Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles

Look self-defence is OK if there is registration and licensing and locking them up when you are not in control of the weapon and that weapon is not an AR15 or similarly ridiculous weapon for personal self-defence. I own two rifles and a shotgun. One is a family heirloom, one is a collectors item and one I use for hunting foxes, but only occasionally now.

 

Opposing civil rights for no reason doesn't help anything.

 

Period. We have a right to self-defense and a right to own and use a gun to that end.

...which are meaningless, ineffective regulations that do nothing to prevent people from using guns to commit crime...
Never mind the fact the state cannot require a license for the basic exercise of a right.

... which violates the US constitution.

Your opinion of the suitability of the AR15 for self/home defense is meaningless - and, of course, demonstrably inaccurate.

 

Hardly ridiculous.

I'll look out for your thread.

 

I don't know whether to agree with you or not. I don't understand your reply

 

Pointing out facts which prove the other guy wrong is hardly clutching at straws.

 

Why is it ridiculous, do you live here?

 

The store owner did nothing other than oppose civil rights for no reason. That does not advance any cause other than the cause of violating people's civil rights.

 

The M1 has better iron sights and is extremely deadly in the hands of a skilled rifleman.

imo it is harder to tote, run with, and hit the deck with.

 

So you saying he is obligated to sell them. Is it law or written in the 2nd amendment.

 

If it is not ridiculous that Australians are disarmed, how come 1 in 20 private citizens own on average 5 guns. Not very disarmed.

 

The post that suggested that assault weapons are only appropriate for invasions was neither reasonable nor truthful.

Asking a question that illustrated the absurdity of the claim was hardly childish.

And we all knew the answer. The answer is that the claim about "assault weapons being appropriate only for invasions" is nonsense. The question was just designed to get people to think about the answer.

 

It's not ridiculous.

No. I live in America.

 

How many of those guns are useful for self defense?

 

The AR-15 is hardly ridiculous for self defense. It is quite useful in that role.

 

He is not obligated to sell them. But his refusal to do so is a statement in support of violating our rights to have them.

We are free to stop buying guns at his stores because we dislike his stance against our civil rights.

 

He is the owner of a private business and thus entitled to buy and sell whatever he wishes, it has nothing to do with our constitution.

 

Unless the answer is obvious and the question us designed to directly cause people to think about that obvious answer.

 

I never said it wasn't.

 

So why don't ya just grow up, run along and do that.

 

True.

We're also free to not buy guns from stores who oppose our civil rights.

It is a statement of support for those who seek to violate our rights.

 

I would say most of them, all mine are, but in the 50 years I have been a gun owner I have never needed one for self defense, even though I have for the past 10 years lived in the highest crime rated area of Sydney

 

I'm already grown. And I am doing that.

 

What does this mean:
"and that weapon is not an AR15 or similarly ridiculous weapon for personal self-defence"

 

A self defense gun allows for multiple shots to be repeated with a degree of rapidity.

Semi-autos, lever action rifles, and pump shotguns are good examples of this sort of weapon.