doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Theodore Roosevelt on critics

Sheesh and fried eggs Larry. Couldn't you tell that I was wasting a bunch of time and type by try to apply 'logic' to the first ninety-eight percent of my nonsense?

If you look at what I quoted from you, my concern was in two areas. First, your contention that muslim prayers breaks were between sunrise and sunset, and second, I was recognizing your stern warning and rant about misquoting.

I quoted you perfectly, but it's possibly to interpret your quote, incorrectly. Your warning to me was about my interpretation of your opinion, not settled fact. Don't you think your quote-n-misquote warning slips to shaky ground if, repeat if not is, the muslims work substantially or completely during night time hours. They also, as a group, are travelling from Green Bay, so not only is their shift substantially not during daylight hours, but company transportation brackets at least a good hour before and after the nine(?) hour shift.

Didn't your comment say covers the day, not all the day? What if there is some indication that the time in question was not between sunrise and sunset? Yes, I acknowledge that you tried to explain how some second shift hours allow their prayer time to fall outside of work, but you're implying that some prayer time necessarily falls into work hours. My opinion says that there are reasonable alternative logical conclusions, foremost being that there be absolutely no need for the muslim call to prayer after sunset.

Couldn't it be supposed that you are giving legitimacy to a practice that is not a requirement of the faith, in other words a 'special right' for that faith and none other? Yes, I've repeated many times that it is unsettled, but why did it take so long for you to come up with a reference that indicates either the courts or a gov regulatory agency will settle it, not congressional legislation?

With all due respect to King Brown, Politifact and the Washington Post are far from impartial fact checkers. A study by Dr. Robert Lichter at the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Politifact rated statements by Republicans as false or mostly false 3 times more often than statements by Democrats. Fact checking is not a "public service." It's more about the fact checker selectively choosing the statements to review and then applying their own subjectivity to those statements. Read James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal. He regularly demonstrates that many statements which are rated by the so-called fact checkers as false or mostly false are nothing more than opinions with which the "fact checkers" don't agree.

Craig, that's the most current information I have . . . and that's all you need to know. Some Muslim workers have actually been fired because they did not accept the break policy. Those still working get the same two breaks as everyone else. No use speculating any further . . . unless and until we hear what happens to the complaint CAIR filed. But as of right now, there is no legal ruling and no legislation that gives Muslims at Ariens any rights than any non-Muslim employees do not have.

Unless you come up with new information on that particular issue, seems to me a waste of time and effort to discuss it further.

Goillini, while I agree with your assessment on "fact checkers", I disagree with your "all due respect" for King Brown. King has a long history here of almost blind allegiance to Liberal Left Anti-Gun politicians, and frequently quotes references that support or defend them and denigrate those who actually support our gun rights. Care to see King's idea of facts? How's this?



Of course, recalling and repeating a small fraction of King's frequent anti-gun rhetoric makes me mean, mischievous, and uncivil in some folks eyes. So be it.

I don't believe that the data on Muslim breaks can be validated unless daylight savings time and latitude are factored in.

king's argument as quoted above is a valid argument...one may not like it, but it is supported by history...

and it seems to me, that the purpose of the bill of rights was not to declare individual rights, but to specifically limit the power of the federal government over the rights of people and the states.

It's not at all surprising to see Ed Good once again supporting the Anti-Gun rhetoric of his fellow Troll King Brown. We spent a lot of time in the old Misfires section supplying references and quotes from the Framers of the Constitution that provide ample proof that their Original Intent for the 2nd Amendment was for an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In spite of that, and in spite of the 2008 Heller and McDonald decisions from the Supreme Court, King and Ed continue to repeat the anti-gun dogma of the Liberal Left.

Here's a little refresher for anyone who may have forgotten where Ed is coming from, and to show why he regularly shows up to defend King:





You agreed with your pal King when he said this one, right Ed?



Why, of course you did. Two anti-gun birds-of-a-feather!



How crude and insulting of you and King to even suggest that we accept or tolerate mass murder. Nothing jOe or Mike did warrants banishment more than crap like you two post here.

That's the purpose of the 10th Amendment, Ed. If that were the purpose of the entire Bill of Rights, there wouldn't be any need to spell it out specifically in the 10th Amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights collectively limits the power of all levels of government. The Feds can't restrict freedom of speech and religion, nor can the states . . . for example.

As a mostly intellectual exercise, I've been trying to come up with an example of a religion that gets special rights based on their beliefs, as requested by Larry Brown, and I think I've come up with something close. Members of Federally recognized Native American Tribes are allowed to possess and use bald eagle feathers for religious purposes. That would be a crime for most others.

Not a perfect example, I grant you, but the best I could come up with.

The law you are referring to Goillini is this...The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (Aug. 11, 1978) (commonly abbreviated to AIRFA), codified at 42 U.S.C. � 1996, is a United States federal law, enacted by joint resolution of the Congress in 1978.

This law also permits Native Americans to possess and use peyote, which is a restricted drug for anyone else. Of course, Larry Clown says he is ignoring me, even though he has responded to me in the same day he said he would ignore me. And he has also threatened to put craigd on Ignore if craigd ever misquotes him... even though Larry misquoted me in the recent Lead and Condors thread, and refused to acknowledge or apologize for adding words which I never said. And who could forget Larry's selective editing of the Audobon Society's statement on hunting? That's when I learned that he is not worth debating. He's not a whole lot different than Hillary Clinton in my opinion, except Hillary may be more masculine.