Arkansas Gun Range Declared "Muslim-Free Zone"

[Mr. Ambien]

If that is the case I am shocked more schools don't allow grown men on their grounds as men make up the largest group of child molesters.

I am also shocked stores allow young girls between 11 and 16 in their doors as young women/girls make up the largest bloc of shoplifters.

In fact I don't know why we don't segregate the male population all together in the US from the female population as by and large almost all reported cases of rape are men against women.

Let's bubble wrap the whole damned country to save each other from each other.

In the US there IS no basis for discrimination that is allowable under state or federal law and I for one am shocked if there is not a backlash and a lawsuit against this on those basis.

Their job isn't to be mommy and daddy for people outside the range or store. Their job is to make sure people there aren't shot, either by people with nefarious purposes, or by idiots who don't know how to handle a gun properly. If the gun range sees that as a justification for banning one or two people or a whole slew of people, then so be it. It's their own bottom line that would be hurt.

Typical CDC thread. Muslim haters and Muslim supporters feverishly banging away at their keyboards.

I only bang my home keyboard. My work keyboard said it's not my type.

[skolozsy2]

arkansas should not be allowed to have guns until they learn to pronounce or spell the name of their state correctly (one of them is wrong)

Well to be fair...it is the proper pronunciation and spelling according to Sioux tribe in which the name derives from. Changing the spelling or pronunciation would only create a whole new set of issues.

[Chalky]

1. How can society be Islamic before Muhammad? You should have said pre-Islamic Arabia/Near East/etc. Whatever, that does not matter.

2. How do you measure the level of cultural revolution? How do you measure how separated a leader is from religion?

OK, now we're talking.

1. It can't. It was poor wording on my part. I should absolutely have said pre-Islamic etc. I'm lazy in text when I figure we all have the same understanding and go with what I mean rather than what I said.

2. a.) By virtue of being the youngest of the Abrahamic religions, and not having had the same amount if time or opportunity to separate Mosque and State (to borrow the term) they have not been able to allow the same religious freedoms that other countries enjoy. Admittedly, this cannot apply globally to all Muslim nations but I believe this is true for the majority. Reform (thanks Drummer4now) would be a far better choice of words.

b.) I don't personally measure how separated a leader is from religion, afterall, we still have god in our national anthem, but rather I would measure personal freedom for a populous by how free they are to practice a specific religion within a country. I visited my cousin at a compound in Riyadh over Christmas and I was floored at the level of fear many ex-Pats had over the celebration of the holiday. Yes, they were not from SA, but they were not allowed to have Christmas Trees (neither were stores in the mall). Compare that to Canada or England and the concept is balked at. We are almost at the opposite end, whitewashing holidays to apply to everyone...different issue altogether.

My initial rant was done quickly and to be honest, I expected some push-back. I have done a lot of research on this, religion fascinates me. I am always willing to debate and concede points as they come, no need to be overt. I have taken a lot of history courses, but by no means am I a history major. I love reading the bias from both sides, finding the common facts and presenting them. You can call me out anytime. Especially with questions forcing me to sharpen my opinions.

[Chalky]

I'm not the one confused about the people prior to Muhammed.

You mean the Arabs?!?

Let me get this straight....were you suggesting that the greatest cultural achievements in the Arab world came prior to the introduction of Islam?!?

Woah, boy....I'm not even sure how to start with that one.

I'm sure you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.

[Chalky]

Typical CDC thread. Muslim haters and Muslim supporters feverishly banging away at their keyboards.

adslsgaWURGAAGwa

[theminister]

I'm sure you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.

I don't work on faith. Go ahead....explain what you meant. I'm legitimately in stupefaction that anyone would think that Islamic society, if they are actually knowledgable on the subject as you claim, contributed little to human civilization.

I'm willing to accept that we got off in the wrong foot in this conversation and that you used imprecise terms. But I still don't understand your point about Islam's place in human civilization.

Islam was the unifying force that allowed the Arab world to excel in every facet of human knowledge. For them, separating religion, science and culture was not a hindrance as it was in the Christian world even up until recent times.

I'm not interested in getting into a religious debate as I'm not a Muslim, I'll leave that up to practitioners of the faith, but I am intrigued by the historical claims you made.

[Warhippy]

Their job isn't to be mommy and daddy for people outside the range or store. Their job is to make sure people there aren't shot, either by people with nefarious purposes, or by idiots who don't know how to handle a gun properly. If the gun range sees that as a justification for banning one or two people or a whole slew of people, then so be it. It's their own bottom line that would be hurt.

I only bang my home keyboard. My work keyboard said it's not my type.

If you do a quick check, barring 1 guy who cut the head off of a co-worker after he was fired. By and large almost ALL shooting incidents of the evil type that get vilified in the US are done by white folk, god fearing white folk.

Might be time to end the reign of them pale devils now me thinks. A general ban might work to get em squealin like the pigs they must be.

You're right, it is their bottom line. but a discriminatory act is still discrimination. And that is illegal at the state and federal levels.

[skolozsy2]

The most incredible thing is you can actually be fined for publicly calling it Arkansas instead of Arkansaw. Oh America...

Not sure where you got that information from, but its load of crap. There is no fine or punishment for pronouncing Arkansas incorrectly within that state, or any other state.

[avelanch]

Well to be fair...it is the proper pronunciation and spelling according to Sioux tribe in which the name derives from. Changing the spelling or pronunciation would only create a whole new set of issues.

no it's not. it's a french pronunciation of the word.

The name Arkansas derives from the same root as the name for the state of Kansas. The Kansa tribe of Native Americans are closely associated with the Sioux tribes of the Great Plains. The word "Arkansas" itself is a French pronunciation ("Arcansas") of a Quapaw (a related "Kaw" tribe) word, akakaze, meaning "land of downriver people" or the Sioux wordakakaze meaning "people of the south wind".

In 1881, the pronunciation of Arkansas with the final "s" being silent was made official by an act of the state legislature after a dispute arose between Arkansas's then-two U.S. senators as one favored the pronunciation as /ˈɑrkənsɔː/ ar-kən-saw while the other favored /ɑrˈkænzəs/ ar-kan-zəs.^[c]

In 2007, the state legislature passed a non-binding resolution declaring the possessive form of the state's name to be Arkansas's which has been followed increasingly by the state government.^[15]

[skolozsy2]

no it's not. it's a french pronunciation of the word.

Damn French. Well, i should get half credit...its a french pronunciation of a Sioux/Quapaw word

[Mr. Ambien]

If you do a quick check, barring 1 guy who cut the head off of a co-worker after he was fired. By and large almost ALL shooting incidents of the evil type that get vilified in the US are done by white folk, god fearing white folk.

Might be time to end the reign of them pale devils now me thinks. A general ban might work to get em squealin like the pigs they must be.

You're right, it is their bottom line. but a discriminatory act is still discrimination. And that is illegal at the state and federal levels.

"Evil type"..

Inadvertently admitted that, like another poster here, you're only conscious of shootings that the media parades around in 24/7 coverage.

As for the race thing, not a rabbit hole I'd go down.. you'll find statistics you won't like.

[inane]

Someone who kills another by accident is charged too. Someone who even discharges a weapon and hurts themselves often get in trouble with the law. It's not ignoring just because I don't wish to put "accidents" up on the same pedestal as violent crime which it isn't considered part of. The contrived nature of this is getting on levels of silly now.

The bold is the worst part.. the whole purpose of the second amendment is to protect one's self. Holding it higher than everyone's right to live in safety and security means to condone murder, which is a ridiculous assertion. When you get a gun pulled on you, perhaps you might understand how essential it is to have self-defence in your own hands rather than placing it solely in someone else's. Besides, in most places, there's no requirement to bear arms.

There's an importance to debate, but debate is only useful when people are being rational. On this forum, when it comes to guns, rarely is that the case.

You keep just assuming, and labeling people so you can say 'you people are being irrational and discussion is impossible' (while of course continuing to discuss so...)

When everyone is armed to fight off this mythical boogey man you're so afraid of, no one is secure. You clinging to your right to defend yourself with a gun puts everyone in danger. Full stop.

[Mr. Ambien]

You keep just assuming, and labeling people so you can say 'you people are being irrational and discussion is impossible' (while of course continuing to discuss so...)

When everyone is armed to fight off this mythical boogey man you're so afraid of, no one is secure. You clinging to your right to defend yourself with a gun puts everyone in danger. Full stop.

The suggestion that clinging to the right to bear arms is putting everyone in danger solidifies your irrationality here.

Not everyone will be armed, and they will provide great fodder for the common break-in crimes that are also a significant threat to the livelihood of people in the house being broken into. They are the targets for such criminals.

It's well known criminals tend to avoid houses where people are armed. The point of owning a gun for most isn't to blast people, it's to be left alone.

The presumptions made about gun owners or those who are second amendment advocates are certainly nothing new.. no less disturbing though.

[avelanch]

how do the criminals know which houses contain people who are armed? do you put a sign on your front lawn/door or something?

if so, wouldn't it just be much safer to hang the sign than to actually keep the gun in the house?

[inane]

The suggestion that clinging to the right to bear arms is putting everyone in danger solidifies your irrationality here.

Not everyone will be armed, and they will provide great fodder for the common break-in crimes that are also a significant threat to the livelihood of people in the house being broken into. They are the targets for such criminals.

It's well known criminals tend to avoid houses where people are armed. The point of owning a gun for most isn't to blast people, it's to be left alone.

The presumptions made about gun owners or those who are second amendment advocates are certainly nothing new.. no less disturbing though.

Yes it does, because your bizarre theory that more guns = more safety makes no sense.

'Responsible gun owners' wouldn't have their guns at the ready 24/7 so this notion that they would be able to react to a violent crime with their gun is just weird.

And of course, I'm not talking all guns or gun owners. But the people you're talking about, the ones who carry around a gun for 'safety'...that puts everyone in danger. 'Accidents' happen, you can't deny that. So I guess the question is what's your threshold for the number of people who have to be killed before you stop to think about it.

[Mr. Ambien]

how do the criminals know which houses contain people who are armed? do you put a sign on your front lawn/door or something?

That's one way, just like ADT customers tend to put ADT placards on their lawn or stickers in their window.

It's the smarter way since most who commit break and enters are not known to the victim.

I've had dog signs on the fences and "I support the second amendment" in my window. If that warning isn't enough of a deterrent, perhaps being shot would be one.

Yes it does, because your bizarre theory that more guns = more safety makes no sense.

'Responsible gun owners' wouldn't have their guns at the ready 24/7 so this notion that they would be able to react to a violent crime with their gun is just weird.

And of course, I'm not talking all guns or gun owners. But the people you're talking about, the ones who carry around a gun for 'safety'...that puts everyone in danger. 'Accidents' happen, you can't deny that. So I guess the question is what's your threshold for the number of people who have to be killed before you stop to think about it.

Okay, you're now talking about two different things.

Which is it?

People who own guns at home?

People who CC?

I've never CC. SF refused to issue CC permits.

[inane]

how do the criminals know which houses contain people who are armed? do you put a sign on your front lawn/door or something?

if so, wouldn't it just be much safer to hang the sign than to actually keep the gun in the house?

Yeah, I just ignored that. Of course there's no evidence for his 'well known' statement.

[NuckMan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJFoOEOYpE

[Chalky]

I don't work on faith. Go ahead....explain what you meant. I'm legitimately in stupefaction that anyone would think that Islamic society, if they are actually knowledgable on the subject as you claim, contributed little to human civilization.

I'm willing to accept that we got off in the wrong foot in this conversation and that you used imprecise terms. But I still don't understand your point about Islam's place in human civilization.

Islam was the unifying force that allowed the Arab world to excel in every facet of human knowledge. For them, separating religion, science and culture was not a hindrance as it was in the Christian world even up until recent times.

I'm not interested in getting into a religious debate as I'm not a Muslim, I'll leave that up to practitioners of the faith, but I am intrigued by the historical claims you made.

I'm not saying that at all, nor have I intended to come across with that belief. I'm saying that pre-Islamic Arabs had a HUGE impact on our society. One example being being the Library of Alexandria. I'm not saying medieval or middle age Islam was devoid of science or critical thought, quite the opposite. I try not to label people of yore based on their religion, I believe many people of the time, from all religions, pacified their peers with faith to stop persecution. Probably still applies today. I also think today's media driven divide between Western culture and Islam was not applicable even a hundred years ago. It is my opinion from my research that Muslim v Christian was not as big as deal as it is today.

I'm also not arguing the separation of religion from science, I will however argue the separation of religion from societal laws and politics. I try not compare Islam to Christianity on the whole but some comparables are hard to ignore. In some documented cases, politics and religion kept science from moving forward. Both Christianity and Islam.

I do not want to have a religious debate either Minister, I have been exposed to religion and it fascinates me. I am not a believer. I would classify myself as an Atheist if it wasn't for a distaste for unproven claims from either side, therefore I suppose I am an Agnostic with very little judgement.

[Buddhas Hand]

Except that banning a person based on their religion is illegal.

It's quite simple.

There's no legal justification.

Here in Aus we are making inroads towards changing that .

Our interbred mentally handi-capped PM finds women wearing the burka confronting , so legislation was introduced yesterday to ban the burka in parliament.

Personally i find this confronting

I am writing to my local "member" as we speak in an effort to get him to introduce legislation tro ban budgee smugglers.

Serioulsy our govt is fully demonising muslims , every day there is a new " terror threat'.

There are "terror Raids" every second day and we are being told jack about any evidence they have against the people they are arresting.

New powers are being given to our security agencies , they are breeding a cllimate of fear , all the while trying to push through legislation that hurts the most vulnerable members of our society.