Ammo For Sale

« « Trump and gun rights | Home | Concealed carry and culture change » »

Not helping

Owner of a range is being sued for not letting Muslims shoot there.

21 Responses to “Not helping”

  1. JTC Says:

    So, does DHS still require flight schools to report morlocks looking for lessons? Profiling; it’s a good thing.

  2. Chas Says:

    I like bacon, beer, whiskey and dogs, so I don’t like Islam.

  3. Phelps Says:

    I am becoming less and less amused by the antics of the Mohammedans.

  4. Divemedic Says:

    This is the same blog where, only last month, some cried out that “property owners can make their own rules”

    Let me refresh your memories:

  5. JTC Says:

    And the same blog where, only two months ago, the same “some” cried out the same, but more directly apropos…some more memory refreshing:

  6. JTC Says:

    Oh, and I forgot to give credit where due re “morlocks”:

  7. mikee Says:

    The trick seems to be discerning which “others” are trying to integrate into the larger society, and welcoming them, versus finding those determined to remain sharia-based enemies of our society.

    I suggest pulled pork sandwiches as a quick test. Eastern North Carolina style, of course.

  8. SayUncle Says:

    Sure, they can make their own rules. But when they make rules like this, it makes them look like bigots. That’s not helpful.

  9. Lyle Says:

    Looking like a bigot for banning members of the most bigoted population in the world doesn’t seem all that bad to me. Besides; who says he looks like a bigot? The MSM? And who should be terribly concerned about that?

    I don’t think he looks like a bigot. If it were my range, I’d have some sense of responsibility for keeping the Muslim population less well-trained than others. They (their religious leaders) have, after all, declared war on us, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

    If the Pope declared all-out war against all non-Catholics, swearing to wipe them all off the map in a final, bloody Armageddon, and Catholics all over the world began responding with violence, you wouldn’t expect Catholics to banned from anywhere? He’ll, I’d be all in favor or deporting every one of them until the Pope and ALL OTHER Catholic leaders surrendered, apologized, promised reparations, and showed real progress in that direction for a generation or three.

    We have no obligation to allow members of a self-declared enemy organization to infiltrate and populate our country, much less to use our gun ranges to practice.

  10. Divemedic Says:

    @SaysUncle Exactly my point. The rights of property owners are not absolute, especially when you open the doors of that property to the public in operating a business.
    Laws against discrimination, fire codes, and other regulations limit what property owners can and cannot do on their property.
    It is disingenuous to scream “property rights” when a property owner is infringing on the rights of gun owners, but then scream “discrimination” when a property owner is infringing on someone’s religion.

  11. SPQR Says:

    Definitely not helping but a CAIR setup.

  12. JTC Says:

    Range operator and the CAIR tool have equal rights until one’s infringes on the other’s. Applying “little l” principles, can you tell which is which in this case?

    Choose one, and show your work.

  13. Paul B Says:

    definitely a set up from the get go.

    at one time a business could refused service for any reason they liked. I think we had a lot less problems then.

    I know I am not comfortable around muslims. But that is me.

  14. JTC Says:

    “The rights of property owners are not absolute, especially when you open the doors of that property to the public in operating a business.”

    Bullshit. My house my rules. Don’t like it? There’s the door…I can do without your dollars and you can do without my wares. Private premises do NOT become Public premises just because you’re in biz and open to the public at your discretion.

  15. Caleb Says:

    Generally speaking, banning someone from your gun who is in the Army and happens to be a Muslim is, worst case scenario, bad PR. Best case scenario it is actually illegal.

    I was just hoping that this lawsuit had been brought against that Jan Morgan idiot for doing this.

  16. Tam Says:


    Best case scenario it is actually illegal.

    Since 1964, actually.

  17. JTC Says:

    “Illegal.” Heh. Kind of like when you sold that G27 you bought but didn’t like to your buddy down at the office, under new EO definitions of gun dealing.

    A 50 year process culminating in welcoming your avowed destructor into your home to hone the skills to do it, and restricting your right to help prepare your neighbor against it. Ironic sometimes who are good law-abiding sheep when they pretend at being high minded.

    Shrug. Respond to the siren call of the morlocks if you will. Me, my “NO ISLAMISTS ALLOWED” policy is my right worth fighting for.

  18. Deaf Smith Says:

    I would have let the Muslims shoot there.

    I would have then secretly finger print them, snatch some DNA, bug their shooting bay (here in Texas you can do that as there is no right to privacy on a shooting range and you DO own the range, and made sure the FBI got the info.

    If you can’t lose them, spy on them.

  19. emdfl Says:

    Personally, I’d be just a little concerned to be at a range and have muzzies shooting around me. No telling when one might decide to go all “jihad ali akbar” and such, heh, heh, heh.

  20. emdfl Says:

    I could tell you about the vet with his service dog who was told at the range office that he couldn’t come on the range with his animal. He wanted to come to our annual charity MG-shoot.
    We didn’t find out about it until after he had left. We’re hoping to find him and put him in contact with one of our club-members who just happens to be an attorney…

  21. Phelps Says:

    I’m with emdfl. You never know when one of them is going to decide to visit the Aloha Snackbar.