Dick’s Admits Sales Affected by Gun Sale Restrictions

Oh dear....how will I ever cope....

 

I don't know. I also don't care. LOL

 

Have you ever said that gun control advocates are “ extremists” or “lefties” ?
That’s absolutism. Members of the NRA want effective gun control laws as do most people who OWN guns.

 

Meaning properly equipped and functioning as expected.

My rifle's sights are well regulated.

 

Our militia is not

 

Never. Why would assume as much?

 

That just cost them AR 15 sales. Their support for gun control activists is costing them customers. Bad business.

Do you own Dick's stock?

 

The black market is always the easiest way to obtain contraband of all kinds. Surely you know that.

 

Dagosa, why resort to such a silly irrational ad hominem personal attack?
It violates the rules of this forum and it has no place in any rational discussion.
Please try to get a grip on it.

 

Private sales supports the black market.

 

Simple ownership/possession of a firearm by a person with the right to keep and bear arms harms no one, and places no one in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger -- and thus, does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
This being the case, what argument is there that said simple possession/ownership may be restricted?

 

Are there private sales of hand grenades?

 

While also probably gain some customers. Why do you assume they would only lose customers? For all we know for every gun person who decides not to shop at Dicks there could be gun control activists that will now support them.

 

I'm old enough to remember when America was great and just about every hardware store in America sold guns.

Guns are hardware.

Even during the 1970's when you got out of the city in California they sold ammunition at your local markets and liquor stores.

You were always able to pick out a city slicker a "dude", they didn't have a gun rack in their vehicle.

 

We know that Dick's could have chosen not to become involved in political activism and avoided deliberately alienating either side. That would have been smart.
Do you own Dick's stock?

 

Neither is an infringement, but the top is obnoxious, the bottom is attractive.

 

Free country to do as they please. Same as you, right? Everyone makes choices in their lives based on what THEY think is the right thing to do.
No.

 

Speak for yourself . Mine is not a mess.

 

uh.....you dont have your own militia

 

uh.....you dont have your own militia

 

Not so anyone would notice. The reason, Hand Granades are federally regulated by the 1968 amendment of the NFA. Possession and not just sales, is federally regulated as are full autos with stiff fines and prison time. You don’t see either used much if at all in criminal activity, terrorist attacks etc.
So thanks, we know THAT works for private sales of these items.

 

And basic firearms ownership, purchasing, and even possession does nothing, absolutely nothing, to infringe upon the rights of others.

 

The point has been made several times - he apparently doesn't want to deal with it.

 

Then the infringement comes in the form of illegal and deliberately reckless usage with the express purpose of committing harm to others. Meaning a physical action must actually be committed first.

 

Such was not done willingly, however, but rather through coercion on the part of John Stevens. He admitted to such after serving his tenure on the united state supreme court and retiring.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-memoir.html

On the phone, he singled out three decisions as grave errors, noting that he had dissented in all of them. The first was District of Columbia v. Heller, the 5-to-4 ruling in 2008 that recognized an individual Second Amendment right to own guns.

“The combination of its actual practical impact by increasing the use of guns in the country and also the legal reasoning, which I thought was totally unpersuasive,” he said, “persuaded me that the case is just about as bad as any in my tenure.”
He said he had taken an extraordinary step in trying to head off the decision. Five weeks before Justice Antonin Scalia circulated his draft opinion for the majority, Justice Stevens sent around a draft of what he called his probable dissent. He said he could not recall ever having done anything like that.

“I thought I should give it every effort to switch the case before it was too late,” he said.

The effort failed. But Justice Stevens wrote that he helped persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority, to ask for “some important changes” to Justice Scalia’s opinion. A passage in the opinion, which Justice Scalia had plainly added to secure a fifth vote, said the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many kinds of gun control laws.