Maybe a stupid question because I don't own a gun, but could under 21 year old individuals be given a waiver to purchase a gun if they show proof of prior military service?

 

I'd assume it'd be easy enough for them to implement that into their policy.

Dicks's has lost one customer. The decision to not sell what they deem to be (assault rifles) is one thing, I am ok with that I guess, even though they dont classify assault rifles correctly.

 

Just curious, what does the "AR" in AR-15 stand for?

Just curious, what does the "AR" in AR-15 stand for?

 

From what I understand, the AR stands for "ArmaLite Rifle" which is the company that first developed them in the 1950's.

Probably means something to Dick's and their stock holders who don't want the awful publicity that comes along with a mass shooting.

 

Bill off the street's rep is a little less important than a corporation's.

 

Logistically, it could make a difference if only certain retailers could/would trade in these weapons.

 

It may have the opposite effect.

From what I understand, the AR stands for "ArmaLite Rifle" which is the company that first developed them in the 1950's.

 

Thanks!

 

My next question for @plantmanky would be, since Dick's doesn't classify assault rifles correctly, what exactly makes a gun an assault rifle and what about an AR-15, for example, doesn't make it an assault rifle?

Maybe a stupid question because I don't own a gun, but could under 21 year old individuals be given a waiver to purchase a gun if they show proof of prior military service?

 

Its not illegal for 18-21 to purchase a firearm, this is strictly a store/company policy.

Thanks!

 

My next question for @plantmanky would be, since Dick's doesn't classify assault rifles correctly, what exactly makes a gun an assault rifle and what about an AR-15, for example, doesn't make it an assault rifle?

I can't speak for plantman but I would say a gun would need to be full auto to be an assault rifle. Looks should not make a gun an assault rifle.

 

This is a Ruger Mini 14. It's semi auto and shoots the same caliber as most "AR" models. I would think most people just looking at this pic would not classify it as an "assault rifle".

Thanks!

 

My next question for @plantmanky would be, since Dick's doesn't classify assault rifles correctly, what exactly makes a gun an assault rifle and what about an AR-15, for example, doesn't make it an assault rifle?

 

 

 

Assault rifles, properly classified, are automatic weapons. AR-15 and the likes are not automatic weapons, they really are no different than a modern handgun (just in rifle form).

I can't speak for plantman but I would say a gun would need to be full auto to be an assault rifle. Looks should not make a gun an assault rifle.

 

This is a Ruger Mini 14. It's semi auto and shoots the same caliber as most "AR" models. I would think most people just looking at this pic would not classify it as an "assault rifle".

 

Correct.

It may have the opposite effect.

 

You think so? I would think Dick's gets most of their revenue through sporting goods that do not involve weapons. Let's be honest; they probably weighed the pros and cons, and felt the publicity will help more than hurt.

I can't speak for plantman but I would say a gun would need to be full auto to be an assault rifle. Looks should not make a gun an assault rifle.

 

This is a Ruger Mini 14. It's semi auto and shoots the same caliber as most "AR" models. I would think most people just looking at this pic would not classify it as an "assault rifle".

 

So if it's auto vs. semi-auto that makes the distinction, surely we can all agree that it would be fair to call an AR-15 with a bump stock an assault rifle?

Webster says this...

 

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"

So if it's auto vs. semi-auto that makes the distinction, surely we can all agree that it would be fair to call an AR-15 with a bump stock an assault rifle?

 

Im not full up to speed on the bump stock things, but I dont think they change the firing of the gun, all they do is absorb the shock from the fire, to allow the shooter to pull the trigger faster.

So if it's auto vs. semi-auto that makes the distinction, surely we can all agree that it would be fair to call an AR-15 with a bump stock an assault rifle?

A bump stock does not make it full auto, it just allows you to cycle the gun faster than a person normally could. That said I am not sure I see a reason to allow them. But at the same time have a hard time allowing ban on anything at this point. Today it's bump stocks, tomorrow magazines over a capacity of 5, then AR's altogether, hand guns, ect... As long as there are guns there will always be something people want to ban. Give in today and you it starts the slide.

A bump stock does not make it full auto, it just allows you to cycle the gun faster than a person normally could. That said I am not sure I see a reason to allow them. But at the same time have a hard time allowing ban on anything at this point. Today it's bump stocks, tomorrow magazines over a capacity of 5, then AR's altogether, hand guns, ect... As long as there are guns there will always be something people want to ban. Give in today and you it starts the slide.

 

I have several hand guns and will probably own more in the future. I just see absolutely no purpose for a civilian to be able to purchase a weapon like an AR-15 or similar. Banning certain things, IMO, doesn't create the avalanche many people are afraid of.