|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Walmart makes smart decision to stop selling rifles
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Walmart took a bold step earlier this week when it announced it would no longer sell assault-style rifles in its U.S. stores. It was the right move in spite of the potential backlash the company could face from gun rights advocates. As the country's largest retailer of guns and ammunition, Walmart's decision should result in fewer rifles on the streets and in the hands of irresponsible gun owners.
Walmart said on Wednesday that it would stop selling modern sporting rifles, the high-powered weapons that are similar to the AR-15 assault rifles that have been used in several mass shootings in recent years. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/29/2015)
|
The editorial board is so fulla cacadoody its collective eyes are brown.
The article reports the management's reason for the move was entirely business-related (i.e. their inventory wasn't moving), then pats Walmart on the back for taking a stand on "social justice" when it did no such thing.
Anybody know why progressives are so STOOPID? |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/29/2015)
|
Actually, these guns are such a microscopic percentage of Walmart's sales that the revenue wasn't worth the distraction.
Who cares if Walmart quit selling semi-automatic guns? There are plenty of other dealers with better selection and better prices. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
