Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003
|
I like the way the lined article was phrased in such a way as to imply there were political reasons behind it all.
I think the REAL reasons have more to do with liability and money than politics.
Did Dick's hire a couple of lobbyists? Sure they did. The sporting goods stores want a legal way to refuse to sell a gin to an obviously disturbed person. Right now, if they refuse a sale, they could face a lawsuit If the sell the gun and the guy goes out and kills another school-full of kids, Dick's can get sued by all the survivors.
Dick's doesn't necessarily want to quit selling guns. They just quit selling the favorite kid killing gun, the AR-15.
The article doesn't mention that, exactly. It says Dick's refuses to sell "modern sport rifles". That's just dog whistle of the AR-15.
What, really, is a sporting rifle?
A varmint gun? The Ruger ranch rifle uses the same ammo as an AR-15, and does a better job as a varmint gun. Other brands like Stevens and Winchester have better rifles.
A gun for target shooting? Pick any rifle for that purpose.
A game rifle? Nope. The bullet is too small and too fast to bring down an elk, moose, deer, or anything bigger than a woodchuck.
So why does Springfield have its back all up?
Because all they make are AR-15s. And while the roots of the company go way back, those roots were when it was a government-owned armory. The company has been a private business for some time now.
So don't buy into the BS. The decisions made by both companies are strictly business.
Springfield doesn't want the re-tooling costs to start making bolt-action rifles, so they're trying to squeeze Dicks into dropping their new policy.
Dick's doesn't want to be the next place that sold the gun that slaughtered the kids, so they're not gonna sell AR-15s any more unless Springlfield can force them to do it.
If Springfield can't get it done, well, maybe making a big noise about it will sell a few of their guns anyway.
And "The Federalist", that website that was linked, where the article was written? What's in it for them? More ads for guns 'n gear, of course. Gotta keep gun fancier all riled up to keep their advertisers happy in a real down year for the entire gun industry.
It's all one big conspiracy to take away your guns, isn't it?
But what if it isn't? What if it's actually just business as usual? That's the real question.
After all, conspiracies are the same in one regard. There has to be something that will line the pockets of the conspirators, or it just isn't worth the time, trouble, and the danger of forming a conspiracy.
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.
