Dick’s Admits Sales Affected by Gun Sale Restrictions

I don't think that either of us or the gun companies have a problem with what Dick's wants to sell - the issue is that Dick's has adopted an anti-2A position which they could fund with company profits, some of which could come from selling firearms from the companies that have since boycotted Dick's. That's the issue.

 

Don't they still sell guns? How is it they could have a blanket anti-2A position?

 

Why do you presume that it's a blanket anti-2A position?

 

"the issue is that Dick's has adopted an anti-2A position"

 

I don’t figure you and I have a great deal of common ground on gun rights, but I do agree with both statements.
America is about individual free choice and corporations by the nature of the entity status attained through incorporation, corporations have a large degree in the freedom of the business decisions they make. Given we operate a predominately capitalistic free market, profit is found in providing products and services that attract buyers. If one entity abandons a market for which there is demand, another is free to exploit that demand. Just like some lending institutions and media services (think YouTube) that abandon supporting the firearms industry and it’s consumers, it leaves opportunities for others. If other companies fill the void, they have the potential to leverage that demand for selling other products and services to the consumers they attract in the collateral wake. Ultimately demand will drive market forces. Choice = liberty, what’s more American than that?
Given the demand, does anyone really think Dicks exiting the market will really impact the ability of Americans to acquire firearms?

 

You're inferring that an anti-2A position is all or nothing. A position to support bans on AR-15s and 30 round magazines is an anti-2A position.

 

Ding!!!

 

I do that when people don't get specific and make broad statements. I'm funny like that.

So...do you believe people/organization can be moderately anti-2A? A 'little' anti-2A? Etc?

 

You can be pro second amendment and for gun control

 

I appreciate the clarifying questions, but your experience here with my posts should have precluded you thinking you needed to ask it.

Again, that's a question whose answer should be evident. Yes, of course they can.

 

Wanting to have some control over ‘dangerous and unusual’ firearms does not run contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

 

AR-15s are not "dangerous and unusual". See Caetano v Massachusetts.

 

Not according to many people on this board

 

Many say they are, and of course they're right.

 

Would you say ARs are more dangerous than semi-auto 9mm?

 

They are certainly entitled to that opinion

 

"Many say they are", but SCOTUS's opinion is the one that matters.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

Only a momentary opinion. Doesn't mean it's the right decision. There are states that outlaw the sale of new AR15s, and other assault weapons, regardless.

 

Momentary? That decision was made in 1939 in US v Miller. Any states that ban AR-15s do so in violation of Miller, Heller and McDonald.

 

There were no AR15s in 1939.

There are states that outlaw the sale of new AR15s, and other assault weapons, regardless of the fleeting opinion that may, may, say they aren't. AR15s and other firearms currently for sale are dangerous and unusual. They will be banned. It's only a matter of time. You're on the wrong side of the argument.

 

What "other firearms" are you referring to?

 

No, but Miller established that firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia" are protected. There isn't a spit's worth of difference between the AR-15 and the M1 Carbine OR M1 Garand. Or the Remington Model 8.

They aren't dangerous and unusual according to the opinion of the Supreme Court. A firearm type that's been around since 1904 cannot be considered unusual, and every firearm is dangerous.

 

That depends on what kind of a mood I'm in.

 

I believe based on context that he's referring to other firearms classified as "assault weapons" that aren't actually AR-15s.

 

A) I've put up xrays, surgical notes, etc., proving my point about the AR15.

B)