# Arkansas gun range ban muslims



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/28/gun-range-ban-on-muslims-draws-fire.html

Appears safety is a lot of people's concern!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

So much for religious freedom.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

So much for a cults freedom.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> So much for religious freedom.


Priceless ain't it! But it's ok because we are all about equality. I can't even be a member of the NAACP, not that I care but it's still discrimination!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Priceless ain't it! But it's ok because we are all about equality. I can't even be a member of the NAACP, not that I care but it's still discrimination!


Why couldn't you be? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...lezal-there-s-another-white-naacp-leader.html


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> So much for religious freedom.


Islam is not a religion - it is a violent cult. Unpredictable and dangerous, it needs to be wiped from the Earth by any means necessary. If we can't get rid of each and every one on the Earth we should be able to at least get rid of every one in the US.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Islam is not a religion - it is a violent cult. Unpredictable and dangerous, it needs to be wiped from the Earth by any means necessary. If we can't get rid of each and every one on the Earth we should be able to at least get rid of every one in the US.


Someone's been drinking the cool-aid.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Islam is not a religion - it is a violent cult. Unpredictable and dangerous, it needs to be wiped from the Earth by any means necessary. If we can't get rid of each and every one on the Earth we should be able to at least get rid of every one in the US.


Well to many people Christianity is nothing but a cult. Depends on how you look at it. 

But I bet those big tough gun owners at that range are pretty proud of their big brave stand. Quite impressive


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So much for religious freedom.


Who's asking them to give up their religion? It's a safety issue. They are entirely free to set up their own gun range and ban anyone they want.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

keenataz said:


> Well to many people Christianity is nothing but a cult. Depends on how you look at it.
> 
> But I bet those big tough gun owners at that range are pretty proud of their big brave stand. Quite impressive


Gun ranges often ban people for several reasons. I'm all for anyone who wants starting a gun range. Start you a heathen (or whatever you are) gun range and disallow Christians. I doubt anyone will sue you. I promise I wouldn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Priceless ain't it! But it's ok because we are all about equality. I can't even be a member of the NAACP, not that I care but it's still discrimination!


Of course you can.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

fireweed farm said:


> Someone's been drinking the cool-aid.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

I didn't say anything about whether they legally can ban them or not. Really doesn't matter to me. Just ironic how a bunch of people with guns are worried about a Muslim with a gun. I thought guns kept them safe. 

Heathens rock!!!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

keenataz said:


> I didn't say anything about whether they legally can ban them or not. Really doesn't matter to me. Just ironic how a bunch of people with guns are worried about a Muslim with a gun. I thought guns kept them safe.
> 
> Heathens rock!!!


Muslims with guns have proven very hazardous to our troops who train them in the ME even though our troops also have guns. I know guys who were doing that job. Some were military and one local cop was there working as a contractor doing the same thing. They always had soldiers or contractors watching whose job it was to shoot Muslims who turned their weapons on our guys. It happened quite often and some of our soldiers died before the Muslims were killed. The San Bernadino shooters had also frequented a range and we all know how harmless they were. I wouldn't shoot where Muslims had guns any more than I would where drinking ******** were shooting. That's why I built my own range at home. I let friends and family shoot but I wouldn't allow Muslims or drunk ********. Mad women are also a no no.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Out of curiosity, how will they identify Muslims?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

wr said:


> Out of curiosity, how will they identify Muslims?


The owner claims to be able to tell by their names. But she's offered no proof of ever turning a Muslim away nor are there any indications that any have been turned away. She did appear to make her clients safe from some evil Hindus , though. I'm sure she's garnering great publicity and laughing all the way to the bank as "patriots" line up to target shoot and make the world safe.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Out of curiosity how many Muslims do you think would frequent a gun range in Arkansas? And can you imagine the hue and cry if a Muslim opened a gun range and only allowed Muslims? The conspiracy theories would explode.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Priceless ain't it! But it's ok because we are all about equality. I can't even be a member of the NAACP, not that I care but it's still discrimination!


I checked the online membership signup at joinnaacp.org. Good news, they do not even ask your race. $30 gets you in, or $10 for youth members.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

If I am not mistaken, there are Muslims in the U.S. armed forces.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

reneedarley said:


> If I am not mistaken, there are Muslims in the U.S. armed forces.


I wonder, would they be welcomed at Jan Morgan's shooting range between deployments?


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

duplicate post


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/28/gun-range-ban-on-muslims-draws-fire.html
> 
> Appears safety is a lot of people's concern!


I should have warned you to be careful what you post. Otherwise you will attract every elitist pinhead liberal around.

Kind of like flies on a fresh pile of Obama.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

......


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Good...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> Out of curiosity, how will they identify Muslims?


I imagine it has something to do with either dogs or pork.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

poppy said:


> Who's asking them to give up their religion? It's a safety issue. They are entirely free to set up their own gun range and ban anyone they want.


And nobody would care if _they _banned people.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Gun ranges often ban people for several reasons. I'm all for anyone who wants starting a gun range. Start you a heathen (or whatever you are) gun range and disallow Christians. I doubt anyone will sue you. I promise I wouldn't.


And as the story indicated this woman could operate her range as a private club and exclude anyone she wishes based on any criteria she chooses. It's the same right guaranteed to anyone, of any religion. If she chooses to do so I'll stand with her. But I'll stand against anyone who pretends to operate as a public accomodation and tries to hide behind something like "safety" as an excuse to break the law. It is fun to watch some of you who claim to value the constitution so highly ignore it when it doesn't suit you. Maybe you're just a bunch of closet liberals after all.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Priceless ain't it! But it's ok because we are all about equality. I can't even be a member of the NAACP, not that I care but it's still discrimination!


Six likes and counting yet none if you can explain why you wouldn't be allowed to join the NAACP or how it would discriminate against you. So much for truth , justice and the American way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I wonder, would they be welcomed at Jan Morgan's shooting range between deployments?


They will have to claim they are Free Will Bigots to get in


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course you can.
> *A mind is a terrible thing to waste*


That was United ***** College Fund, not NAACP. One of the best ad campaigns ever as 40 years later it is still memorable.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> They are entirely free to set up their own gun range and ban anyone they want.


 Poppy you know darn well if this was a Muslim owner banning Christians you'd be on here hollering about it, and the rest of the right-wing blogosphere would be foaming at the mouth. You KNOW that is the truth.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

wr said:


> Out of curiosity, how will they identify Muslims?


 If some people on this forum had thier way, it would be the armband. Or the tatoo. 

People like that range owner are simply bigoted pinheads looking for attention. Ought to send down some Bosnian Muslims and see if she could tell them apart. Ignorant folks like her probably don't even know there are Caucasian Muslims.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JJ Grandits said:


> I should have warned you to be careful what you post. Otherwise you will attract every elitist pinhead liberal around.
> 
> Kind of like flies on a fresh pile of Obama.


Sticks and stones my friend. My self esteem has been destroyed. But thankfully my heathenness will get me through.

Perfectly I could care less who they allow in their gun range. Just I haven't heard of a lot of Muslim mass shootings at a a gun range in the US.

What I think would be really cool, if for some mosques to have a gun range and allow only Muslims. Heads would pop on this site.

Darren-I get your reference to pigs, but what about dogs? Do muslims not like dogs?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

greg273 said:


> If some people on this forum had thier way, it would be the armband. Or the tatoo.
> 
> People like that range owner are simply bigoted pinheads looking for attention. Ought to send down some Bosnian Muslims and see if she could tell them apart. Ignorant folks like her probably don't even know there are Caucasian Muslims.


Don't forget Malaysians and Indonesians, those Orientals can be hard to differentiate. And I am guessing there names are not the typical Muslim ones we are aware of.

To any moderator-that was sarcasm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> That was United ***** College Fund, not NAACP. One of the best ad campaigns ever as 40 years later it is still memorable.


Yeah, I know where the quote came from.
I was using it more as a commentary than as a slogan



> keenataz:
> Do muslims not like dogs?


They are considered "unclean" animals by some:



> According to the majority of Sunni scholars, dogs can be owned by farmers, hunters, and shepherds for the purpose of hunting and guarding and the Qur'an states that it is permissible to eat what trained dogs catch.[32] Among the Bedouin, the saluki dogs are cherished as companions and allowed in the tents.
> 
> Nevertheless, many Islamic teachers state dogs should be considered unclean and that Muslims licked by them must perform ritual purification. According to a Sunni Islam Hadith, a plate that a dog has used for feeding must be washed seven times, including once with clean sand mixed with the water, before a person may eat from it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

reneedarley said:


> If I am not mistaken, there are Muslims in the U.S. armed forces.


Yea, I heard of a Muslim Major at Ft. Hood. I think he made the news a while back.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Poppy you know darn well if this was a Muslim owner banning Christians you'd be on here hollering about it, and the rest of the right-wing blogosphere would be foaming at the mouth. You KNOW that is the truth.


Um....no.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Priceless ain't it! But it's ok because we are all about equality. I can't even be a member of the NAACP, not that I care but it's still discrimination!


Another 24 hours, two more likes and still no explanation of why the NAACP wouldn't allow membership or how it would discriminate against you. Priceless.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

poppy said:


> Yea, I heard of a Muslim Major at Ft. Hood. I think he made the news a while back.


 
Have you also heard of:
Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Or to Spec. Rasheed Sahib, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, accidentally shot to death by a fellow soldier in Iraq.
Or to Maj. James Ahearn, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a bomb in Iraq.
Or to Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Or to go back further in history:
Bampett Muhammad, for example, fought for in the Continental Army between 1775 and 1783. 
Or Peter Buckminster who fought under Washington in the Battles of Bunker Hill and Sarasota. 
Or Yusuf Ben Ali, referred to by his slave name Joseph Benhaley, who served as an served as an aide to General Thomas Sumter in South Carolina. 

Brave men who gave their lives in service to this country -- their country.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Another 24 hours, two more likes and still no explanation of why the NAACP wouldn't allow membership or how it would discriminate against you. Priceless.


Ok, I'll say it. I can join but still really cannot be a "member". Advancement for color people. Last time I looked in the mirror Casper was looking back at me! Why would anyone join a organization that does not benefit them? If it's because they think they can change something black lives matter movement screwed that up! At the end of the day they want your money, nothing you do there would benefit you as a white individual, maybe a feather in you hat but the girl at the grocery checkout laughed when I tried putting my feathers in the self checkout kiosk. If there was a NAAWP, it would be shut down and deemed racist. Why does Cspan show a black state of the Union address? Why is there a united ***** college fund? Because they are a minority? They have more and better opportunities than any white kid to get a FREE education but don't want to put in the effort. Hope that explains why I can't be a "member".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ok, I'll say it. I can join but still really cannot be a "member". Advancement for color people. Last time I looked in the mirror Casper was looking back at me! Why would anyone join a organization that does not benefit them? If it's because they think they can change something black lives matter movement screwed that up! At the end of the day they want your money, nothing you do there would benefit you as a white individual, maybe a feather in you hat but the girl at the grocery checkout laughed when I tried putting my feathers in the self checkout kiosk. If there was a NAAWP, it would be shut down and deemed racist. Why does Cspan show a black state of the Union address? Why is there a united ***** college fund? Because they are a minority? They have more and better opportunities than any white kid to get a FREE education but don't want to put in the effort. Hope that explains why I can't be a "member".


It explains your feelings but not why you can't be a member. I belong to a few groups who do good works that don't directly benefit me. That doesn't make me any less of a member of that group. The united ***** college find providing scholarships to black students doesn't take scholarships from white students any more than the local Lutheran church giving scholarships takes scholarships from Baptist students. A NAAWP may or may not be racist depending upon what it's stated goals are. Maybe it's just a difference in attitude. I don't feel that just because a group is working towards their benefit that they're neccessarily taking something away from me or someone else. All of life isn't about me or my victimhood. But thanks for finally answering.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Texaspredatorhu View Post
> Ok, I'll say it. I can join but still really cannot be a "member". Advancement for color people.


That makes less sense than your first statement.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That makes less sense than your first statement.


Perfect, I'm glad you don't comprehend.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So much for religious freedom.


A private citizen is not required to give you religious freedom, only the government. If you don't want Baptist to come onto your private property then you can put up a sign saying "No Baptist Allowed" and if they enter you can have them arrested for trespassing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> A private citizen is not required to give you religious freedom, only the government. If you don't want Baptist to come onto your private property then you can put up a sign saying "No Baptist Allowed" and if they enter you can have them arrested for trespassing.


And if you open a business to the public you must allow the public in regardless of their religion. Your point was?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Perfect, I'm glad you don't comprehend.


It has nothing to do with my comprehension so much as your attempt at back pedalling


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It has nothing to do with my comprehension so much as your attempt at back pedalling


I ain't back pedaling, this is something you always say. I have not changed my statement or view once. It kind of like me as a Catholic going to a baptist church and joining but not becoming baptist, I joined but I'm not really a member. 

I understand this is what you do is play the devils advocate non stop but I aint back pedaling I am still standing by what I said. 

Senility clouds comprehension.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I ain't back pedaling, this is something you always say. I have not changed my statement or view once. It kind of like me as a Catholic going to a baptist church and joining but not becoming baptist, I joined but I'm not really a member.
> 
> I understand this is what you do is play the devils advocate non stop but I annoy back pedaling I am still standing by what I said.
> 
> *Senility clouds comprehension.*


Are you senile, BFF? I don't see it- your posts are clear, spelling and grammar are correct, and actually have a point.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you senile, BFF? I don't see it- your posts are clear, spelling and grammar are correct, and actually have a point.


Do you prefer arrogant ms. Pixie?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I ain't back pedaling, this is something you always say. I have not changed my statement or view once..


 You've already been shown you are wrong on that. You mistakenly assumed you couldn't join the NAACP because, ya know, 'racism' and all that, and people showed you that yes indeed you could. Take it as a learning experience.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I ain't back pedaling, this is something you always say. *I have not changed my statement or view once*. It kind of like me as a Catholic going to a baptist church and joining but not becoming baptist, I joined but I'm not really a member.
> 
> I understand this is what you do is play the devils advocate non stop but I aint back pedaling *I am still standing by what I said.*
> 
> Senility clouds comprehension.


Then you're still incorrect.

If you join, you're a "member" by definition and nothing prevents you from joining the NAACP, as you claimed.

You can't change the meanings of words.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you senile, BFF? I don't see it- your posts are clear, spelling and grammar are correct, and actually have a point.


I guess it depends on who you ask.
Opinions seem to vary


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Do you prefer arrogant ms. Pixie?


Are you saying BFF is arrogant now? Or is he still senile as well?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Whatever works for y'all. You can join something all day long but you will never be accepted as a member. That apparently is to hard to comprehend for y'all so I will just say your right I'm wrong and I bow to your much higher intelligence and recognize that you are a superior human being and that I am grateful there are people in this work like you to make sure you can correct me. Truly, thank you, I would be lost without you all.

Ms. Pixie, yes and yes!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie, yes and yes!


That's not very nice.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

keenataz said:


> Out of curiosity how many Muslims do you think would frequent a gun range in Arkansas? And can you imagine the hue and cry if a Muslim opened a gun range and only allowed Muslims? The conspiracy theories would explode.


Conspiracy theories cannot hurt but allowing a muslim with a gun can kill me. It is just stupid to allow them near weapons - like turning a pack of hungry pit bulls loose.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Whatever works for y'all. You can join something all day long but *you will never be accepted as a member*. That apparently is to hard to comprehend for y'all so I will just say your right I'm wrong and I bow to your much higher intelligence and recognize that you are a superior human being and that I am grateful there are people in this work like you to make sure you can correct me. Truly, thank you, I would be lost without you all.
> 
> Ms. Pixie, yes and yes!


Now you're trying to reword it yet again.
There's nothing "hard to comprehend" about that.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not very nice.


Darn it I guess I did it again. My apologies if the truth hurts. If the shoe don't fit, don't wear it.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're trying to reword it yet again.
> There's nothing "hard to comprehend" about that.


Read in to it how you will, you always do. What I said there is what I said earlier it had member in quotes. Like I said thank you for your care and concern and telling me I was wrong and taking the time to counsel me and bring me back to the path of right and just.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Conspiracy theories cannot hurt but *allowing a muslim with a gun can kill me*. It is just stupid to allow them near weapons - like turning a pack of hungry pit bulls loose.


Using that "logic", the same could be said about Christians:



> On November 27, 2015, a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[1][2] A police officer and two civilians were killed; five police officers and four civilians were injured.[3][4] After a standoff that lasted five hours,[1][5] police SWAT teams crashed armored vehicles into the lobby and the attacker surrendered.[6] He was taken into custody and later identified as Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. On November 30, Dear was charged with first-degree murder and was ordered held without bond.
> 
> At a December 9 court appearance, Dear repeatedly interrupted proceedings, made statements affirming his guilt (although he has not entered a formal plea), and expressed anti-abortion and anti-Planned Parenthood views, calling himself "a warrior for the babies."
> 
> In the court document for their 1993 divorce, his ex-wife said, "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions. He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end."[12] Dear wrote on a marijuana Internet forum: "Turn to JESUS or burn in hell [...] WAKE UP SINNERS U CANT SAVE YOURSELF U WILL DIE AN WORMS SHALL EAT YOUR FLESH, NOW YOUR SOUL IS GOING SOMEWHERE."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Whatever works for y'all. You can join something all day long but you will never be accepted as a member. That apparently is to hard to comprehend for y'all so I will just say your right I'm wrong and I bow to your much higher intelligence and recognize that you are a superior human being and that I am grateful there are people in this work like you to make sure you can correct me. Truly, thank you, I would be lost without you all.
> 
> Ms. Pixie, yes and yes!


I'm guessing you didn't read this link earlier or you're purposefully ignoring it because it doesn't fit your scenario. Here's a white, male , Jew who is not just a member , but has been elected a chapter president of the NAACP. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...lezal-there-s-another-white-naacp-leader.html. If he can do it why can't you? Other than attitude?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing you didn't read this link earlier or you're purposefully ignoring it because it doesn't fit your scenario. Here's a white, male , Jew who is not just a member , but has been elected a chapter president of the NAACP. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...lezal-there-s-another-white-naacp-leader.html. If he can do it why can't you? Other than attitude?


I did read that article. It doesn't make sense to me but oh well. Money can change a lot of things!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I did read that article. It doesn't make sense to me but oh well. Money can change a lot of things!


So now youre hinting that this man bought his position? Care to share with the rest of us what you might base this conclusion on? Or is this just another veiled allusion to something else, the details of which you'll share later? I can understand how the fact that people of different races and backgrounds can get along and work together for a greater good might confuse you. If you actually tried it it might become clearer.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

If I tried what? Helping the black community? I do everyday that I go to work. I help them the illegals and the white trash that are too low rent to get of their hind parts and use what God gave them. If there is any type of segregation in the organization how is it helping all involved, it stems from racism! Black lives matter is nothing more than a racist group setting them right back to the 60s. Why donate money to a college fund that helps blacks when the government will put them through college for free? Why are there no scholarships for whites only? So my point is that yes anyone can join the NAACP, but are you really accepted as a "member"? 

The quotes are for you BFF, like they were in my original post. If this veers from your point of view and is still incorrect please feel free to correct me immediately and get me back on track. Thanks for your time and help.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Look out now ladies!!! Looks like your NAACP el presidente resigned!

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ard-meet-monday-presidents-comments/79643406/


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Another source for you!

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-naacp-boss-don-harris-likes-tits-not-n-word-8005789


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

What's funny about it is that most liberal women think this is ok and they defend the Islam faith and Muslim way of life not knowing that women don't mean squat in that faith!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> So my point is that yes anyone can join the NAACP, but are you really accepted as a "member"?
> .


 That has been answered numerous times, you apparently don't like the answer. Yes, you can join the NAACP as a full member, anytime you like. You probably won't, so I don't see why you keep bringing it up.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> What's funny about it is that most liberal women think this is ok and they defend the Islam faith and Muslim way of life not knowing that women don't mean squat in that faith!


 Ah yes, your original rant was proven to be a bunch of hot air, and you got called out on it, so now you shift the target to 'liberal women and Islam'.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Look out now ladies!!! Looks like your NAACP el presidente resigned!
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ard-meet-monday-presidents-comments/79643406/


And he should have. His resignation had nothing to with his race. His comments about the female reporter should have gotten him booted. Now, I'm sure you'll tell us how he wouldn't have had to resign if he were black and a "full" member. You're free to offer that opinion but it has no more validity than saying you couldn't become a member in the first place.

I'll give you some credit for coming back, spinning and fighting to try to prove you were somehow right. It shows a bit more courage than those who liked your post but haven't stood up for themselves. I would have given you more if you'd just stood up and admitted your mistake rather than trying to redefine member. I'm not a big fan of "it depends on what the definition of is is" arguments but your free to continue making them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Ah yes, your original rant was proven to be a bunch of hot air, and you got called out on it, so now you shift the target to 'liberal women and Islam'.


He's obviously an equal opportunity "hater"


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If I tried what? Helping the black community? I do everyday that I go to work. I help them the illegals and the white trash that are too low rent to get of their hind parts and use what God gave them. If there is any type of segregation in the organization how is it helping all involved, it stems from racism! Black lives matter is nothing more than a racist group setting them right back to the 60s. Why donate money to a college fund that helps blacks when the government will put them through college for free? Why are there no scholarships for whites only? So my point is that yes anyone can join the NAACP, but are you really accepted as a "member"?
> 
> The quotes are for you BFF, like they were in my original post. If this veers from your point of view and is still incorrect please feel free to correct me immediately and get me back on track. Thanks for your time and help.



Going to work isn't volunteering. Being paid to help is different than offering help. Not all black students are guaranteed government scholarships. As I pointed out earlier you're free to donate to whatever scholarship fund you wish with the knowledge that you doing so doesn't take from another but justsvadds to the pool of scholarships. I thought private chsrity was a good thing. Or is it just the "right" charities? I'm sure there are some who will never fully accept white members in the NAACP just as I'm sure there are those who fully embrace them. Just as there are people around me who still view me as an outsider while others welcomed me right after we moved in 25 years ago. People are people and are seldom all one thing or another. 

Your original post about membership, #4, had no quotes around the word member. You added those later to try to make your meaning something other than that which was quite clear when you made it. I'm not a psychic . I don't read minds. Sometimes another's words are enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> So my point is that yes anyone can join the NAACP, but are you really accepted as a *"member"*?
> 
> *The quotes* are for you BFF, *like they were in my original post*. If this veers from your point of view and is still *incorrect* please feel free to correct me immediately and get me back on track. Thanks for your time and help.


LOL
Now you're just lying, since there are no " " in your "original post" about membership.


Post #4:


> Old 02/23/16, 09:20 PM
> Texaspredatorhu Texaspredatorhu is online now
> Registered User
> 
> ...


When one finds themselves in a hole, it's wise to stop digging


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ok, I'll say it. I can join but still really cannot be a "member". Advancement for color people. Last time I looked in the mirror Casper was looking back at me! Why would anyone join a organization that does not benefit them? If it's because they think they can change something black lives matter movement screwed that up! At the end of the day they want your money, nothing you do there would benefit you as a white individual, maybe a feather in you hat but the girl at the grocery checkout laughed when I tried putting my feathers in the self checkout kiosk. If there was a NAAWP, it would be shut down and deemed racist. Why does Cspan show a black state of the Union address? Why is there a united ***** college fund? Because they are a minority? They have more and better opportunities than any white kid to get a FREE education but don't want to put in the effort. Hope that explains why I can't be a "member".


I agreed right here and explained my reasoning so again thank you to BFF for bringing me back to the path of right and good. My apologies for thinking different than you. Maybe someday I can be as arrogant and condescending as you. 

Greg whatever your number is, I don't really care what your Yankee hind parts say or think. 

I will still stand by what I said whether right or wrong in your minds. I guarantee we disagree on more than just this and that's the beauty of America.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Going to work isn't volunteering. Being paid to help is different than offering help. Not all black students are guaranteed government scholarships. As I pointed out earlier you're free to donate to whatever scholarship fund you wish with the knowledge that you doing so doesn't take from another but justsvadds to the pool of scholarships. I thought private chsrity was a good thing. Or is it just the "right" charities? I'm sure there are some who will never fully accept white members in the NAACP just as I'm sure there are those who fully embrace them. Just as there are people around me who still view me as an outsider while others welcomed me right after we moved in 25 years ago. People are people and are seldom all one thing or another.
> 
> Your original post about membership, #4, had no quotes around the word member. You added those later to try to make your meaning something other than that which was quite clear when you made it. I'm not a psychic . I don't read minds. Sometimes another's words are enough.


No worries, BFF straightened me out!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

greg273 said:


> Ah yes, your original rant was proven to be a bunch of hot air, and you got called out on it, so now you shift the target to 'liberal women and Islam'.


Read the links Yankee. You may understand something then. The original post was about banning Muslims from a gun ranges m. Muslim= follower of Islam! No shifting of the target. Have a great weekend Yankee.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> No worries, BFF straightened me out!


Doubtful.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> No worries, BFF straightened me out!


Still digging, I see.

You really can't blame me for statements you made, although you keep attempting to divert the conversation my way.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And if you open a business to the public you must allow the public in regardless of their religion. Your point was?


For decades blacks could be considered property, for decades after that blacks had to eat outside, the fact that it is legal doesn't mean its constitutional. 

The constitution only applies to government not individuals. The government is supposed to treat each citizen equally, it doesn't but it is supposed to. You as an individual have the right to treat others as you please as long as your actions don't violate any constitutional right. And no one can point out where in the USC you have the right to buy something someone is selling if they don't want you to have it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You've already been shown you are wrong on that. You mistakenly assumed you couldn't join the NAACP because, ya know, 'racism' and all that, and people showed you that yes indeed you could. Take it as a learning experience.


But the NAACP as a private group should have the right to ban anyone it wishes for any reason it wishes. Be it being the 'wrong' skin color, height, weight, gender or whatever.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Why donate money to a college fund that helps blacks when the government will put them through college for free?


Do blacks really get free college in the US?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Do blacks really get free college in the US?


Just the gifted athletic ones


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> But the NAACP as a private group should have the right to ban anyone it wishes for any reason it wishes. Be it being the 'wrong' skin color, height, weight, gender or whatever.


If they were truly a "private group" you'd be correct, but they aren't


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing you didn't read this link earlier or you're purposefully ignoring it because it doesn't fit your scenario. Here's a white, male , Jew who is not just a member , but has been elected a chapter president of the NAACP. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...lezal-there-s-another-white-naacp-leader.html. If he can do it why can't you? Other than attitude?


I couldn't do it because I don't support any racist organizations.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they were truly a "private group" you'd be correct, but they aren't


So they are a public i.e. government operated group? I didn't realize that they were paid with tax dollars.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> So they are a public i.e. government operated group? I didn't realize that they were paid with tax dollars.


No one ever said they were "Govt operated". (But you know that)
They are "open to the public" in their membership practices.
Anyone can be a member

http://www.naacp.org/pages/membership


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> I couldn't do it because I don't support any racist organizations.


Ya they maybe open to anybody that wants to be a racist that is. LOL


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Ya they maybe open to anybody that wants to be a racist that is. LOL


Again, what would disqualify you then?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So they are a public i.e. government operated group? I didn't realize that they were paid with tax dollars.


They use some government grants and funding to support some of their programs. Thus they are subject to laws regulating discrimination. Of course, they were founded by whites and have always had some white members. I used to work with the husband of the president of the local chapter. I went to a few events they sponsored. White faces weren't a rarity and many of those I met were long time members.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> For decades blacks could be considered property, for decades after that blacks had to eat outside, the fact that it is legal doesn't mean its constitutional.
> 
> The constitution only applies to government not individuals. The government is supposed to treat each citizen equally, it doesn't but it is supposed to. You as an individual have the right to treat others as you please as long as your actions don't violate any constitutional right. And no one can point out where in the USC you have the right to buy something someone is selling if they don't want you to have it.


By that standard why aren't privately held slaves legal? Or can the government constitutionally pass laws that regulate such things? We all have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law. A law that says everyone walking into a public accomodation be treated the same singles no one out for special treatment. A law saying a oubliette accomodation may treat a specific group differently doesn't assure equal protection. Which is really constitutional?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever said they were "Govt operated". (But you know that)
> They are "open to the public" in their membership practices.
> Anyone can be a member
> 
> http://www.naacp.org/pages/membership


So it is a group of private citizens therefore they are not regulated nor bound by the limits on government put down in the USC. A private citizen has the right to discriminate against anyone he wishes up to the point they violate a constitutional right of another individual.

Unless the NAACP is supported or operated by the government it should be able to prevent any individual or groups of individuals from being members. After all I don't think you can find a constitutional right to be a member of a group. If you have found such a thing please post just what section it is in, I'd really like to read it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> They use some government grants and funding to support some of their programs. Thus they are subject to laws regulating discrimination. Of course, they were founded by whites and have always had some white members. I used to work with the husband of the president of the local chapter. I went to a few events they sponsored. White faces weren't a rarity and many of those I met were long time members.


Yep, if you take Caesar's money you must obey Caesar's rules.

I know they allow whites AAMOF, I've seen two NAACP college scholarships go to white guys.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> By that standard why aren't privately held slaves legal? Or can the government constitutionally pass laws that regulate such things?


Because to owning someone violates that individual's rights. You have no constitutional right to be a member of a group therefore someone forbidding you entry could in no way violate your rights. 




mmoetc said:


> We all have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law. A law that says everyone walking into a public accomodation be treated the same singles no one out for special treatment. A law saying a oubliette accomodation may treat a specific group differently doesn't assure equal protection. Which is really constitutional?


As I pointed out being legal, or illegal as the case may be, does not mean its constitutional. The government can pass any law it wishes making anything at all legal or illegal. All that is necessary is to get a majority of the congress and the President to agree on it. The government could pass a law saying if you had an unused bedroom in your house you had to allow any homeless person who wished to sleep in that room. Then it would be legal for a homeless person into your home no matter if you wanted him there are not. It would be legal because it is the law. But do you think that law would be constitutional? After all it violates your private property rights correct?

A group of individuals who accept no government support should have the same right as one individual. They should have the right refuse anyone entry to their group for any reason they may have. To force them to do otherwise violates their rights.

There are only two recognized 'groups' in the USC, the government and private citizens. If you are not part of the government then you are a private citizen no matter if you are a member of an organized group or not. The government has no power or right to tell a private citizen what person they must or must not deal with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> So it is a group of private citizens therefore they are not regulated nor bound by the limits on government put down in the USC. A private citizen has the right to discriminate against anyone he wishes up to the point they violate a constitutional right of another individual.
> 
> Unless the NAACP is supported or operated by the government *it should be able to prevent any individual or groups of individuals from being members. * After all I don't think you can find a constitutional right to be a member of a group. If you have found such a thing please post just what section it is in, I'd really like to read it.


All your rambling is pointless.

They* allow* anyone to join.

You don't even know what it is you're trying to prove


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Because to owning someone violates that individual's rights. You have no constitutional right to be a member of a group therefore someone forbidding you entry could in no way violate your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We'll start with slavery. What rights are slaves denied? If the government isn't the one denying them, and the constitution only regulates government behavior, how can it be unconstitutional to hold slaves. Either the constitution allows for the regulation of private citizens or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways.


By your standard, and we've had this pointless discussion before, government then has no right to regulate anything a private business does. I have no constitutional right to a clean plate or safe food. Is it legal and constitutional for a local government to insist on restaurant licenses, or is it unconstitutional over reach? When one applies for a business license and opens a public accomodation one agrees to abide by the rules and regulations governing them. No government forces them to open such an establishment and they could, as I've pointed out in the past and which you continue to ignore, open a private establishment and discriminate at will. It's a point made in the original article in this post. 

Please do me a favor a dispense with the usual watcher game of endless scenarios with only a couple of answers posited designed only to prove your point when many other answers are just as valid. I'll not play along.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Please do me a favor a dispense with *the usual watcher game of endless scenarios* with only a couple of answers posited designed only to prove your point when many other answers are just as valid. I'll not play along.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Because to owning someone violates that individual's rights. You have no constitutional right to be a member of a group therefore someone forbidding you entry could in no way violate your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was remiss in not answering your question about your hypothetical law. I would consider such a law to be unconstitutional. But my opinion isn't the one that counts. The law would be constitutional until it is challenged and ruled otherwise. It's how our system of law works. If all laws were considered unconstitutional when passed none could ever go into effect or those enforcing them would be guilty of willingly violating the constitution. In order for a law to be challenged someone with standing must mount that challenge. In order to have standing the law has to have been enforced against you. No enforcement, no standing, no challenge. In rare cases the courts have preemptively ruled and your proposed law seems worthy of such but that's not guaranteed. I really shouldn't have to explain such things to a constitutional scholar such as yourself but your welcome anyway.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All your rambling is pointless.
> 
> They* allow* anyone to join.
> 
> You don't even know what it is you're trying to prove


The point is they should be allowed to REFUSE anyone they wish to NOT join. If they wanted the should be free to refuse membership to people whose skin color is not as dark as a specific color or who are taller than a specific height or are followers of a specific religion or if their shoe size isn't one they like.

They are a group of individual, private citizens therefore they have the right to associate or NOT associate with anyone they choose for any reason they wish and the government has no constitutional power to force them to do otherwise.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> The point is they should be allowed to REFUSE anyone they wish to NOT join. If they wanted the should be free to refuse membership to people whose skin color is not as dark as a specific color or who are taller than a specific height or are followers of a specific religion or if their shoe size isn't one they like.
> 
> They are a group of individual, private citizens therefore they have the right to associate or NOT associate with anyone they choose for any reason they wish and the government has no constitutional power to force them to do otherwise.


The point is they could if they wished to. All they would have to do is quit applying for government grants and loans. No one forces them to take government money and thus abide by government regulations. Any such private group is free to define its own membership. You'll note that no government agency has tried to get the KKK to change its membership policy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> The point is* they should be allowed to REFUSE *anyone they wish to NOT join. If they wanted the should be free to refuse membership to people whose skin color is not as dark as a specific color or who are taller than a specific height or are followers of a specific religion or if their shoe size isn't one they like.
> 
> They are a group of individual, private citizens therefore they have the right to associate or NOT associate with anyone they choose for any reason they wish and the government has no constitutional power to force them to do otherwise.


Who said they can't?
You just want to argue, even when you don't know what you are arguing about


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The point is they could if they wished to. All they would have to do is quit applying for government grants and loans. No one forces them to take government money and thus abide by government regulations. Any such private group is free to define its own membership. You'll note that no government agency has tried to get the KKK to change its membership policy.


Ok, we are in agreement then.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Ok, we are in agreement then.


You do amuse.


----------

