Dick’s Admits Sales Affected by Gun Sale Restrictions

It's clear Stevens decided his vote on this case long before the appeal was granted.

 

As is his right. No one was strong armed.

 

Then explain how the drug cartels of the nation of Mexico have come to possess so many grenades?

 

As I have previously posted, while I am a consummate gun rights advocate, but that in itself is a by-product, that I excersize, of my staunch advocacy of the provisions and principles of the Constitution and all the rights enumerated and protected in the BOR. Among those are those extended to legal entities such as corporations to do business in the free market however they wish, and whether people consider it a good or bad decision on their part, is irrelevant. Anyone has the choice to support ownership or not of firearms and have the right to advocate for their preferences and anyone has the right to voice their opposition. Happy with their decision? Support them with your business. Unhappy, don’t...and if you think they made the wrong decision as a stock owner, excersize your right as a stock owner by voting to replace corporate officers or sell your stock. Those that support gun rights, IMO, should respect all rights just as emphatically as those protected by the 2nd. As for me with Dicks, as I have noted, I don’t shop there for other reasons.
Those that think Dicks will be some kind of threat to the 2A, how much more than Bloomberg? As for using corporate profits to fund anti gun campaigns, that again is a corporate right, but expenditure of corporate finding for the purpose might not pass the muster of shareholders as a sound investment.
In a free market based on capitalism, if the demand for firearms continues, someone will fill the void. I wish I had the seed capital to startup a business chain with the mission to focus on retail sales of firearms/hunting and accessories, clothing, etc and have segments of the business related to fire ranges, training services, online video services (ala, You Tube), even a lending platform, and dedicate a portion of profits to support preserving and expanding gun rights. I wouldn’t be surprised others won’t see the profit potential and think along the same lines. Market voids always eventually get filled.

 

So you say. Basic firearm ownership ? What’s That mean ?
And, what do you mean by “infringe” when you keep using it ?

 

How is this not self-explanatory?
You own a firearm = basic ownership
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - as such, it does not in any way infringe on the rights of anyone.

 

Scotus disagrees. There are lots of guns you can not own

 

No one can throw out words with out being able to define them and expect to be taken seriously.

 

OK...
You own a firearm = basic ownership
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - as such, it does not in any way infringe on the rights of anyone.

 

You are just wrong according to scotus

 

So, you’re saying the word “basic” is Unnecessary ?
That makes the ownership of any gun, by any one at any time for any reason, OK with you ? You disagree with Scalia and everyother conservative judge on the SC. You’ve substituted simple for basic.....what does “simple” mean

 

Yup !

 

I explained to you the meaning of "basic ownership", in the context of the right to keep and bear arms.
Do you need further explanation, or do you you understand the term?

 

There are wide variety of guns and other devices people are not allowed to own because that ownership presents a clear and present danger to the community. These guys are just denying the obvious

 

What do you men by “simple” or “basic”: ownership ? “ In the context of”; says nothing. Definitions give synonyms. What are they. I’m trying to see if you know what you mean..l

 

I answered this already - in a post you responded to:
You own a firearm = basic ownership
Please do try to pay attention.

The conversation here revolves around the right to keep and bear arms, which you claim ends when someone elses' rights are infringed.; my post was made in that context.

And so:
I explained to you the meaning of "basic ownership", in the context of the right to keep and bear arms.
Do you need further explanation, or do you understand the term?

 

Well regulated , i do. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

Exactly. Ownership of firearms does not even exist if it’s not LEGAL ownership.

 

No you don't.

What is your rank?
Where do you muster?
Who is your immediate commanding officer?

 

You are repeating the same words, does not constitute a definition.
Try a few synonyms. let me help. Ownership of a firearm does not exist if it isn’t LEGAL under the law.

 

Which you refuse to understand
Now I remember why I put you on ignore.
Thanks.

 

Dont go down that ridiculous path again. It has been debunked thousands of timesm

 

And..….that's the concession. LOL

 

You can not answer the question. Your militia is a mess

 

I’ll help you. Instead of simple or basic, try “legal.”
You can’t own a house, car, land or a firearm unless it’s legal ownership.