Radio ad about license to carry in TX

[HighStrung]

Keller's Riverside Store

 

[J_Wales]

Excellent commercial from somebody that obviously understands freedom of speech and private property rights in addition to the natural rights documented in the Second Amendment. We could use more like him.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I was with him until he said he wouldn't teach a "non-Christian Arab or Muslim."

They have a right to self-defense too, and there is no room for that kind of bigotry in the 2nd amendment community.

 

[J_Wales]

I was with him until he said he wouldn't teach a "non-Christian Arab or Muslim."

They have a right to self-defense too, and there is no room for that kind of bigotry in the 2nd amendment community.

He is not denying them that right. Those individuals can exercise their free will to go to another business that chooses to operate his business under a different model of his choosing.

Why should the owner of a private business enterprise be denied to right to conduct a business on his private property the way he believes is best?

Hey... you're not one of those smoking ban guys are you?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

He is not denying them that right. Those individuals can exercise their free will to go to another business that chooses to operate his business under a different model of his choosing.

Why should the owner of a private business enterprise be denied to right to conduct a business on his private property the way he believes is best?

Hey... you're not one of those smoking ban guys are you?

I'M not saying he doesn't have a right to refuse to teach them...he does have that right. As far as I'm concerned he has a right to refuse them any kind of service for any reason that he chooses.

I'm saying that he's morally wrong and is sending a message that I hope everyone here would NOT want sent.

If I lived in that area I would boycott his business, and I'd make sure he knew why.

 

[rich8483]

If I lived in that area I would boycott his business, and I'd make sure he knew why.

and you would have the freedom to do so.

 

[J_Wales]

I'M not saying he doesn't have a right to refuse to teach them...he does have that right. As far as I'm concerned he has a right to refuse them any kind of service for any reason that he chooses.

I'm saying that he's morally wrong and is sending a message that I hope everyone here would NOT want sent.

If I lived in that area I would boycott his business, and I'd make sure he knew why.

Well said... as it should be.

How do you feel about government mandated smoking bans in private enterprises?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Well said... as it should be.

How do you feel about government mandated smoking bans in private enterprises?

Whether or not smoking is permitted on private property should be at the sole discretion of the owner.

 

[J_Wales]

Whether or not smoking is permitted on private property should be at the sole discretion of the owner.

AMEN.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I was with him until he said he wouldn't teach a "non-Christian Arab or Muslim."

They have a right to self-defense too, and there is no room for that kind of bigotry in the 2nd amendment community.

That was my problem with his ad, too, except that as I heard it, it was "...non-Christian, Arab, or Muslim..."

In which case, according to his statement, he would refuse to teach me.

I agree that it's his right to make that choice, so long as he didn't agree of his own free will to teach it to anyone who came to him and paid his fee. I seem to remember that someone (maybe him) got in trouble for not doing exactly that, and in response, Texas DPS yanked his instructor status.

For those saying that it's his right and that others may exercise theirs by taking the class elsewhere, is it not an infringement on the RKBA and the right of self-defense to refuse to teach the class to someone? Is that not an impediment to them exercising that right lawfully?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[J_Wales]

For those saying that it's his right and that others may exercise theirs by taking the class elsewhere, is it not an infringement on the RKBA and the right of self-defense to refuse to teach the class to someone? Is that not an impediment to them exercising that right lawfully?

Blessings,
Bill

Let's not confuse whom is infringing upon the rigts of others here.

The fact that a class is required at all in order to exercise the RKBA and to defend one's self is where the infringement takes place. The infringement is being perpetrated by the State of Texas.

I've read the Second Amendment several hundred times and cannot find anything in it that says "as long as the individual takes a government mandated course". I do see the "shall not be infringed" each time I read it though.

The State, not the instructor, is the perp here. Constitutional carry would eliminate the concern of infringement.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

It's just like "No Carry" signs.

His store, his rules: no arabs, atheists or moslems need apply. This is purple===> And all women must be barefoot in order to take the class. <===end purple. EBG

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let's not confuse whom is infringing upon the rigts of others here.

The fact that a class is required at all in order to exercise the RKBA and to defend one's self is where the infringement takes place. The infringement is being perpetrated by the State of Texas.

I've read the Second Amendment several hundred times and cannot find anything in it that says "as long as the individual takes a government mandated course". I do see the "shall not be infringed" each time I read it though.

The State, not the instructor, is the perp here. Constitutional carry would eliminate the concern of infringement.

Agree wholeheartedly. The fact is though, that the state is not the only one infringing. That they are doing so is beyond question. This doesn't mean he's not doing so as well, just in a different way. I've also not seen addressed the point that he (may have, IIRC) agreed to teach all who asked for the class, regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc., and if I'm correct and he did, he is the one breaking his word and getting certified to teach under false pretenses.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[J_Wales]

It never ceases to amaze me how messed up beyond all recognition things can become when the state steps in "to help".

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the state would stay out of it, as the Bill of Rights is designed to do, this would not even be an issue.

Utterly disgusting.

pax tecum.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, and disability.

"His store, his rules" doesn't cut it in this narrow case.

Actually, the law is wrong here. While those criteria should be in place, that all should have equal access to government services that are offered, no such prohibition should be mandated upon private businesses.

To be clear, I don't agree with the stipulation I seem to remember him agreeing to, but if he DID agree to it, I think he should be bound by his word.

His store, his rules, with respect for the agreement he made. If he wasn't willing to keep his word, he shouldn't have given it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bondhead88]

It cost him his license to teach. You can have all the rights you want but there are somethings that you will not win. I was with him until he said the non-Christian Arab statement.

So Jews shouldn't be taught. There are Jewish Arabs.

I believe it's his right to teach who he wants I think you just have to be smart about these things.

 

[Bondhead88]

I'll respectively disagree with you in this matter, and presume that you are invoking property rights as the basis for your argument.

Do you mean such private business assets as a grocery store, water fountain, laundromat, rest room, or a lunch counter, marked "White Only"? Or a black child of a white mother, that cannot ride together on an airplane or bus? Or a apartment building owner that doesn't permit a person in a wheelchair inside their building, much less allowing them to lease an apartment? Or a HOA that doesn't allow Jews in their neighborhood? Or for that matter, how about a privately owned Roman Catholic hospital that may or may not provides the only appropriate emergency care in the area, that mandates a specific religion as a condition for such care?

Plessy v. Ferguson at least stated "Separate, but equal" under the 14A equal protection clause, though we both know that the quality and quantity of such assets never compared. Thankfully, Brown v. Board of Education subsequently ruled that "Separate, but equal" was inherently unequal, albeit 58 years later.

The law that bars discrimination based upon the factors articulated within the 1964 act, while not perfect, is in fact largely correct. If for no other reason than equal protection that is guaranteed under the Constitution.

I disagree with you. No matter how much I abhor racism. If someone doesn't want someone who wears purple jeans into their business then that is their right.

If some dummy thinks they can run a successful business by allowing whites only into their place of business then again that is their right. I think it is stupid, I hate it, my family has experienced racism and if my daughter continues on in her relationship with the young man she is seeing I am sure they will experience it as well.

He is Filipino and she is whiter than me. (by the way I would love him as a son in-law)

Do I think this should be inclusive of government services like say public transportation. absolutely not. We are the government, all creeds so how do you segregate yourself.

I am not for forced busing I am for freedom of choice. Put the education system under a charter school type system where you can have a voucher equal to your tax dollars and you get to choose your school, give them your voucher, they collect the money. But forcing kids to be bused into other neighborhoods? Where is the freedom of that.

We need to stop try and imposing our rights against someone else who has the vested interest in something.

Don't like Keller's attitude, start a store down the street offer the same courses to all comers take away his business and you win your point.

The market needs to decide not laws or regulation. I don't care what people say you can't legalize equality and you can't regulate fairness. Somebody will always have more, be better, get more, lose less than the other guy.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'll respectively disagree with you in this matter, and presume that you are invoking property rights as the basis for your argument.

Do you mean such private business assets as a grocery store, water fountain, laundromat, rest room, or a lunch counter, marked "White Only"? Or a black child of a white mother, that cannot ride together on an airplane or bus? Or a apartment building owner that doesn't permit a person in a wheelchair inside their building, much less allowing them to lease an apartment? Or a HOA that doesn't allow Jews in their neighborhood? Or for that matter, how about a privately owned Roman Catholic hospital that may or may not provides the only appropriate emergency care in the area, that mandates a specific religion as a condition for such care?

Plessy v. Ferguson at least stated "Separate, but equal" under the 14A equal protection clause, though we both know that the quality and quantity of such assets never compared. Thankfully, Brown v. Board of Education subsequently ruled that "Separate, but equal" was inherently unequal, albeit 58 years later.

The law that bars discrimination based upon the factors articulated within the 1964 act, while not perfect, is in fact largely correct. If for no other reason than equal protection that is guaranteed under the Constitution.

Bondhead explained it quite well. I mean exactly what you said. I think if a business owner wants to make STUPID business decisions that the members of the public can then respond to by boycott and force him to either change on his own or go out of business, that should be his right to make those stupid decisions. I say this having grown up Jewish and having been the target of prejudice by small minded, bigoted rectal orifices. I know from whence I speak.
Let the SOBs be bankrupted by their own stupidity and boorishness.

I'm not much for gov't protection of bullies and bigots.

Edit: sorry, on the iPod. I don't like the idea of there being a gov't insurance (Medicare/Medicaid), but since there is, I think that the Hosp, if it accepts that funding, must care for all, since it is now providing a gov't service.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bondhead88]

B.O.R. I can say what I am going to say because if you look up my last name Szabatin it means Sabath keeper. My family were Croat Jews 200 years ago and when I was 33 I studied with the Chabad Lubavitch for two years in Detroit.

Ready.

Oy vey! You're eatin bacon? Dat's not Kosher. Just you vait Meshugana ven I speak vis da Rebbe at Shul I'll tell him you have been to long vit da goyim.

Of course in my head it sounds like an Ashkenazic from NY.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Lol! Bondhead, I've said before how my parents were very liberal... This also means they were most comfortable with the Reform temple, so no, I've never kept Kosher.

So nu? You'd have me miss out on bacon and shellfish?

And have you evah tried to find a Koshah butchah in Indiana? Oy gevalt!

Besides, G-d vill undahstand; the rabbi I'm not vorried about.

(if the fake accent offends anyone, my apologies in advance. No insult is intended.

Blessings,
Bill