that culture.
But yes. The Judeo-Christian ethic has roots in the Bible. And the Torah. But the reason that it's true for western society is because mankind made it true. And then they wisely separated governance from religion because they understood that Theocracy is ultimately destructive to society.
Then nothing is true. If it's subjective it's impossible to know if anything is true. A person being subjective can't even remotely "know" that he has any real connection to what's real. Morality is an illusion, it's just the electro-chemical reaction taking place in your head.........if that is even real.
Wisely, I don't think they were wise. I think they were sinners who rejected God's revelation and ultimately rejected God's way.
Welp, per your logic, I've been living in a nonexistent reality. Guess my mind is blown now.
Wow.
And how do you know you have any real connection to reality? How do you know you're not just dreaming the whole thing. Is the electro-chemical reaction in your head telling you it's all real?
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 16:22
Wisely, I don't think they (the Framers) were wise. I think they were sinners who rejected God's revelation and ultimately rejected God's way.
THIS IS THE BEST THREAD WE HAVE HAD IN A LONG TIME!!!!!
http://www.thedoggstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pic-washington_baphomet.gif
You're worried about selling to them when their sole purpose is to kill you and anybody that looks like you.
Yeah, pretty sure if I were a "peace-loving" member of that belief system, I'd find a way to distance myself from my fellow practitioners of the "religion of peace" who also have jihad-like tendencies... Having a pulse kicks ass! Pediatric body armor (Using a child as a human shield) is for assholes.
LOL. Homeboy walked right up to a surface laid anti tank mine and tried to insert the tilt rod into his anus.
BOOM!
Yeah, but nobody learns anything in school anymore... and then they come out into the world and onto internet message boards with nonsense they saw in a Facebook meme or what some fake alternative-news-source told them.
I see, Locke and the founders really were immune to the whole "Christian" thing and history of Palestine and Europe.
By the way please explain to me how material stuff bestows an abstract concept like "rights" on bags of molecules we call humans.......what exactly is that mechanism? Does it sort of ooze into us from the air, please explain.
THIS IS THE BEST THREAD WE HAVE HAD IN A LONG TIME!!!!!
http://www.thedoggstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pic-washington_baphomet.gif
Irrationality is a real bear, just ask the left.
Outlander Systems
12-02-16, 16:33
I've always viewed Lockean negative liberty as > Hobbesian positive liberty.
That's just me.
Much as I hate to agree with Kev, he is spot on here. John Locke in "Two Treatises of Government" spells it out. No less than Voltaire called Locke the wisest of men.
Ironic that I would get that education in a Christian school from a book "The Christian History of the United States".... In a class called "Rudiments" (7th grade)
Much as I hate to agree with Kev, he is spot on here. John Locke in "Two Treatises of Government" spells it out. No less than Voltaire called Locke the wisest of men.
Ironic that I would get that education in a Christian school from a book "The Christian History of the United States".... In a class called "Rudiments" (7th grade)
I know what you mean, all those early American settlers like the Pilgrims not being Christian in any sense. Where do you guys get this stuff? I ould say that the reality is there was an amalgamation of ideas, both Christian and Enlightenment. But that's really trying to mix oil and water. I guess we'll see if the U.S. can endure the contradictions.
Outlander Systems
12-02-16, 16:41
Many of the founding fathers were Deists, bro.
I know what you mean, all those early American settlers like the Pilgrims not being Christian in any sense. Where do you guys get this stuff? I ould say that the reality is there was an amalgamation of ideas, both Christian and Enlightenment. But that's really trying to mix oil and water. I guess we'll see if the U.S. can endure the contradictions.
Many of the founding fathers were Deists, bro.
Yeah I know bro. The Christians there stabbed the Lord in the back. I don't think the Christians who were part of the founding were faithful bro
Outlander Systems
12-02-16, 16:57
Simmer thy jets.
Thou shalt checketh thyself, before thy recketh thyself.
So I'm totally TL;DR here.
You want a Theocratic government?
KalashniKEV
12-02-16, 17:05
By the way please explain to me how material stuff bestows an abstract concept like "rights" on bags of molecules we call humans.......what exactly is that mechanism? Does it sort of ooze into us from the air, please explain.
I don't understand what you're saying.
I think I understand what you might be trying to say.
Man, as he exists in a state of nature, is in full possession of all of his rights.
He is not frozen, unable to move until a celestial deity grants him his "god given rights" and he doesn't lose any rights until he agrees to be governed by another human, to whom he grants authority. He gives up some rights for the promise that that authority will step in to defend his other rights (which he still has), and also the promise that if a third person violates that persons rights, the authority will take away that third person's rights.
Still, at this point in the process, no Gods or Goddesses involved.
They only appear after you die (some think).
MountainRaven
12-02-16, 20:40
Does not Judeo-Christian have a specific meaning? Something like "morality based on the Bible"? It seems to me that if a person is going to say that "thou shalt not murder" is objectively true, then that person would seek the one who made it objectively true.
Except "thou shalt not murder" is not objectively true. Not even in Judeo-Christian thinking.
More accurately, it should be, "Thou shalt not murder, except...."
...Except if you're being physically attacked.
...Except to defend your community.
...Except if you're told to do so by your government.
...Except if you're told to do so by your church.
...Except to defend your honor.
...Except to defend your family/clan/community's honor.
Judeo-Christian mores have been subjected to the whims of the societies in which they have existed for the better part of two-thousand years.
The only thing objectively true about the Bible is how subjectively it has been applied by the people who have been reading it for 1500+ years.
Every societal construct in the western world has its roots in Judeo-Christian thought. I do absolutely agree however, that Enlightenment thought was the impetus behind framers' concept of a Constititutional government, and especially the separation of Church from State.
It's actually much more complicated than that.
It's more pagan Greek and Roman refracted through the lens of Roman Catholicism refracted through Germanic and Celtic paganism, plus Arab Islam, plus pagan Greek and Roman refracted through Arab Islam.
Yeah I know bro. The Christians there stabbed the Lord in the back. I don't think the Christians who were part of the founding were faithful bro
I hear they still have countries ruled by Christian churches in Europe. Maybe you would be happier living there.
Difference is...
1. Nobody has interned innocent Muslims and talk of "contemplating the reservations" about selling firearms to Muslims is a long way from putting anyone in camps.
2. Islam is not a race, you are not born Muslim, it's a belief. It's a choice.
3. The Nisei division never had an instance where they shot up everyone they were serving with on their own base.
4. We also interned a lot of Germans and Italians but nobody seems to worry about that.
5. There were incidents that contributed to fear of Japanese Americans. They aren't well known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
And not that it justifies the internment of any innocent person, but we treated those people a hell of a lot better than American or UK civilians living in areas occupied by the Japanese were treated.
So what is so hard about being objective, rather than subjective?
I understand that I have a moderately high degree of ethnocentricity about me. I was being friendly but always having a plan to come out on top, before it became a catch phrase.
I don't see how operating that way, evaluating people on an individual basis, presents a hazard in day to day contacts - as long as the radar is up.
Often it seems that folks want to take the easy way out by stereotyping.
Subjectively, I should not trust you based on your use of the excuses listed above to justify not treating folks IAW the second Great Commission. Objectively, in the totality of what I know about you from reading your remarks, I understand you are a decent person whom I could trust.
What is so hard about that, and why can't folks wrap their heads around the concept.
Continuing on: I would advocate approaching folks already in the United States with the mindset I've described. On the other hand, I advocate screening any immigrant to the best of our ability before allowing them into the United States and a duck butt tight border.
So what is so hard about being objective, rather than subjective?
I understand that I have a moderately high degree of ethnocentricity about me. I was being friendly but always having a plan to come out on top, before it became a catch phrase.
I don't see how operating that way, evaluating people on an individual basis, presents a hazard in day to day contacts - as long as the radar is up.
Often it seems that folks want to take the easy way out by stereotyping.
Subjectively, I should not trust you based on your use of the excuses listed above to justify not treating folks IAW the second Great Commission. Objectively, in the totality of what I know about you from reading your remarks, I understand you are a decent person whom I could trust.
What is so hard about that, and why can't folks wrap their heads around the concept.
Continuing on: I would advocate approaching folks already in the United States with the mindset I've described. On the other hand, I advocate screening any immigrant to the best of our ability before allowing them into the United States and a duck butt tight border.
I wasn't advocating or condemning, I was simply providing additional perspective. The Nisei and the internment of Japanese Americans is something I'm capable of being objective about. I know about those who protested the actions advocated by groups like the Black Dragon society were subject to political assassination (those are Japanese loyal to the Emperor who opposed the further militarization of Japan and the occupation of neighboring countries) and I know about the worst of the same group, such as those at Unit 731 who were completely devoid of anything I consider humanity.
I know the Japanese are still a diverse population who have among their number those who revere war criminals as national heroes and are among the most racist people on the planet and I know there are Japanese who would literally prefer to die rather than harm any innocent individual.
I know objectively, there are peaceful muslims and even those who are secular. The problem "for me" is there are seemingly too many exceptions to that rule, so many who advocate global Sharia law, so many that essentially support wahhabi or other forms of fundamentalism that it is way beyond the anomaly of abortion clinic bombers. As a result, I worry about it. I wish it was otherwise.
As a result, I worry about it. I wish it was otherwise.
Me, also.
I'll focus on the key sentence in your answer, IMO........"If someone is doing something I consider immoral,". So my question would be how do you know something is immoral, what informs this "knowing"?
I'm a little confused in you determination.....is it the foreign language that is the key to denial?
That's easy, self-awareness informs it!
Except "thou shalt not murder" is not objectively true. Not even in Judeo-Christian thinking.
More accurately, it should be, "Thou shalt not murder, except...."
...Except if you're being physically attacked.
...Except to defend your community.
...Except if you're told to do so by your government.
...Except if you're told to do so by your church.
...Except to defend your honor.
...Except to defend your family/clan/community's honor.
Judeo-Christian mores have been subjected to the whims of the societies in which they have existed for the better part of two-thousand years.
The only thing objectively true about the Bible is how subjectively it has been applied by the people who have been reading it for 1500+ years.
It's actually much more complicated than that.
It's more pagan Greek and Roman refracted through the lens of Roman Catholicism refracted through Germanic and Celtic paganism, plus Arab Islam, plus pagan Greek and Roman refracted through Arab Islam.
I hear they still have countries ruled by Christian churches in Europe. Maybe you would be happier living there.
Maybe maybe maybe.
I think with this love it or leave comment I'll be STDFMS.
But...and again HYPOTHETICALLY...what if
Your topic is Hypothetical but your actual questions are Assumptive in nature. Those are contradictory thought processes.
There are going to be two roads to two answers the way you presented it.
Your topic is Hypothetical but your actual questions are Assumptive in nature. Those are contradictory thought processes.
There are going to be two roads to two answers the way you presented it.
I disagree that my questions are assumptive in nature. I provided examples, but those aren't assumptions. At any rate, I arrived at the answer some time ago.
I disagree that my questions are assumptive in nature. I provided examples, but those aren't assumptions. At any rate, I arrived at the answer some time ago.
Well, what I meant was hypothetical generally goes contrary to fact or lacks facts. You can't know everything about someone that wants to buy a gun so you have to make assumptions as to should you sell or not. Those assumptions should be based in facts. The facts you have worry you. So one way or another you will make a decision based on the assumption as to will things go south after the sale. You obviously lean towards the 'yes they will'. It's not hypothetical because we have evidence and facts to back up your assumption that it will simply be safer for everyone involved if you don't sell.
It would be nice if it was hypothetical with no basis in factual evidence but it's not. It's actually a valid concern. The other side of the coin is what will do-gooders on the left want to do to you and that actually gets into the hypothetical because you just never know. I mean we have the bake a gay cake deal but that's not a gun. You can't assume you will or will not get sued.
So yes, there is a hypothetical element, but far less so regarding the Muslim buying a gun aspect. At least that's how I see it. It's like you can protect the masses by making an informed decision but you may not be able to protect yourself from a law suit.
sevenhelmet
12-03-16, 22:16
What I find ironic is that the gun-hating left would probably get all frothy about an FFL refusing service to a Muslim, despite said service is selling someone a gun.
What I find ironic is that the gun-hating left would probably get all frothy about an FFL refusing service to a Muslim, despite said service is selling someone a gun.
Eureka, I may have a solution.
http://i.imgur.com/2kTgEEe.jpg
thepatriot2705
12-05-16, 17:22
Steyr, got a better idea for you. Just get a pet pig. Let it walk around the shop.
Steyr, got a better idea for you. Just get a pet pig. Let it walk around the shop.
But I love my Bacon 1911.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.