So assclown ignorant bed-wetting redneck won't teach a class to soshulists and mooslims at a store and in a town where there are no soshulists and mooslims.

Mighty bold of him, thar.

That is awesome! Good for him, the crazy right-wing xenophobe!

It's never a bad thing when someone exercises their right to free speech, and is willing to stand up for thier beliefs. (Even if you believe their beliefs are wrong.)

Even if you don't agree with him, you gotta give the man credit for speaking his mind and standing behind it.

nmbottlecap: Austinite here *FACEPALM*

Don't facepalm. Mason is about as far from Austin as Scranton is from NYC.

Philip Francis Queeg:
I think that point is somewhat arguable. I do think that having a gun at hand more often could have some serious drawbacks in terms of escalating the level of violence and the seriousness of the consequences in instances of conflict. But that's simply my opinion.

Well, that's just it. The decision to carry is an extremely serious one (have I mentioned things being serious yet?). First rule of carry is that it is the LAST option. You've made the decision to walk away EVERY time there's confrontation. You've made the decision the only time to ever unholster a weapon is when it is absolutly positively neccessary to protect yourself or someone else from grave bodily harm.

In short you've made the decision to be the most civilized analytical motherfarker everywhere you go. But... you have to take life seriously to actually think these thoughts and the vast majority of people who carry have done just that.

HellRaisingHoosier: [i44.tinypic.com image 465x256]

That thing in the background of his picture is a Gatling gun.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x205]


The Gatling gun was used successfully by the Northern forces to crush the traitorous Southerners. This 60lbs death-machine destroyed the Rebels. At roughly 500 rounds per minute the Gatling gun ripped those yellow pieces of Dixie trash right in half. The weak Southerners had to scoop up pieces of their brothers off the battlefields the Union won.


You wanna piss people off Texan? Two can play that game.

Can I play?

Sherman and Grant were two of America's greatest soldiers, and certainly better than any of the losers with the CSA, including, and especially, Robert E. Lee. Instead of farking around fighting armies, Sherman and Grant went for the jugular. In modern warfare you don't pussyfoot around: you swoop in for the kill. Sherman went South for a little "extended holiday" that included awesome bonfires and plenty of free eats. Grant engaged in a campaign of attrition to wear down Lee's forces. He didn't think tactically...he thought strategically. And it worked gloriously.

Also, Texas fielded mostly "cavalry". Why the quote marks? Because 90% of their "cavalry" consisted of infantry with pistols and boots but no horses. They couldn't afford horses.

Who farking cares? Texas is a shiathole 3rd world nowhere to everyone who doesn't live there.

And for the record, Texas is not truly a 'southern' state, and it's not truly a 'southwestern state'. It's a bit of both and neither.

Mostly, Texas is it's own reagion. It's giant and culturally unlike its neighbors.

mdeesnuts: Philip Francis Queeg:
I think that point is somewhat arguable. I do think that having a gun at hand more often could have some serious drawbacks in terms of escalating the level of violence and the seriousness of the consequences in instances of conflict. But that's simply my opinion.

Well, that's just it. The decision to carry is an extremely serious one (have I mentioned things being serious yet?). First rule of carry is that it is the LAST option. You've made the decision to walk away EVERY time there's confrontation. You've made the decision the only time to ever unholster a weapon is when it is absolutly positively neccessary to protect yourself or someone else from grave bodily harm.

In short you've made the decision to be the most civilized analytical motherfarker everywhere you go. But... you have to take life seriously to actually think these thoughts and the vast majority of people who carry have done just that.

You may have made that decision, but strapping a gun on doesn't turn you into a Vulcan devoid of emotion and passion. You may have every good intention of doing all those things you've said, but that can all get swept away in a moment of anger or fear. I think just about everyone loses their cool occasionally, wearing a gun won't wipe out that most human reaction entirely.

Richard Flaccid: Obama supporters would never buy a gun anyway.

Women and effeminate men are afraid of guns.

If you just had managed to work some racism in there, too, we might have had a perfect storm of bigotry.

Stratohead: there are 3 states that make up the south west

I never do this, I promised myself I would never do this, but...





California, More west than any of those 3 states.... only 10% less derp.

gunga galunga: JackieRabbit: HighOnLifeAndGlue: Every single person from the South is exactly like this.

0/10 for effort
0/10 for stupidity, since Texas is in the West, not the South,

As a Texan, here's how I break it down. Everything east of I-45, I consider The South. The rest of Texas, I consider The Southwest.

I like this demarcation between the South & the Southwest. However, I-35 remains the dividing line between East/West Texas.

/Texan

gopher321: [i44.tinypic.com image 465x256]

Now does this look like an uptight, close-minded, regionalistic redneck to you, I ask?

Holy crap. Don't fark with the guy. He has a Gatling gun. All snarkiness aside, the guy should not be forced to provide classes to anyone, regardless the reason.

Philip Francis Queeg: mdeesnuts: Philip Francis Queeg:
I think that point is somewhat arguable. I do think that having a gun at hand more often could have some serious drawbacks in terms of escalating the level of violence and the seriousness of the consequences in instances of conflict. But that's simply my opinion.

Well, that's just it. The decision to carry is an extremely serious one (have I mentioned things being serious yet?). First rule of carry is that it is the LAST option. You've made the decision to walk away EVERY time there's confrontation. You've made the decision the only time to ever unholster a weapon is when it is absolutly positively neccessary to protect yourself or someone else from grave bodily harm.

In short you've made the decision to be the most civilized analytical motherfarker everywhere you go. But... you have to take life seriously to actually think these thoughts and the vast majority of people who carry have done just that.

You may have made that decision, but strapping a gun on doesn't turn you into a Vulcan devoid of emotion and passion. You may have every good intention of doing all those things you've said, but that can all get swept away in a moment of anger or fear. I think just about everyone loses their cool occasionally, wearing a gun won't wipe out that most human reaction entirely.

Meh. That same argument can be made with anything dangerous. The problem with it is there are consequences to all actions. All day every day people don't do stupid shiat, not because they don't want to, but because there are repercussions to their actions. Your argument ignores the fact that people control themselves regularly and well. Even when they have access to extremely dangerous tools.

Praise Cheesus: Stratohead: Vodka Zombie: Stratohead: #1: Texas is in the SOUTH WEST... there are 3 states that make up the south west... Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Like I said, Texas was a part of this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 550x279]

I think they should be considered as being of the South right along with all the other Confederate States. But, yeah. Geographically, they are in the Southwest. Ideologically... South.

ACTUALLY... What Texas is like depends on what area you live in. San Antonio is vastly different from Dallas , Dallas from Austin (hell Dallas is different from Fort Worth, and thats just across the county line) El Paso is nothing like Amarillo...and fark A HOUSTON.


Don't let the political gerrymandering fool you.

Having traveled across good swaths of Texas, the state has areas that embrace both Southern and Western geographic features and attitudes. Go east of I-45 and a lot of the small towns are bear striking resemblances to every other small town in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and North Carolina. Head west from downtown Dallas on I-30 and about 30 miles later you're in Fort Worth, a town that still embraces its origins as a major stockyard to get cattle back east, right down to it still using the nickname of "Cowtown". Midland and Odessa are very much still of the same attitudes they were when oil was first discovered out in west Texas - these two towns live and breathe by the boom and bust cycles of the oil industry. Houston? Think New Orleans as run by Baptists. Austin wants to be San Francisco, ends up being closer to the large cities of the Central Valley of California. Dallas desperately wants to be a cosmopolitan area like New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles - large concert venues, museums, skyscrapers, major league sports teams, arts and entertainment districts. It would work, too... if the majority of the politicians in this area weren't as crooked as a dog's hind leg. The FBI might as well just open a satellite office inside City Hall and save gas money.

Now, here's the thing: Texas is no different than any other state for having a population of dimwits, half-wits and jackasses. It's just in Texas, they have no qualms about speaking their minds. I have also met and talked to absolutely brilliant people here: electrical engineers, designers, environmental managers and artists... and they have no issues speaking their minds either. For every one jackass that gets his name out in the media for being a moron, there is at least a thousand folks here that are facepalming.

Clearly you are new here. This is fark, you are supposed to make wild generalizations about the south without distinctions or having ever spent any time there. All southerners are racist idiots. A constant drain on the United States as a whole and anyone born there is immediately below average intelligence.

mdeesnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: mdeesnuts: Philip Francis Queeg:
I think that point is somewhat arguable. I do think that having a gun at hand more often could have some serious drawbacks in terms of escalating the level of violence and the seriousness of the consequences in instances of conflict. But that's simply my opinion.

Well, that's just it. The decision to carry is an extremely serious one (have I mentioned things being serious yet?). First rule of carry is that it is the LAST option. You've made the decision to walk away EVERY time there's confrontation. You've made the decision the only time to ever unholster a weapon is when it is absolutly positively neccessary to protect yourself or someone else from grave bodily harm.

In short you've made the decision to be the most civilized analytical motherfarker everywhere you go. But... you have to take life seriously to actually think these thoughts and the vast majority of people who carry have done just that.

You may have made that decision, but strapping a gun on doesn't turn you into a Vulcan devoid of emotion and passion. You may have every good intention of doing all those things you've said, but that can all get swept away in a moment of anger or fear. I think just about everyone loses their cool occasionally, wearing a gun won't wipe out that most human reaction entirely.

Meh. That same argument can be made with anything dangerous. The problem with it is there are consequences to all actions. All day every day people don't do stupid shiat, not because they don't want to, but because there are repercussions to their actions. Your argument ignores the fact that people control themselves regularly and well. Even when they have access to extremely dangerous tools.

Yes it can, but that doesn't make the argument invalid. I would have the similar concerns about large segments of the population carrying billy clubs, though they are less deadly. Most people do control themselves. However many do not. I don't see that we need to ignore the dangers of those who don't. The more widespread carrying weapons is in society, the more instances when those weapons will be in the hands of someone who has lost control, who has lost sight of the repercussions because of anger and fear. We aren't entirely rational beings. Not even those who open carry.

Nunya_Bizness: Praise Cheesus: Stratohead: Vodka Zombie: Stratohead: #1: Texas is in the SOUTH WEST... there are 3 states that make up the south west... Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Like I said, Texas was a part of this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 550x279]

I think they should be considered as being of the South right along with all the other Confederate States. But, yeah. Geographically, they are in the Southwest. Ideologically... South.

ACTUALLY... What Texas is like depends on what area you live in. San Antonio is vastly different from Dallas , Dallas from Austin (hell Dallas is different from Fort Worth, and thats just across the county line) El Paso is nothing like Amarillo...and fark A HOUSTON.


Don't let the political gerrymandering fool you.

Having traveled across good swaths of Texas, the state has areas that embrace both Southern and Western geographic features and attitudes. Go east of I-45 and a lot of the small towns are bear striking resemblances to every other small town in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and North Carolina. Head west from downtown Dallas on I-30 and about 30 miles later you're in Fort Worth, a town that still embraces its origins as a major stockyard to get cattle back east, right down to it still using the nickname of "Cowtown". Midland and Odessa are very much still of the same attitudes they were when oil was first discovered out in west Texas - these two towns live and breathe by the boom and bust cycles of the oil industry. Houston? Think New Orleans as run by Baptists. Austin wants to be San Francisco, ends up being closer to the large cities of the Central Valley of California. Dallas desperately wants to be a cosmopolitan area like New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles - large concert venues, museums, skyscrapers, major league sports teams, arts and entertainment districts. It would work, too... if the majority of the politicians in this area weren't as crooked as a dog's hind leg. The FBI might as well just open a satellite office inside City Hall and save gas money.

Now, here's the thing: Texas is no different than any other state for having a population of dimwits, half-wits and jackasses. It's just in Texas, they have no qualms about speaking their minds. I have also met and talked to absolutely brilliant people here: electrical engineers, designers, environmental managers and artists... and they have no issues speaking their minds either. For every one jackass that gets his name out in the media for being a moron, there is at least a thousand folks here that are facepalming.

Clearly you are new here. This is fark, you are supposed to make wild generalizations about the south without distinctions or having ever spent any time there. All southerners are racist idiots. A constant drain on the United States as a whole and anyone born there is immediately below average intelligence.

I was born in Canada, but I live in Tennessee. So... I'm good then?
/most Tennesseans are transplants from up north.
//Tennessee is how far you get when the money runs out on the way to Florida.

Who cares? If he doesn't want our business that's fine, we'll take our money elsewhere.

Paranoid old fart thinks we'd waste a bullet on him. The guy will probably be dead of a heart attack within the next 5 years anyway.

/ already has a CWP

// doesn't go around shooting people

Big Man On Campus: Stratohead: there are 3 states that make up the south west

I never do this, I promised myself I would never do this, but...

[chzderp.files.wordpress.com image 450x534]

[www.map-of-usa.co.uk image 602x566]

California, More west than any of those 3 states.... only 10% less derp.

Sorry but Cali is not part of the southwest, it is it's own unique culture.

Philip Francis Queeg:
Yes it can, but that doesn't make the argument invalid. I would have the similar concerns about large segments of the population carrying billy clubs, though they are less deadly. Most people do control themselves. However many do not. I don't see that we need to ignore the dangers of those who don't. The more widespread carrying weapons is in society, the more instances when those weapons will be in the hands of someone who has lost control, who has lost sight of the repercussions because of anger and fear. We aren't entirely rational beings. Not even those who open carry.

So your argument against more open carry is people who become murderous because of emotion will murder more. I argue that there would be no detectible change in murderous people become murderers.

Like I said - it'd be nice if more people would open carry, then people wouldn't be all "ohh em gee, a gun! get it away!"

mdeesnuts: So your argument against more open carry is people who become murderous because of emotion will murder more. I argue that there would be no detectible change in murderous people become murderers.

If murderous people murder people then only murderers will become murderous.

Murder.

Coelacanth: [i249.photobucket.com image 640x360]

"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."

Hull Dilly!

mdeesnuts:
Like I said - it'd be nice if more people would open carry, then people wouldn't be all "ohh em gee, a gun! get it away!"

Move to a third world shiathole, your wish is easily granted.

Nunya_Bizness: Clearly you are new here. This is fark, you are supposed to make wild generalizations about the south without distinctions or having ever spent any time there. All southerners are racist idiots. A constant drain on the United States as a whole and anyone born there is immediately below average intelligence.

In that case, I can only make wild generalizations about Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Alaska and Hawaii.

In spite of the wild generalization that Farkers enter into discussions based only upon personal prejudice, I have enjoyed many enlightening and spirited conversations here. Much like talking to other Texas residents... or residents of any of the other states I have visited. I must admit that I do enjoy it when people from out-of-state expect that all Texans wear cowboy boots and hats, drive pick up trucks, drink Lone Star beer and speak with a Texas twang.

nvmac: Big Man On Campus: Stratohead: there are 3 states that make up the south west

I never do this, I promised myself I would never do this, but...

[chzderp.files.wordpress.com image 450x534]

[www.map-of-usa.co.uk image 602x566]

California, More west than any of those 3 states.... only 10% less derp.

[i1020.photobucket.com image 261x342]

In Nevada, the farther you get from civilization, the more DERP. Not really hard to understand....

I have noticed that in every state I have lived or visited, the further one gets from the large cities, the more conservative the citizenry appears to be. This is especially apparent in the agricultural areas. The only exception to this I have noted is Orange County, CA - a conservative enclave in the heart of the Los Angeles basin.

Rented some canoes from some people in Mason once. They did not seem to have a problem with our mixed-race group.

mdeesnuts: Philip Francis Queeg:
Yes it can, but that doesn't make the argument invalid. I would have the similar concerns about large segments of the population carrying billy clubs, though they are less deadly. Most people do control themselves. However many do not. I don't see that we need to ignore the dangers of those who don't. The more widespread carrying weapons is in society, the more instances when those weapons will be in the hands of someone who has lost control, who has lost sight of the repercussions because of anger and fear. We aren't entirely rational beings. Not even those who open carry.

So your argument against more open carry is people who become murderous because of emotion will murder more. I argue that there would be no detectible change in murderous people become murderers.

Like I said - it'd be nice if more people would open carry, then people wouldn't be all "ohh em gee, a gun! get it away!"

I Hope you'd be right. I doubt it, but maybe people really are more completely logical and detatched when they carry a gun as you claim they are. Of course we also have to consider that people with a gun or other weapon are more likely to be successfully murdurous than those who aren't armed. I'd rather be punched in the mouth than shot in the head, wouldn't you?

dittybopper: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: Philip Francis Queeg: dittybopper: Philip Francis Queeg: I know implying that guns aren't purely wonderful things without a single draw back or negative consequence generally gets a strong negative reaction of Fark, but I truly am curious why anyone would want to see most people carrying guns everyday.

Many of us are of the mindset that unless a person has proven themselves incapable of being responsible through their actions, then there is no reason to restrict them from exercising what is plainly an enumerated right under US law.

I'm not talking about restricting the right. My goodness are people incapable of discussing guns at all without yelling "From my cold dead hands!"? Read my last sentence. If you'd care to respond to that, fine. If you are going to argue against positions I haven't taken, there really isn't much for us to discuss.

Except that your position is a strawman: Nobody wants to force people to carry, and that's what you'd need to do "to see most people carrying guns everyday".

That's a strawman entirely of your creation. It has no basis in any of my posts, or in reality.

You could see more or a majority of people carrying guns everyday through encouraging people to voluntarily do so, which is certainly how I interpreted the original comment I responded to. I merely asked WHY the poster thought that would be a positive thing to encourage.

Is asking why unacceptable to you in all cases, or only when guns are involved?

A strawman of my making? This is what you wrote: "I truly am curious why anyone would want to see most people carrying guns everyday."

Given the choice, even without any permitting necessary (like in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming), only a small fraction of those eligible to carry a gun choose to do so, therefore your statement doesn't jibe with facts. That makes it a strawman: "Most people", even when they have the choice to do so without any government interference whatsoever, don't chose to carry a gun, concealed or not.

Again, the original poster wants to see the number of people openly carrying greatly increased. That is the proposition that was put forward by him/her that I was seeking to discuss thier reasoning for. We had that discussion, in a straight forward, civil manner , as you can see.

If that discussion displeases you, well tough shiat.

DingleberryMoose: Baloo Uriza: RedPhoenix122: Krieghund: East Texas has more in common with Louisiana and Arkansas than it does with West Texas.
West Texas has more in common with New Mexico and Arizona than it does with East Texas.

So, East Texas hates Blacks, and West Texas hates Mexicans?

New Mexico hates Mexicans? It's largely Hopi and Navajo, and last I checked, they don't care...

The interesting difference between West Texas and New Mexico is the food. Texas style Mexican food, Tex-Mex, has lots of beef and, frequently, jalapenos and bell peppers. You drive 60 miles from my place and get into NM and you get less beef, more cheese, and lots of green and red chilis with more Native American influences. Both are damned good, too.

Drive down to El Paso and you get lots of cilantro, key limes, and chicken. Best soup I ever ate was in a little hole in the wall place in El Paso. It had all three of the above, plus potato and tortilla strips and corn.

Well, Native American is kind of vague...Navajo food is a bit different than, say, Cherokee food. Then again, you end up with a lot of Cherokee influence on Mexican food in Oklahoma; like menudo that includes hominy, for example...

Big Man On Campus: Stratohead: there are 3 states that make up the south west

I never do this, I promised myself I would never do this, but...

[chzderp.files.wordpress.com image 450x534]

[www.map-of-usa.co.uk image 602x566]

California, More west than any of those 3 states.... only 1000000% lessmore derp.

There, I fixed it. Seriously, y'all say you're leftist, but voted for Reagan, and replaced Davis with Arnold. How many times are you going to make the same mistake before you learn? Also, the Bay Area and the LA/Orange/SD area have more in common with each other than Tahoe and Needles, so you even get the north/south thing wrong, it's really east/west.

Baloo Uriza: DingleberryMoose: Baloo Uriza: RedPhoenix122: Krieghund: East Texas has more in common with Louisiana and Arkansas than it does with West Texas.
West Texas has more in common with New Mexico and Arizona than it does with East Texas.

So, East Texas hates Blacks, and West Texas hates Mexicans?

New Mexico hates Mexicans? It's largely Hopi and Navajo, and last I checked, they don't care...

The interesting difference between West Texas and New Mexico is the food. Texas style Mexican food, Tex-Mex, has lots of beef and, frequently, jalapenos and bell peppers. You drive 60 miles from my place and get into NM and you get less beef, more cheese, and lots of green and red chilis with more Native American influences. Both are damned good, too.

Drive down to El Paso and you get lots of cilantro, key limes, and chicken. Best soup I ever ate was in a little hole in the wall place in El Paso. It had all three of the above, plus potato and tortilla strips and corn.

Well, Native American is kind of vague...Navajo food is a bit different than, say, Cherokee food. Then again, you end up with a lot of Cherokee influence on Mexican food in Oklahoma; like menudo that includes hominy, for example...

I've never seen menudo made without hominy, that might be interesting. By Native American influence, I meant greater prevalence of native plants like squash and blue corn and nopalitos. Regional variants of food are fun to try. The Mexican food I had in Arizona and Colorado last summer was different as well.

I would like to take this moment to mock him for his power chair, just because:



/hot

I wish I had pictures of the time I taught a Muslim (my brother-in-law) to shoot my AK. That ought to explode a few bigots heads on both sides of the aisle.

MSFT: mdeesnuts:
Like I said - it'd be nice if more people would open carry, then people wouldn't be all "ohh em gee, a gun! get it away!"

Move to a third world shiathole, your wish is easily granted.

My third world shiathole (if that's how you describe any place where guns are much in evidence and not particularly noteworthy) is pretty nice. Folks are generally pretty polite, the standard of living is high, and crime is low.

Can't I just lie to the guy and say I'm a Republican if I really wanted to take the class?

/Although I really don't want to

Big Man On Campus: Stratohead: there are 3 states that make up the south west

I never do this, I promised myself I would never do this, but...

clip - chzderp.files.wordpress.com image 450x534

clip - www.map-of-usa.co.uk image 602x566

California, More west than any of those 3 states.... only 10% less derp.

ORLY??? You must be WAY up north where the weed is good, because in SoCal derp is about +50%

/always figured the smog there killed brain cells
//moved away before drain bamage set in
///may have been too late

Karac: So this guy refuses to allow non-Christian Muslims or anyone who voted for Obama access to his services.

Isn't this illegal, or at least a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen, same as if he'd refused to allow a black man or a woman to take his class?

Yes and he is under investigation for it.

dothemath: I went to HS for one year down the road in Llano and I can confirm that that area of Texas is chock full o' rednecks, hicks and ignorant ass backwoods asswipes.
I dated a girl who lived in a plywood and tarpaper house in the middle of a mesquite thicket. She was really smart and cute but her parents were shut-ins who lived off of welfare.

I've lived on and off in Texas for decades, including that part. Currently am working on a job between San Saba and Llano part time. I have lived in Western Michigan, Colorado, Three regions of California, Illinois (rural and Chicago), Montana, Indiana, D.C./Maryland, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa and visited all 50 states and a good bit of Europe and I can confirm that ALL of them are "chock full o' rednecks, hicks and ignorant ass backwoods asswipes." Literally.

Hell, the most ignorant hillbilly from Mississippi I ever met, I met in Chicago, IL as he was working in building maintenance in the building I worked in. Gave me visions of the less pretty parts of "Deliverance". That was the same year I watched my Chicago neighborhood BURN and become a free-fire zone because the home team had WON a basketball game. Good thing there are such black and white lines such as state borders and the "mason-dixon" to tell where the idiots live and where people are brilliant, highly educates, and peaceable...

Only time I ever saw a gunfight in a city street was in Zurich...

PRO-TIP: No matter where you go, it'll be full of assholes and idiots, as they are the primary populations of humans, with a lot of overlap.

jaybeezey: Wasn't Texas generally a blue state until the 70's? I wonder what the dems did to screw that up?

FlashHarry: shivashakti: Other than Obamacare, he really hasn't done anything remotely "socialist".

and "obamacare" isn't remotely socialist. the government doesn't employ any providers like in the UK. it's really just a giveaway to big insurance.

so... have you considered the possibility that they're just racist?



Nah, I'm pretty sure it's just political ideology and a love for what the Constitution stands for.

mike0023: You may consider it "asinine", Subby, but in a free country he should be able to do give (or not give) classes to anyone he wants.

Even when the class is a requirement to exercise your 2nd Amendment right?

The thing that I find sad and disturbing about this story is the reaction to it.
Americans used to be a crafty, skeptical people - a nation of sharp traders who were hard to fool.
Nowadays, it seems like Madison Avenue and the media have conditioned us to swallow anything we are fed, without even sniffing it first.
Almost everybody I've seen comment on this, lover or hater, seems to just blindly take this guy and his routine at face value, and that shocks me.
To me, this guy has "hustler" written all over him, and I see what he is doing as a cynical ploy to live with even less effort than he does now.
But it disturbs me that so many otherwise intelligent people don't become suspicious when somebody starts telling them exactly what they want to hear (positively of negatively). That's exactly when you are supposed to get suspicious, and Americans used to know that.
I guess Barnum was right.

Wretched:
ORLY??? You must be WAY up north where the weed is good, because in SoCal derp is about +50%


Josephine County is in Oregon.

shivashakti: FlashHarry: so... have you considered the possibility that they're just racist?

I'm sure some of it is racism but I honestly don't think all of it is.
Maybe it's xenophobia? Despite being born and (mostly) raised in America, maybe he's perceived as foreign due to his last name or having lived briefly in Indonesia? Some people still think of him as a Muslim, despite his insistence that he's a Christian.

I don't know but I don't think it's purely a racist thing.

For some people, the thought of a president who is "different" scares the crap out of them. All their lives they have been indoctrinated to believe that the POTUS should be a white protestant straight male. Not female, not catholic (remember what a ration of sh*t they gave JFK?) or muslim or jewish, not gay, and most certainly not a non-white (asian, black, Indian, whatever).

Because of this, they firmly believe that the advancement of society (progress, if you will) is leaving them behind, and they are afraid that all they knew, all they believed was in fact not as true as they thought it was. They see the numbers of brown people increasing every year, even in little towns and places in flyover country where they formerly wouldn't see a non-white face for months unless they went to the "city".

They whine about white people becoming a "minority" in the near future, not realizing that their numbers are simply coming into line with everyone else because in their heads there's "them" and there's "us" and when "us" drops below 50% all of a sudden it's "minority!" Yes, they suck at math too.

To them, america is white, for white people. Everyone else is here at their pleasure, and should act like it. Even if president Obama, both his parents, all his grandparents and all his great-grandparents had spent their entire lives in Chicago, he ain't "them" and will never be accepted.

theMightyRegeya: mike0023: You may consider it "asinine", Subby, but in a free country he should be able to do give (or not give) classes to anyone he wants.

Even when the class is a requirement to exercise your 2nd Amendment right?

If he was a government official, you'd have a point.