November 2, 2011 - Wednesday | 12:08 PM, CST
I came across an article the other day involving a Texan firearms instructor who refuses to provide training to Obama voters and Muslims. On his radio ad, he states
"If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision under the law. [...] If you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class with no shame; I am Crockett Keller, thank you, and God bless America."
In Texas, concealed carry permits are issued only after receiving training from a state-approved firearms instructor, so the main contention is that this stance may somehow qualify as official discrimination. Were he only a private individual, he would be able to train whomever he wishes. But, as a concealed carry permit is granted only upon qualification, and the qualified instructors are approved by the state, he may legally be unable to bar Liberals and Muslims from his classes without fear of state approval being revoked.
From what I've seen, most people seem to support his right to his opinions, however they make haste to denounce his views and label him as a bigot. Personally, when I heard about the man, I thought it was rather humorous. And that brings up a very good point: is he plainly a simple bigot, or does he have a point?
Let us start with considering Liberals. As he states, he does not feel that someone who supports Obama can make the correct life and death decisions to own and use a firearm. Ok, fair enough, but it's an argument which doesn't win me over. I feel that the more people who own and use firearms, the more support and solid footing the Second Amendment has to stand on. Liberals are an integral part of this; because, whether we like it or not, if it were not for Democratic politicians who opposed their party's typically anti-gun platform, everything but single-shot muskets (or worse) would be banned from "civilian" use. The more Liberals who own guns, the more likely a Democratic politician will support Second Amendment rights.
On the downside, the violent rhetoric coming from the left (for years), but especially as seen by the Occupy [fill in the blank] crowd, show that socialists haven't advanced much in their thinking since the Bolshevik's October revolution in the early twentieth century. If anything, the twentieth century should have been one gigantic history documentary on why socialist governments ruin their economies and race to outpace one another on how many dissidents they can kill. It isn't hard for me to wish these people didn't have access to firearms. At present, the vast majority of personal weapons owned in the United States are disproportionately held in the hands of conservatives, but this could change with shifting values.
I have always thought that being a gun owner provides one with a certain amount of independence, and with it a respect for individual liberties and the rights of others. Owning a firearm, and knowing how to use it, instantly transforms one from a subject to a citizen. This is certainly an intangible side-effect of firearms ownership, and perhaps it hums beneath the surface unawares, but I believe having the power to shape one's own destiny is a powerful psychological boost that transforms the very core of one's essence. I suppose it is conceivable that the more Liberals that arm themselves, the more likely they would be to disapprove of nanny-state policies and legislation that strip away individual liberties in favor of the collective.
As for Muslims, sometimes I feel as if our strict adherence to our founding ideological principles may eventually harm us in the long run. The Declaration and the Constitution made clear that rights do not come from man, but from God; as such, they cannot be taken away but by God. Thus a poor black man is endowed with by his Creator with the same unalienable rights as the rich white man. The same is true for different religions, or lack thereof. The problem that arises is the fact that Islam is less of a religion and more of a suicidally murderous death cult bent on subjugating the world under the tyrannical rule of Sharia law.
Many people are quick to assert the politically correct dogma that "Muslims are not the problem." This is true, in a technical sense, but it belies the starry-eyed assumption that Islam is the Religion of Peace ®, and those who engage in terrorist activities are simply "misguided individuals who wrongly interpret their religion." Muslims are not the problem in that the vast majority of people, Muslims included, simply want to live quiet, peaceful, comfortable lives. So long as no one harms them, they are not given to harm anyone else. But to believe that this is because of Islam's teachings and not simple human nature is a result of willful ignorance on the nature of the Quran's teachings.
When learning of the Quran's teachings, it is best (in my opinion) to start with the principle of abrogation. Each Sura (chapter) of the Quran is a divinely inspired writing revealed to the prophet Mohammad, through the angel Gabriel, from Allah (God) Himself. The Quran, however, was not constructed as each Sura was revealed. Mohammad was long dead before each individual Sura was collected and the Quran compiled. When this occurred, the Suras were not included in the order in which they were written, but rather from longest to shortest. This is very important to understand because of the principle of abrogation.
Mohammad first began writing Suras when he lived in the city of Mecca, in what is now Saudi Arabia. Early Suras were peaceful, and taught tolerance with other religions. Later on, when Mohammad was driven out of Mecca and took refuge in the nearby city of Medina, Allah suddenly "changed his mind," and the Suras took on a much darker tone. In these later Suras one will find the passages about killing the infidels, of invading their lands and raping their women, of slaughtering those who will not convert or keeping them as dhimmis (slaves). But because the Quran was compiled with the longest Sura at the beginning, and the shortest Sura at the end, passages promoting peace are interspersed with those commanding the Muslim to kill and conquer. This is where the principle of abrogation comes in; earlier Suras promoting peace are cancelled out by the later Suras promoting war and violence. Abrogation is based on when the Suras were revealed to Mohammad, not their chronological order in the Quran.
Why don't we hear of this more often? Well, that would bring us to the second topic of Islam, which is al-taqiyya. The Quran teaches that it is acceptable to lie, if it advances the cause of Islam. When Muslims preach violence and hate, yet still insist Islam is the religion of peace, they are using al-taqiyya, because indeed, once the world converts to Islam, there will no longer be need of suicide bombings and massacres, and peace will reign. See how that works? Thus, when Muslims speak in public of the peaceful passages from the Quran, they are using the principle of al-taqiyya because it comforts those who would otherwise take alarm. Surely the peaceful passages are correct and terrorists are simply rogues that have nothing to do with the real Islam. Those who use al-taqiyya know full well their goals, but it isn't necessary to mention how those peaceful passages are abrogated by later Suras preaching violence.
Sharia law and the teachings of Islam are unreformable and completely inconsistent with individual liberties and Western (especially American) values. To even suggest anything different is punishable by death in many Muslim countries. But even so, is it acceptable to deny firearms training to a Muslim? The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people who simply wish to mind their own business, but this has much more to do with human nature than the teachings of the Quran.
It's really a catch 22. Deny Muslims their Second Amendment rights, and essentially trash the premise that all men are created equal by their Creator, or allow them their liberties recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution and place ourselves in greater danger. Personally, I am of the opinion that no attempt should be made to deny firearms rights on the basis of being a Muslim. We know that despite our onerous and idiotic gun laws, criminals continue to manage to find ways to arm themselves. A terror cell would be no different, and once we begin to infringe on some peoples' rights it's only too easy to begin to take away the rights of others. Better that more liberty-loving Americans become armed themselves, to counteract any devout Muslims that pose danger. But the truth needs to be better spread that Islam is less a religion than a totalitarian political system: and we are watching. While I do not agree with the Texan firearms instructor's opinions, I do recognize that he has a valid point.
As of the time of this update, the news article had 34,518 comments!
Date: Thursday, Nov 3rd 2011, 7:13 PM
I would have to agree that you cannot begin to choose who is protected by the constitution and who is denied their rights. In the long run this would be more dangerous to America than gun carrying muslims!