Gun manufacturers refuse to sell to anti-gun Dick's Sporting Goods

guno said:
Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?
Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears

yep they are shittin their pants big time about black people and their own new role as a minority


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/
Click to expand...

Lots of men want to protect their families. It's kind of an old tradition. Add the fact that this is America, and we have a long tradition of defending our civil liberties, as well.
 
Yaya said:
Why do you whine about people trolling when that is exactly what you're doing here?

If someone did this in your threads, you have Rana retro ban them. Isn't that hypocritical?
Click to expand...

Did you not read what I wrote you about? I do not expect, or deliver the same outside of my Jades discussions. How do you not get that the Jades discussions are supposed to be beyond the fray. They are made to be civil discussions, that the normal JPP discussions aren't. Why do you think if I expect civility in a nice discussion about recipes, and travel, means I expect it with politics. They are on opposite spectrums of discussion. If a person feels the need to start something over cakes, and mountain pictures, they're not being charged by a heated topic like politics, they're just a jackass, lacking in social skills. Only the nicest of the nice, can be civil with politics in the Trump era.
 
Dicks used to be a sporting goods store. Now they're a clothing store. No great loss that any gun manufacturer won't do business with them.

I believe S&W is on the verge of bankruptcy. They all stocked up on guns, thinking Clinton would be POTUS, and the NRA would be able to scare the inbreds into stocking up on guns again.

And then...trump.
 
Althea said:
Dicks used to be a sporting goods store. Now they're a clothing store. No great loss that any gun manufacturer won't do business with them.

I believe S&W is on the verge of bankruptcy. They all stocked up on guns, thinking Clinton would be POTUS, and the NRA would be able to scare the inbreds into stocking up on guns again.

And then...trump.
Click to expand...

So, on a scale of 1-10, how much do you hate the 2nd Amendment?
 
Jade Dragon said:
Did you not read what I wrote you about? I do not expect, or deliver the same outside of my Jades discussions. How do you not get that the Jades discussions are supposed to be beyond the fray. They are made to be civil discussions, that the normal JPP discussions aren't. Why do you think if I expect civility in a nice discussion about recipes, and travel, means I expect it with politics. They are on opposite spectrums of discussion. If a person feels the need to start something over cakes, and mountain pictures, they're not being charged by a heated topic like politics, they're just a jackass, lacking in social skills. Only the nicest of the nice, can be civil with politics in the Trump era.
Click to expand...

You said in any thread. And that is why you thread ban in the political forums as well.

You've also trolled my threads in the off topic forum.

Why can't you follow your own standards?
 
Althea said:
Dicks used to be a sporting goods store. Now they're a clothing store. No great loss that any gun manufacturer won't do business with them.

I believe S&W is on the verge of bankruptcy. They all stocked up on guns, thinking Clinton would be POTUS, and the NRA would be able to scare the inbreds into stocking up on guns again.

And then...trump.
Click to expand...

there are dozens and dozens of guns listed at Dicks website. The OPer is just being his usual moronic self.
 
Threedee said:
So, on a scale of 1-10, how much do you hate the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

Amazed that some many conservatives don't understand the Second Amendment

Even given that it allows one to own a weapon, it doesn't mean that that "right" is absolute, no Constitutional right is absolute, they can, and are, regulated and in many cases even restricted. The same thing apply to guns, they can Constitutionally be regulated and in some cases restricted, even Scalia noted such in his majority report in the Heller case

Echoing the Second Amendment in gun debates doesn't aid your argument
 
archives said:
Amazed that some many conservatives don't understand the Second Amendment

Even given that it allows one to own a weapon, it doesn't mean that that "right" is absolute, no Constitutional right is absolute, they can, and are, regulated and in many cases even restricted. The same thing apply to guns, they can Constitutionally be regulated and in some cases restricted, even Scalia noted such in his majority report in the Heller case

Echoing the Second Amendment in gun debates doesn't aid your argument
Click to expand...

How about you run a quick compare/contrast on the words "denied" and "infringed."
 
Threedee said:
How about you run a quick compare/contrast on the words "denied" and "infringed."
Click to expand...

The verb means little, the "right" is not absolute, gun regulation is Constitutionally legal, and to argue it isn't is inane especially considering even a conservative Court emphasized the point

And if you really want to get into semantics, explain decisively what the Founders meant in the prefatory clause because until you can the remainder of the Amendment is irrelevant
 
Yaya said:
You said in any thread. And that is why you thread ban in the political forums as well.

You've also trolled my threads in the off topic forum.

Why can't you follow your own standards?
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand anything I'm saying. My standards end outside those discussions. They're there to provide simple discussion with those that can leave the butting heads for outside. Anyone that partakes can post in friendly terms there, and go right outside, and bash heads with idiots, and racists. It's called a reprieve. It's not a reprieve if people bring the outside drama inside. Those discussions have standards, and the rules don't leave there, as I only control my own discussions. In the occasional political discussion, I ban the Toxic ones from making it about them, I ban the stormfront racists, and I ban anyone with a personal vendetta against me. Lately I made a discussion about nicest poster, and people are already ruining it without the thread bans.

P.S. I never said in any thread, and I was at your discussions because you were talking trash, and had been stalking me. If you thought I should take that lying down, you must think I'm a very nice person.
 
archives said:
The verb means little, the "right" is not absolute, gun regulation is Constitutionally legal, and to argue it isn't is inane especially considering even a conservative Court emphasized the point

And if you really want to get into semantics, explain decisively what the Founders meant in the prefatory clause because until you can the remainder of the Amendment is irrelevant
Click to expand...

The reason why the right to bear arms is specifically protected, rather than left alone, is the fear of tyranny and government power. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of man's inherent right to self-defense. If it's just a matter of needing guns to defend your life, livelihood, and property, there isn't much fear in having your right to bear arms infringed.

Also, where does the Constitution state that any of its protections are not absolute? Meanwhile, you have famous quotes from men like Franklin about sacrificing liberty for security.
 
Jade Dragon said:
The butthurt is intense lately. Poor marshmallows, and their chapped raw behinds, because a free enterprise decision was made. Dick's decides to be the grown up in the room, and not enable the spread of assault weapons.

169765a.jpg
Click to expand...
As usual, the control freaks take aim at a symptom, and ignore the actual causes of the problem.
 
Threedee said:
The reason why the right to bear arms is specifically protected, rather than left alone, is the fear of tyranny and government power. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of man's inherent right to self-defense. If it's just a matter of needing guns to defend your life, livelihood, and property, there isn't much fear in having your right to bear arms infringed.

Also, where does the Constitution state that any of its protections are not absolute? Meanwhile, you have famous quotes from men like Franklin about sacrificing liberty for security.
Click to expand...

That's for civilian arms, but in all seriousness assault weapons are outside that realm. Do you think every citizen was aloud the heavy arms of the day, back in the amendments era? Did everyone have access to ship to ship cannons? When the danger of the arms outweighs any idea of some kind of oppressive government, something needs to change.
Why don't some of those countries with gun control, have the government beating down their doors if this is a legit issue? They have far less murder as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top