Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pointing out the truth is not prejudice. If you simply don't like hearing the truth, then that's a different story. Please name another people who hate as many different groups as white Americans do.
What percentage of white Americans do you think fit your narrative?
Even more telling is the fact that virtually no Muslims speak out against terrorism and jihad. Why are the "moderate" Muslims not condemning the radicalized jihadis?
Even more telling is the fact that virtually no Muslims speak out against terrorism and jihad. Why are the "moderate" Muslims not condemning the radicalized jihadis?
Wouldn't that make the sacrosanct provision, "Shall not be infringed" useless? It doesn't specify catagories of who can infringe. Infringement is like pregnancy. You can't be slightly infringed or pregnant. You either are or you aren't. I see the shop owner infringing on the American citizen's right to legally own a firearm strictly for arbitrary reasons. If he could do it, so could the town council. If they can do it so can the County and so on.
Absolutely not. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that denies a business owner the right to turn down business, although there may be statute limiting discrimination.
If having the right to keep and bear arm meant what you think it does, how would you handle the fact that you can't buy a pistol at McDonalds? The management for those stores made a business decision to sell sandwiches and to not sell guns. Their choice, just like it is the gun dealers choice to opt out of trading with Muslims.
however in either case if the "business decision'' results in discriminatory practice against a protected group (if McDonald decides not to trade with black customers, or a gun shop decides not to sell guns to Moslems, for example), statutes on the books may well cause the owner some heartburn.
But neither of the above decisions violate the Second Amendment.
Wow, you found one YouTube video. Why isn't there someone like that guy speaking out on the news or the talking-head cable shows every time a radicalized Muslim commits an act of terror? Why isn't CAIR sounding like the guy in your video, instead of the apologists they are?
Wow, you found one YouTube video. Why isn't there someone like that guy speaking out on the news or the talking-head cable shows every time a radicalized Muslim commits an act of terror? Why isn't CAIR sounding like the guy in your video, instead of the apologists they are?
Get my point?
The largest Muslim front group in US; Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is on UAE's terrorist organisations list.
He's breaking the law. You can't ban people of religions you don't like from coming in your store any more than you could ban certain races.
No, it's not illegal to refuse his particular type of service based on religion in the state of Florida. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the relevant statues before making a stupid statement. Race, color, creed, sex, national origin, disability, yes, religion, no. Of course if a Muslim customer could prove they were discriminated against based on the fact that they came from a Muslim country and not just because they were Muslim, a court may uphold that opinion, but it's just as easy for buddy boy to prove he chose to refuse service based on religion and not country of origin.
In Florida, you cannot make a business decision based on religion if it involves employment, housing or certain private club memberships. Everything else, including gun sales, is fair game.
I'm sure his whole point is to make a quick cash grab on every anti-muslim, good ol' boy, doomsday prepper type, which will likely be successful. That being said, he also stated on the news this morning that he had spent several years studying the Koran and had come to the conclusion that, interpreted literally, any Muslim abiding by the teachings of the Koran, was obligated to eliminate any other religion and the worship of any other God, hence, what the radicals are doing should be expected and is inline with their teachings. Whether true or not who knows, and he claimed to be open to discussing this with local Muslim powers that be, so what will come of it long term who knows. It's a sorry situation, and just adds one more reason to eliminate this country's use of two things; the confederate flag and organized religion. He's using both to sell guns, nothing more, nothing less, and now that the flag has been relegated to use in rallying rednecks and selling guns, what's the point of flying it?
Yes, Crusades were in a direct response to Muslims taking over Catholic cities and areas. Not commenting on whether or not this was right, just stating facts.
As a side, I really don't like when people try to compare modern Islamic extremist terrorism to the Crusades; or when "but the Crusades" is their response to the fact that no Christians radicalize in mass numbers and resort to violent terrorism like Muslims do. I don't think anything in history has come close in nature to the wave of violent Islamic extremism we see today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
