(October 9, 2019 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 2:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Still waiting for you to tell us how you would improve the vetting that's already in place, and how you would do it at the time of the sale.


'Weapons of war' is a very problematic phrase - anything you can possibly imagine can be (and probably has been) used in warfare.  I suspect you mean things like semi-automatic weapons, as opposed to things like howitzers and attack helicopters, but I could be wrong.  What weapons, specifically, do you have in mind?

Boru

The accepted anti- gun definition of " assault rifle" is anything that is mostly black, plastic - and has bits hanging out that they don't understand.

No facts or logic is needed.

---

(October 9, 2019 at 2:35 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: What an incredibly tone-deaf and stupid thing to say. 

You can do better.

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

It's a very apt analogy.

It's the mob mentality trying to make the world better by destroying things they don't understand.

It's not even close and you know it.

(October 9, 2019 at 2:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote: OLB, will you please fucking stop with the "anti gun" BULLSHIT, when it is a pro safety argument?

Just like swimming in the ocean isn't ant shark, but reducing interactions between humans and sharks make sharks and humans safer.

In a perfect world NOBODY WOULD BE BITCHING. But only YOU are ignoring that it isn't as simple as letting firearm companies do whatever they want.

You are as fucking bad as anti vaccine morons.

Makes absofuckinglutely no sense whatsoever.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:04 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: The accepted anti- gun definition of " assault rifle" is anything that is mostly black, plastic - and has bits hanging out that they don't understand.

No facts or logic is needed.

---

It's a very apt analogy.

It's the mob mentality trying to make the world better by destroying things they don't understand.

It's not even close and you know it.

Don't presume to know what I know.

I find it accurate. You don't.

That hardly makes either of us right.

Just opinionated.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:12 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:04 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: It's not even close and you know it.

Don't presume to know what I know.

I find it accurate. You don't.

That hardly makes either of us right.

Just opinionated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bo..._incidents

Which of these resembles Dicks sporting good taking their own inventory and disposing of it how they see fit?

This isn't an opinion, You made a terrible analogy and it failed, own up to it.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:12 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Don't presume to know what I know.

I find it accurate. You don't.

That hardly makes either of us right.

Just opinionated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bo..._incidents

Please point me to one of these that resembles Dicks sporting good taking their own inventory and disposing of it how they see fit.

This isn't opinion its fact, You just happen to disagree with it.

Dicks did the right thing. 

I will not say I am sorry for agreeing with them.

If anyone on any side in this thread wants to bitch about what they did, FUCK THEM.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:12 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Don't presume to know what I know.

I find it accurate. You don't.

That hardly makes either of us right.

Just opinionated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bo..._incidents

Please point me to one of these that resembles Dicks sporting good taking their own inventory and disposing of it how they see fit.

This isn't opinion its fact, You just happen to disagree with it.

Brian gleefully posted this thread for one reason - scary black rifles are being destroyed. He is the one being compared to a book burning - not Dicks Sporting Goods.


Dicks Sporting goods got rid of them not out of some sense of civil duty - but because they are not selling - and the few they disposed of can be written off as a PR expense.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bo..._incidents

Please point me to one of these that resembles Dicks sporting good taking their own inventory and disposing of it how they see fit.

This isn't opinion its fact, You just happen to disagree with it.

Dicks did the right thing. 

I will not say I am sorry for agreeing with them.

If anyone on any side in this thread wants to bitch about what they did, FUCK THEM.

As far as I'm concerned they can do what they want with their products.

---

(October 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bo..._incidents

Please point me to one of these that resembles Dicks sporting good taking their own inventory and disposing of it how they see fit.

This isn't opinion its fact, You just happen to disagree with it.

Brian gleefully posted this thread for one reason - scary black rifles are being destroyed. He is the one being compared to a book burning - not Dicks Sporting Goods.


Dicks Sporting goods got rid of them not out of some sense of civil duty - but because they are not selling - and the few they disposed of can be written off as a PR expense.

See my response. I'm under the feeling that it's their stuff, They can opt to paint every revolver they sell bright yellow with the word 'Bananarama' for all I care.

If I misunderstood you I apologize. 

Book burnings are serious affairs and few things are comparable.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Dicks did the right thing. 

I will not say I am sorry for agreeing with them.

If anyone on any side in this thread wants to bitch about what they did, FUCK THEM.

As far as I'm concerned they can do what they want with their products.

Not the fucking point.

In a perfect world, politics, religion and economics would not matter.

Dicks was not right because they wanted money, they were right because they realized the amount of firearm violence was not profitable.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: As far as I'm concerned they can do what they want with their products.

Not the fucking point.

In a perfect world, politics, religion and economics would not matter.

Dicks was not right because they wanted money, they were right because they realized the amount of firearm violence was not profitable.

So they got rid of the weapons LEAST likely to kill people?


I guess that's "Poetlogical".....

(October 9, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: As far as I'm concerned they can do what they want with their products.

Not the fucking point.

In a perfect world, politics, religion and economics would not matter.

Dicks was not right because they wanted money, they were right because they realized the amount of firearm violence was not profitable.

(October 9, 2019 at 3:40 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not the fucking point.

In a perfect world, politics, religion and economics would not matter.

Dicks was not right because they wanted money, they were right because they realized the amount of firearm violence was not profitable.

So they got rid of the weapons LEAST likely to kill people?


I guess that's "Poetlogical".....

I wouldn't say least likely;  As far as The United States goes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shoot...ted_States

Of the 26 incidents listed 12 involved semi-automatic rifles.

A more accurate description would be they are comparable to any other given gun/rifle/shotguns.