Test Case... Oklahoma Range bans Muslim folk...

[Peace]

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

 

 

thoughts? 

[peejman]

Given that it's discriminatory and unconstitutional, it won't last long.

[mikegideon]

What Peej said. She can kick 'em out one-by-one, 

[DaveTN]

She must have some backers with serious money.

[mikegideon]

She must have some backers with serious money.

 

Overwhelming desire to be on TV

[Omega]

Yea, but she's hot; So will look good on tv when she is sued and her business quadruples in size and popularity.  Looking forward  to seeing her making commercials to make her business even bigger.

[peejman]

What's the saying ....   Better to have people think you're a bigot than open your mouth and prove it.

[hipower]

Whatever the end result. I do applaud her decision to make a stand.

 

Right, wrong or somewhere in the middle, at least this lady has the cojones to make a statement that many in the country will agree with.

[Glock30]

I'm going to keep my own views, for better or worse, to myself. I'll play devil's advocate and bring out several viewpoints that get articulated often on these boards and others.

 

1. How does this compare to those who believe felons are entitled to their gun rights? If you believe in that point of view - guns for everyone, period - why not give these guys unfettered access at the range? 

 

2. Some folks believe strongly in private property rights. Why doesn't this range operator have a right to choose who steps foot on the grounds?

 

3. Others believe in open access for everyone, everywhere, all the time, without the right of refusal. This would include folks who believe private property owners should not have the right to ban guns from the property (the classic property rights < individual rights). Why should she have the right to ban an entire class of people?

 

 

Lots of different interests and issues going on here, all rolled up neatly into one microcosm. 

[56FordGuy]

I'm going to keep my own views, for better or worse, to myself. I'll play devil's advocate and bring out several viewpoints that get articulated often on these boards and others.

1. How does this compare to those who believe felons are entitled to their gun rights? If you believe in that point of view - guns for everyone, period - why not give these guys unfettered access at the range?

2. Some folks believe strongly in private property rights. Why doesn't this range operator have a right to choose who steps foot on the grounds?

3. Others believe in open access for everyone, everywhere, all the time, without the right of refusal. This would include folks who believe private property owners should not have the right to ban guns from the property (the classic property rights < individual rights). Why should she have the right to ban an entire class of people?


Lots of different interests and issues going on here, all rolled up neatly into one microcosm.

1: This range is a private entity, not the government. I believe private property owners or the operators of private clubs should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they choose for whatever reason, no matter how disagreeable it may be. If enough folks don't like that business' stance on things they will not patronize it and the place will close. Yay for free market choices!

2: See 1. She wants to ban Muslims/ gays/ tall people/ gun owners/ poodle owners, etc...go for it!

3: The right to own a firearm is spelled out in the foundational documents of our country. A lot of gun owners see our right to have firearms as "more equal" than my right to determine how my property is used. Harsh, but true.

Overall, I really don't care what that lady does. This entire thing reeks of a publicity stunt to me, it's designed to get a handful of people in the doors because it's "YeehawNascarbarbecuefourwheeldrive'Murica!! They're gonna show them there Muslims! Yeah!"

I seriously doubt there's a large Muslim community in the area that will be affected by this, and if there is I would suggest they take their business to a range that actually wants them as customers. I'm not a fan of using the law to force myself in where I'm not wanted just because I can.

[Jonnin]

Just more gun people making gun people look bad.

 

Just makes more room for the rhetoric of the redneck bigot.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Jonnin

[JPR1959]

Private clubs are just that--private.  If they want to discriminate, or only cater to certain groups, then that is their legal right to do so.  Just try to go into a mosque for a visit and see how that goes.  Country clubs are private, and most don't have a problem with that.

[mikegideon]

If head lopping was that popular among US muslims, we would be finding a LOT more heads. I'm concerned myself, but don't look at every one of them like they are gonna lop my head off. you can't discriminate against a whole religion in this country. They won't let you, no matter what is spelled out in their book.

 

You can discriminate against assholes, which will clearly cover muslim extremists.

[teecro]

Start of the slippery slope.... What's next no blacks? No Indians? No long hair hippy type? No rednecks?

[mikegideon]

Start of the slippery slope.... What's next no blacks? No Indians? No long hair hippy type? No rednecks?

 

NO REDNECKS??? You went too far now. :)

[56FordGuy]

Start of the slippery slope.... What's next no blacks? No Indians? No long hair hippy type? No rednecks?

If a person owns their own business, they should be able to discriminate against anyone they wish. The only "slippery slope" is back toward property owners being in control if their own property instead of the government deciding for them. Edited September 29, 2014 by 56FordGuy

[teecro]

As long as your ok with every Muslim corner gas station, or ethnic hotel owner putting up signs banning you for just being white then I say go for it.....

 

(hint of sarcasm)

Edited September 29, 2014 by teecro

[Garufa]

Business owners "should" be able to do a lot of things but they can't.  Openly discriminate against anyone and there will be repercussions.  It's the way it is and it will never change.  There are reams of laws against it.

 

People have lost all sense of discretion these days.

[56FordGuy]

As long as your ok with every Muslim corner gas station, or ethnic hotel owner putting up signs banning you for just being white then I say go for it.....

So you're implying that every Muslim owned business only allows non-Muslim customers because the government requires it? Wow. Okay. I guess it's okay to use the force of law to bulky others as long as the bully is on our side.

If they think they can ban white folks and have enough business from other people to keep the doors open, go for it! I wish them all the success in the world. I don't want to force myself, by use of law or societal pressure, into places that don't want me any more than those places want me to do that. I'd rather spend my money with places and people that appreciate my business regardless of race/ religion/ gender/ etc...

I don't say this "intellectually", its not some abstract idea. I've been discriminated against by some organizations that one would never think would. While I think it was wrong of them to do, I certainly support their right to do it. The closer we can inch back toward freedom and respect of individual rights, the better off we all will be.

[Grand Torino]

Whatever the end result. I do applaud her decision to make a stand.

 

Right, wrong or somewhere in the middle, at least this lady has the cojones to make a statement that many in the country will agree with.

Agreed......however I'm pretty sure the Feds will change her mind. They have their ways.....

[mikegideon]

If a person owns their own business, they should be able to discriminate against anyone they wish. The only "slippery slope" is back toward property owners being in control if their own property instead of the government deciding for them.

 

Can't be banning no rednecks. I won't have it  :rofl:

[JPR1959]

If head lopping was that popular among US muslims, we would be finding a LOT more heads. I'm concerned myself, but don't look at every one of them like they are gonna lop my head off. you can't discriminate against a whole religion in this country. They won't let you, no matter what is spelled out in their book.

 

You can discriminate against assholes, which will clearly cover muslim extremists.

 

 

You can try and legislate out racism, but that has been a complete failure thus far.  I don't condone racism, but to deny it exists is idiotic.  If I had my own business, I can and would tell people I didn't like to leave.  This is not breaking the law.  If someone doesn't like it, they would be free to spend their money elsewhere. 

 

Just try to open up a BBQ restaurant near a mosque, and see how far that gets you.  Our rights are being lost while we try to not hurt every groups feelings.

[mikegideon]

You can try and legislate out racism, but that has been a complete failure thus far.  I don't condone racism, but to deny it exists is idiotic.  If I had my own business, I can and would tell people I didn't like to leave.  This is not breaking the law.  If someone doesn't like it, they would be free to spend their money elsewhere. 

 

Just try to open up a BBQ restaurant near a mosque, and see how far that gets you.  Our rights are being lost while we try to not hurt every groups feelings.

 

The problem isn't kicking people out. She could throw out every muslim that walked in the door and never have a problem. She just can't ban them as a group. Not saying I agree one way or the other. Just saying, that's the way it is. I'm willing to bet she already knows that.

[bersaguy]

 Ok my issue with this is One of them could not produce any identification showing that he was in the country legally, and the other had a California driver’s license yet she rented them 1 semi-automatic firearm and ammunition. I would have told them both that when they had local identification she would be more than glad to rent them what ever they wished but until then they could not rent anything and sent them on their way. Then once they left I would put a sign up that reads.

 

This Establishment reserves the right to deny service or products to any one for any reason what so ever.

 

 

When they come in just tell them your full up and won't have any open shooting lanes for at least 3 months. Even if there in not one person shooting in the range all she has to say is they are reserved by members. If they still question the decision point to the sign and send them packing. Brother owns a bar and has that sign above his bar and he has thrown a lot of people out or refused service to them and he has had about 1000 complaints filed against him in courts and not one of them was upheld. The business owner does not need to explain any reason other than because it is his/her business.  Her mistake was she named a certain group of people instead of handling it in a case on case basis. ...............jmho

[JPR1959]

The problem isn't kicking people out. She could throw out every muslim that walked in the door and never have a problem. She just can't ban them as a group. Not saying I agree one way or the other. Just saying, that's the way it is. I'm willing to bet she already knows that.

 

A private business, or in this case a gun range, can cater to anyone they see fit regardless of their race, creed, or religion.  Private businesses can also turn away anyone they want as well.  Just go and try to play golf at a country club.  You can't play there.  There used to be private clubs in dry counties all around Texas so people could legally drink, but if you weren't a member, you couldn't enter.

 

A public gun range, like Stones River, has to cater to anyone.