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

Jade Dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Back in the early days, civilians could, and did, own cannon. According to the Miller decision, which control freaks seem to adore, it's precisely those "assault weapons" that are protected, because of their military utility. Part of the governments argument was that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
European countries with gun control had far less murder before they had any gun control. OTOH, in the Western Hemisphere, most countries have much stricter gun control than we do, and a lot more murder. We have one of the lowest homicide rates in this hemisphere, with the least amount of gun control.
 
Althea said:
It's true that Mossberg issued a political statement. It's also true that Dicks, and the other supposed sporting goods stores, are selling a lot more clothing/sneakers than they do hunting/fishing equipment.

We have a Dicks near us. 25 years ago, I bought downriggers and other upper level fishing equipment there. They also had an extensive saltwater fishing dept....100 miles from the nearest access to saltwater.

They did away with that about 20 years ago. Their sporting goods department is a disgrace compared to the way it used to be. Maybe online is different.

edit...this is the first page you get on the Dicks website
https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/
Click to expand...


I helped my daughters ex with a bait shop in south florida and ebay is killing the brick and mortar business. Lots of people selling stuff they bring in from alibaba. Bass is all about clothes too.
 
Threedee said:
Are you not physically capable of reading the Federalist Papers, or any other writings produced by the founding generation?

And our track-record on the other protections is pretty sketchy right now. Look no further than the worst SCOTUS ruling of my lifetime, Kelo v New London. Of course, there's always the ridiculous ruling against of the bakery in CO. Really, though, the reason why the founders were so extreme about the right to bear arms is because having any of your other rights trampled by the government can probably be remedied - especially if you have a well-armed population.

Ultimately, though, because the left has become as equally opposed to the right to bear arms, as the founders were in favor, we have abused the 2nd Amendment quite a lot over the past century. Forget trying to ban semiautomatic weapons, I'm sure the founders would rather that modern militias face down tyrants with M-16s than with AR-15s.
Click to expand...

No verifiable validity to any of that

Cherry picking quotes or even select essays from the Founding Fathers is an easy, all you have done is regurgitate the NRA's talking points, I'll go with two hundred plus years of Supreme Court interpretations
 
archives said:
No verifiable validity to any of that

Cherry picking quotes or even select essays from the Founding Fathers is an easy, all you have done is regurgitate the NRA's talking points, I'll go with two hundred plus years of Supreme Court interpretations
Click to expand...

You can't cherry pick founding quotes on this stuff. It all points in one direction. You can also keep SCOTUS interpretations on slavery and segregation, as well as Kelo. I'm sure you are a huge fan of Citizens United.
 
Threedee said:
You can't cherry pick founding quotes on this stuff. It all points in one direction. You can also keep SCOTUS interpretations on slavery and segregation, as well as Kelo. I'm sure you are a huge fan of Citizens United.
Click to expand...

BOOM

He also ignores Heller and Miller. He cherry picks cases.
 
archives said:
" specifically protected?" So, freedom of speech isn't specifically protected? Right to assembly? Freedom of religion? And all of those rights have been regulated
Click to expand...
The 1st Amendment specifically only addressed whether or not Congress could regulate those rights. SCOTUS expanded that to all levels of government, diluting the protection.

And you have absolutely zero proof regarding the "fear of tyranny and Governmemt power," an argument that isn't anymore creditable then the half dozen other narrarives explaining the predatory clause, exact reason no Supreme Court, including the Roberts Court, have ever been able to clarify the clause
Click to expand...
The prefatory clause has been explained many times. The problem is that the control freaks want it to mean something other than what it does mean.

And the odds of anyone ever needing a gun to defend themselves are probably higher than winning the mega millions lottery
Click to expand...
Clearly not in touch with reality, People need a gun to defend themselves daily. The question is whether or not they're allowed to defend themselves.
 
archives said:
Not true, what the Court hasn't been able to do in over two hundred plus years including the Roberts Court is determine what the prefatory clause means, and if one can't do that how can you interpret the second half? Impossible

Example, "my father said if I cleaned the garage, he would give me ten dollars." That doesn't mean my father is giving me ten dollars no more than then the "shall not be infringed" wording applies." It is that simple
Click to expand...
Its quite simple, if you understand English. The second half stands on its own, the prefatory clause is simply an absolute phrase, completely distinct from the main phrase. If anything, the prefatory phrase demands that all citizens own firearms and be familiar with their use.
 
katzgar said:
I helped my daughters ex with a bait shop in south florida and ebay is killing the brick and mortar business. Lots of people selling stuff they bring in from alibaba. Bass is all about clothes too.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a catch 22 that further destroys the economy. You can't argue with lower prices, but when only CEOs have spending cash, everyone will be out of work in the future.

I'm glad I'm in the service business.
 
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...

lol

As if your popgun will save you from a true tyrannical government, paranoiac.
 
rjhenn said:
The Court doesn't seem to understand "shall not be infringed". It's the only amendment with such absolute terminology. The 1st was written to only apply to Congress. The 2nd was written to apply to all levels of government, and to be absolute.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even absolute at the time it was written.
 
rjhenn said:
Back in the early days, civilians could, and did, own cannon. According to the Miller decision, which control freaks seem to adore, it's precisely those "assault weapons" that are protected, because of their military utility. Part of the governments argument was that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
European countries with gun control had far less murder before they had any gun control. OTOH, in the Western Hemisphere, most countries have much stricter gun control than we do, and a lot more murder. We have one of the lowest homicide rates in this hemisphere, with the least amount of gun control.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get that. We have far more murder, and when you talk gun deaths, it's ten fold. I'm actually pro gun, and I'm even pro life Catholic. I don't understand why these issues get so ridiculous. Main reason I could never come close to being a Republican. The right takes thing to ridiculous levels, and makes a noble cause seem more draconian.
 
rjhenn said:
The prefatory clause is merely an absolute phrase that describes the justification for the amendment, It does not limit or restrict in any way the main part of the amendment. In the context of the times, it actually required that all citizens be both armed and familiar with firearms. Our modern failure to maintain that standard is a big contributor to our current misdirected obsession with restricting firearms.
Click to expand...

They wanted an armed militia, in part because they feared a large, standing army. Guess what? We have the biggest, baddest standing army the world has ever seen. There goes that justification for an armed populace.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Mental illness is the big thing. We definitely need to keep assault weapons out of the mentally ills hands at bare minimum. Even with my experience with my intrusive thought OCD, I have enough to understand they can't handle guns.
Click to expand...
We definitely need better access to better mental health care. But we also need some tweaks to our culture so that we produce better people.
 
rjhenn said:
Its quite simple, if you understand English. The second half stands on its own, the prefatory clause is simply an absolute phrase, completely distinct from the main phrase. If anything, the prefatory phrase demands that all citizens own firearms and be familiar with their use.
Click to expand...

Demands? Talk about draconian. If that's what it means, it kills freedom more than any gun regulation that could be put in place, and it needs to be changed.
 
CFM said:
The shift will mean even more niggers will be killing their own. As of now, it's over 90%.
Click to expand...

Hell yes. Most gun murders are black on black. Stay away from blacks and the gun threat is tiny. OTOH murder by car is practiced by everyone and that's what people should fear.
 
archives said:
No verifiable validity to any of that

Cherry picking quotes or even select essays from the Founding Fathers is an easy, all you have done is regurgitate the NRA's talking points, I'll go with two hundred plus years of Supreme Court interpretations
Click to expand...
Which are contradictory, at best. One of the earliest that mentioned the right to keep and bear arms was Dred Scott v. Sandford, which argued that blacks could not be citizens because then they would have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". Of course, that same racist attitude is what led to the increasing infringement on the 2nd, after the Civil War, when blacks became citizens. All you are doing is ignoring what the Founding Fathers actually said, so you can put your preferred interpretation on things.
 
domer76 said:
They wanted an armed militia, in part because they feared a large, standing army. Guess what? We have the biggest, baddest standing army the world has ever seen. There goes that justification for an armed populace.
Click to expand...

Hopefully an unarmed populace will STFU about their rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top