It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oklahoma gun store declares 'Muslim-free zone'!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: destination now
Well, as Islam is the religion of peace, I'm not so sure that your average, law abiding Muslim would want to be firing guns for fun..in fact I would go as far to say that I cannot understand anyone who would want to be firing guns for any reason, but that's just me. I just cannot see the allure of owning and using deadly weapons for recreation purposes, unless actually hunting for food or as a form of pest control for farmers, livestock owners etc



You don't have to understand. Don't own a gun and that's that.




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

The owner is scared, angry, frustrated.

He's striking out.

Look at it as a type of protest.

We can look at the legality of what he's doing, or the rationale.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well I think the outrageous number of gun deaths in the US would suggest that there are plenty of people who don't just shoot at paper...

But like I said, I personally cannot see what the fascination with guns is...it's my personal view, I live in Scotland and the only people with guns here are farmers, gamekeepers etc, so it's not an issue I have to concern myself with and you can go ahead and shoot up as much paper, tin cans, milk cartons that you want. My main point was that as Islam is (mostly) a religion of peace, it would seem to me to be extraneous to ban muslims from gun ranges, as I can't imagine there would be that many law abiding muslims who would wish to go firing guns....

So I am sorry if I have taken the OP off topic, was just making an observation from a non gun owning perspective



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: destination now
Well I think the outrageous number of gun deaths in the US would suggest that there are plenty of people who don't just shoot at paper...


And factoring in that we have the third highest population on the planet I will restate that the vast majority of us have no intention to shoot anyone else. Otherwise it would have happened.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

It's a problem these terrorists training at gun ranges here in the US.



A recently published book about international terrorism and the beginnings of Al Qaeda, ''1000 Years for Revenge,'' reports that a group of terrorists-in-training from a Brooklyn mosque used the range for target practice on four weekends in July 1989.

The author, Peter Lance, says the F.B.I. had the men under surveillance and photographed them shooting AK-47's and other weapons at the Calverton range. But, Mr. Lance contended in the book and a recent interview, the F.B.I. failed to recognize that it was seeing the beginnings of a terrorist network whose members were later involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, plots to bomb bridges and tunnels, and the attacks of Sept. 11.
www.nytimes.com...

And again:



John Galletta, a firearms instructor at Riverside Magnum Range, said shooter Syed Rizwan Farook had practiced there before, but couldn't comment on when or how frequently.


www.latimes.com...

And you can probably go down the list of Islamic terrorists who have used gun ranges in the US in order to train for the terror attack.

33% of all SUCCESSFUL terror attacks in the US Since 1980 (the number goes up when you add in the planned attacks that were prevented by FBI and DHS) are committed by Muslims, while they are just above 1% of the population. This means there is a problem with that group, and if owners of gun ranges decide to take the safe route, instead of someday being found liable or culpable under law for allowing a terrorist to train at their range, then more power to them.

Under law, it is illegal to provide any kind of material support, and I am sure they find it in their own best interest to refuse service to the most likely group for committing terrorism in this country, as well as the countries best interest.


edit on 17-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's a bit of a fallacy, if you look at the ratios of population to gun deaths, the US is definitely the highest, it's got nothing to do with the population size and in China with the highest population and India the second there are a fraction of the number of gun deaths per head of population...but that is another thread..it seems I've opened a can of worms here..sorry OP



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: destination now

I don't understand how you're ignoring the fact that illegally acquired guns account for quite a good deal of gun deaths.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: destination now

Personally, I am frustrated and aggravated that I am not permitted to carry a folded steel sword wherever I happen to wish to go in these isles, which are my home. I am upset that the government is the only source of defence for our nations people, that they are not permitted to defend themselves from both the predatory nature of the criminal element, and also from the tyranny of centralised government by whatever means they see fit.

Although I would not pick up a firearm either out of preference, I do believe that every free person in the world ought to have the right, and the tools they deem necessary or appropriate to provide for their defence against any, and every possible threat which might befall them, and especially in this day and age, where policing is so poorly provided for, that many areas have seen their local police stations close, and their local beat officers disappear from the streets, save for to show up an hour after a threat has passed.

We are as lambs before slaughter as we are right now, and that angers me greatly.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: destination now
Without a doubt.





posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kitana



50% of all terror attacks in the US are committed by Muslims, while they are just above 1% of the population.

This is just a flat out lie where did you hear this FOX news? Christian terrorist commit five times more terrorist acts than Muslim terrorist in the US. So if this guy is so worried about arming terrorist then why doesn't he ban Christians as well?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I think anyone should be served wherever but I also wanted to say that I do see a difference between banning gay people and banning muslims.

First of all, gay people did not choose to be gay and secondly there are afaik no gay terrorist groups who could misuse guns for other purposes.
Islam is chosen and I hate to say it but there is always a chance that the next gun COULD be used for 'bringing islam' to a non islamic country. It's not that it has never happened before.

We are at war with ISIS, but not with people who want to love someone of the same gender, so I don't think they should be in the same pot. Just saying.

ETA: Everyone would be happy as Larry if far right people would be banned anywhere. Yet they are also people and not all of them are violent. Only muslims as a group are sacrosanct and regardless of how many go around killing and no matter how impossible it is to tell a good muslim apart from a bad one, you MUST love them all....because muslims...tch
edit on 17-2-2016 by Hecate666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a law suit pending Krazy.

Thanks for posting!





posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

I edited to be exact, as I went through and counted. It is 33% of all successful terrorist attacks since 1980, to be precise, however if we include planned attacked that were thwarted, the number goes up.

Count for yourself. I just counted.

edit on 17-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: destination now

Shamrock addressed this point. Criminals account for distinct majority of gun deaths.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

In my state, this has become a rather thorny "business" decision issue. Most, if not all that I frequent, gun ranges are open to the general public without religious exceptions. But I'm talking about HUGE gun ranges with facilities for skeet and trap and various "club" groups that sponsor competitions as well as quarter mile or more long open ranges for everything from high powered rifle to shot gun to pistol ranges. The problem comes in when one of these ranges becomes "popular" with the local Muslim population. When that happens, attendance by non-Muslims drops off precipitously and presents an economic operability problem to the owner.

My guess is, and its just a guess, that more and more Ranges will go the "Private Club" route and membership will be by referral only. There might not be a religion exception, but only trusted people who can be vouched for would be allowed to be members.

So far, this hasn't been an issue in the rural parts of our State because there's no Muslim population in the rural parts of the state. That's because there's no Mosques and the Muslim religion requires Muslims live no further than one mile from a Mosque. You block the Mosques and you block relocation. So far, the rural Counties have been able to block Mosque construction. As a result, more and more non-Muslims are flocking to the rural counties. Yet another great population shift and a boon to home builders and Real Estate Agents.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Why the heck would you want to carry a sword around? This is what concerns me, is that if everyone is armed then those in our society who would seek to break laws would also be armed and could go about maiming and killing people as part of their lawless behaviour. Then people like yourself would be maiming and killing the lawless as a form of defence, then you and your family could be subjected to revenge attacks and so on and so on, until everyone is scared to leave their home in fear of being attacked or leaving their home fully armed and attacking as a form of defence.

Sheesh, why the heck can't we all live in peace without weapons..far too many innocent people die every day as a result of this belief that everyone should have the right to own guns/swords/knives whatever..

Yet on the other hand, we seem to ignore lawless behaviour in certain circumstances because it is politically correct to do so, with the result that societies are breaking down and with it trust and mutual respect. Deal with those issues and we would have no need for weapons



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

Where did you count it?

It's almost like you going back and editing was the perfect time to insert the source.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Well, let's look at OK law as regards discrimination in public accommodations:



It is a discriminatory practice for a person to deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a "place of public accommodation" because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.

Source

So, what he's doing is against OK law and I'm certain it will be rectified. (Notice that "sexual orientation" is not included in the law, so, in Oklahoma, a business can legally refuse to serve someone because they're gay, but not because of their religion.)

IF this gun store and range is a "club" (serving only members) the owner would have a case, but if it's a public accommodation (serving the public), he's breaking, not only state law, but federal law as well.

Club vs Business



(1) "place of public accommodation" includes any place, store or other establishment, either licensed or unlicensed, which supplies goods or services to the general public or which solicits or accepts the patronage or trade of the general public or which is supported directly or indirectly by government funds: except that

(i) a private club is not a place of public accommodation, if its policies are determined by its members and its facilities or services are available only to its members and their bona fide guests;

(2) "place of public accommodation" does not include barber shops or beauty shops or privately-owned resort or amusement establishments or an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as his residence.


My personal opinion is that he's an ignorant bigot. I don't support any business excluding people based on some group to which they belong.
edit on 2/17/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

He's a private business owner, I believe he should have the right to refuse service to whomever he pleases. Times must be good to turn away business. I have only one close friend who is Muslim. She's really white, has no detectable accent, and was born in Bosnia. I wonder if she would be allowed to train there, or does he rely on the honesty of the Muslims (which, I'm assuming, he wouldn't trust anyhow.) How does this work? Is it just brown people who are excluded? Does he make everyone eat a piece of bacon before getting on the range? If so, how does he avoid keeping out Jews, or vegans?

ETA: After reading BenevolentHeretic's post just above mine, apparently what he's doing is illegal, because he's is turning them away because they're Muslim. I believe you can refuse business to anyone, but the reasons must be specific to that person, not a "protected class" of persons. As an example, "I won't allow Jim Bocefus Bakwuuds onto my range because he's always obnoxious and distracting to the other patrons."
edit on 2/17/2016 by dogstar23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Yea. I'm not surprised. It was only a matter of time.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join