Jan Morgan: idiot, bigot, or both?

jan morgan bigot meme

Jan Morgan, who I’d never heard of until this morning, apparently owns a gun range where she’s decided to ban all Muslims. I wish that some part of that sentence was a joke, but apparently this person decided to declare her range a “muslim free zone” and then post about it on her blog that no one reads.

jan morgan bigot meme

It would be easy to dismiss Jan as a desperate attention seeker, someone who’s just trying to drum up a national media frenzy and get more eyeballs on her blog with this stunt, and honestly that’s probably the most appropriate reaction. We should, as a community, see something like this and say “ho-hum, another dreary bigot using a cheap PR stunt” – but the problem is that this is more than that. Instead, what Jan Morgan’s bigoted blog post and business decision have done is reinforce every single negative media stereotype that exists about gun owners. I can imagine the HuffPo getting a hold of this and gleefully driving all the attention they can to it: “SEE? We told you that gun owners are bigoted rednecks who hate people!” Thanks for feeding the negative stereotypes, Jan. We really appreciate that.

But maybe Jan’s not a bigot. Maybe she’s just a no talent ass-clown; a gun bunny in her 40s with no real shooting, writing, or commentary skills trying a desperate stunt to get attention. If that’s the case, her tragic, bigoted post becomes no less offensive, but sad in a way. You start to wonder if this is the eventual fate of all gun bunnies as they hit their later years. But even if that is the case, what part of you thinks that this is a good line to put on the internet:

Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with.

Here’s an important point: yes, there are terrorists. There are quite a few terrorists who are followers of this or that sect of radical Islam. Those are bad people. But the 2nd Amendment isn’t for those people, the 2nd Amendment is for Americans. All Americans. Regardless of race, religion, sex, or creed. Last time I checked, the important text of the 2nd Amendment didn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed – unless you’re black, Muslim, or gay.”

To me, that’s what the most frustrating thing about this. Yes, it reinforces negative stereotypes about my people; yes it’s bigoted; and yes it’s likely a desperate attempt for relevance from someone that no one’s ever heard of. But most importantly, and most frustratingly, it absolutely misses the point of what the 2nd Amendment, and what this entire country is all about. This is the United States of America, and while we’re not as good at the whole “freedom” thing as we used to be, we’re still the best in the world. People in this country are absolutely free to pray to whichever god they wish, and those same people are free to own and use firearms for self-defense, recreation, hunting, or any other lawful purpose. The 2nd Amendment is a civil right the same as the 1st Amendment. What Jan Morgan is doing is denying an entire group of people, an entire group of Americans, access to a fundamental civil right, simply because she doesn’t like the god they pray to and the holy book they read. That misses the entire point of everything America is supposed to be about.

For someone who claims to support individual rights, Jan sure seems to miss the concept of what the Constitution is actually there for. Stay off my side, Jan Morgan.

169 thoughts on “Jan Morgan: idiot, bigot, or both?”

  1. Interestingly, I just wrote on my Gun Culture 2.0 blog about Jan Morgan being an invited guest speaker at the Students for Concealed Carry national conference this past August. In that post, however, I forgot to mention that she characterized herself as a radical 2nd Amendment supporter, much stronger than the NRA in her view, suggesting basically that nothing people can do eliminates their RKBA. But to the extent that this radical view of the 2A is associated with libertarian ideology, it doesn’t really conflict with her decision to ban Muslims from her gun range, since libertarians believe private businesses should be able to do what they want without government intervention, including discriminate on the basis of religion.

    Not saying I agree with her, but at least libertarians are consistent in their views of individualism and privacy.

      1. True. You can ban an individual from your business for cause. It’s illegal to ban based on race, religion, disability etc.

          1. Laws do not create rights. They may protect rights, or they may deny rights. Arguing semantics at some level, perhaps. But it’s an important distinction.

      2. Agreed. Freedom is in part having the right to not do business weather you are a potential buyer or seller. Racism is based on ignorance, but if somebody is a racist and does like me, I am glad they let me know. It allows me to do business with somebody who has no racial problem. Islam as we all know is not a race, perhaps she will ban communist, or whatever, I think its her right. Just as it is our right to not do business with her. What happened to indivdual freedom?

      3. It should be her individual right to deny anyone to handle a loaded firearm. The State can deny the right to own a firearm, why can’t she? She does not have the luxury of being able to background check every person that wants to shoot. She is not stopping anyone from going to the Sheriff’s office, getting a permit and buying a gun. That is our 2nd A right, not being able to shoot at a certain place. There is no sure way to determine one’s religion, but if she does not feel right about handing them a fully automatic firearm, she should not be mandated to do so.
        I just want to know what civil right she violated.

      4. No way! She has to provide a safe environment for her customers and she’s just doing that right now! Banning someone from your business is NOT denying them a civil right. As a businessowner I get to decide who I want to do business with, and especially in the gun-business you’d better be too careful than not careful enough.

        We are all living under a real deathtreath from muslims, or don’t you ever read any media at all?

        Apperently you still don’t take the death treaths seriously. Not even after the countless proof we’ve got that we should take them serious. You would make a great scientist. After 100.000’s of proof you still claim to know better. How many more innocent people will have to die before bigots like yourself can be convinced to open their eyes for the horrific truth around you? By denying this truth, you are responsible for every death that is caused by those people because you refuse to protect your fellow human being!

        You also should work on your researchskills. Everything you claim her to be, she’s exactly the opposite. Now who’s feeding negative stereotypes!

    1. Let’s think this through….during World War 2 not all Germans were Nazis and committed to killing Americans and not all Japanese were worshipers of Hirohito and determined to kill all Americans—yet, President Roosevelt prohibited the entry to America of all persons from those countries (and “locked up” a bunch of people of Japanese heritage until the end of the war).
      Likewise, not all Muslims are terrorists, yet virtually all terrorism against Americans is committed by Muslims and to my knowledge the only religion currently on the planet that preaches/advocates “death to all non-believers” is–wait for it– Islam.
      Given our modern day war with radical Islam/Muslims what do you think Roosevelt would do? How about Truman? And George Patton—c’mon you know the answer!
      Check out the radical Muslim problems in Belgium, the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Denmark, and etc.
      Until sane Muslims defeat their psychopathic religious brethren (so called jihadists) and their theocratic world domination intents, it makes protective sense to place a moratorium on the entry to America of all Muslims until the war is over. Yep, let’s protect American citizens from the killers within Islam. Sounds like a good idea? Do you want your government to protect you from our enemies–or not? After all, do you not carry a gun to protect you from your individual “potential enemies”?
      Wake up Americans, don’t be fools like the “PC” populace of western Europe who are know victims of their very own foolish idea of multiculturalism.
      In the words of Michael Savage: “we need more Patton and less patent leather”!

        1. And you would have too if you were living in that time of history. You are looking back with the knowledge we have today. That’s not right, you should look at history with the knowledge people had at that time to understand history and learn lessons from it.

          1. We have a word for “looking back at history with the knowledge of today”, it’s called “progress.” We thought slavery was okay once.

      1. Can we get something straight, just in case you are not averse to being confused with facts? The Quran (and the religion) does not in any way say “death to non-believers”. In fact, one of the richest traditions of killing for non-belief comes from Christianity. While Muslims historically conquered lands they did not go around slaughtering non-Muslims. There is no parallel to what Christians did during the Crusades or Spanish inquisition. Yet I do not hold Christianity accountable for horrible things done in the name of Christianity.

        The Quran’s reference to fighting nonbelievers refers to acts of aggression against Muslims or acts which are considered egregious and an affront to God. The verses came when the Arab idolators used to attack the Muslims, whom they considered a threat to their way of life. Fighting Hitler’s Nazi Germany would be an example of an Islamic “jihad”. In the Quran, “non-belief” is not used in the context people think. As I have mentioned, history would seem to suggest that Muslims throughout the centuries also did not read it as “kill all non-Muslims”.

        1. Tarik, please stop lying to defend Islam. It is a documented fact that Islam was spread by the sword and that moslems murdered those who did not conform to islam. The Crusades were nothing but a late to Moslem aggression whereby moslems attacked and conquered Christian lands in the Middle East.

          BTW: Moslems fought WITH Adolf Hitler, not against Nazis. They formed two divisions of the Waffen-SS. History DOES suggest that Moslems throughout the centuries have fought and murdered those who do not convert. Approximately 270 million people have been murdered by moslems since the advent of Islam. That is about 175,000 innocents per year.

          1. Muslims also made up a sizable portion of the British Indian Army and the King’s African Rifles, as well as Free French units from North Africa. Noor Inayat Khan posthumously received the George Cross for her (yes, her. Not exactly a repressed hijab-wearer) work as an SOE commando in occupied France.

            But if “some supported Hitler” is all you need to smear an entire religion, my grandmother was put into a camp by Italian fascists who were likely Catholic. My wife’s family was probably gassed by Catholics and Lutherans. Some people just suck, and their professed faith has no bearing on their suckage.

          2. Are you kidding me!!! Muslims fought WITH Hitler?!!! Your outrageous and false comments intrigue me. You put in random numbers to try and give credence to your personal qualms on an issue you obviously know nothing about. Hitler didn’t only kill Jews by the way, Muslims were killed too. So to correct your terrible math, and to give you a quick history lesson here:
            1. The early Muslims only fought in defense of being annihilated by other non-believers.
            2. The spread of Islam was peaceful due to the fact that historically there were still Christians and Jews living peacefully in the previous Islamic Empire(which by the way extended all around North Africa, Eastern Europe, Spain, and Western Asia).
            3.History suggests that every religion has its own radicals and extremists which in my personal view and others NEVER ILLUSTRATE THE TRUE IDEOLOGIES OF THE RELIGION in any way.

            Before you reply and plaster an outrageous comment on a religion of over 1.4 billion people all I ask is think.

        2. Uh, OK.

          Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…

          but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

          1. 1st Samual 15: God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

            I’m a Christian, and I don’t believe that the bible wants me to go out and murder non-believers. Anyone can cherry pick verses from the Koran or the Bible to find a lot of things that don’t really make sense to our modern sensibilities.

        3. And who, pray tell, is the arbiter of “acts of aggression against Muslims or acts which are considered egregious and an affront to God?” Seems to me that determination has been left to the Muslims themselves, and the rest of the world is told to accept that determination . . . hmmm. Kind of like telling someone “You may not offend me by doing something I do not agree with,” and then refusing to tell them what you disagree with – (or telling a 6-year old to play chess against a Grand Master, refusing to explain the rules and then beating him when he loses). By doing that, you may always choose to be offended by ANYTHING that person does. A wise man told me one time, “Those who SEEK to be offended will never be disappointed.” That is precisely what is happening here. Someone (author) has failed to look beyond a very compartmentalized box and has chosen to be offended by this woman’s completely understandable actions. It is also why everyone needs to simply stop second-guessing everything everyone else does, and take care of their own business. JEEZ!

      2. I’ve read your comment and was going to reply to your post, but since you quoted Michael Savage there is really nothing that I can say that will sway your thought. Michael Savage is probably the most bigoted in reference to this article.

    2. Oooooahhhh. Look out, a civil rights law suit. You suddenly like the constitution do ya. Where do I send donations supporting this woman’s right to keep potentially murderous muslims off an American shooting range?!

    3. Not true. Her Federal Firearms License, (FFL), allows her total discretion as to why or who she sells or rents guns to. If she thinks or feels for any reason, that anything does not seem “right”, she does not have to sell, rent, or do any business with that individual what so ever. That is the ATF’s posture, as well as ANY firearms dealer, not just hers.

  2. As far as I’m concerned , she’s just as bad as Bloomberg. Both hate civil rights, and both know not when to shut their yaps.

  3. Freedom. It’s her right to serve whomever she likes and to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This used to be the norm in America. I can’t count the number of times I saw the sign that said in effect “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time” while I was growing up. Personally I would not want any muslims in my establishment either. Any one who reads the koran from cover to cover and does not agree is a moron.

    1. So you’re okaying with denying people access to their civil rights, guaranteed by the Constitution? Because that’s a little bit different than saying “we don’t serve your kind here, boy.”

      1. Is she in a position to deny anyone their rights? Based upon the text provided it seems she is refusing to do business with Muslims, not confiscating their guns.

        1. I am struggling with why this is so difficult for people to understand: access to the right protected by the 2nd Amendment (the ownership of firearms) is provided by private business, like gun shops. So if a gun shop says “I will not do business with you because of your race/religion” they are ABSOLUTELY infringing on your rights.

          1. i agree with that but it’s an issue not limited to the 2A and would never even get there in a court case. For at least 50 years now private individuals operating a private business “open to the public” do not have the same freedom of association/right of refusal as a person on their “not open to the public” private property.

            It doesn’t matter whether your selling guns, range time or chili cheese dogs. You can’t refuse service based on race or religion. That’s a civil rights violation regardless of the product or service.

          2. So if some meth head came into a gun shop you owned and looked like he was violent and you had a feeling he would do harm. You just wouldn’t care and you would sell him that gun with no problem? If then he were to go and shoot kids…..I would blame you for selling him that gun. Just like I blame our government for supplying terrorists with training and guns, even though they weren’t terrorists yet, Our government helped them become that, because they thought that too. Or even better, would you give a 5 yr old a gun? Those rights are there to help us protect ourselves, not to help others take our lives. Just think about it. Let them go some place else, to someone that doesn’t care if they get shot as soon as they sold the gun to a Muslim Terrorist. Not saying they all are, but the Koran does say hate, murder and kill all that don’t agree.

          3. Also, If doing so was a problem, then why is the government taking precautions of who travels back and forth in our country that might be muslim? Or the fact that they have taken precautions about the muslims in this country that do own guns, or even how they monitor who takes flying lessons now? Would you say the government is infringing on their rights too, or just being cautious like Jan Morgan is? If anything, she’s losing money, because a person no matter their race, creed, color, religion, whatever, will get a gun or make explosives. Can’t really stop them, there are illegal ways of doing it that I’m sure they know. But back to my original question, if someone came up to you and said they are satanic and follow the anarchist way of destroying the government and the people that believe in it “like yourself”, You would have no problem giving them a loaded weapon around your family and loved ones?

          4. And further more, Me being a convicted felon, can’t own a firearm due to stupidity when I was younger. But yet the government won’t allow me to own a firearm. Everyone has to go through a process before the government says yes or no. So since they won’t let me have one or won’t let me even hold one, is that infringing on my rights? Because from my understanding, my right was taking away because of something stupid. So if I’m being judged on something I did in my past and I’ve changed but yet I still can’t own a gun, then why should someone that has faith and belief in a religion that calls for murder of Non-Muslims be able to and not be judged, when I can’t? So the way I see it, what you are saying is, doesn’t matter if he/she is a rapist, murder, abuser, drug addict, felon, religious fanatic, mentally deranged, everyone should have a loaded gun.
            Well in that aspect, yes, maybe it’ll help diminish the population, hopefully they start with you

          5. So then you support the radical views of Muslim? you support the views of sharia law? no one is denying anyone the right of the 2nd amendment….they simply made a intelligent choice to not include a religion that has proven without a doubt to be unstable…deceitful .. destructive ..wrong by almost any human standard but yet you still want to support and justify Muslim anything…..I think you need to self educate as well as be taught by intellect superior and learn the true meaning of Muslim…it is without a doubt a seriously flawed religion that has caused more unwarranted deaths and destruction in the last 100 years than anything I have ever learned , witnessed , experienced or thought about….I cant believe you are defending this religion of total destruction….go back to firearm coverage and reviews…a place which you seem to excel and stay out of the politics …seriously man….this is gunnuts.net….not Muslim justification.net……wtf caleb?????

          6. I support every American’s right to be free to worship whichever god he or she chooses to. I support every American’s right to not be discriminated against because of their religion. Most importantly, I support the right of Americans to believed innocent until proven guilty.

          7. You have a right to keep and bare arms. You do not have a right to buy them and a private business is not obligated to see that your rights are fulfilled. I know that sounds crazy but think about it.

          8. The problem is that the Constitution protects our rights from being infringed upon by the government. It doesn’t say whether we (as invididuals) can or can not choose how we do business with each other. It’s a bit of grey area.

            I personally think she’s wrong to ban Muslims, but I think she has every reason to be vigilant and treat customers who appear Arab with a heaping dose of additional suspicion.

          9. 1. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Arab.
            2. No, she doesn’t. It’s basically illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religion.

            Look, if she had said “I don’t want suspicious people in my range” that wouldn’t have been a problem, and we’d all support that. If I had a shady dude come into my gun store acting weird and giving me funny vibes, I’d refuse him service regardless of the color of his skin. But when you say “no Muslims/Catholics/Buddhists allowed” you’re discriminating based on religion, and that’s wrong.

          10. Possibly because the 2A is applicable to restraining the GOVERNMENT from keeping someone from owning/possessing a firearm unless there are legitimate reasons? What if she had refused to allow a straight, white, male, with a job (today’s new minority) to shoot at her range because he had been convicted murder; would that be different? Would you then be defending HIS right to shoot at her range. Her statements about how other customers were reacting to the situation provide concrete support for her actions, IMHO. Her range; her rules.

          11. Yes it would. Because a convicted felon has done something wrong. “Just being a Muslim” is not, nor should it be, a crime. Holy shit.

          12. Caleb, It’s HER business and whe can refuse services to ANYONE she wants for whatever reason she see fit. Period!

          13. Two things: except for that whole pesky Civil Rights Act.

            Secondly, where the fuck are all you retards coming from? Did that clown Alex Jones link over here or something? Was there an I Hate Muslims convention in town and you all decided to show up in my comments?

      2. She isn’t denying them their 2nd Amendment right–she is refusing to let them use her range and weapons. Wow are you that freaking brain dead to not see what was happening and why she did that. So I guess your a ISIS supporter then huh? Please tell me how do you tell the difference in a “peaceful” one and an “Extremist” before one of them cuts your head off???????? Since one of the “Extremist” beheaded a co-worker and stabbed another because he was upset that he didn’t get a pay raise and people were complaining that he was badgering them about converting to Islam the other day in Oklahoma. She is looking out for the publics safety. What if a group of “Extremist” went into her gun range and rented guns then shot everyone there and took the guns and ammo–think of the damage and all the lives they could take with that, I guess you would continue to support their rights then wouldn’t you?????

    2. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time”

      Business can put that sign up, and if they deny service to someone because they haven’t taken a bath in six weeks or don’t have any clothes on they’ll be fine.

      If the sign or policy is “refuse service to anyone including Negroes, Jews and cripples”, not so much.

  4. Now if we could just get the government to gather up and ship all the muslims to the desert mid east, our country would be much better off! A salute to the lady with the gun range and a finger to anyone that doesn’t like what she did!

    1. Sounds like we’ll need some sort of inquisition for this sort of thing. I never expected the return of the Spanish Inquisition.

  5. Actually I think denying someone access to an otherwise public business on the basis of race, color, creed, or national orientation is a civil rights violation (though I am not a lawyer).

    I am not convinced, however, that banning them from a gun range or gun store is denying them a civil right in the sense of their being denied their 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If every gun store and gun range did this then the civil right might be denied.

    Not saying the decision is right, and in fact it looks quite bad, but the civil right denial conclusion is a bit strong.

  6. Ponder the reaction if she decided to refuse service to, say, men instead? After all, pretty much all rapist are men, amirite?

    1. Nobody would give a shit, because that would be just one store out of millions available. And since the gun market is predominantly male driven, a free market course correction would take place, or they’d be out of business very quickly.

      Their range, their rules. Just because one store bars them for whatever reason doesn’t mean a civil right has been violated at large. They’ll have to find another range that allows them to practice shooting at infidels.

      1. That too, as per the SJW handbook.

        And that is one of the things annoying me.
        Most of the folks commenting here would disagree with the whole SJW “Some men rape, ergo, all men are rapist” meme. Many would also express frustration when that same belief is expressed by the policies of a college, business, or other organization.
        -BUT-
        They are then more than okay with “Some Muslims kill people for their religion, ergo, all Muslims are terrorist”.

  7. “…the eventual fate of all gun bunnies as they hit their later years…” -???
    Wish you were here for that statement Mr. Caleb.
    YOU didn’t seem to have a problem dumping on “gun bunnies”. Is that how you feel about women in general? women on the range? Women business owners?
    I know that none of any of that is true, I’ve followed you for quite some time. Just wanted to point out that maybe no one really knows the whole story. I reserve the right to refuse customers service in my shop completely at my discretion. if I feel hinky about them, they go away. There are more shops to buy from. Being aware on an individual basis is much different than banning a religion, however, if the door said “NO CHRISTIANS” I would happily give my $ to the next “gun bunny”.
    ~s.

  8. I’m going with attention whore and no talent ass-clown. And unless it’s a members only private club, she’s begging for a lawsuit.

    As for the rest of it, look, there are like a hundred million American gun owners. Most of them are fine, a small percentage are ass-clowns of one type or another. They don’t see themselves as members of a “community”, they’re just ass-clowns who have guns and there is no way to ideologically police them all.

    Yeah, our enemies love to highlight these people and when they can’t find some to suit there purpose, they make stuff up anyhow. All to be done is denounce her and move on.

  9. She gives us all a black eye and contributes to the lie that we are all a bunch of mouth breeding uneducated slobs

  10. early on in facebook years as a libertarian myself, her page was one of the “pages I might be interested in” suggestions, I followed her for about a month before it was clear that she 1) clearly is more interested in the issues that divide us vs. the things that might unite us to move forward, which I don’t support and 2) she does a fair amount of “outrageous” things in order to make herself more relevant on the internets.

  11. I have lived and worked in the middle east and know from experience westerners are considered a necessary evil but an enemy by some Muslims. I see no problem with us having the same attitude however on the face of the apparent “Muslim Ban Policy” of the range it probably is a violation of the Civil Rights act. Having said that the range can go at the “ban” from another angle and it will be “legal”. Personally I think it is a great idea and I always watch for anyone who appears to be a danger while I am in the public areas. I pay attention to those types of people for the protection of me and my family. If all of those who have commented on this page do not do that then you expose yourself to a real danger. I have been shot at and have shot back at my attackers in my travels and am here to talk about it. Pay attention and stay safe plus do not limit your suspicions to only Muslims..

  12. You are conflating negative rights with positive rights in your assertion that this is a civil rights issue.

    Is it deplorable? Yes. I wouldn’t associate with this person. But it’s her prerogative to manage her property however she sees fit. An her vision is definitely cloudy at best.

    1. No, it’s not. This runs DIRECTLY contrary to the text of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

      1. “Public accommodation”? The wording here would lead one to believe that this is speaking of “public” as opposed to “private”. Technically it would come down to whether or not ‘her’ business is a corporation or not. A truly private business is the same as the individual. A corporation is a creature controlled by the person or entity that created it. This is why a 501-c-3 corporation – created by the IRS – is subject to the IRS rules, such as whether or not they can engage in political speech. For this reason 10% of churches in the US have NOT become 501-c-3’s, and are still free churches, yet tax exempt (see the IRS application for becoming a 501-c-3 corp). It has been interpreted by (certain) courts that such corporations become “public” entities. On the other hand, my sole proprietorship IS me, and is not subject to the “public” standard. We are on the slippery slope of socialism when we take away all rights to privacy, property (and the control of it), freedom of association and religion (“you MUST” cater to the homosexuals!).
        I must ask: do you also defend ALL laws passed in this country? What about the Defense of Marriage Act? What about the Assault Weapons Ban? What about a law that forbids Christians from speaking publicly about their faith? How about a law that allows the government to confiscate your 401k (this is coming)? The 1933 law that banned citizen held gold? As far as I am concerned, I value God’s Law far above man’s laws, so I must continually weigh whether or not it is right (righteous) for me to follow one of man’s laws. Certainly to love God (and therefore His Law) is the highest Law, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself is second. However, I do not find it appropriate to encourage or enable someone who is driven by hate and the desire to destroy – whether that person is a Muslim or Anne Coulter. Someone who allows an abusive person in their household to continue abusing becomes complicit in the abuser’s crimes. This is true of street gangs, religions (cf. the Crusades), or ideologically motivated organizations such as the Nazis and the radical Muslims. A man must protect (provide for) his own first, or, as Christ said, he is worse than an unbeliever. Do I allow the local street gang to buy the guns they will use to kill my family, or do I put my family first? This is the question this woman has raised.

  13. I wholeheartedly endorse Jan Morgan. She is not a bigot nor is she an idiot. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and self-preservation takes priority over teaching muslims to use a gun (or even get one). Remember 9/11? The FAA now monitors who is taking lessons at a flight school. Like it or not, Islam is the enemy. And muslims are loyal to Islam not America. Islam does not embody ANY American value. In fact, wholsesale deportation of muslim immigrants would benefit America as well as putting a halt to all muslim immigration.

    1. Of course, if we’re trotting out old chestnuts, let’s try the classic “First they came for…”
      Because if one discriminates against Group A because (reason), then what keeping Group C from discriminating against you because of the same reason?

      Fer crying out loud, how often have we seen this happen in our history? Look at all the crap we’re going through now (Patriot act, DHS, wiretapping) that seemed like a good idea when it was supposed to be applied against the Moosleeems. And wouldn’t you know it, they’re using it against us.

    2. Let’s not forget that just because they are here doesn’t mean they are citizens. The majority of Muslims here that I have come into contact with are not citizens. While we afford many rights to non citizens that are here attempting to gain citizenship, those who are here with no such intention don’t qualify! Most Gun Clubs by the way are exactly that, Clubs and as such she can deny membership to anyone she chooses.

      1. But what of the Muslims who are actual American Citizens? I’m not exactly seeing that the lady in question has made the distinction.

  14. A freshman analysis a skew of Jan Morgan’s decision. Islam has told us they will defeat us by using our own system against us. Many of you are so lockstep with the politically correct that you have
    ignored the intent of our Constitution – applies to all citizens who are willing to live under these principles. Islam does not agree with our principles and uses them to their advantage. Jan, like millions of Americans are beginning to recognize this limitation and imposed hypocrisy of your Constitutional interpretations. Our Government is afraid to identify Islam as the enemy, Jan is not. The Journalist Bob Woodard wrote in his analysis in 1996, “… Christianity and Islam are well suited to be at each others throats. ” For over 1400 years. this has remained the underlying premise. Should we yield to Islam, there will be an ISIS style purging of the world. Their doctrine is in plain view. Jan’s stand against Islam is visionary, not bigoted, racist or unconstitutional.

    1. Our concerned is based less on political correctness than that of self interest.
      If it good to keep people of a particular religion from exercising a right because of a possible danger, then why not keep people of a particular political belief from exercising the same right because of the same possible danger?

      If moslems are a danger & shouldn’t have guns, why not conservatives? There are government reports that they are possible dangers to the public.

    2. AMEN Steve. We need to be strong and TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
      I don’t care if anyone doesn’t think I am being “PC”. I really don’t care anymore. More people need to speak aloud what we all say behind closed doors.
      We have weak leadership at the top; actually a lack of leadership and it is beginning to manifest in the current state of affairs. You and I and anyone with a spine need to stand up to these ideological idiots and speak the truth.
      Keep up the good work Steve.

    3. The difference is, this being America, and what makes us theoretically different from everyone else, we give people, all people, individually, the benefit of the doubt until they demonstrate that they definitely can not co-exist in polite society. This philosophy is afterall the foundation behind the 2nd amendment. We don’t presuppose that someone is a criminal until they demonstrate criminal intent. We don’t call someone a terrorist until they start doing terrorist things.

      Never mind that unless her range is a private club, she’s breaking the law.

      It’s all ridiculous anyway, because what is she going to do, make every visitor sign a form saying they’re not muslim? You can’t identify someone’s religion by looking.

  15. I am deeply concerned with how many of my readers are okay with discriminating against people based on that person’s religion.

    1. I don’t discriminate on religion but beliefs. A person will die for a belief, but an idea….. a person will change for that. It’s not really the religion but the mentality of the people that Believe that hate and murder is right. I feel the same way about Christianity, bunch of ignorant people that hate all those that don’t believe or have different ideas. Only willing to help other Christians or Catholics. All religions are the problem. The only reason we have religions is to help us with life, to make us believe something will happen afterwards, when in truth “NO ONE KNOWS”. Give me proof and I’ll believe is my quote. In my head, you get a gun in your hand and you’re just asking to get shot.

      Oh, and you are in a way discriminating Jan because of her BELIEF, and a Belief is no different than a religion. So you are no better than anyone else.

    2. It might have something to do with the fact that “that person’s religion” is, on a daily basis, putting the lie to this multicultural fantasy you subscribe to. Just a thought.

    3. Caleb, I would not discriminate based on religion, but I would absolutely discriminate based on the fact that I feel they may try to kill me. If you can’t see the difference, you really are an idiot. If you feel that strongly about training Muslims in the use of firearms, I suggest you drag your un-American butt over to the Middle East to help out your friends. Let me know how that goes.

    4. Caleb,

      I think you’re going to be losing readers everytime you defend any Muslim. WAKE UP….WE ARE AT WAR!!! The enemy is living among us. You’re readers are finding out just how naive you are.

  16. Freedom of association is actually a private form of tyranny requiring a strong central state to contain via legislation. If we can pick our business partners, we might start picking our friends or even spouses! Choice is discrimination, and discrimination is tyranny. End choice for freedom!

  17. Re: “gun bunny”

    Look down on her, if you must, for being a bigoted, no-talent hack. Not for being a beautiful, bigoted, no-talent hack. Woman can’t help the way she looks, and just like everyone else on the planet, she’s going to play the hand she was dealt.

    1. What if I’m looking down on her for being a no-talent hack that parlayed her good looks into getting attention that should be directed at someone who has actual talent and value?

  18. Caleb,

    You know we are simpatico on that. But … ah well, I guess it makes as much sense as blaming tactical derp on the beard. 🙂

      1. Don’t get too upset Caleb… you or GunUp will reach the 120,000+ likes she has on FB eventually… lol… I am surprised you haven’t heard of her before… she’s been on the interwebs for quite a while now… and has been a featured speaker at a number of gun-related events… and yes, her views are right of the right and extreme to some…

      2. Oops, you may wish to read the 1964 Civil Rights act, as this sounds like discrimination based on sex…

        (yes, that was sarcasm, and I am hoping you have a good sense of humor…)

      1. Doesn’t mean everyone needs to *agree* with the Civil Rights Act 😉 Some people see it as an extreme infringement on the right to property and free association.

        THAT SAID, you can still rightly condemn her for being a classless, clueless bigot without agreeing with the laws that make what she’s doing actually illegal. I think the Nazi’s have every right to march and to put swastikas on the courthouse lawn – that doesn’t mean I can’t call them nasty names when they do so.

      2. Cut and paste to your heart’s content. IT’S YOUR BLOG. If I get tired of your sanctimonious crap, I’ll stop reading it.

          1. Yes, your apparent egomania probably guarantees that. Sorry, I figured you for an adult with a balanced mind, but i see I misjudged you. My mistake.

          2. My mind is plenty balanced.

            But I wouldn’t let people come into my home and shit on the floor, so why should I let people come onto my digital property and do things that piss me off? If you want to disagree with me, that’s fine. But if you’re ignorant of the law, or just come here to spout bigoted remarks about Muslims, you can leave. I don’t have the time or patience for that.

          3. So based on your next comment, we are not allowed to make disparaging comments about Muslims, but it’s okay for you to say whatever you want about her because it is your blog? You really are an ass.

          4. Yeah, see the difference is that my comment policy has always been “don’t piss me off” which is 100% legal.

            If you don’t like it, you can start your own blog, which no one will read.

  19. I was kicked off Jan’s page when I joined a group that broke away from her. That being said, I am not sure why an American would be calling out an American. Try going to a mosque and see what kind of open arm welcome you would get. Heck, try walking down the streets of Dearbourne, Michigan and see what happens. BTW, they are using our own system to take us down.

  20. The problem here is that Islam is a FAKE religion. The Koran directly contradicts itself on basic issues, yes, but actually it is there to hide what Islam truly is: a political ideology. Would any of you complain about someone banning Nazis from their business? Islam is the same as Nazism – it is a used to conquer and oppress people and lands while hiding behind the cloak of religion. Just because Congress passed the Civil Rights Act does not mean that applying it to all situations is RIGHT, any more that the “Affordable Care Act” is right. What we have done is to take away people’s right to control their own property. The same can be said about all those gun-control laws we hate. The government, by telling us what we can and can’t do with our own property, has effectively TAKEN our property. Should we discriminate against people with different ethnicity, abilities, or faiths? Perhaps not – BUT THAT SHOULD BE BETWEEN US AND GOD. If you agree that the government can MAKE you do business with ANYONE, then you do NOT have freedom of religion or freedom of association. This is the same argument that the homosexuals are using to punish people that, in their freedom of religion and association, believe that should not cater to homosexual ‘marriage’. This also means that you should not complain when a state, county, city, business, etc., says you cannot have a gun on you when on their property (or within 1000 feet of it).
    What we want here is our freedom. We should applaud this woman for wanting the same thing. If you don’t like her ideas, simply take your money elsewhere, but don’t become a hypocrite by telling her she is wrong to want to control the use of her own property.
    ’nuff said.

  21. I do not know where to begin. First, she is 100% right. You, are totally wrong. Read #7 on her blog. ATF REQUIRES she not sell or service sketchy people.

    Here is a fact for you. IT IS NOT A RELIGION. Her argument is factually correct.

    Civil Rights Act DOES NOT BEAR ON HER ACTIONS. This is not refusing service through discrimination!!!!!!!!!

    Have you REALLY spent anytime studying this group, or their actions in history, or today. Read the news from Britain, Scandavian countries?

    Lastly, exactly how much DIRECT experience with muslims, and/or time spent in muslim dominated countries do you have?

    Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, 12 years of my life. You are totally clueless.

  22. I can always come to the gun blogs for reasoned, civil discussion about the current issues of the day. Here, Tam’s when there used to be comments, Say Uncle, and others. About 90 percent of the comments here just make me shake my head and want to turn the channel. Self righteous bigoted narrow minded people masquerading as patriots.

    1. I suggest you re-read this man’s comment. He is absolutely correct. Too bad you can’t see it.

      Spinuzzi
      September 29, 2014 at 13:50

      “The problem here is that Islam is a FAKE religion. The Koran directly contradicts itself on basic issues, yes, but actually it is there to hide what Islam truly is: a political ideology. Would any of you complain about someone banning Nazis from their business? Islam is the same as Nazism – it is a used to conquer and oppress people and lands while hiding behind the cloak of religion. Just because Congress passed the Civil Rights Act does not mean that applying it to all situations is RIGHT, any more that the “Affordable Care Act” is right. What we have done is to take away people’s right to control their own property. The same can be said about all those gun-control laws we hate. The government, by telling us what we can and can’t do with our own property, has effectively TAKEN our property. Should we discriminate against people with different ethnicity, abilities, or faiths? Perhaps not – BUT THAT SHOULD BE BETWEEN US AND GOD. If you agree that the government can MAKE you do business with ANYONE, then you do NOT have freedom of religion or freedom of association. This is the same argument that the homosexuals are using to punish people that, in their freedom of religion and association, believe that should not cater to homosexual ‘marriage’. This also means that you should not complain when a state, county, city, business, etc., says you cannot have a gun on you when on their property (or within 1000 feet of it).
      What we want here is our freedom. We should applaud this woman for wanting the same thing. If you don’t like her ideas, simply take your money elsewhere, but don’t become a hypocrite by telling her she is wrong to want to control the use of her own property.
      ’nuff said.”

  23. Caleb, Civil Rights went out the door when Islam declared war on all Americans. They now fall into the category of “Combatants”. The sooner we realize this is not political or personal, the sooner we will save American lives by taking care of the problem.

  24. Now I do expect to be totally flamed. That’s okay. But I will leave you with one thought. You may call Islamic faith a “religion”. Some even call Obamacare the “Affordable Care Act”

    Giving something a name, dressing it up in rituals, rules, and behaviors, does not “make” it a religion.

    Ever hear the term “snake oil”?

    Jan’s comments on how Islamic nations are ruled by “Islamic law”, and the voices of the clerics is dead on.

    Let the flaming begin.

  25. Caleb, I’m not here enough to recognize names of regulars vs. others, but I’d want to know how many of “your readers” are here for the first time before I got upset about it.

  26. There you go.

    Remember, the idea of “I shouldn’t have to admit to my business anyone I don’t want to” sounds good in theory, sounds like freedom, until you put flesh and blood on it and remember what it produced on a wide scale in the past.

    Probably some people don’t know, some aren’t thinking it through and some don’t give a rip.

    Some people are confusing private life with “open for business” life as well.

    You’ve done a good job of defending the civil rights of Americans on legal. constitutional and moral grounds in this thread.

  27. Having owned both liquor stores and a gunshop, the rules provided to you by the state and feds make it real clear that you can refuse to sell either product to anyone for any, or even no, reason whatsoever. This is in NO way taking away anyones civil rights, as there are other stores that just don’t care.

    You don’t like her decision, fine, don’t patronize her business.

    1. Yeah, that’s definitely not how the law works.

      You can refuse someone service for a broad number of reasons, if they’re being shady, if you think they might steal from you, all of that. But you can’t say “I refuse to serve you because you’re a Jew.” Or Muslim, or Catholic.

  28. She’s clearly made a choice a bigot would make. If she serves the general public she is in violation of the civil right act. It’s Title II.

    SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

    (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

    (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than 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 such establishment as his residence;

    (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

    premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

    (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

    (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

    You didn’t expect them to list all possible types of business did you?

  29. Whether you agree or not. This makes us look bad. Caleb is right. And you guys agreeing with this… Dare I say, publicity seeking whore… Make us look bad.

  30. Looks to me like she is getting the PR she wants from this. One statement via signage at her range would have made it look like a private stance for her private business, though you could question the legality of it. The way she chooses to publicize it on Facebook and other media seems to be taking advantage of a popular viewpoint with her chosen clients.

  31. Islam is not a religon, its a theocracy. Not protected by our constitution, therefore Jan can ban any idiot who practices that hateful ideology. Go Jan. More Americans need to wake up and stop acting like hippy vaginas.

  32. The best thing that can come from this is that it might force some to accept that gun ownership and use is a civil rights issue.

  33. So all of you claiming civil rights issues, I have a couple questions for you. One, is shopping or using a range a right or a privilege? Doesn’t she have the “right” to do business with whom she pleases? And if we are so concerned with this civil rights stuff and bigotry she is supposedly showing, and we are worried about discriminating based on race or religion, are we also concerned about this issue directed at the white race, or only the other way around. If you wonder what I am referring to, could you please explain why these things are not a civil rights issue as well: NAACP, Miss Black America, United Negro College fund, Black Entertainment television, JET magazine, NAACP Image awards, or other groups that exclude based on race. Isn’t that discriminatory? Would we all just accept as normal our Miss America pageant excluding each non white participant? Yet we thing it is ok when it works in reverse. Where is the NAAWP? Or the United Caucasian College Fund? We have become so incredibly overly sensitive to many things and politically correct, we fail to see the forest for the trees. Some of you are so concerned with offending Muslims you are oblivious to them offending us, or threatening our lives, and telling us they are coming for us. Why is it wrong for the type of business this lady runs to be erring on e side of safety. When they claim to follow a book that instructs them to lie, cheat, mislead, and kill us to attempt to rule us, maybe she needs to make sure she is not placing arms in their hands. Doesn’t she have the right to protect herself and her customers?

  34. She is not far off base. Not that I agree with everything she said, but my big question is how the author of this article managed to slip in Blacks and Gays!!!!!! Nothing she said had anything to do with either of these groups of people. What is the authors real deal????????????

  35. This is broken.

    How can you tell if someone is a Muslim? Would a potential terrorist admit to being a Muslim? Are all brown people Muslims?

  36. History Lesson Time!
    About 150 years ago, it was those damned papist Irish rats that were a threat to America.
    Not long after, the blacks needed to be kept down, for the good of national security.
    Around the First World War, ‘Murrica tried to round up those damned Krauts and eradicate their bellicose culture.
    Then, during WW2, do the same to the Japs, but with concentration camps this time.
    The Fifties gave us the Red scare, which, ironically, was spun out of the Left’s desire to eradicate potential Fascist- go figure.

  37. “…those damned papist Irish rats” – Democrat President Grover Cleveland
    “…the blacks needed to be kept down” – Democrat Governor George Wallace
    “…‘Murrica tried to round up those damned Krauts” – Democrat President Wilson
    “Then, during WW2, do the same to the Japs…” – Democrat President Roosevelt

  38. It shows to me proof that the terrorists have already won in changing our way of life and our acceptance of others. I’m guessing that the opinions would be quite different if someone wanted to ban Christians because the Ku Klux Klan promotes themselves a group promoting “Christian morality.”
    Some “followers” of any religion will pervert the words of the religious texts into meaning whatever they want to, that doesn’t mean we should punishers all the followers of those religions.

  39. It seems a lot of you still want to view Islam through the lens of 1st Amendment religious freedom, as if it is no different than any other religion. Islam is an entire geopolitical ideology with a religious element. Every iota of tolerance extended towards Islam merely grants it a greater foothold and emboldens it further. There is zero reciprocity of that tolerance, and in fact Islam merely views such accommodations as rightful submission by the infidel.

    You would be hard pressed to find more tolerant societies than places like the Netherlands and Sweden, and look at how those countries have been rewarded for it. The days when you could just blithely appeal to religious liberty are over. There is an entire world religion dedicated to using that religious liberty to see to your destruction. You will get with reality now or later, but now would be better.

  40. The Bill of Rights set limitations on the GOVERNMENT. The Second Amendment says the GOVERNMENT shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The First Amendment says the GOVERNMENT shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion… or abridging the freedom of speech. People arguing that Jan Morgan is infringing on Constitutional rights are missing the whole point of the Bill of Rights. They have fallen for the lies of statists that the government can use the bill of rights to infringe on the rights of individuals.

      1. Caleb…either go back to GUNNUTS.COM and report about guns and gear or change the name of the page to ISUPPORTMUSLIM.COM that way I can remove your page….I read this page for the reporting of firearms and such listed activities….not the ignorant support of a misguided and terroristic religion. maybe you should move to the middle east and support the muslim population and ill read about the beheading of you….

          1. good enough for me…please remember…you and your entire family need to move to the middle east and support the muslim population…..

    1. Hes not supporting a religion, hes supporting the constitution. If you don’t want to support the constitution please get out of this country.

  41. Until Jan whatshername actually denies service to someone, she hasn’t violated any law. She has just exercized her first ammendment right to free speech. While her speech may make it clear who is welcome and who would be advised to steer clear, it is not illegal.

    If she stands in the doorway giving a written test of islam beforw allowing entry, that would be a different story.

    As for the Johnny Douchebag that wrote this column, crying racism and bigotry might earn you a brownie point or two with the socialst nutbags ruining this country, it holds no sway with me or many like me.

    First of all, rights enumerated under the constitution restrict the government, not private property owners. This is how starbucks can discriminate against gun carrying customers.

    And there is an easy way around the civil rights act. Make it a member only range. The allow whoever you want and deny whoever you want. The owner of any establishment has the right to be a private business. Were I advising Jan, that would be my suggestion.

    Is she a bigot? Maybe, and I don’t care. Its her money on the line, her property, and ultimately, the decision should be hers.

  42. We need to split the issue into two parts:

    Part 1: Her business, her rules.

    A) Ideally, this is the case. A business person should be free to deny service to whoever they want to, and they should likewise be free to undergo the consequences, including being mocked/denounced on the internet, boycotted, or demonstrated against.

    B) However, the law of the USA is that you are not allowed to do that. You may not like it, but this is a law passed by a majority of the representatives of the American people, signed into law by the President of the US, and reviewed as to the constitutionality by the SCOTUS, with the whole process functioning according to the process established by the Constitution. And please note, the Constitution of the United States is not subject to private interpretation, and there is no amendment in the Bill of Rights that says you can set aside a law because “you don’t like it”.

    Part 2: All Muslims are terrorist, and should be denied their rights.

    A) Their religion calls people to kill others. Guess what, ever read the Old Testament in the Bible (or the Torah if you happen to be Jewish)?

    B) Some Muslims kill people. Yep, and some military veterans commit crimes, some gun owners commit murder, some men rape… the list goes on. BUT, one needs to judge people as individuals, not groups.

    C) Whenever you single out one group to remove their rights, it tends to backfire, and surprise, surprise! they’re coming after you now! When you vote the government rope to hang someone with, don’t be upset when they want to use it on you next.

    D) Did you know that many gun control laws were originally purposed to stop blacks from buying guns… look how well that worked out!

    Protect the rights of Muslims? To paraphrase Burke, I’d protect the rights of the Devil himself. Because in the end, I’m protecting my rights in the process.

  43. We could do this with any number of comparisons. Ban women from bathtubs because they’re more likely to drown their kids than men. Ban men from company of women because they are more likely to rape. Ban priests from interacting with boys because they’re more likely to molest them. Ban Christians from the Middle East because they are most likely to start a crusade. Ban Germans from France because they’re most likely to invade.

    Right now, Muslims are simply the group that has the most active extremists at the moment. Don’t instantly punish a religion because some of them think plastic explosives are a fashion statement. Christians had their violent extremist period too, where they wiped out cities. If you want to hate someone, focus on the Muslims in the Middle East who already hate us, don’t piss off the ones here and give them a reason to hate you too.

  44. One final comment regarding my previous note. The reference to President Roosevelt’s defensive tactics during World War 2 was offered for illustrative purposes on how a great leader actually protected his country from identifiable groups of people who had declared war on our great country. Again, please remember that not all Japanese were Hirohito theocrats intent on killing Americans and all Germans were not Nazis. To simply critically seize upon one aspect of Roosevelt’s protective measures from my previous testimony–i.e.,; internment camps for those of Japanese heritage until the wars end–frankly betrays an impairment in analytical thinking skills,
    So, let me simplify my main point. Let’s say that within the country of Greece there arose a dominating political force that had taken over the country and these “Greecehadists” have declared war on the United States of America with the stated intent to dominate the world with their particular strain of governmental structure, which we will call “Grecian Formula Law”. And, indeed many Greeks (but not all) and those converted to this “Grecian Formula Law” were actually killing Americans, those who support our nation, persons who refused to convert to “Grecian Formula Law”, and others who were judged to be “not Greek enough”.
    Got the premise?
    Now, I would expect a competent leader to ban from entrance to the United States of America all those of Greek origin until the “Greecehadists” were completely defeated and perhaps a number of documents of surrender were obtained from the various leaders of this self declared enemy and other aligned groups.
    It is vitally important to understand that extremely strong human group identity can be derived from nationality, race, political philosophy, and of course religion. Do not let religious identity confuse and limit your analyses of which human group produces our present day enemies–hint: it’s not Buddhists, Baptists, Latvians, Lilliputians, or Greeks for that matter! Let me please emphasize–not all Muslim’s are Jihadists. Got it? Yet, all our Jihadist enemies come from the Muslim religion. This conclusion is not guess work or driven by prejudice. They say it–just listen to what they say and watch what they do.
    Thus, based on their success in World War 2 these leaders from “The Greatest Generation”– Roosevelt, Truman, and Patton–would be much preferred in taking the lead in our present day fight with our Muslim Jihadist enemies.
    I trust this abbreviated treatise was not to difficult to comprehend.

    1. No, it was pretty easy to comprehend.

      You’re saying that you’re in favor of a socialist president rounding people up based on their race and putting them in camps.

  45. Just want to chime in because of all the hypocrites who are support the Second Amendment but seem to think it’s OK to discriminate against someone based on religion — something that fundamentally un American. Caleb is right and I’m glad he’s speaking up lest the media think pro gun people support obvious discrimination. I don’t and I’m going to hope and believe most of us don’t.

  46. so most members of the KKK are OK people and should not be feared because of the actions of a few? Sell that to a black person. Oh yeah, let’s not worry about the Mexican drug cartels either. Heck, most of them are wonderful upstanding citizens, just a few members make them all look bad. I’m sure most Muslims are good people and they don’t support the actions of their radical brothers. But until those good people take action to clean up their own back yard I don’t feel sorry for them.

  47. This appears to be where a lawsuit might bear weight, but there is certainly room to move pro or con: “42 U.S. Code § 2000a – Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation”. However, when you really get into the nitty gritty of this, it is not what some seem to think and the Supremes might come to an inconclusive conclusion.

    1. 42 U.S. Code § 12181 – Definitions

      (7) Public accommodation
      The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—

      (A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;

      (B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;

      (C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;

      (D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;

      (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

      (F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;

      (G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;

      (H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

      (I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;

      (J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;

      (K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and

      (L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

      (L) might conceivably cover a gun range if it is deemed a place of recreation, as opposed to a place where people simply lawfully discharge firearms for whatever reason, whether for personal enjoyment, or because they are practicing to make a professional qualification standard, or for self-defence preparation (easiest right there), etc., especially if the range does not prevent people from shooting for non-recreational reasons. Gyms, bowling alleys and golf courses are places where athletic competitions take place. If there are no competitions, athletic or otherwise taking place at the range, then it is hard to see how the range would fit the legal definition of a public accommodation.

      Actually, perhaps the easiest option for her would be simply to designate the range as The First Universal Church of the Second Amendment and claim the status of religious establishment. It’s not like mosques have to accommodate Jews or Christians. Or she could just hang bacon at the range entrance. Or burn a Koran every day during open hours. Whatever.

  48. Curious, since Sharia law requires subjugation of women (must wear certain clothing, cannot be out in public w/o a male family member escort…etc.), and she is standing up for womens rights outside of Islamic teachings, doesn’t that mean she is “more right than wrong”? Just using liberal logic for those that are purists.

    Would you and others feel better if she had posted a sign that said, “No Sharia Law Tolerated On Property”?

    So a lawful business owner must cater to customers who’s ideas are both repressive and impact the civil rights of the owner?

    How about the civil rights of the owner who exercises her rights to refuse service to any customer they choose?
    Its not illegal for Islamic businesses to refuse service to women who are not in religious garb.

  49. Ever notice how one side of this argument is always resorting to name calling, cursing, etc? And how that side refuses to debate with actual facts?

    Cursing at people, calling them names, and dismissing their factual arguments with nothing but emotion and unsubstantiated opinion is not debate. It isn’t even civil discourse.

    And defending the internment of Japanese-Americans or stating that Islam isn’t a religion?! You can’t make this stuff up.

    IMO…. (Notice how I prefaced that?)…. The most important “virtue” a society or individual can have is tolerance. As opposed to this rabid intolerance I’m seeing displayed here. Please stop. You are causing harm to our side.

    1. Ever notice how the internet, in general, is an almost universally abysmal forum for discussing anything?

  50. Please keep the Constitution within its original context: it was written to protect the people from the Federal government and does not apply to privately held businesses. So neither the 1st nor 2nd amendment apply.

  51. Please keep the conversation within context. The Constitution was written to protect the people from the federal government and does not apply to privately held businesses, therefore neither the 1st nor 2nd amendment apply.

  52. Caleb….can’t get simpler than this:
    1) round up nobody
    2) moratorium on ‘new’ Muslims immigrating to America until the Muslim Jihadists are completely defeated
    3) do the same if terrorist killers start coming from Japan, Germany, Latvia, or Greece
    If the above 3 point outline does not clarify my position, then nothing short of remediation course in the most basic elements of logic will assist you….take care

  53. Jan Morgan is an attention seeking old woman with no achievements in life and no real intelligence.
    I jumped on her Facebook page to see if this was true and it sure was, more shocking and displeasing was the support she was receiving from the community ‘which I soon realised why, because she was deleting all the negative comments, how sad, guess it makes her feel good’ Anyways, in my view, it is her business and she can do what ever she wants to, as a muslim I am upset when I hear about people like this but it doesnt stop me from getting on with life.. But before I left her page and still in disbelief that she was actually supposed to be a respected public figure, I thought I would ask her a simple question seeing as she was taking the time to respond to comments, I asked a very simple question to identify if she was an idiot or a racist.. I asked her ‘HOW DO YOU PLAN TO IMPOSE AND REGULATE THIS MUSLIM FREE POLICY AT YOUR RANGE’ I was confused, can I rock up looking like a middle-eastern man with a beard and a strong accent of christian belief and be allowed in, this all points towards a racially driven idea.. well, Jan the loser avoided my question 3 times and then blocked me from seeing her account ‘ I was in no way rude to her either ‘ I asked a similar question from another account and was ignored.. in summary it proofed to me that she was an idiot with no intelligence what so ever and even though she claims islam is not a race and she is not being racist, what her idealogy is founded on is pure racism.. and she only represents a very minor part of America, the same with radical muslims, the rest of the muslim world does not support them and its times like these when you can relate to why Americans hate muslims and vice versa.. its small time idiots like this who manage to get a fb account and the attention of the media claim to represent the rest.. what an absolute joke she is..

    Praise to the author of this article for such an intelligent and well written piece.

    1. I agree with the fact that she should only ban someone if they show some evidence of being dangerous — But the idea that “the rest of the muslim world” does support the radicals is completely wrong…..There is no radical islam, just Islam…..One in the same…….

  54. You cannot discriminate against someone because of that person’s religion. Period. If that person is acting in a manner that causes you to believe he or she may be dangerous, mentally ill, or a danger to himself, you have the right not to accommodate them, and especially not to hand them a weapon. Being a member of Religion X is not suspicious behavior.
    I spent 30 years throwing people in jail. There are a lot of people in this world I don’t like. But I don’t deny them their rights.

  55. “Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim.”

    That’s the same logic as the gun-banners’ basic argument: Not all humans are murderers, but almost all murderers are humans.

  56. I can’t express how much I love and agree with this article. This woman’s range is 10 minutes away from my home. I got my concealed carry permit there before she took ownership. Jan Morgan has ruined what once was a good range and I will NEVER go back. If she wanted her customers to feel safe she shouldn’t have made her range a target for the millions of people she pissed off. This is absolutely a cheap PR stunt for someone trying to make herself a celebrity. I can speak from experience that this woman is a complete moron and gives us gun owners a bad name.

  57. wow! First time ever you liberal wackos have EVER been FOR someone firing a gun! AND you pick the group most likely to fly planes into buildings. Tell me, does a skull full of mush cause Liberal Disorder, or is it the other way around?

Comments are closed.