Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The article goes on to say that while they pretend to support the 2nd Amendment, they are simply liars, who will bend with the wind and do the bidding of the petulant children of the left. Apparently they have no moral compass, and have chosen to stand with those seeking the destruction of our nation.
It is a business and they have the right to not sell whatever they don't want to sell. I don't own a firearm, I support the basic tenets of the 2nd amendment and I feel Dick's is making a gutsy move.
Unless you are a member of the military or a swat team, you don't need an assault rifle.
I, for one, believe the old adage: "better to have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun and need it". I own a handgun and a rifle. Whether it's banning assault rifles and high load magazines or doing extensive background checks including mental health evaluations before someone is allowed to buy an AR something needs to be done. If any of you lost someone in one of these mass shootings you might have a different opinion.
I'm just curious why some of you feel you need to have an assault rifle? Are you expecting foreign invaders? That may have been easy to do in the 1700's, not so easy now. Please explain it to me.
I don't NEED an assault rifle. (I dont even have one, at least not by the real definition.) It's not about need. I have what I have because I want it, and I have a right to. And what you think I need or don't need means less to me than how much TP I used last time I wiped my bum. You people on your soapboxes, pontificating about what others need or don't need, are simply low class busybodies and need your ears boxed to teach you some manners. Go pick a new hobby that doesn't involve getting into other people's business, before this one causes a not-so-civil war. Our guns are not going anywhere, and we don't give a rip about your thoughts on the matter, other than being annoyed by the rudeness of your presentation.
You keep talking about how nobody needs an AR, wanting to know why we think we need one. You are confused because you dont listen. We dont need them. Any more than you need a tv, a twinkie, a car that does more than the speed limit, or softer toilet paper. But somehow, all the busybodies find it acceptable to question our need to own an AR. Well, it's utterly rude of you, and if you can't see why we are annoyed with you, you are an idiot as well. Mind your own business and go do something productive.
Unless you are a member of the military or a swat team, you don't need an assault rifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228
I'm just curious why some of you feel you need to have an assault rifle? Are you expecting foreign invaders?
Neither of you can even DEFINE "assault rifle". I know that, because there IS no such definition. You're just parroting what you hear on TV. Turn the TV off, and learn what you're talking about.
It's nothing but a black rifle...same as any other rifle, pretty much. If you don't like black, that's your problem. Its color doesn't make the gun do anything differently. One trigger pull, one shot, just like any other gun. It doesn't "spray bullets". And the AR-15 usually shoots .223 / 5.56, which is nothing but a varmint round.
Sheesh people, is this how ignorant this country is becoming?? Where's your PRIDE in your intelligence??
I, for one, believe the old adage: "better to have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun and need it". I own a handgun and a rifle. Whether it's banning assault rifles and high load magazines or doing extensive background checks including mental health evaluations before someone is allowed to buy an AR something needs to be done. If any of you lost someone in one of these mass shootings you might have a different opinion.
I'm just curious why some of you feel you need to have an assault rifle? Are you expecting foreign invaders? That may have been easy to do in the 1700's, not so easy now. Please explain it to me.
Just curious, you keep saying that you own a handgun and rifle, I'd be interested in knowing what kind you own. Because you just don't talk like a gun owner. For instance--High Load magazines--what the heck is that?
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you'd realize that the Second Amendment is not about foreign invasion, but keeping our own government in check. The reason it is in the Bill of Rights is that King George tried to confiscate all firearms (including cannon which anyone could own at the time--how's that work with your idea of "no one needs an assault weapon?) before the revolution could start. This has been the mantra of all governments which want to completely control their populace.
The British never tried to or intended to confiscate all firearms in the American colonies, that assertion is utter nonsense. And of course King George couldn’t have ordered that done even if he’d wanted to because he lacked the power to do so; he was a constitutional monarch and political power lay with Parliament and the ministers who ran the government.
It’s amusing to see people in this thread accusing big time capitalists of being communists and socialists. It’s also alarming.
As for militia, the main job of militia in the United States was not fighting off invaders (militia were woefully inept when fighting regular troops when put to that test in our rebellion against Britain and in the War of 1812) but fighting Indians (also much better done by regular troops) and suppressing unpopular political thought and action. If you guys ever have your fantasy rebellion against the United States the state militias (National Guard) will be the first soldiers sent against you.
Last edited by Irishtom29; 05-06-2018 at 08:01 AM..
Unless you are a member of the military or a swat team, you don't need an assault rifle.
It's not your place to tell me what you think I need or don't need.
And,
Civilians realistically CANNOT buy assault rifles. Assault rifles are military grade fully automatic or select fire weapons.
Civilians can buy and/or make modern sporting rifles as they should.
Look...(purely hypothetical of course) If firearms get outlawed tomorrow there will be a guy down the street from you (regardless of where you live) turning blocks of aluminum commoly referred to as 80% lower receivers and using a *** to mill then out into fully functional lower receivers and building AR15s in his garage and people will be but it them. THEY ARE NEVER GOING AWAY. if it gets to that point, those who are wise enough will realize that will be the least of your worries.
The British never tried to or intended to confiscate all firearms in the American colonies, that assertion is utter nonsense. And of course King George couldn’t have ordered that done even if he’d wanted to because he lacked the power to do so; he was a constitutional monarch and political power lay with Parliament and the ministers who ran the government.
You're just flat out wrong.
A 4 second Google search would give a bunch of stories proving otherwise.
About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.
<>When a big, dumb retailer like Dick's loudly proclaims its high moral decision to stop selling the AR, many of their core customers will reciprocate by taking all of their business elsewhere.<>
Hey, Home Depot has banned my dog from visiting the store (one of her favorite shopping trips) so now Lowes gets all my hardware business. Dicks doesn't want to sell rifles then we will visit Bass Pro or Walmart. (Without the dog, however) "Easy decisions"
A 4 second Google search would give a bunch of stories proving otherwise.
Here's an old one
l
Well of course they British sought to confiscate the arms stores of potentially rebellious militia. But you said “King George tried to confiscate all firearms” which is sheer nonsense.
For one thing the British didn’t intend to confiscate all firearms and for another the decision to confiscate the arms of the potentially rebellious militia was made by the British authorities in Boston, not by the British government in London and certainly not by King George, who lacked the authority to make policy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
