Mass Shootings

Dick's Sporting Goods Drops 'Assault-Style Rifles,' Because Loss and Grief

The policy, which the company wants Congress to impose on the country, is driven by emotion, P.R., and symbolism, not logic.

|

ABC News

Today Dick's Sporting Goods announced that it will no longer sell "assault-style rifles, also referred to as modern sporting rifles," in its Field & Stream hunting and outdoor recreation stores. The company had already stopped carrying such guns in its flagship chain of stores, following the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012. Dick's CEO Edward Stack said the company was expanding the policy in response to the February 14 attack in which a 19-year-old gunman used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle to kill 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

"Based on what's happened and looking at those kids and those parents, it moved us all unimaginably," Stack said on ABC's Good Morning America this morning. "To think about the loss and the grief that those kids and those parents had, we said, 'We need to do something.'" Well, this is indeed something. Whether it is something that makes logical sense (as opposed to emotional, P.R., or symbolic sense) is another matter.

In a company statement posted this morning, Stack notes that Nikolas Cruz, the former student charged with carrying out the Parkland massacre, legally purchased a shotgun from a Dick's store in 2017. "It was not the gun, nor type of gun, he used in the shooting," he says. "But it could have been." If Cruz had used a shotgun in the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, would Dick's have stopped selling shotguns? Probably not. So what distinguishes the guns that Dick's not only has stopped selling but wants Congress to ban?

Here we immediately get into murky territory, made murkier by confused and confusing press coverage. The New York Times story about the Dick's decision, which as I write is running at the top of the paper's website, says the new policy applies to "all AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles." It adds that "Dick's is not the first retailer to stop selling the semiautomatic guns." That makes it sound as if the selection of rifles at the company's stores will be limited to single-shot models from now on.

If so, that would probably please New York Times columnist Andrew Rosenthal, who (like his colleague Gail Collins) favors "banning the possession of semiautomatic weapons by civilians." Such a policy would prohibit the most popular guns for self-defense, weapons the Supreme Court has unambiguously said Americans have a constitutional right to possess, along with many popular hunting rifles, leaving mere civilians a choice of revolvers or single-shot firearms.

The selection at Dick's, of course, will be much broader than that, because "modern sporting rifles," known to their detractors as "assault weapons," are just one category of semiautomatic rifles, albeit a popular one. The problem with these guns, C.J. Chivers and two other Times reporters explain in a sidebar, is that they allow mass shooters to "attack with the rifle firepower typically used by infantry troops." What does that mean? Chivers note that AR-15-style rifles are "fed with box magazines" that "can be swapped out quickly, allowing a gunman to fire more than a hundred rounds in minutes."

But neither the ability to accept a detachable magazine nor rate of fire is a distinguishing characteristic of "assault weapons," which are defined by legislators based on features such as folding stocks, threaded barrels, and barrel shrouds. Those features do not increase "rifle firepower."

Chivers et al., in any event, cannot seem to make up their minds about whether a faster rate of fire makes a gun more deadly. They concede that AR-15-style rifles, unlike military weapons, fire just once per trigger pull, but they minimize the significance of that distinction:

For decades the American military has trained its conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in the semiautomatic mode—one bullet per trigger pull—instead of on "burst" or automatic in almost all shooting situations. The weapons are more accurate this way, and thus more lethal.

The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups highlight the fully automatic feature in military M4s and M16s. But the American military, after a long experience with fully automatic M16s reaching back to Vietnam, decided by the 1980s to issue M16s, and later M4s, to most conventional troops without the fully automatic function, and to train them to fire in a more controlled fashion.

If reducing the rate of fire allows better control, increasing accuracy and therefore lethality, why do Chivers et al. emphasize that detachable magazines (which, again, are not unique to "assault weapons") enable a shooter to fire "more than a hundred rounds in minutes"? Why do they think it's important to note that Cruz "fired his AR-15 as quickly as one-and-a-half rounds per second"?

By contrast, Chivers et al. say, "the military trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12 to 15 rounds per minute, or a round every four or five seconds." The implication is that Cruz could have killed more people if he had fired more slowly and carefully. That observation makes a hash of the obsession with counting rounds fired per minute during mass shootings as evidence to support the case for new gun restrictions—including the case for banning bump stocks, which embody the tradeoff between speed and accuracy that the Times says makes shooters less rather than more deadly.

Regardless of how important rate of fire is, it has nothing to do with the debate about a new federal ban on so-called assault weapons, which fire no faster than guns that do not qualify for that label. Even if a mass shooter can no longer buy a "modern sporting rifle" at Dick's Sporting Goods or a Field & Stream store, he will have plenty of equally deadly options from which to choose. Likewise if Congress follows the company's recommendation by imposing its policy on the whole country.

NEXT: Workplace Discrimination Against Gays Is Covered Under the Civil Rights Act, Says a Second Federal Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not buying shit from Dick’s sporting goods anymore.

    If they cannot stand up to gun grabbers and ride out a 2 weeks news cycle, fuck’em.

    1. This is so much bigger than a 2 week news cycle. We’re witnessing a turning point here in which more and more Americans are rejecting gun culture and the NRA. Libertarians need to get on the right side of history on this issue by advocating common sense gun safety legislation, and praising businesses that reconsider their policy on guns.

      Mark my words: When November’s #BlueWave happens, it will be partly because Democratic congressional candidates make standing up to the NRA a top priority.

      1. “Right side of .history…”

        You realize everyone thinks they are on the “right side of history” from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Hitler to Stalin. Obama was on the “right side of history” and then the red wave midterms and now Trump.

        It is a dumb phrase used by Orwellian manipulators of language.

        1. It’s rhetoric, but to pick at the framing of this opinion rather than actually addressing what this person is saying is a pretty weak response.

          Common sense gun safety legislation is just that – common sense.

          We can nitpick all day about where to draw the line. Should it be all rifles? Only “Assault” rifles? Should we not have a specific ban on a type of gun, but rather blanket rules regarding purchase prerequisites (mandated training course, for example, or longer waiting period, or a license and registration)? There are multiple ways to address this problem, but it’s clear that it IS a problem, and we need to try and find a new place to draw the line.

          I agree that there’s a lot of confusion out there, and understand the frustration of responsible gun owners who see false statements used to support restrictions on their choices.

          So educate people in a civil fashion. Teach them.

          I think we’re all on the same side when it comes to building a safe school environment for kids. Let’s work from there and try to make some grown up choices rather than picking at the words we use in the process to shut the conversation down.

          1. Its not commons sense because if people had common sense they would have the education to know that the 2nd Amendment protects all arms that Americans want.

            Common sense gun control is instinctively hitting your target shot after shot.

            1. Its not commons sense because if people had common sense they would have the education to know that the 2nd Amendment protects all arms that Americans want.

              Your aspirations and American legal authority differ.

              Enjoy life on the increasingly irrelevant fringe.

              1. In U.S., Support for Assault Weapons Ban at Record Low

                http://news.gallup.com/poll/19…..d-low.aspx

              2. Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban

                http://news.gallup.com/poll/15…..n-ban.aspx

              3. The old Assault Weapons Ban made sense only in limiting magazines to 10 rounds. Forcing more reloads gives better odds for victims to swarm the shooter. That’s what happened when Gabby Giffords got shot.

              4. You’re the one on the fringe cunt. Please come try and grab all the guns. See what happens.

                Maybe you will finally understand you only exist because real Americans tolerate your progtarded existence. When pushed too hard, your kind will be wiped off the map faster than your tiny little mind could ever imagine. Progressives really are analids among gods.

                1. Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

                  psychopath
                  1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
                  2. The Authoritarian Left
                  3. The Authoritarian Right

                  Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
                  (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism)

                  Left – Right = Zero

                2. Please come try and grab all the guns. See what happens.

                  You’ll die in a blaze of gunfire … with an erection at the glory of it all.
                  R.I.P.

              5. Justin . I can see what your saying… Andrew `s rep0rt is impressive, on wednesday I got a top of the range Cadillac since getting a check for $9430 this last 5 weeks and in excess of $10 thousand last-munth . it’s by-far the easiest-job I’ve ever done . I started this 7-months ago and pretty much immediately started bringing in more than $75, per/hr . view

                LOOK HERE MORE
                http://www.richdeck.com

            2. Dang, a constitutional scholar. How long have you been on the federal bench?

              1. What’s the point of this comment?

                1. What’s the point of this comment?

                  To piss off goobers.

              2. We don’t need to be scholars to call out your bullshit.

          2. “what this person”

            You. You mean you.

          3. “”So educate people in a civil fashion. Teach them.”‘

            The pro-gun crowd is not willing to be taught in a civil fashion. Civil is barely in their vocabulary regarding this issue. They like calling pro-gun crowd all sorts of names, refuse to make adjustments to their inaccurate beliefs about guns, they want to claims gun owners and the NRA, people who are clearly not responsible, have blood on their hands. They define “common sense” very differently than people familiar with guns and their use.

            Until they show some respect for people that own gun, like guns, and use guns, I see no reason for respect to be shown to them.

            1. after reading your comment a couple times, I think maybe you meant “pro-gun-control” crowd?

            2. So the pro-gun crowd is not willing to be “taught in civil fashion.” And you go on to say they have no “common sense.”

              Maybe we rather have civil discussion rather than have authoritarians “teach in a civil fashion.” Maybe we take offense with those who keep resorting to saying we “lack common sense.”

              You see how uncivil your comment is? You simultaneously say you need to teach how to think and that we lack common sense. You sound like an Orwellian villain the way you use language. Stop it and maybe we can actually have a discussion.

          4. They like to misconstrue pro gun concepts to push it into their narrative.

            The idea of arming teachers for example. I’ve seen plenty of my liberal friends claiming that teachers would be expected to hunt the shooter, and it’s a ridiculous idea. But in reality it would be a life saving measure if a teacher had a firearm to use as a last resort when a shooter enters their class room. The clearly believe that being shot if confronted is the only option, and that having the ability to fight back when backed into a corner is wrong.

          5. mandated training course, for example, or longer waiting period, or a license and registration)

            None of these is consistent with the Constitution of the federal government or that of my State. “Common-sense” should stipulate that we error on the side of freedom and constitutionality.

            1. If we’re talking mandated training courses, here’s a government program I would actually support:

              As soon as any citizen of the United States turns 18, the government will give them a handgun upon completion of a training course, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, if a citizen wishes to do this.

              1. Eh, 90% agree.

                Better to make a mandatory gun safety, handling and marksmenship course part of high school, with a “in case you missed it” version after high school for those that missed it/dropped out/etc.

                But the main point of giving out guns like that would be to provide them to folks that can’t or won’t otherwise get one already. In that case, it’s also likely that they won’t be equipped to properly store them, so we should also provide (at a minimum) a trigger lock or a small gun safe.

                That said, would you trust a lowest-bidder gun?

              2. No.

          6. AKeyes,

            I doubt that you and I will agree on many points across several issues of concern to most of us, yet I wanted to indicate my appreciation for your civility.

          7. “”Common sense gun safety legislation is just that – common sense.””

            Can you qualify common sense is a way that is not a circular argument?

            1. Perhaps we could define common sense gun laws, as a gun law that would actually save lives, and that saving lives be an objective term which would include the person defending themselves.

            2. What we need is common sense common sense.

              1. We can’t even get that.

              2. “Common sense laws” are the ones that I AM IN FAVOR OF, not the ones that I disagree with. Right?

                1. Currently, yeah.

          8. Here’s some education for ‘ya!…Most Mass Shootings are done with handguns, like the biggest Mass School shooting of all time, Va. Tech!….If the Fla. shooter did not have an AR-15, he would’ve used a handgun!…New laws are not needed, only that the FBI & Police & Child Services do their jobs!!!

            1. “the biggest Mass School shooting of all time, Va. Tech!”

              Pedantic note: VA Tech was the deadliest school shooting, but not the deadliest mass shooting. Be careful with your wording because people will use a single misstep to dismiss your entire argument.

            2. “.If the Fla. shooter did not have an AR-15, he would’ve used a handgun!.”

              … or the shotgun he had just purchased from Dick’s …

              Oh, nooooooooooooooooooooooooes!

          9. “common sense”
            Something so rare these days it needs to be renamed.

          10. “So educate people in a civil fashion. Teach them.”

            It is most difficult to remove Fools from chains they revere.

          11. “Common sense gun safety legislation is just that – common sense.”

            And the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” is just that, a democratic republic.

            Stop the Orwellian manipulation of language to frame people who disagree with you as ignorant and lacking common sense. How can we have a discussion when you frame the issue as anyone disagreeing with you lacks common sense?

            1. You cannot have a discussion on gun control with someone who does not recognize the 2nd Amendment

        2. Justin . I can see what your saying… Andrew `s rep0rt is impressive, on wednesday I got a top of the range Cadillac since getting a check for $9430 this last 5 weeks and in excess of $10 thousand last-munth . it’s by-far the easiest-job I’ve ever done . I started this 7-months ago and pretty much immediately started bringing in more than $75, per/hr . view

          LOOK HERE MORE
          http://www.richdeck.com

      2. I almost forgot you are a parody account and spent time on a response. Whew.

        1. Just wait until November, when this “parody account” is proved correct about Democrats retaking the House.

          Or until 2020, when a Democrat wins the presidency.

          1. Cassandra has spoken.

          2. And that proves what? That democrats outnumber republicans ?

            You will not find much sympathy for majoritarian democracy on this forum.

          3. November 2084. Oh, and a Democrat already won the Presidency in 2016.

          4. Who fucking cares? One of the two political cartels will be in power, which of course means more of the same stupid dysfunctional shit we have to deal with.

            And your point what what?

      3. Go fuck yourself.

        Right side of history my ass. I am on the right side of history by waving my dick at morons like you.

        1. Wave you dick as much as you like. Maybe it will make losing more tolerable.

      4. The policy is wrong-headed and misguided (to say the least). If that’s what it takes to get “on the right side of history”, count me out. I think what you really mean is “jump on the bandwagon”. Again, no thanks. What’s the point of having principles if you drop them when they become unpopular?

      5. To me, guns are just a means to an end. I’m going to join you on the right side of history by calling for a common sense ban on murder.

      6. Wow. I guess its true you can’t fix stupid. Do you realize that there are less than 300 murders a year committed with all types of rifles in the United States. Just not semi-automatic rifles or AR-15s, all rifles. Twice that many die from in unarmed assaults. 4 times that many die from stabbing. This number has gone down since the expiration of the so called assault weapons ban which wasn’t anything close to that.

        If you think this issue has anything to reducing crime you are absolutely crazy. Its a ploy for more government invasion of privacy, more federal government overreach, and a dig at due process. And if you think it ends with guns you are crazier.

        Real gun control in this country is impossible without an all our messy, bloody war that no one has the stomach for. In New York and Connecticut they estimate 4% compliance with registration requirements. None of the laws proposed are going to reduce violent crime or keep access from firearms for someone intent on such.

        This is about expanded federal power, creating precedent for more federal encroachment on due process, and expanding bureaucracy and control. Nothing more.

        1. Do you realize that there are less than 300 murders a year committed with all types of rifles in the United States

          We have SO many mass shootings with pistols!

          FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
          Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
          Mass Shootings Per year
          UK = 0.2 per year
          US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher – Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of human life?”

          Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

          What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
          Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
          (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

          Left – Right = Zero

          1. inalienable | in??l??n?b(?)l |

            adjective

            unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights.

      7. OBL, if you come for the guns it will not work out the way you think.

        1. He neither said nor suggested any such thing.
          NOW do you feel manly?

    2. Wow. So Dick’s/F&S has just not only removed the “black scaries” from their shelves to avoid soccer-mom heat (“I will not be buying Mason’s shin guards at an establishment involved in selling weapons of war! Let me speak to your manager”); that might be forgiven. Instead, they have explicitly and loudly lined up behind a government ban, spewing lies that everyone with a hunting rifle will know is false.

      Why on Earth would they do this without completely getting out of the firearms business altogether? That would have been nice and dramatic, but this leaves them with an entire division dedicating to selling to people who will be utterly furious at them. Even Wal-Mart did not stick their middle finger up at hunters like this, and they could have far more afforded to.

      Can someone seriously explain what might be going on here? (Do it before I start firing up my annoying-ass “we is doomed!” rhetoric!)

      1. I will help put them out of business, so a company will balls will take their place.

        1. Three will getcha five the name of the store is Dickless by next election…
          But the important bets are whether the Dems still want to ban electricity, and whether God’s Own Prohibitionists will again include the Coathanger Amendment they’ve copied from the Prohibition Party since 1976. Will the LP drop the anarchist death plank and instead go for the Atlas Shrugged Amendment? Place your bets…

          1. I would like to see abortion banned federally just to rub your nose in it. Anti religious bigoted piece of shit.

            But not really. Roe V Wade should be scrapped in favor of state’s rights.

            1. Right-wing fascist REJECTS unalienable rights. No better than a progtard

              1) ALL unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE.
              2) That creates a dilemma when two such rights are conflicting or competing.
              3) Such conflicts can ONLY be determined and resolved by the Judiciary. (as a check against the other 2 branches )
              4) And ONLY on a case before it.
              5) They are OBLIGED to resolve the conflict in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights, because EACH is absolute (thus equal).

              That’s HOW our judicial system works … since the 14th century and English Common Law

              Now enter the statists/facsists, the far extreme of BOTH the left and right.
              When two rights are in conflict ….. each wants it ALL THEIR WAY .. imposed by the state … in DEFIANCE of equal, unalienable and/or God Given Rights

              As PROOF, see how EVERY authoritarian right has REFUSED to answer these elementary questions.

              What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
              Which prevails? Who decides? And why?>/b>
              (You need not know the answers. Merely ACCEPT the genuine conflict between two absolute rights)

      2. Owner has guilty conscience, doesn’t listen to board of directors.

      3. Because they’re stupid. That’s why everyone does everything.

        1. I assume everyone I don’t know is stupid and weak, until proven otherwise. This policy has always served me well.

          1. The Authoritarian Right!

      4. Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics.

        1: Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

        2: Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

        3: The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

        It’s the second law in operation: Conservatives join organizations to advance the purpose of the organization. Leftists join organizations to take them over and use them to advance leftist causes. So, while the conservatives are busy in Dick’s scheming how to sell stuff and make money, the leftists are busy working at taking over, undistracted by making money.

        They make a point of going into positions like HR where they can hire and fire based on ideology, not competence, and eventually they reach a critical mass, and the organization flips, and starts prioritizing left wing causes over its own survival.

        Once they run it into the ground, they start over someplace else.

        1. Perhaps this was a business decision for Dick’s Sporting Goods — it might be more profitable to transact with Americans who reject gun absolutism (a majority of prospective consumers) and reside in modern, successful communities than it is to transact with a dwindling volume of downscale, rural customers.

          1. A business decision is based on product sales, not on who thinks some products are good or bad. The point is to provide people with goods and services they want at prices they’re willing to pay. And this CEO has, or wants to, bastardized the meaning of ‘assault weapons’ to include shotguns.

            If Dick’s stores don’t sell many guns, that’s one thing. But that’s not what this is; ergo, not a business decision. It’s a virtue signaling decision. I’ve yet to find the business book that says “piss off half the people by picking sides in a contentious issue” is a good strategy.

          2. There you go dead thread-fucking and talking to yourself, artie poo. FOAD troll.

            1. Goober posts to a dead thread … whining about dead threads!
              These people are NOT the brightest bulbs on the tree!

    3. Neither Dick’s Sporting Goods or anyone else is trying to “grab [your] guns.” Try to get it straight.

      1. FOAD Craig, you dead thread fucking troll.

        1. Whining pussy posts to a dead thread … complaining about dead threads.
          (snort)

    4. Fortunately a ban will never get through Congress. Here in MT Tester will never vote for it as he’s up for reelection and wants to go back. He knows it’s political suicide here. Likewise Heitkamp in Nodak and other red states D’s. So for Toejam, artiepoo, Hihnfection and the other trolls it’s going to be a wish in one hand and shit in the other situation. It’ll be great when they have to STFU.

      1. Another ruling you can SHAMELESSLY lie about, US v Miller (full text)

        The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

        The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

        EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons … RESTRICTED to weapons brought from home. He goes on for a few hundred words, in great detail on the 2A limits — which is why Scalia didn’t have to.(lol)

        1. Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website.
          We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

          …. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

          2nd cite on Miller

          … United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
          Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

          You have any sources, or just your typical bellowing, troll?

          1. I’ll use your quotes, which you insist on misinterpreting.

            (First Heller Quote)

            (1) The Founders preferred militias to standing armies, because they viewed standing armies as a threat to liberty.

            (2) The Militia was not made up of professional soldiers, but of every able-bodied male.

            (3) Because owning firearms was commonplace (and protected), these able-bodied males were expected to use their commonly-owned firearms, for militia purposes when necessary.

            (Heller Quote)

            (1) The Second Amendment protects only those weapons that are currently in common use.

            (2) The fact that the stated rationale for the Second Amendment (resisting tyranny and securing the liberty of a free state) may seem outdated and unnecessary in modern times does not change the ultimate operation of the Amendment?individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

            (Second Miller Quote, which is actually from Heller)

            (1) The Miller decision did not limit the right to bear arms to only those instances in which an individual is serving as part of the Militia.

            (2) Instead, the Miller decision found that the Amendment protects only those weapons that are currently commonly owned and used.

            1. I’ll use your quotes, which you insist on misinterpreting

              Whiny Goober says DIRECT QUOTES are “misinterpreting” so … HE REWRITES THEM ENTIRELY (snort) … PROVING how badly his puppet master has brainwashed him!!

              1. Would you care to put those direct quotes in your own words?

                If you disagree with one (or more) of my characterizations, please feel free to specify which one(s), and tell me where you think I’ve gone wrong. I took ConLaw before the Heller case was decided, so hey?maybe I’m wrong.

                1. Would you care to put those direct quotes in your own words?

                  Goober is PROUD to have lied about SCOTUS ruling,

                  1. Like all goobers … called out as a fucking liar … folds and whines like a pussy!

                    His called out BULLSHIT ASSAULT, this

                    I’ll use your quotes, which you insist on misinterpreting

                    stated here …

                    DEFIANTLY REFUSES TO SAY HOW A DIRECT QUOTE CAN BE MINSINTERPRETED!! (sneer)
                    Bullies and blowhards MUST be called out as the SCUM they are.
                    And CRUSHED
                    Like I did here.

                    (Will he AGAIN bellow in cowardly failure? Perhaps. Goobers DENY even absolute reality … to bully us .. to impose their diktats

                    Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
                    (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism)

                    Left – Right = Zero

                    1. I’ll walk you through your misinterpretation(s):

                      Direct: “EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons … RESTRICTED to weapons brought from home. He goes on for a few hundred words, in great detail on the 2A limits — which is why Scalia didn’t have to.(lol)”

                      You added your own words to your caselaw quotations. Those words, in my opinion, misinterpreted the caselaw.

                      Implied: You bolded certain passages of the caselaw, presumably to bolster your commentary. Once again, I don’t think the bolded passages mean what you think they mean.

                      Neither Miller nor Heller stood for the proposition that “only weapons commonly owned in 1791 are protected.” Rather, both recognized that the relevant time period is the current time period. So, to evaluate Miller/Heller precedent, we need to look at what guns are commonly owned today.

                    2. boldface in DEFENSE of more AGGRESSION … with even STINKIER bullshit (sneer)

                      PSYCHO now defiantly REFUSES to explain his INSANE claim that a direct quote is misinterpretation of … the direct quote.

                      Whining like a pussy … CHANGES TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ASSERTION … EVEN CRAZIER!! SEE THIS PSYCHO LIE ALSO WITH YOUR OWN EYES ALSO

                      You added your own words to your caselaw quotations

                      DID I? (snort)
                      Back to my comment … LOOK to see HOW crazy he is!
                      Or is he too STUPID to know the difference between a quote and a comment … even when the quotes are indented with a border,… like here

                      LESSON: Goober trolls are NEVER wrong They just launch a different attack. For their “holy cause.” Obedient puppets.

                      we need to look at what guns are commonly owned today.

                      DENIES the 1994 “Assault Weaon Ban” (what it’s called) .. the NRA was POWERLESS to overturn for ten long years … because the ban is constitutional.

                      HOW
                      … CAN
                      … A
                      … DIRECT
                      … QUOTE
                      … BE
                      … MISINTERPRETING
                      ITSELF???

                      Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
                      (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism. … both using doe-eyed goobers)

                      Left – Right = Zero

                    3. I never claimed “a direct quote misinterpreted itself.” I claimed that you misinterpreted the quotes you provided.

                      It seems as if you’ve lost this argument, as you can’t respond on the merits.

                      Disappointing, as I always enjoy a good caselaw debate.

                    4. THIRD DENIAL OF HIS OWN WORDS!

                      Original
                      “I’ll use your quotes, which you insist on misinterpreting.”

                      THIRD LIE
                      I never claimed “a direct quote misinterpreted itself.”

                      PROOF (SNEER) REWRITES ACTUAL RULING

                      (First Heller Quote)

                      (1) The Founders preferred militias to standing armies, because they viewed standing armies as a threat to liberty.

                      (2) The Militia was not made up of professional soldiers, but of every able-bodied male.

                      (3) Because owning firearms was commonplace (and protected), these able-bodied males were expected to use their commonly-owned firearms, for militia purposes when necessary.

                      (Heller Quote)

                      (1) The Second Amendment protects only those weapons that are currently in common use.

                      (2) The fact that the stated rationale for the Second Amendment (resisting tyranny and securing the liberty of a free state) may seem outdated and unnecessary in modern times does not change the ultimate operation of the Amendment?individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

                      (Second Miller Quote, which is actually from Heller)

                      (1) The Miller decision did not limit the right to bear arms to only those instances in which an individual is serving as part of the Militia.

                      (2) Instead, the Miller decision found that the Amendment protects only those weapons that are currently commonly owned and used.

                      Left – Right = Zero

    5. Better add Walmart…

      Walmart and Dick’s Bypass Congress, Adopt Their Own Stricter Gun Control Policies.

      People are outraged, and the companies are listening.

      alternet.org (slash) news-amp-politics (slash) walmart-and-dicks-bypass-congress-adopt (dash) their-own-stricter-gun-control-policies-0

      1. What kinda dumbass describes that as “bypass Congress?” Oh wait, they can’t be bought off by the gun manufacturers, so they DARED to defy crony capitalism. HOW DARE THEY?

    6. They have a right to sell or not sell whatever they like, just as you have a right to shop there or not.
      They don’t have any obligation to stand up to ‘gun grabbers’.

  2. Boycott ?

    No. SABOTAGE!

    1. Cue Beastie Boys

      1. I’ll slide across the hood of a car if it’ll help.

  3. I thought an “assault” rifle was not even a real thing. It’s a bit like classifying a dog as a “scary dog.” It’s in the eye of the beholder.

    As for Dicks sporting goods… I used to have a female colleague who one day was trying to find some images of sporting goods stores for some kind of report she was doing. She announced to a group of us: “Here’s a tip for everyone. Don’t go to Google images and type in ‘Dicks.’ Turns out it’s a bad idea, especially not while you’re at work.”

    1. Assault rifle is a real thing. So is a battle rifle. An ar-15 is neither.

      1. I picked up a rock and threw it my neighbor. Suddenly it became an assault rock. Ban rocks.

    2. “Assault rifle” is a real industry term. (Though as I understand it there are no domestically manufactured weapons that qualify.) All are FFL.

      “Assault weapon” is not an industry term. It is a political term introduced by the push for the original ’90s ban, and by definition it just means the weapons covered by it. Basically, semiauto rifles that have enough of those scary-looking features you keep hearing about (pistol grip, perforated barrel, shoulder thing that goes up) that have nothing to do with power or rate of fire but everything to do with making them visually frightening “weapons of war” that only deranged small-dicked fetishists would ever dream of owning.

    3. A good friend of mine while working for a university got fired because she accidentally went to whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov.

      1. She should have blamed IT for not filtering it.

    4. Umm, “assault weapon” was literally in the ban law.
      Ignore NRA bullshit.

  4. I bought some nice golf shirts from Dick’s recently. I damn well will not let butthurt stop me getting the best deals.

    1. Collaborator!

    2. There is no such thing as a golf shirt. If it exists, I’m inclined to think that it’s more of ‘a good shirt ruined’-type of situation.

      1. The early-’00s explosion of Under Armour-style Spandex fabrics has revolutionized actual gear in even the most traditionally-appareled sports. Look at what rugby players wear now for the most dramatic example.

        So now you go to, say, Bloomingdale’s and you go to the Lacoste section, and you will see the collared cotton shirts that once were the actual, working tennis gear made by them for nearly a century, but they are now strictly casual fashion; off to the side you will nowadays see a separate section marked “tennis” that will have (albeit quite attractive) high-performance synthetic microfiber shirts made for actual athletic use.

        1. We need common sense apparel nomenclature.

  5. “Assault style”? Jeebus. So somebody who is shot with a rifle reflecting good fashion sense is better off?

  6. The NRA paper tiger is finally getting its due. I’ll wait to see if I’m proven wrong, but Dick’s probably didn’t totally ignore business considerations by making this move. It’s underappreciated just how niche the gun nut crowd is. Americans almost universally support increased regulations in this area.

    1. Five million members are in the NRA, and rising. It’s power is not in its ability to spend money in politics, but to organize voters on a single issue and to rally them to boycott stores such as Dick’s.

      1. So “we” are the problem? Good.

        1. I don’t see it as a problem. I like grassroots civil liberty organizations.

          1. By problem I mean the defined enemy of the progressives. I too like grassroots and donations mostly being small contributions.

      2. Almost all of those members support increased regulations.

        1. No they don’t. The media says they do.

          The NRA reps are trying to say they would be open to more regulations but when the dust settles, they won’t.

        2. And yet those of us who are members aren’t leaving the organization, voting in new leadership, protesting at NRA HQ, publicly agitating for gun control, calling our congressmen to demand gun control, or–most importantly to you–voting in droves for the Democrat Party. Kinda odd, dontcha think?

          The only members I’ve seen leave the org (other than a few grandstanding celebrities) are people who are going over to orgs like GOA because they think the NRA’s position is too weak.

          1. Well that’s why they’re called nuts.

            1. Fine, but it still invalidates your claim that “almost all” of them support gun control.

          2. Not me! I never was a member. Told them why I wasn’t joining too. Everyone who leaves them for GOA should write a letter.

        3. Almost all of those members support increased regulations.

          That may be true. I have no idea. But I’m sure there are plenty of members who are not absolutists on gun rights. But the question is, what increased regulations? It may well be that a majority supports things like improving the background check system, or maybe adding some new categories to who can’t have a gun. That’s a very different thing from something like mandatory registration or bans on certain classes of gun.

        4. They support regulations that disarm black people and don’t inconvenience white people.

          So, yes, expect them to support background checks and licenses and fees.

          Expect them not to care about bump stocks.

          Expect them to lose their ever loving shit over a ban on AR-15s.

        5. Uh NO, we don’t. Since the NRA doesn’t give out its membership rolls to anyone, the only way anyone could conduct a poll, outside of a poll conducted BY the NRA, which would be kind of pointless, would be by asking the person if they were an NRA member.

          And Nobody would lie about being an NRA member. /Sarc

      3. Five million consumers, to a national retailer, is a rounding error.

        Factor in the income and density issues, and those five million could nearly vanish.

        1. Assuming the Left makes up the losses.

          Ask Marvel’s comic division how well that works.

        2. 5 million NRA members, but 100 million gun owners, many of whom are sympathetic to the NRA.

      4. Five million members are in the NRA,

        3.4% of the voters, authoritarian.
        Witless pawns of the gun manufacturers

    2. The NRA is nothing compared to the tens of millions more Americans who are not members of the NRA and vote against gun grabbers and their unconstitutional laws.

      1. If I could accomplish anything it would be to convince more people to put a little money [$30] where there mouth is and to write their legislators. Rather than doing nothing and relying on others to advocate for them. And of course vote.

        1. I email my representatives constantly. Trump sometimes.

          Its free too.

          1. Eh. Of all the ways to contact your congress-critter, e-mails are the easiest to send and easiest to ignore, and are generally the first to be ignored.

            I can’t remember if physical letters or calls come next, but both are weighed higher then an e-mail.

            An actual face-to-face is the most likely to influence a congress-critter and convince them that you’re not just following a script, and make them think you represent a significant number of constituents.

            A sizeable donation is most likely to change their mind though.

            1. A sizeable donation won’t change their mind, but they’ll try to make you think it will.

          2. As I did this weekend. Where I live the Representative is decent and responded immediately. The two senators have, thus far, completely ignored me. Bitches; so I’ll give it a few more days and call them. If only to be a thorn.

      2. That’s me. I’m not a member…but I will not frequent any business that has engaged in this cowardice. I am not looking for Dick’s to be my moral guide…but I now feel free to ask them why they carry football gear given the massive problem of CTE issues involving players.

        1. Ever scrutinize the manufacturing origin of Dick’s products?

          Soon, Dick’s and Wal-Mart and other businesses dependent upon the 10,000 mile supply chain are going to get hammered.

          In the words of Bart Scott, “CAN’T WAIT!”

          1. It seems the new array of hyper-progressive CEO’s didn’t figure out why companies avoided politics historically.

            Once you say “We won’t carry this for this reason”, then EVERYTHING else you carry includes your endorsement. Because you’ve shown a willingness to say no to carrying items.

            How many kids are injured from baseballs to the head as opposed to guns in a year? How many kids had their brains scrambled with football?

            1. They fall prey to the delusion that the majority of the country thinks like them, so it’s good business.

        2. I have a few liberal hating friends that have joined the NRA in the last couple of days.

          Pretty funny.

    3. I look forward to the democrats embrace of gun control as part of taking back the house.

      1. This guy gets it.

        How to do a parody account, that is.

      2. I look forward to the democrats embrace of gun control as part of taking back the house.

        Hahahaha! You must be bullshitting us. The Dems are gonna run as far and as fast away from gun control as they can once the dust settles cause they know its an electoral loser.

    4. niche the gun nut crowd is

      300+ million guns in the hands of 80+ million people is a “niche”, according to Tony.

      1. Technically speaking, every group of people that doesn’t encompass all of humanity is a niche.

    5. “Almost universally” Ha ha ha! The Anti-gun lobby and its cheerleaders in the Fourth Estate have been talking about how every American and his dog favor stricter gun laws for the last 60 years. And guess what? Somehow all that support for more laws hasn’t translated into actual political support. You can claim the NRA is a “paper tiger”, as the tub-thumpers in the Fourth Estate have been doing for a couple of generations, but the we still don’t have the European style gun laws the Press favors. Who is really the “paper tiger” here?

    6. You realize public opinion is trending against you on this, right? That’s not even disputed by left leaning pollsters like Nate Silver.

      Oh, and the NRA isn’t a paper tiger – it’s a bogey man to the left. It has never been close to one of the most powerful lobbyist groups. Leftists harp on it rather because it allows them to avoid admitting that it’s the general public, not some organization, that has still stood in the way of overturning the 2nd amendment and banning the vast majority of firearms. You just can’t come to terms with the fact that these are unpopular positions, and it’s the voting public that you despise.

      1. As pointed out, since companies are now saying they won’t work with the NRA because they kill kids…how can they justify their support for Planned Parenthood, who kill exponentially more kids and spend exponentially more money buying politicians?

        1. If someone has information about the killing of children — or a single child — the sole course for a responsible person would be to notify the appropriate law enforcement authority without delay.

          If someone does not possess information about the killing of a child, the sole course for a responsible person would be to stop spouting superstition-based nonsense while adults are attempting to engage in reasoned debate.

          Anti-abortion zealotry at a libertarian website? That would be as wacky as bigoted immigration advocacy at a libertarian website.

          Carry on, clingers.

        2. If someone has information about the killing of children — or a single child — the sole course for a responsible person would be to notify the appropriate law enforcement authority without delay.

          If someone does not possess information about the killing of a child, the sole course for a responsible person would be to stop spouting superstition-based nonsense while adults are attempting to engage in reasoned debate.

          Anti-abortion zealotry at a libertarian website? That would be as wacky as bigoted immigration advocacy at a libertarian website.

          Carry on, clingers.

          1. artie poo, piss off and die you dead thread fucking douchebag.

            1. Why do you SHIT on unalienable rights, goober?

              What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
              Which prevails? Who decides? And why?>/b>
              (You need not know the answers. Merely ACCEPT the genuine conflict between two absolute rights)

      2. You realize public opinion is trending against you on this, right?You realize the support is 70% and more, right?

    7. Very impressive. Now ask them what “increased regulations” means, why they are necessary and what they would accomplish. Then put in your earplugs while the screaming commences.

  7. Glad I’ve got a Cabelas nearby. But I should probably drop by Dick’s just to tell them I’ll never be back.

    1. Talk to the GM instead of berating the poor minwage sap folding the clothes.

    2. Also, unfold a bunch of the clothes.

    3. Get yourself a copy of “Firearms News” and find a wholesaler who will ship an AR to a local dealer near you. It will be cheaper than paying Dick’s to keep them in inventory.

  8. Washington State just banned shoelaces and keyrings. There’s a lot of this going around right now.

    1. A politicians work is never done, is it?

  9. I’m in California where AR’s are no longer legal to sale anyway, that said if you ever go on a pig hunt you want lots of ammo a semi auto rifle and maybe a side arm, pigs are not like deer they can turn and attack in a heard if they want.

    1. By AR’s, do you mean AR-15’s? If so, they’re still legal to sell in CA. They just have to not have any of the evil features (pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc.). If you picked up an AR-15 or other modern sporting rifles covered under the CA assault weapons ban prior to 12/31/2016, you need to either register it by 6/31/2018 or convert it to a non-assault weapons(change the pistol grip, remove the flash suppressor, or add something like an AR Mag Lock that converts the rifle into a fixed magazine weapon.

        1. Or fight against the regulations.

      1. Get yourself a Ruger Ranch Rifle.The wooden stock makes it much less of a threat to civilization. I guess.

  10. I can’t help wondering if it has occurred to these nuts that if the goal is prevent mass killings, there are plenty of things to worry about besides guns. Just look at the recent deadly attacks in Nice, France or on that jogging trail in NYC. How long before there are calls to ban trucks being driven by anyone other government-employed truck drivers?

    1. Do they send these talking points by fax? I imagine them coming by fax for some reason.

      1. I typically hate talking points, too, and this is indeed a tired one, but the reason it keeps popping up is because liberal maroons like you can’t address the underlying truth of it.

        1. Do you think terrorists in France would use vans if they could simply sit themselves at a high window and mow people down with a machine gun?

          The logic is absurdly faulty. If these guns are not especially efficient killing machines (which by the way serve no other purpose), then why don’t you avoid hassle and just protect your property with your Volvo?

          1. You mean like at Charlie Hebdo?

            1. Or several other attacks in France using full-auto rifles.

              1. Well, Zeb, clearly those assailants didn’t know about gun laws. Because, rest assured, while laws against murder won’t slow them down, running afoul of gun laws will slow a murderer up.

                1. I always have to laugh when people fret about making concealed carry easier to do legally.

                  You really think that a law is going to stop anyone from concealing a weapon if that’s what they want to do?

          2. Because clearly, a key to his point is that guns aren’t dangerous!

            You got him!

            1. Clearly the argument is that they are equally as dangerous as vans.

              1. Ok, so van control then?

                1. You forgot to say “common sense”.

              2. It is far more likely that I will at some point in my life kill someone with my car than kill someone with one of my guns.

          3. US becoming safer compared to Europe in both fatalities and frequency of mass public shootings: US now ranks 11th in fatalities and 12th in frequency

            Quote:
            Between January 2009 and December 2015, there are 11 European countries with a higher frequency of these mass public shootings than the US, and 10 European countries with a higher rate of deaths from these attacks.

            Indeed, over that same period of time, the European Union (EU) suffered 303 deaths from mass public shootings, while the US had 199.

            1. The EU has 508 million people though, and the US only 323 million.

              1. Fk trolling goobers (snort)

                FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
                Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
                Mass Shootings Per year
                UK = 0.2 per year
                US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher – Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of human life?”

                Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

                What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
                Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
                (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

                Left – Right = Zero

                As an aside, MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did? In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

          4. Do you think terrorists in France would use vans if they could simply sit themselves at a high window and mow people down with a machine gun?

            No need. They will just acquire illegal guns and mow people down from floor level at a concert.

            1. I wonder why they went to that trouble when they could have just used a van.

              1. Does it matter to the dead people if they used a gun or van?

                1. You’re really gonna stick with this argument huh? I would not be surprised if the assholes at NRA HQ who came up with it didn’t chuckle when they realized how stupid it was and how many gun nuts would buy it.

                  You can kill a person with a goldfish if you try hard enough. It does not thus follow that all gun bans are nonsensical.

                  1. “You can get high off glue if you want to, but that doesn’t mean all drug bans are nonsensical.”

                    But yeah, drug (and gun) bans generally are both ineffectual and nonsensical.

                    1. MOAR bullshit trolling from MarkLatName!

                      But yeah, drug (and gun) bans generally are both ineffectual and nonsensical.

                      FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
                      Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
                      Mass Shootings Per year
                      UK = 0.2 per year
                      US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher – Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of human life?”

                      Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

                      What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
                      Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
                      (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

                      Left – Right = Zero

                      As an aside, MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did? In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?.

                  2. Nor does it follow that gun bans are sensible. Thanks for playing. By the way, it’s past your bedtime

                    1. UnrepentantCurmudgeon|2.28.18 @ 5:56PM|#
                      Nor does it follow that gun bans are sensible. Thanks for playing. By the way, it’s past your bedtime

                      Bend over.as THIS gets JAMMED up your ass, goober,
                      And twisted.
                      (sneer)

              2. They used a semi once. I don’t think you get the point.

              3. So you’re basically hoping that all violence converges to one hyper-efficient method and we can just ban that one?

                1. No, he knows that shootings will still occur, he gets a certain joy from seeing innocent people cowering in place while law enforcement hides outside in their mraps and their patrol rifles.

                  1. Remember when the Left claimed to not trust the police?

                    Now, they want them to be the only ones armed.

                    1. “”Remember when the Left claimed to not trust the police?

                      Now, they want them to be the only ones armed.””

                      I remember Rudy Giuliani’s crack down on illegal gun in NYC. It did not go well for minorities, and their neighborhoods.

                    2. I enjoy watching Tony flail. He is a treasure.

                    3. I remember Rudy Giuliani’s crack down on illegal gun in NYC. It did not go well for minorities, and their neighborhoods.

                      So, let’s do it NATIONALLY!!

                    4. We’re SURROUNDED by goobers!

                      damikesc|2.28.18 @ 5:00PM|#
                      Remember when the Left claimed to not trust the police?
                      Now, they want them to be the only ones armed.

                      This libertarian asks:

                      MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did? In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                      (smirk)

          5. Vehicle attacks have actually proven to be about as deadly as gun attacks. You are, as usual, completely wrong.

          6. And once again Tony refuses to let facts get in the way of a good screed

            1. UnrepentantCurmudgeon|2.28.18 @ 5:55PM|#
              And once again Tony refuses to let facts get in the way of a good screed

              (snort)
              ONE AGAIN, UnrepentantCurmudgeon GOT FACTS JAMMED UP HIS ASS.
              AND TWISTED!

      2. Do they send these talking points by fax?

        Usually via delivery van and then news van and in that order.

        1. I get mine by mail along with my white privilege check, my patriarchy card, and all the other bullshit leftists think actually exist.

          1. I receive Kochbux in the mail every time I drive past a homeless person.

      3. We can’t all get them off Twitter.

        1. Right-wing snowflake be fascist censors … precisely like left-wing campus snowflakes

          Right – Left = Zero.
          True Beleebers in BOTH tribes, seeking to impose their own false values by government force.

  11. Don’t be fooled!

    Dick’s has done this before. Immediately after a shooting, they stop selling the weapon, and make big noise about it. Then, a year or so later, they quietly start selling it again.

    1. The funniest part of the press release is that Dick’s admitted that Cruz bought a shotgun from them, so even though he didn’t use it, they’re still ending “scary-looking rifle” sales. Well, what if he had used the shotgun (like the kid at Arapahoe HS in Colorado did), would they have ended shotgun sales?

      1. Not where I live, they wouldn’t. We have a serious hunting population and shotguns are a major sale item to that (ahem) demographic

    2. Don’t be fooled!

      Pot Kettle Black

  12. The logic is actually pretty clear. Dick’s probably moves more volume and makes better margins on apparel and shoes and gear that doesn’t require special locking display cases. If they can get a PR boost from dropping a niche product category, it seems like a pretty good bet.

    1. And I imagine that is precisely what they are betting on. Some PR boost for “being a ‘good’ corporate citizen” and a few shout outs on twit space.

    2. They are going to piss off their core customers. Gun owner rural America outside types.

      Its why Hobby Lobby didnt go out of business when the gays attacked that company. That company’s core customer are the female version of the gun owner rural America types.

      1. Is that their core customer? You clearly have access that I don’t to their demographic breakdowns. Alls I know is that only one of the Dick’s I’ve ever been to even sell real guns. But they all have hundreds of square feet of floor space devoted to gym wear, yoga apparel, and shoes. Probably for rural outdoor gun yoga.

        1. You misread love’s post.

      2. LOL you’re right; Buzzfeed and all the usual fashionably woke media even did a recent piece about a social media trend involving selfies at HL. Didn’t mention shit politically.

        In their defense I think Hobby Lobby were actually just woman haters (cisgendered woman haters, at that) and it was just the precedents of their case that drew LGBT grievance-whore attention.

      3. Gun owner rural America outside types.

        I’ve never considered this to be Dick’s primary demographic. Last time I was in one, the whole place screamed ‘soccer mom’ to me. Like it was a concerted effort to emulate Target as much as possible while still maintaining the ability to call yourself a sporting goods store. The ones I’ve been in had the youth equipment and ladies activewear as close to the entryway as possible. Couldn’t have been more blatant if they’d hung a sign saying “Come in for you kid’s shin guards and maybe pick up some yoga pants.”

        I’ve been in and out of corner gun shops, Cabelas, Gander Mountains, Bass Pro Shops, L.L. Bean, Erewhon, all manner of fishing stores, etc., etc. I’ve never seen any of them as dead as the fishing and firearms counters at any given Dick’s. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that their customers are 60+% women.

        1. So what you’re saying is that soccer moms love Dick’s.

        2. Like I’ve been bitching about here, the issue is not the Dick’s division but Field and Stream. Why would they mortally wound that division but commit themselves to carrying it on, as a “hunting store” that had just gone on TV and spouted Bloomberg talking-point lies about hunting rifles and called for a national ban on some of the most popular models?

          1. We don’t have a Field and Stream store near me. Looking at their location map, they’ve got 34 stores, the bulk of which are on or near the East coast. Which sufficiently explains the situation to me.

            1. NYC Republicans are indeed worthless (one of the reasons I’ve never been the slightest bit motivated to leave the Democrats), but I highly doubt the customers of a hunting store anywhere would be in any way sympathetic to a lie-filled, Bloomberg-press-release call for a government ban the most popular hunting rifles. Yes, even on the East Coast. Could be the Field and Stream in Alameda County, California for all it matters.

        3. Indeed, this was a low-risk move. The local gun stores around me are so busy that you can’t even get to the counter. The aisles are probably completely empty right now.

          That said, I did buy a good bit of hard-to-find ammo at a Dick’s in an open-air mall on the yuppie side of town.

        4. Up here there are more arms customers at the local Big 5 than at the Dick’s (which happens to be in the mall)

    3. They got above-the-fold coverage in my local arts and culture zine.

    4. They’d never get away with it at field & stream, unless they want to close up shop but at Dick’s stores they could probably manage ok removing firearms entirely. That’s pure speculation, but they’d probably do ok, they are a “mall store” after all.

      1. Yeah, I mean Cabella’s or Bass Pro would go down in flames if they tried this, but Dick’s caters to a different crowd.

      2. They could have done that, but that is not what they did! They kept the “good, decent people” hunting rifles in F&S (and whatever Dick’s they still are in, wherever the fuck that is) and not only removed the “assaults” from F&S but denounced them as “weapons of war” and called for a ban on national TV. How is the F&S division going to “do OK” now? Why not simply dump the whole thing dramatically, instead of keeping on and trying to make further money off a division that caters to the people you have now gone out of your way to insult?

        1. Every pistol and rifle in existence either is or could easily be a “weapon of war”. What else is new? And if a war comes to our shores, every “ban guns” nut in our country will be screaming for one (or more)

    5. It’s not a niche category to them. The Dick’s division will survive any boycott of gun owners; as mentioned they’re not even affected by the new policy.

      What will turn into an albatross is the F&S stores. Imagine an unaffiliated hunting store that went on network TV and announced they wanted an “assault weapons” ban, lying through their ass about hunting rifles and repeating the Bloomberg talking points! How would their customers react? What would happen to their business?

      This is why I don’t understand why they hope to compete in that category anymore. Not only no “assault weapons” available there anymore, but an official pro-gun-control policy. (The Dick’s soccer moms, if they even cared long-term, would have been satisfied with the former.) Why did they not go even bigger, and simply fold their gun division? They have instead mortally wounded it, which I don’t understand.

  13. “…allowing a gunman to fire more than a hundred rounds in minutes.”

    How many minutes? More than one presumably, but that doesn’t mean you hit what your are shooting at. If the military standard is “…a sustained rate of 12 to 15 rounds per minute, or a round every four or five seconds.” I have a Winchester 94 that’s more than up to that, including reloading. I suppose that makes it a 19th century assault weapon.

    1. Let us not forget the SMLE with a rate of fire given as 20 to 30 AIMED rounds per minute.

      For those who don’t know history that is the Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifle from World War I (the war to end all war)
      It is about 9 pounds of metal and wood, and even Tony would laugh to call it an assault rifle.
      But if rate of fire is going to become the new definition of evil, there you go.
      Cartridge .303 Mk VII SAA Ball
      Action Bolt-action
      Rate of fire 20?30 aimed shots per minute
      Muzzle velocity 744 m/s (2,441 ft/s)
      Effective firing range 550 yd (503 m)
      Maximum firing range 3,000 yd (2,743 m)

  14. In a month or so I will go to the local Dicks store like every year. It will be time around here to get new fishing gear, line, lure, all that.

    Hardly noticed the gun selection there. Gander Mountain and the gun ranges have a better selection.

    Plus Dicks sells a lot of clothes and shoes. Every sport you can get geared up for it is a good basic retail outlet to go to.

    I get what the CEO said and did. They just do not want to be a part of what has happened. Good move.

    1. Most gun owners get their guns over the internet or from a guy out of the back of a white panel van. I’m honestly not sure what the media is all puffed up about on this story.

      1. Well, we already know panel vans should be banned.

    2. Sadly Gander is all but gone and sold to camping world, I tended to prefer them as a big box outdoor store to Cabela’s because they have better prices; but maybe that’s why they closed

    3. Gander is now strictly online, and if you want to buy a gun there are far far better places than that. As for Dickheads, they can do whatever they want, as I can choose to not patronize them. If they win on this they win, if not they don’t. Personally I doubt most people will remember it in a few months, or weeks, because they suck in the gun department anyway.

      1. Last time I went to Dick’s I had to walk the entire floor to find someone to help me in the hunting dept, not even firearm related; weak shit indeed. When I goto cabelas there’s a dude like every 5 feet in the firearms dept

      2. Dicks will still sell some shotguns and rifles. They were never much into the handgun business or other types of guns.

        I agree the gun department was just a way to get hunters and shooting types into the store. They want to sell the stuff in the middle of the store. Outdoor clothing, sports like getting your kid ready for soccer, baseball, shoes, that sort of thing.

        It is not a bad business model but like other big box retail they are struggling to keep up.

    4. Me not going to Dicks anymore will far outweigh your spending a few hundred there.

      I was even going to buy a safe from them for my new collection of possible banned guns. Oh well. Thousands down the drain for Dicks.

      Bad move.

      1. If only there were a chance Dick’s could survive the economic wrath of the downscale rural goober element of the retail market. The impulse buys of Slim Jims and snuff at the counters will probably crater, too, when the yahoos stop bringing their change jars to Dick’s for an annual ammunition run.

        1. FOAD, artie poo

          1. NOW do you feel manly?

    5. They are not “a part of what has happened”. Chickenshit move

  15. I wonder how the stockholders of DKS feel about their company stopping the sale of the most popular rifle sold in America?

    CB

    1. The Board and CEO will find out at the shareholders meeting, I’m sure.

    2. The stock has dropped in value over the past few years. Dividends are not awesome but steady.

      Like other big box retail. Today it is slightly up.

      The shareholders are not panicking. Up a percent today.

      1. Most stock is held by mural funds, give it some time to trickle down.

        1. “Investment Advisory Services From The Sticks, with Marcus Aurelius.”

          Sounds like a winner.

        2. I do not have shares in DKS.

          They have the same trouble as other big box stores. Declining in store revenue, online business but not keeping up.

          Still at a P/E of around 11

          dividends at 2.79%.

          Bargain price but I am not someone to give advice on stocks.

  16. WHAT? No one has said it yet? Ok, I guess it’s up to me.

    Christ. What dicks.

    1. You deserve the honor.

    2. Golf clap.

      1. Golf equipment clap.

  17. I bet their assessment in loss of sales did not account for people who will no longer purchase anything from them as a result of their virtue signalling and anti-gun stance.

    1. I once bought an expensive semiautomatic shotgun from Dick’s.

      I will never buy from Dick’s again.

      1. When you’ve lost the downscale goober market . . . Wall Street yawns.

  18. It would be nice to have an honest political conversation about the spectrum instead of veering off into nonsensical conversations about the 2nd amendment and principles and other BS.

    These types of guns are not, in any way, protected by the 2nd amendment under current law, so that conversation is a total distraction.

    Most people don’t think you should be able to own a nuke, so obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere when it comes to arms, and even Antonin Scalia agrees explicitly from his opera box in hell.

    What’s not honest, and what’s getting people killed dozens at a time, is the purposeful hysteria of saying that we can’t bad a particularly violent killing machine because that will cause a slippery slope to banning all guns everywhere. Conveniently enough that’s what logic calls a slippery slope fallacy.

    1. “It would be nice to have an honest political conversation”

      It would, but it wouldn’t involve you because you seem to descend into smarmy snark essentially from jump.

      1. Honesty and snark are not mutually exclusive. And my god you people are sensitive little girls. Doesn’t exactly make me think you should have more guns.

        1. Well, we don’t think you should have more conversation, so…

        2. “And my god you people are sensitive little girls”

          Like that. How is anyone supposed to think you’re remotely interested when you say things like that.

          That’s not “an honest political conversation” by any measure.

      2. You didn’t say “honesty” you said “an honest political conversation” and you are not capable of that, largely because when you perceive that you are losing, you deflect by firing off smarmy snark.

    2. Here’s an honest political conversation starter – remember when they passed the Brady Bill and everybody agreed that that was a “reasonable” gun control law? So why are we having this discussion if we already have reasonable gun control? Is it maybe because the gun grabbers saw hand gun control as just the first bite of the apple and now they’re back for more? Are we supposed to believe that this time when they get that little bit more that they want they’ll be satisfied and we’ll hear no more about further gun control?

    3. No one wants to ban guns. Ever! It’s a crazy and paranoid idea!

      New York City is advising rifle and shotgun owners that if their registered firearms
      meet the new definition of an “assault weapon”, they must surrender them immediately. Note that the assault weapon definition in NYC includes .22 rifles with tube magazines that can hold more than 5 rounds.
      And the New York Daily News celebrates:

      http://www.nydailynews.com/opi…..-1.1540358

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013…..ns-rifles/

      Quote:
      The demand came in the form of some 500 letters mailed out to owners of registered long guns that are in violation of a 2010 city ordinance. The first option for the letter’s recipient is to, “Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct?

      1. Oh, don’t get me wrong, if I had my utopian preference, I’d ban pretty much all guns.

        But for now the only real conversation is about high-capacity rapid-fire types that can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time (and are designed for that purpose and that purpose only).

        1. if I had my utopian preference, I’d ban pretty much all guns.

          To gun owners and those who defend the Bill of Rights: this is what gun control and gun ban advocates really want. Because you defend your civil rights, that makes you an accessory to the murder of dead children. What do you think they will do to you if they gain power over you?

          1. These types of guns are not protected in the Bill or Rights.

            Paranoia about overregulation is no justification for anarchy.

            1. Tony|2.28.18 @ 2:05PM|#
              “These types of guns are not protected in the Bill or Rights.”Tony is a lefty. Tony ‘thinks’ (hopes? wishes?) any asinine statement is equivalent to an argument.
              Tony is also an ignoramus, but perhaps I repeat myself.

            2. Paranoia about anarchy is no justification for overregulation, Past Me.

              1. Equally true, so let’s leave paranoia out of it and focus on improving civilization sensibly?

                1. Ok, you can start by saving the declarations of what you think my rights are.

            3. Any other rights similarly restricted?

              Freedom of speech limited because the internet wasn’t even fathomed as a possibility when the Constitution was adopted?

            4. Any other rights similarly restricted?

              Freedom of speech limited because the internet wasn’t even fathomed as a possibility when the Constitution was adopted?

            5. “I’d ban pretty much all guns.”

              So, why would I give you an inch?

        2. I’d ban pretty much all guns.

          I know this, which is one reason I won’t concede anything to you, especially on rifles that are simply modern tech and fully covered under 2A.

          1. Yeah, there is a profound lack of trust in a lot of these issues.

            Similar to borders: Go back and look at what happened to Reagan in 86 to see why people like me oppose any comprehensive immigration policies.

            1. No need to travel back in time. I just look at your current taste for authoritarianism and general intolerance.

          2. I won’t concede anything to you

            THE EMPEROR HAS ISSUED A NEW DIKTAT!
            All bow down

        3. ” high-capacity rapid-fire types that can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time”

          You mean like this one:

          https://youtu.be/8fMN8a3ZRUY

          ?

          12 shots in 3 seconds.

      2. Kevin P, for what it’s worth, the NY Safe act has about a 4% compliance rate. People are refusing to register.

        1. Always a bad idea; get a really cheap .22 rifle, register it, and wait for the day they ‘never come to take your guns’. Put on a sad face and reluctantly give your registered rifle.
          Watch until they are out of sight, and you are sure they did not leave any monitoring devices, then laugh your ass off.

    4. These types of guns are not, in any way, protected by the 2nd amendment under current law, so that conversation is a total distraction.

      They are not, in any way, prohibited by the 2nd amendment.

      1. That’s a silly thing to say. They are sometimes prohibited by laws, and those laws do not, even controversially in current legal precedent, violate the 2nd amendment.

        1. Tony|2.28.18 @ 2:03PM|#
          “That’s a silly thing to say.”

          No, it’s not. A-2 doesn’t grant anything; it keeps the government and assholes like you from infringing on my rights.

        2. If you are banned from keeping and bearing arms– including specific ones, then that is an ipso facto violation of the constitution. If I banned 99% of your speech, but let you continue to stick pencils in your nose and say “Bibble!”, I can’t smugly sit back and say that you still have speech because I haven’t banned everything, only the stuff I have a problem with. That’s not how it works.

          1. I’m just talking about what the courts have (so far) uncontroversially said with respect to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. They made handguns protected but not “assault-style” guns. So they aren’t protected.

            And your logic says that among all constitutional protections the 2nd amendment is the one with no limitations. Which is a bit odd considering it’s the one about killing machines. Are you really saying you draw no line beyond which government should be permitted from restricting access to weapons?

            1. That’s sort of true. SCOTUS has said the 14th Amendment incorporates 2nd Amendment protections to the states and municipalities. They’ve definitely set limits on regulations that states and municipalities can enact regarding handguns. They’ve said nothing about regulations of long guns… yet. Given the composition of SCOTUS and the recent results, do you really expect the next 2nd Amendment ruling to be friendly to the gun control cause?

              1. To another point, don’t think that the public safety argument is going to get very far with SCOTUS re: rifles and shotguns. Gun violence in the US is overwhelmingly associated with handguns, not with long guns (3% of all gun deaths due to rifles of any type, including “assault weapons”, 2% due to shotguns). If the public safety argument didn’t cut it for handguns, which are used to kill an order of magnitude more people, it’s not going to win the day for long guns.

            2. Are you really saying you draw no line beyond which government should be permitted from restricting access to weapons?

              Once again, I should be allowed to carry weapons “in common use”. Now, if we want to extend an “assault style weapon ban” which includes law enforcement, I think we might have something to discuss.

              1. Once again, I should be allowed to carry weapons “in common use”.

                Once again, you’re not. it’s common use at ratification .. much as you WANT to beleeb your masters./

                1. Here is what Justice Breyer (certainly not a “goober”) said on this subject in his dissenting opinion in Heller:

                  “On the majority’s reasoning, *if tomorrow* someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self- defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so.”

                  That’s from page 155 of the .pdf of the opinion, a thing the end of Breyer’s dissent.

                  Disagree with the majority all you’d like?that’s reasonable. But even the dissenting justices recognized that Heller’s holding was based on “modern day usage” and not limited to weapons used in 1791. That’s unarguable.

                  1. CAN guntard POSSIBLY get any crazier …… YES …. much crazier!

                    But even the dissenting justices recognized that Heller’s holding was based on “modern day usage” and not limited to weapons used in 1791. That’s unarguable.

                    MOAR SELF-HUMILIATION!

                    “EVEN” dissenting justices … EVEN them … (lol) … SAYS STATES AND CONGRESS SHOULD “PASS A LAW” … WHICH PROVES …. THEY CAN’T PASS IT! OMFG!

                    Orwell’s 1984 brainwashing … War is Peace … Slavery is Freedom … Ignorance is Strength,
                    Don’t forget his original assault … I had “misrepresented” a SCOTUS ruling by QUOTING IT!

                    Trolling gun goobers …. witless victims of the political elites. They BELEEB!

                    Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
                    (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism)

                    1. I’m not sure exactly what your counterargument is here. I’m not even advocating for one position over another?I’m merely discussing the Heller opinion(s).

                      Breyer disagreed with the majority opinion written by Scalia, including Scalia’s holding that the Second Amendment isn’t limited to those guns available in 1791.

                      But his disagreement didn’t stop him from recognizing what the majority opinion held.

                    2. Breyer disagreed with the majority opinion written by Scalia, including Scalia’s holding that the Second Amendment isn’t limited to those guns available in 1791.

                      (snort) Your assertion:

                      “On the majority’s reasoning, *if tomorrow* someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self- defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so.”

                      The majority’s “reasoning” is that Congress NOW has the constitutional authority to ban highly dangerous self-defense weapons … but ….
                      that constitutional authority can be changed by PUBLIC OPINION!

                      Breyer’s dissent was against the HANDGUN allowance

                      In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.

                      He says NO rights are absolute … the words you cite are A TOTAL FABRICATION

                      Conservatards — are easily manipulated by the NRA … to BELEEB gun rights are absolute … that they’re defending a fundamental human right … from socialist tyranny! But NO rights can be absolute ,.. IF they are in conflict with any other unalienable rights … by the very definition of unalienable. ALL unalienable rights are absolute …so how can ANY be superior to any other? DOUBLE- DUH

                    3. That was not “my assertion.” That was from Breyer’s dissent.

                      In the passage I quoted, he was criticizing the majority’s finding that the relevant time period for Second Amendment purposes is whether the gun is in common use today.

                      Of course, he can only make that criticism because that was the majority’s holding (contrary to the nonsense you’ve been pushing).

                      I think you need to read Heller again, because you’ve got it totally backwards.

                    4. That was not “my assertion.” That was from Breyer’s dissent.

                      (sigh) Your assertion of what he said, which is a lie. It never appears — and a another stupid lie — which SAYS the opposite of what you TRIED to say … as elsewhere on this page.

                      Breyer’s ACTUAL words, final page of ruling, SCOTUS web site
                      In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.

                      Proving yet again, guntards be psycho

                      (boldface in defense of serial aggressions on the page, by a cyber-bullying stalker))

        3. prohibited by laws

          Laws that are not consistent with 2A.

          1. (snort)

            Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website.
            We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

            …. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

            Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

            It’s SCARY how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell’s Newspeak
            “War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength”
            Even the slightest variance is a thoughtcrime to the obedient puppets

    5. Most people don’t think you should be able to own a nuke, so obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere when it comes to arms, and even Antonin Scalia agrees explicitly from his opera box in hell.

      It’s reasonable that The People have a right to keep and bear arms that are in common use. These weapons are in common use. If the police get to carry it, I get to carry it. That’s the principled purpose of the 2nd amendment.

      1. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is totally obsolete. And part of the reason cops get to carry these weapons is because they’ll encounter them on the street. Ever heard of the concept of an arms race? That’s a slippery slope that happens naturally.

        1. Tony|2.28.18 @ 2:04PM|#
          “The purpose of the 2nd amendment is totally obsolete.”

          Tony is a lefty. Tony ‘thinks’ (hopes? wishes?) any asinine statement is equivalent to an argument.
          Tony is also an ignoramus, but perhaps I repeat myself.

          1. And, he is not on the US Supreme Court, so his opinions are pretty much like assholes.

            1. Same as with people arguing that ARs are protected by the 2nd amendment.

              1. By the same argument, your Internet blather isn’t protected by the First Amendment, fucking slaver.

        2. So you’re saying the police should carry tactical nukes?

          That’ll go down real well in the South Side.

        3. I know, just like the purpose of the 1st amendment is obsolete (according to many). If you don’t like it (as you’ve been very fond of saying in the past on these very threads) lobby your representative, get an amendment passed and voila! no more 2nd amendment. Easy peasy lemon Squeezy.

          1. As I have repeatedly said, the 2nd amendment is not relevant to this discussion. We’re not talking about guns that are protected by the 2nd amendment.

            1. Yes we are, just because YOU say they’re not protected by the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean they aren’t.

              You do realize there’s a whole host of people who say abortion isn’t protected by the constitution, right?

              An assault style weapon is an arm. As a member of the group “people” I have a right to keep and bear them. In the realm of “reasonable restrictions” I’m happy to discuss and debate “weapons in common use”, as Patrol Rifles are in common use, they should be included that set of “arms” which I am allowed to keep and bear.

              1. Please spare me “the constitution says whatever my heart believes.” The constitution is what the constitutional system says it is. Let’s be grownups here. Use “ought” vs. “is.”

                The point is you cannot, under current law, claim that people who want to ban ARs are agitating to violate the 2nd amendment. They are not protected by the 2nd amendment–a simple statement of fact.

                1. You wouldn’t know a fact if it crawled up your ass and died, fucking slaver.

                2. “”The point is you cannot, under current law, claim that people who want to ban ARs are agitating to violate the 2nd amendment. They are not protected by the 2nd amendment–a simple statement of fact.””

                  Maybe, but while we can argue the point because there is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is no such written right about abortion. I’m sure you would not apply your own argument to something you think should be a right. One of the reasons we can’t take gun grabbers seriously.

                3. “a simple statement of fact. ”

                  You can keep saying it, it still won’t be true.

                4. They are not prohibited by the 2nd amendment is a simple statement of fact.

        4. Re: Tony,

          The purpose of the 2nd amendment is totally obsolete.

          Perhaps its justification, but the right to possess weapons is the same as the right to possess anything else in a voluntary and peaceful manner.

          And

          “And”?

          Non Sequitur.

          Ever heard of the concept of an arms race?

          Ever heard of red herring?

        5. “”The purpose of the 2nd amendment is totally obsolete””

          Didn’t Tony post something recently trying to say he was a 2A supporter?

          1. No, I want it repealed.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Repealing the 2nd Amendment would have the exact same effect than repealing the 13th Amendment:

              NONE.

              People will not give up their weapons just like they will not own slaves.

              1. Most people will because most people are not gun nuts looking for a fight with the federal government.

                And slavery still exists today, so I wouldn’t be so sure on that.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  Most people will because most people are not gun nuts

                  You should know that that is not an intelligent answer. You’re engaging in wishful thinking. People don’t merely buy things to then give them away without cause or reason.

                  By the way, no one said “fight”. I said people would not give up their guns. That means not in a voluntary way, but not necessarily acting violently. The fact that you brought up “fight” tells me that you would expect violence from the State.

                  1. The cause or reason would be because the government offers them money in exchange. Worked in Australia.

                    1. Most estimates are that the Australia buyback program had less than 20% compliance. More than 80% of the firearms in Australia were never turned in. There are still plenty of guns in Australia. Try again.

                    2. Getting rid of 20% of the applicable guns has likely had a marked effect on homicide rates overall and there hasn’t been a single massacre since, and massacres are all anyone is talking about preventing right now.

        6. I’ve always asked the gun grabbers this, and to date, have yet for any of them to give a good answer.
          If you think the 2A only applies to those weapons available at ratification, why are you using the internet?
          If the 2A is evil because it applies to ‘killing machines’, the it would be fine to restrict you speech too, since words are the root cause of so much death over the millennia.
          So, should we restrict your freedom only to those methods that were available at the ratification of the BoR?

        7. When did self defense become obsolete?

          Do you support banning everything you think is obsolete?

      2. are in common use

        were in common use, at ratification.

        Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
        (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism)

        Left – Right = Zero

    6. Conveniently enough that’s what logic calls a slippery slope fallacy.

      I was under the distinct impression you and logic weren’t on speaking terms. Anyway, whomever this ‘logic’ person is that you’ve been speaking to, they’ve got a pretty fucked up view of the relationship between themselves and fallacies.

    7. “Most people don’t think you should be able to own a nuke…” Now there’s a trope that’s been around a while. False dichotomy vs. straw man?

    8. Rights are not subject to technological advancement. The end.

      1. Rights are not subject to technological advancement. The end.

        (snort) That’s why only dumbfuck goobers say the 2A protection for ONLY weapons in common use at the time would mean muskets!
        So refreshing to see you call out the assholes, even in your own tribe. THAT is courage!!

    9. particularly violent killing machine

      The purpose of 2A is to have military grade arms in the hands of the citizenry.

      1. So yes to nukes then?

        1. Burn that straw-man, Tony.

          1. It’s a weapon in possession of the military. So either you draw a line somewhere or you don’t.

            1. Arms v ordnance?

            2. Nukes are not, in fact in the hands of the military. They may maintain them, but it is politicians that hold the firing key, not the military. Nukes are political weapons.

            3. Do you think people should be allowed to own cutlery and cut their own meat? Or drink alcohol and own a car?

              Then you draw a line somewhere too, permitting the ownership of potentially dangerous things. Your position is in no way more principled than anyone else. Indeed, if you were consistent, you’d support the Volstead act.

          2. Rebel Scum … called out by a proggie …. admits the he (Rebel Scum) is full of shit! Film at 11

            Burn that straw-man, Tony.

            GOOBERS RULE!

        2. The Americans and their allies went toe-to-toe with the British and their allies using what were then state-of-the-art weapons systems. Following independence, the founders possessed sufficient self-awareness to realize that they could become the oppressive government they had recently thrown off. Hence, the 2A as the ultimate check on overweening government power. For the 2A to be a sufficient check, the people do have to be able to match the might of the government that would otherwise oppress them.

          Your question about nukes, then, only makes sense in the context of the level of the threat the government is willing to deploy against its own people. If there is a credible threat that the government would use nukes against its own people, then the answer to your question would have to be yes. If the threat of the government using nukes against its own people is not realistic, then the answer is no.

          Having lived overseas the majority of my adult life and personally witnessed multiple undemocratic changes of government, as well as the extent those in power are willing to go to preserve their power, I have a profound appreciation for exactly how thin that veneer of civilization really is. As a result, I profoundly disagree with your view that the 2A is obsolete.

      2. The purpose of 2A is to have military grade arms in the hands of the citizenry.

        YES, DAMMIT … bellowing can overrule SCOTUS and amend the Constitution …. but ONLY our Emperor has such powers.

        All bow down to Rebel Scum, and accept his rule.
        Because bellowing blowhards RULE!

        (sneer)

    10. Re: Tony,

      It would be nice to have an honest political conversation about the spectrum instead of veering off into nonsensical conversations about the 2nd amendment and principles and other BS.

      Sure, all honest conversations start with the disclaimer “I don’t care about any principles you hold”. Like, all of them!

      These types of guns are not, in any way, protected by the 2nd amendment under current law.

      Liar.

      1. You can look it up dude.

        1. Re: Tony,

          You should consider that prohibiting something doesn’t mean the protection under a given amendment is naturally obviated. As much as you wang to think so, it ain’t so –just ask Larry Flynt, or Al Capone.

          1. It’s perfectly possible that the increasingly right-wing nutbar judicial system will make ARs (and nukes for all I know) protected under the 2nd amendment. All I’m saying is that they currently are not.

            1. Re: Tony,

              All I’m saying is that they currently are not.

              Stop obfuscating. You said something entirely different: “These types of guns are not, in any way, protected by the 2nd amendment under current law”, not that it would take a different interpretation.

              Again: Liar.

              1. But they aren’t.

    11. Tony, you’re the most dishonest person here, and you rebuke the possibility of an honest conversation the moment you insult half the fucking population.

      Here’s the problem: it is a slippery slope, because the most popular kind of firearm in America, for self defense, is the semi automatic pistol. A normal, modern handgun. And that handgun is just as deadly as an AR 15 because they have a similar firing rate and, at short range, similar accuracy. In fact, the pistol is easier to conceal, making it arguably more dangerous.

      So here’s what’ll happen: leftists will get semi auto rifles banned, it will do nothing. Remember Cho Sung Hoi? It’ll keep happening with pistols, just as bad as with rifles.

      Then, you’ll come back and demand we ban pistols too. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Rifles are neglible when it comes to gun crimes or even mass shootings. So cut the bullshit and admit that you ultimately want to ban pistols and that this is but a stepping stone. Then at least you’ll be honest.

      1. Faux libertarians are dishonest to the core, whether you guys wish to admit or not.

        Also, your libertarian drag isn’t convincing anyone (except, perhaps, the gullible folks on the wrong end of bright flight).

    12. You need a refresher on Second Amendment law, Tony. Until you’ve actually read something other than some other lib phony screaming about what does and does not get 2d Amendment protection, sit down, eat your peas and be still

  19. Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. Guns are right up there with abortion as far as creating single-issue voters and I suspect that there’s a sizable overlap between 2A supporters and Trump supporters. If the backlash is strong enough – like the backlash against the Chik-fil-A boycott – Trump better get on his leotard because he’s going to have to do some serious flip-flopping. No wall, no spending cuts, Hillary still not in jail, Obamacare still hanging in there, NAFTA just as lively as DACA, a whole host of Obama leftovers still in top positions in government – how many straws does it take to break that camel’s back? And no matter what Trump does to try and appeal to Democrats, he wouldn’t get a single vote or a single kind word if he got Pence to resign and nominated Michelle Obama to take his place.

    1. Abortion and guns lather up the yahoos, but to decreasing effect. America’s electorate becomes less rural, less white, less religious, less backward, and less intolerant every day, as cranky old-timers take their stale thinking to the grave and are replaced by better citizens.

      This is bad news for anyone who has hitched political aspirations to the Republican-conservative electoral coalition, but great news for America.

  20. “Assault weapon” means a gun that looks scary to the uninformed, but functions no different than other firearms.

    The Assault Weapons ban was born in deceit – in the words of gun control activist Josh Sugarmann on the pages of the Violence Policy Center, a gun ban group:

    Quote:
    Assault weapons – just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms – are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

    Link:

    Assault Weapons and Accessories in America (Violence Policy Center)

    It is amazing how many people have been taken in by this fraud.

  21. Surely you weren’t expecting logical consistency from the NY Times?

    Why do they think it’s important to note that Cruz “fired his AR-15 as quickly as one-and-a-half rounds per second”?

    Because FEELZ. The fact that with practice a shooter with a lever action rifle should easily be able to fire 2 rounds every 3 seconds (doesn’t sound as scary to morons as “one-and-a-half rounds per second”). Hell, with enough practice you could probably fire a bolt action rifle that fast, but let’s all shit our pants in fear of the scary “assault weapons”.

    1. Bolt action world War I rifle:
      Practice number 22, Rapid Fire, ‘The Musketry Regulations, Part I, 1909 required the rifleman to fire 15 rounds at a “Second Class Figure” target at 300 yards. The practice was described as; “Lying. Rifle to be loaded and 4 rounds in the magazine before the target appears. Loading to be from the pouch or bandolier by 5 rounds afterwards. One minute allowed”.
      The “Second Class Figure Target” was 48″ square (approximately 1.2 x 1.2 meters), with 24 in (61 cm) inner and 36 in (91 cm) magpie circles. The aiming mark was a 12 in ? 12 in (30 cm ? 30 cm) silhouette figure that represented the outline of the head of a man aiming a rifle from a trench. Points were scored by a hit anywhere on the target.
      The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards (4.5 mils/ 15.3 moa).
      So there you are. 36 aimed hits in one minute using a bolt action rifle only half loaded at the start. Four reloads to shoot 36 times.
      They want to ban then confiscate all firearms. What are they planning for after that?
      I used to be paranoid, but now I am not.

    2. If you want an example, there’s an episode of Alaska: The Last Frontier in which Atz Lee sets up a home-built firing range to prep him and his family for shooting in the wild. Look at the weapons they use, count the rounds fired and check the accuracy. That’s about as good as it gets.

  22. The Dick’s company statement goes far beyond simply deciding to stop selling guns. From the statement:

    At the same time, we implore our elected officials to enact common sense gun reform and pass the following regulations:

    Ban assault-style firearms
    Raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21
    Ban high capacity magazines and bump stocks

    Require universal background checks that include relevant mental health information and previous interactions with the law
    Ensure a complete universal database of those banned from buying firearms
    Close the private sale and gun show loophole that waives the necessity of background checks.

    1. That is indeed far reaching. And dangerous. And people generally do not realize just how much other rights are also approaching the chopping block.

      1. We are moving at increasing speed toward a totalitarian society in which everything we do or want to must be filtered through government review and approval. It’s not a world I want to live in

    2. This is common sense?

      “Assault-style firearms” — define your terms with specificity

      “Raise the minimum age to 21” — so a loony shooter will have 2 more years than Cruz did to make plans and acquire skills

      “Ban high capacity magazines” — meaning what? And what does a hunter do if attacked by a boar or a bear (not a wild assumption in many parts of the country)? (Plus, I love it when libs talk about things like “bump stocks” as if they have ever seen one, used one or ever had any idea they even existed before the Vegas shootings)

      “Require universal background checks …” Um, we already have that except for the mental health information, which I don’t think government should ever have. The problem is not the structure it is in the implementation. If we implemented the laws we have several of these shootings would have been nipped in the bud

      “Ensure a complete universal database of those banned from buying firearms” — who are they kidding? The authorities can’t even make a limited national base function

      “Close the private sale and gun show loophole” If you’ve ever been to a gun show you know there is no loophole. The sellers are paranoid. As for private sale … when the day comes that our government can stick its nose into our private business our government will no longer deserve to exist.

      This is the paradigm of proposing “really doing something” instead of doing something real.

  23. “The policy, which the company wants Congress to impose on the country,…”

    Dick’s will never get a penny from me.

  24. Judge Nap was discussing this on Varney this AM. One of the things not mentioned here is that Dick’s is also raising the minimum age to purchase ANY firearm from them to 21.

    The interesting thing here is that this would bring New Jersey’s civil rights laws (which bar any age discrimination) into direct conflict with Dick’s policies.

    1. Did Judge Nap have anything else to say about the whole affair? What was it?

      I’m surprised NJ is currently 18 to buy on long weapons. It’s long been 19 on cigarettes, and probably will be 21 within a year given the new Democrat governor.

      1. Given the new governor, this is a moot point since the new taxes he wants to impose will eliminate the ability to buy anything.

    2. But not one AG or agency will dare sue Dick’s over civil rights violations because “guns, eek!”

      1. Do they need one? Wouldn’t an 18-year old kid (let’s make our young Linda Brown active-duty) denied a purchase have standing?

        1. Standing where? NJ? Don’t bet on it.

          1. Standing? Yes.

            A chance of winning? That’s a different story.

          2. That’s a bit too far even for them. An actual victim of alleged discrimination is about as obvious a plaintiff as you could get.

        2. What’s the ‘straw purchase’ situation like in NJ? If my 18-yr.-old nephew to buy a gun that he can legally possess am I forced to buy it for him?

  25. More shameful misinformation by Sullum. On top of the blatant lie on rifles used in homicides here

    The truth about SCOTUS traces to US v Miller in 1939, and affirmed by Scalia in Heller. 2A protects only those weapons in common use at the time, brought from home by citizens for militia duty — essentially single-shot rifles and pistols. I mourn the loss of Reason as a libertarian voice, shifting in recent years to the alt-right of Ron Paul and Alex Jones

    1. You’re just bitter because you typify the kind of person that we all agree shouldn’t own a gun.

    2. Re: Michael Hindwred,

      2A protects only those weapons in common use at the time

      Liar.

      1. It’s not even “common use”, let alone “at the time”, which I presume Hihn thinks means in the 18th century. Arms=weapons=instruments intended for fighting. These change over time. And considering the purpose of 2A, there is one context that “common use” matters. That is that it should be common for citizens to own modern arms.

        1. It also requires a very obtuse reading of the 2A in the context of the document(s) as a whole. Selection of representatives, term limits, election and legislative policies, and lines of succession are spelled out rather deliberately and with plenty of detail, but the 2A doesn’t mention anything about commonality or anachronistic relevance.

          Hihn’s stance is that they were curt and vague because they wanted the government to make sure Nikolas Cruz didn’t get an AR-15.

          1. but the 2A doesn’t mention anything about commonality or anachronistic relevance.

            Doesn’t have to! This is like watching a chimpanzee trying to explain nuclear physics!
            Why are you people so confused by facts?

        2. It’s not even “common use”, let alone “at the time

          WRONG AGAIN! Scalia RIDICULED your wackiness .. right in Heller!

          You bloviate. I provide DOCUMENTED facts.

      2. 2A protects only those weapons in common use at the time

        Liar.

        I’ll call your bullshit with facts.

    3. Dude, read the actual opinion in Heller. The holdings are on page 1. Starting with:

      “Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

      This is the exact opposite of what you claim SCOTUS held.

      1. Gun nuts be bellowing again. This is for fact-seeking readers
        (emphasis added for the mentally handicapped)

        Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website.
        We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

        …. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

        Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

        It’s SCARY how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell’s Newspeak
        “War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength”

        Scalia cited Miller (1939) as the precedent (next)

        1. Here’s another ruling the goobers will SHAMELESSLY lie about, US v Miller (full text)

          The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

          The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

          EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons … RESTRICTED to weapons brought from home. He goes on for a few hundred words, in great detail on the 2A limits — which is why Scalia didn’t have to.(lol)

          (Now all the raging bullshit and crazy denials by the brainwashed trolls of the Authoritarian Right.
          Check my sources. These goobers are bellowing blowhards)

      2. This is the exact opposite of what you claim SCOTUS held.

        I see your babbling and raise you the actual ruling. … with a link! BLUFF CALLED.
        (snort)

      3. This is the exact opposite of what you claim SCOTUS held.

        Shame on you. Keep reading.

        … United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
        Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

        Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
        (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism)

        Left – Right = Zero

        1. HIHNFECTION ALERT!!!!!!!

          1. Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

            ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

            Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

            psychopath
            1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder ith abnormal or violent social behaviour.

    4. “”The truth about SCOTUS traces to US v Miller in 1939, and affirmed by Scalia in Heller. 2A protects only those weapons in common use at the time, brought from home by citizens for militia duty””

      I don’t recall anything in Miller, Heller, or MacDonald, that limited weapons to “for militia duty.”

      Scalia did leave a regulation hole big enough to drive a truck through in Heller though.

      1. You don’t recall it because it’s not there. Hihn being his typical batshit crazy lying self.

        1. You don’t recall it because it’s not there. Hihn being his typical batshit crazy lying self.

          YOU LOSE, GOOBER!
          (sneer)

      2. I think you mean “drive a weapon of mass murder through.”

        1. Nope,

          Any weapon can be used for committing mass murder as the term is defined by liberals.

      3. The actual rulings are posted above. Now start raging and bullshitting, as the Authoritarian Right always does

      4. “”The truth about SCOTUS traces to US v Miller in 1939, and affirmed by Scalia in Heller. 2A protects only those weapons in common use at the time, brought from home by citizens for militia duty””

        TrickyVic (old school)|2.28.18 @ 3:07PM|#
        I don’t recall anything in Miller, Heller, or MacDonald, that limited weapons to “for militia duty.”

        YOUR MEMORY IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD. (What a blowhard!)

        Nor is your ignorance. Educate yourself here … and here.
        Or just bellow some more.

      5. I don’t recall anything in Miller, Heller, or MacDonald, that limited weapons to “for militia duty.”

        (snort) Scroll back, just a hair, to here!
        While we (the non-goobers) laugh at you.

    5. So freedom of the press only applies to single sheet broadsides produced on a real honest to God hand press using hand set type?
      Your sillyass assertion is not free speech?
      Nothing on the web has any constitutional protection?
      An automobile dealer can discriminate based on race because there were no automobile dealers when the constitution was adopted?

      1. Well said. I’m sure there are myriad tangential responses ready to dispute this comparison, but it really highlights my biggest take of the 2A issue. I don’t have guns, so I’ve got no money in the game, but the government can’t do things that are explicitly prohibited in the BoR. Whether the constitution is living or dead or obsolete or relevant, we cannot adhere to only the popular parts. A government that violates one amendment has proved that it thinks itself above the document limiting its power. We already allow them to do that far too much. The 2nd must be repealed before significant gun control can be passed, or we will have a government completely unchecked in power.

        1. If the 2A is repealed, we will have a government completely unchecked in power. That’s the point of the 2A, as written in the federalist papers, and thus from the mouths of the founders themselves.
          Remember: A government that fears its people can be a just government, but a government feared by its people will be a tyranny

    6. And the 1st amendment only protects freedom of the printing press, not the internet. Government can regulate that all they want.

      It’s a hilarious argument coming from living constitutionalists.

      1. MarkLastName
        It’s a hilarious argument coming from living constitutionalists.

        (lol) You’re confused on THAT, too! Educate yourself (for once)

    7. You misread Heller

      1. Scalia even RIDICULED goobers like MarkLastName, in Heller, for their bullshit. To defend the original ruling in Miller (smirk)

        Some have made the argument, ordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35?36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, primafacie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

        Goobers be bellowing blowhards, trolling for the Authoritarian Right.

        Watch them now scurry, like cockroaches, screeching and lying. For the cause.
        Pathetic/

  26. I would like gun-grabbers to detail other rights that they believe are subject to technological advance. I’ll wait…

    1. Name another right that protects your ability to tear apart human flesh.

      1. You don’t have a right to harms someone that is not trying to harm you. Try again.

        1. Actually, depending on your jurisdiction you don’t have to prove that the other person was trying to harm you, just that you feared they were trying to harm you. Even if it’s later irrefutably demonstrated that they were not, so long as your fear was genuine, you can get away with murder.

          Depending on your jurisdiction.

          1. “Depending on your jurisdiction.”

            Unless you’re a cop.

          2. Can you cite a law that makes this the case in any US jurisdiction? I’m genuinely curious. Every law I’ve seen requires the usual “reasonable person” test.

            1. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law is a good example. That the bar is so low wasn’t really intended, but if you start digging into the actual cases you see a lot of stupid shit.

              1. Florida 776.102:

                “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

                1. Florida 776.103:

                  “(1)?A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
                  (a)?Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
                  (b)?Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
                  (2)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
                  (a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
                  (b)?The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.”

                  1. Both of those statutes require that one’s belief is reasonable. The second one just presumes that the belief is reasonable if someone invades your home. Have courts actually ruled out the reasonableness caveat? Or is it just juries being stupid, as they love to do?

                    1. As I said, look at the actual cases. “I was scared” is stupidly easy.

                    2. And there are cases where ” I was scared’ was deemed in sufficient cause, and the persons went to jail. So, it is not a low bar, though it being more of a common sense bar, you may think it that way.

          3. Not quite. Self-defense requires response to an actual threat of harm or to a reasonable perception of imminent harm. Almost everywhere that I know of.

          4. I think Rebel Scum MAY be playing mind games on abortion … and dead wrong.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Name another right that protects your ability to tear apart human flesh.

        So, no guard dogs, either?

        Maybe Marxians have lost all ability to conceptualize reality. Which begs the question: have you taken your Thorazine today?

      3. 15 years from now, anybody who chooses assisted suicide will have their flesh devoured after death.

        We amended the Constitution to put that in.

        So yeah, the 32nd Amendment defends that right. I can’t believe this backwards time doesn’t have that.

      4. Abortion. Too fucking easy, Tony. Try again.

        1. And you feel that this is a valid right?

          1. Yup. Try again.

            1. Maybe I should qualify. I believe in all abortions except assault abortions with 2 or more scary features.

              1. Since I can’t agree with the premise that a legally aborted thing is a person with a right to life, then we’re not talking about similar things.

                1. Move the goalposts much? You asked for tearing apart human flesh. We weren’t talking about personhood.

                  1. I’m no expert on how abortions are done, but where does the flesh come in? Nevermind, I don’t want to know.

                    Anyway, let’s compromise and force people to look at images of exploded humans before they are allowed to buy a gun.

                    1. If that’s the common sense gun reform you’re talking about, I’ll take it. Deal.

                    2. You do know that a human fetus has human flesh, right? You are not actually that ignorant, right?

                    3. Not until the second trimester.

                    4. Huh, so it doesn’t have human genetics until the 2nd semester. That’s a pretty weird science fact.

                    5. I said flesh, not the capacity to eventually develop flesh. But the operative word is “human,” implying personhood, as in this analogy is clever but doesn’t quite work.

                    6. Ummm…define your interpretation of flesh. Because more than a single cell would fall under the common definition.

                    7. “”But the operative word is “human,” implying personhood,”‘

                      Careful there. In many states killing a pregnant woman or causing her fetus to die can get you charged with some form of homicide.

                    8. But the operative word is “human,” implying personhood,

                      No it doesn’t. Not even close.

                      Seriously, whatever medication you usually take, you need to get back on it.

                    9. That’s a pretty weird science fact.

                      And TOTALLY meaningless.

                2. That’s only fair since I can’t agree with the premise that you have any reason to be here except to perfect your trolling skills

                  1. I get paid to tag bullies

        2. You don’t even need a waiting period for that one.

          1. Some of the Jesus warriors definitely want to create one.

            1. Great, so the thing would be even closer to personhood. Genius.

            2. “”Some of the Jesus warriors definitely want to create one.”‘

              Absolutely they do. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to impose one? It could save lives.

      5. Most adults could do that with their bare hands if they really wanted to.

        1. What about their bare arms?

          1. I have a right to bare arms which is why I wear t-shirts much of the time

      6. Your right to own a knife, a car, a chainsaw, a pressure cooker, a lawnmower…

        It wouldn’t surprise if you genuinely believe any task requiring the use of a dangerous instrument should only be allowed to be don’t by the government.

    2. SCALIA IS A GUN-GRABBER TO YOU GOMERS! OMFG!!

      He jams it up your ass here …where he literally ridicules you blowhards .. anticipating your crazy bullshit … right in Heller!!

      The bullies will now go even MORE ape-shit!
      Ignore their screeching and CHECK MY SOURCES! (smirk)

  27. You would think a company with that bame would tell the gun controllers to go pound sand.

    Time for a more appropriate name: “Wimp’s”, perhaps?

  28. Christ, what a dick.

  29. If your logic forces you to be indifferent to undersized caskets, dead country music fans and ordinary high school students, and supportive of killing machines, then I reject your logic completely.

    If this is what is necessary to feed your family, then please find other employment.

    1. Our logic says that those happen rarely (a student is 1000 times more likely to drown than be killed in a mass shooting), even in the US (depending on which time period you cherry pick, the US is somewhere between below average and average in rate of mass killings, both number of incidents and per capita), and are impossible to prevent, no matter what you do (places with highly restrictive gun laws have just as many mass shootings).

      1. On another note, if your logic forces you to be indifferent to the 200 million people killed by governments following forced disarmament in the 20th century, I reject your logic completely.

    2. Fun fact: At Queen Anne‘s funeral, her casket was almost square.

    3. Worst school massacre in US history was 90 years ago and used explosives, fucking slaver.

    4. “”If your logic forces you to be indifferent to undersized caskets, dead country music fans and ordinary high school students, and supportive of killing machines, then I reject your logic completely.”‘

      Most of America is indifferent to undersized caskets, and wedding parties. I never heard any liberal complain about Obama killing of children, or that he killed an entire wedding party by drone strikes.

      So I’m skeptical that you really reject that logic.

      1. I always wondered why, whenever he would showily shed his crocodile tears, the other side did not openly mock him and call him out and remind everyone that he was an actual deliberate killer of Americans. How come?

        1. “”How come?”‘

          Partisan politics. Blaming your team for its bad behavior aides the other team.

          But I’m guessing the question was rhetorical.

        2. Obama was elected in large part because of opposition to Bush’s American-killing ventures. He didn’t end all of it immediately, to our sadness, but there are geopolitical reasons we’re still in Afghanistan to this day, and it doesn’t have much to do with Afghanistan. And Trump is killing civilians at a rate exponentially higher than Obama. Living in the real world means appreciating that there is no such thing as perfect, only better and worse.

          1. Is your threshold really just who’s the lesser murderer?

            1. A presidential election is always a choice between two alternatives.

              1. Not true, there are 3rd party candidates on the tickets.

                1. But they aren’t real options because they’re never going to win.

                  1. They are real options for “choice” because they are there.

                    Choice was your wording.

                    1. Are you usually the pedantry police? I thought that was someone else.

          2. “”He didn’t end all of it immediately, to our sadness””

            Not only did he fail to end it, he expanded it.

            1. So did Trump, the mother fucker.

          3. Ha! Obama didn’t end the drone killings, he chose to top Bush in the sheer number of them!

            1. And was the first to assassinate a US citizen on foreign soil by drone.

              It’s an amazing job by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

              1. Kiss of death, that peace prize is… literally. Not for the recipient, but the world at large. We should cringe every time one is handed out – it’s a black mark on civilization.

          4. It’s ok when the guy who does it has a D next to his name!

            1. I choose the D because they kill fewer people, among other reasons.

              It’s Republicans who support their tribe for mostly nonsensical reasons.

              1. I choose the D because they kill fewer people

                That doesn’t seem obviously true. Do you have some numbers to back that up?

                Democrats have gotten the US involved in pretty much every major war in the 20th century. Iraq and Afghanistan are the exceptions. Do you really think that Bush(es) and Trump and Reagan have killed more people than FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, Johnson and Wilson?

                1. I’m not sure why presidents who were in office decades before I was born are relevant to my voting choices.

              2. *points to Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit….Shall I name other “D” controlled areas with very large homicide numbers? All which can be traced right back to “D” policies? Also, the parkland shooting happened due to….well, lookee thar….Obama policies!

          5. Your last sentence completely undermines the premise behind gun control legislation, that somehow if enough peanut-headed liberals can toss it around we can achieve perfection in gun control. Won’t ever happen. So suck it up and move on.

            1. Your last sentence completely undermines the premise behind gun control legislation

              How? (bellowing doesn’t count)

              Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
              Per 100,000 population
              5.3 United States
              3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
              1.7 Canada
              0.9 UK

              Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be brainwashed? Even a little? How would you know?

              FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
              Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
              Mass Shootings Per year
              UK = 0.2 per year
              US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher (Are THOSE your values on “sanctity of human life?”)

              Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

              What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
              Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
              (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes ? just one price of individual liberty)

              Left – Right = Zero

    5. You do indeed reject logic, you’re right about that.

    6. If your logic forces you to be indifferent to undersized caskets

      Well, it doesn’t. And fuck you for suggesting that it does. Caring about dead kids and caring about the right to be armed aren’t mutually exclusive. Do you really think that gun rights supporters never considered that something like this could happen?

  30. American soldiers might train with semi automatic weaspon, but on the field they carry guns that burst ammos that are tiny bombs. When you get hit by one of these you’re shredded.

    Whatever Islamic radicalists our boys have to fight will be equipped with AK 47s and RPGs. I doubt they’ll be engaged in controlled “one shot per trigger” firefights.

    I imagine the recruits are trained with semi automatic weapons to improve accuracy, because they can’t just spray bullets when bad guys are mixed in with civilians. But we don’t send our troops equipped conventional AR-15s and hunting rifles. What’s the point of the NYT editors making the distinction.

  31. I’m gonna go against the grain and say this is a fucking AWESOME move by Dick’s. The more virtue-signaling asswipe Gun Grabber corporations jump on the bandwagon the better. This is just going to drive the CNC Milling Machine and 3D Printer movement to even greater heights. The number of unregistered firearms in the hands of Americans will EXPLODE and render any such Gun Control measures moot and toothless. And God help us if the Authoritarian Shit-Sniffers (like Hihn, Tony etc) get their way and they make possession of CNC Milling Machines and/or AR-15s a felony cause then It Will Be On Like Donkey Kong. Since you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, those Semiautos will be turned into Full Autos. Americans will start turning out auto machine pistols and then the gun grabbers will REALLY start howling. This is going to be an incredibly painful lesson is counter-economics for the authoritarians. Prohibition doesn’t work. Never has, never will.

      1. Laugh all you want dumbfuck….

        1. Bellow all you want, thug.
          I shall now bow down and SUBMIT to your rule.

          ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    1. You know, markets never go away until there is no demand. Dicks won’t meet demand, therefore a big impersonal store just gave way for a small business owner. Good. And, if government pulls the plug, black marketeers will fill the void. Like water, all will find the level with absolute surety.

  32. Trump may finally be exercising his ability to think outside the box because of his money and non-politician status:

    “You’re afraid of the NRA,” he told senators when asking why there wasn’t an age increase on the ability to buy rifles after Sandy Hook.

    “[The gun lobby] has great power over you people, they have less power over me.”

    MAGA you stupid bitches.

    1. Makes me wonder if you know how government works.

      Trump has little power to do anything about it at all. Congress on the other hand…

      1. He has a phone and a pen and a Twitter.

        1. Obama had the first two. And he took it with him.

        2. He has twitter. The phone and pen in the oval office exists per the funding of congress.

    2. There is more money on the side to get more gun control laws then all the money on protecting gun owners.

      1. Hence my first comment here calling the NRA a paper tiger.

        1. Well, given what we know about how much they spend on lobbying, you’re likely right.

          Hey, good going Tony!

        2. The NRA isn’t even relevant to me where the florida incident is concerned. Government failed at all levels: federal, state, and local. Nothing is more important than our civil rights – all of them… because we are on our own in an emergency, like it or not.

      2. “”There is more money on the side to get more gun control laws then all the money on protecting gun owners.””

        Maybe, but if true, it hasn’t helped to pass gun laws on a federal level.

      3. My own sparse research supports this, but do you know of any well-regarded resources? Opensecrets.org pegs Everytown at ~$1.5mil a year, but they contributed $500,000 to a small-time state senate campaign, so I know that number is incomplete.

        The NRA’s taking a lot of heat, and their contributions can be spun in to some scary numbers ($16mil to sitting members of congress! [some of whom are in their 13th term]), but even a remotely unbiased look shows that they’re, as Tony said, a paper tiger in the actual arena of lobbying.

      4. The gun manufacturers will shovel as much cash as they can, to the NRA. Cronyis,

    3. Funny, it was not all that long ago (maybe a month?) that all you gibbering lefties would accuse Trump of being an NRA puppet. Guess you’re more gullible than was previously thought. Try this: Trump will say whatever he thinks will put him out front on whatever issue will garner the most votes.

      1. What about the gibbering righties?

        Left – Right = Zero

  33. If Dick’s CEO Edward Stack is stopping selling the AR-15 because it is made for killing then he had better stop selling all firearms for they are all made for killing. The same for bows, spears, swords and even hand axes. They were all make to kill (man) and then became a device to be used in hunting. A gun in the hands of a sane person is safe and is not to be feared. It is not the guns fault when government fails and a crazy person gets a gun. But it is so much easier to blame the gun than to correct the failures of government. It is also easier to inspire voters to vote more gun control in times when a crazy person does what a crazy person does. But in this frenzy even the second amendment is not sacred.
    This is like the immigration problem and the legislator is about as willing to the immigration problem as they are the gun laws. Both have an equatable answer but only if both parties want to fix the problem and not talk about it and smear a little paint on it and call it fixed on both problems.

    1. If Dick’s CEO Edward Stack is stopping selling the AR-15 because it is made for killing

      That’s NOT what he said.

  34. There are plenty of wood stock semi auto .308 and .22LR guns. But they don’t look scary I guess.

    1. Yup. You could kill just as many undefended kids at close range with a Ruger 10/22. And you can easily get 100 round mags for those.

  35. I’ve already seen this movie! Is this a re-run? In 1994 we had an assault rifle ban that lasted until 2004. Yup, its already been tried and failed. We had more school shootings in the 1990’s than we have had in the past decade. Further, California banned most “assault rifles” in 1993 and expected citizens to turn them in. Most studies found that fewer than 3% of California citizens complied. Same thing with magazines holding more than ten bullets. They are illegal to own in California, but easy to get and no one ever gets convicted of “owning a 30 round magazine.” Dick’s will be out of business in the next two years regardless of their stand on this. Sport Chalet, Sports Authority, Eastern Outdoor, and several other stores in this market sector have gone broke recently. Walmart stopped selling “assault rifles” in 2014. It is not significant and this is nothing but a stupid publicity stunt by a failing marketeer. Laws don’t stop lawbreakers.

  36. I applaud Dicks for standing up for what they believe in. All the other stores which sell guns are likely applauding this decision as well!

  37. Didn’t DICK’s make a big to-do about 5-6 years ago about not selling any MSR’s (AR-15 type rifles, aka, ASSAULT WEAPONS)?
    When did they change their minds (do they have a mind?)?
    Now, they’re – again – not going to sell any ASSAULT WEAPONS – just who cares?

    1. They did stop selling them in Dick’s after Sandy Hook. Now they’re ceasing to sell them at the subsidiary store Field & Stream.

      Basically they’ve sold all their inventory, and won’t be getting anymore soon since everyone is buying them, so they can safely talk shit.

      1. How nice that silver read the article, instead of scrolling down to troll a rant.

  38. And what’s wrong with “emotion, PR, and symbolism”? It takes a true blue libertarian to believe that logic, and only logic, matters.

    1. Only in a dictatorship — which is hardly libertarian.
      “Consent of the Governed” – Ayn Rand.

  39. WTF, people? Don’t we, as libertarians, believe that a company can choose to not sell whatever they choose? You can’t have it both ways. It’s their decision and it wasn’t imposed by the government. Whether you agree with them or not, it’s their right.

    1. I simply think it is ridiculous for companies to take unnecessary political stances.

      If they wanted to stop selling a product because they don’t like the implications, that’s fine. Once they become a PAC, they are subject to the same criticism as any other PAC. And I sure as hell won’t donate to that PAC.

    2. If you look up thread, I said I think its fucking awesome! I totally support their right to not sell ARs. I also totally support Americans getting Ghost Gunner 2 and other CNC Milling Machines as well as 3D Printers and cranking out unregistered AR lowers by the bucket load. I want to see the Gun Grabbers go fucking apeshit over the unmitigated explosion in ARs in private hands and the goobermint to completely collapse trying to enforce the resulting private sale of said unregistered lowers. We’re talking a Counter-Economics nightmare made manifest by the dumbass gun grabbers….

    3. Don’t confuse libertarians with the Authoritarian Right, which dominates the comments here.

  40. If you peruse Dick’s website you will see that they do not sell handguns, and they do not sell any semi-automatic rifles except .22s.

    They do, however, sell 5.56 ammunition and various handgun rounds, literally by the “bucket.”

    That seems a bit hypocritical.

    Meanwhile I’ll say this because it doesn’t seem very commonly said:
    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the States from the Federal Government. The concern was that the Feds would disarm the State militias by disarming the people. Disarming the people was a common tactic of tyrants. Therefore, THE WHOLE POINT of the 2nd amendment is to enable you to kill Federal soldiers. End Stop. If that means that in 2018 I need armor piercing rounds and hand grenades, then that is what the 2nd Amendment protects. Therefore, ALL FEDERAL FIREARM RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    1. However.

      Nothing in the 2nd Amendment prevents the States from regulating firearms more strictly. If New Jersey doesn’t want a militia force of citizens, then so be it.

      And do we really think that the Federal Government enacted the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to preserve the ability of States to raise a militia against the Feds? Not likely. What they did was seek to protect the rights and liberties of freed blacks. And one of the rights and liberties being denied freed blacks was the right to self defense with firearms. As documented in the judicial history of the time.

      Therefore

      No State (or City) may abridge my right to self defense.

      Does the AR-15 fall in the category of self defense? I think yes. Others might not. If and when NJ recognizes the right of free blacks to defend themselves in public with the handgun of their choosing, I might be willing to discuss in good faith the constitutionality of banning AR-15s (by states, not by the Feds). But given that the FBI counts a total of less than 400 murders each year with a rifle, this seems pretty fcking petty.

      1. , I might be willing to discuss in good faith

        AFTER you become emperor.

    2. That seems a bit hypocritical.

      You authoritarians just cannot control yourselves.

  41. The nastiest thing is the high velocity ammo. Really tears up bodies.

  42. OMG, Greasonable is back.

    People, thank your applicable Deities: Hihn is now invisible.

  43. What’s mind boggling in all this is the irony that, as usual, guns are just a convenient scapegoat to an inconvenient reality. This time, it was a gargantuan breakdown and failure of law enforcement to do their jobs on a couple of levels.

    Blame the guns. Sure. Get your symbolic ban on whatever. Heck, enjoy Dick’s and other companies like this piling on. Let celebrities scream for action.

    But if the real problem is not corrected (and there are numerous factors at play in every shooting; and not all the same), expect to see little results.

    Above all, as repeated noted around here, by all statistical accounts, gun violence in the USA is on the decline.

    Here’s hoping Reason continues keeping the rational line here because at the moment, emotions are running high. Not surprisingly, the left are taking advantage. Just like they like to exaggerate the evangelical power in American politics, they distort the power of the NRA. Even going as far as to irrationally blame them for the actions of a person.

    It’s absurd beyond belief.

    1. Here’s a taste of reality.

      Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
      CHECK MY PROOF …. (the screaming)

      Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
      Per 100,000 population
      5.3 United States
      3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
      1.7 Canada
      0.9 UK

      Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be brainwashed? Even a little? How would you even know?

      FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
      Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
      Mass Shootings Per year
      UK = 0.2 per year
      US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher THOSE are your values on “sanctity of human life

      Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

      What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
      Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
      (You need not know the answers. Merely accept the genuine conflict between two absolutes ? just one price of individual liberty)

      Left – Right = Zero

  44. Whoever has the most tears on camera wins the argument.

    1. Save yourself, drisco… you’ve been Oprahfied!

  45. This is a libertarian website.

    1) All unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE.
    2) That creates a dilemma when two such rights are conflicting or competing.
    3) Such conflicts can ONLY be determined and resolved by the Judiciary. (as a check against the other 2 branches )
    4) And ONLY on a case before it.
    5) They are OBLIGED to resolve the conflict in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights, because EACH is absolute (thus equal).

    That’s HOW our judicial system works … since the 14th century and English Common Law

    Now enter the statists/facsists, the far extreme of BOTH the left and right.
    When two rights are in conflict ….. each wants it ALL THEIR WAY .. imposed by the state … in DEFIANCE of equal, unalienable and/or God Given Rights

    As PROOF, see how EVERY authoritarian right has FAILED to answer these elementary questions.

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?>/b>
    (You need not know the answers. Merely ACCEPT the genuine conflict between two absolute rights)

    1. Fair point. Does a confliction of rights have to be resolved? Life doesn’t comport to a pretty box with a ribbon on top. That’s for disney. If rights belong to the people, then there is no government authority to bargain or reason them away in absentia: a citizen must willingly waive them first, of his own free will and only in regard to his own person.

  46. DR OSEMU HERBAL REMEDY CURE MY HERPES WITHIN TWO WEEKS ( osemusolutionhome@gmail.com OR Add him on whatsapp +2348162084504)

    i am from Edgar town Massachusetts USA i just wanted to take the time to say thank to Dr. osemu, i was heartbroken and depressed when I was diagnosed of HSV TYPE 2 ..i visited different hospital but they gave me list of drugs like acyclovir, Zovirax, and (valacyclovir)Valtrex without get rid of my virus. , even made me more sick and gave me headaches to the point of me puking. i searched the internet for a solution. I came across this herbal doctor on internet called Dr Osemu i contacted he. he gave me hope that he can cure me completely from the virus so i gave a try, i used his herbal remedy for two weeks as he instructed me the 12th day i went to the hospital for test believe me it was Amazing now am tested negative i am free from the virus. here’s email address: osemusolutionhome@gmail.com Just wanted to share. Hope it helps someone, I’ll be posting this to hopefully help anyone who needs help. He can as well cure so many diseases
    1. Hpv
    2. Cancer
    3. Hiv/aids
    4. penis and breast enlargement
    5. he also have spiritual power to reunite broken marriage

  47. I read elsewhere that Dick’s will also begin refusing to sell any long guns to anyone under 21, even if lawfully able to own friearms. I suspect if they do this, they will be in violation of their lisencing agreement wiht BATF. THEY cannot decide who is old enough, on standards other than FedLaw. IF they have the FFL, then they MUST make sales to any person lawfully able to own the firearm in question. This will be interesting…….

    1. It’s also crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.
      And BATF exposes how totally this troll has been brainwashed
      And eager to be!

      Just one libertarian’s perspective: left authoritarians = right authoritarians
      (BOTH seek to impose their own tribe’s agenda by force of law, i.e. statism)

      Left – Right = Zero

  48. Yup–a rifleman’s cadence is about one shot per breath. Attend an Appleseed event and learn to do it (and do it well)!

    Bump stocks and true full auto assault weapons actually SAVE lives, because most mass murderers are too screwed-up in the head to recognize sound and optimally effective rifleman skills.

    1. GREAT SATIRE of the guntards!

  49. Well, one more CEO who is clueless. I’ll add that to the list of companies on my fridge that don’t deserve my business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.