As far as that specific type of rifle, I don't know. They don't report that data that I could find.

sad they feel they need to get them on board with this, but not a surprise either.

Everything they have is a fudd gun, except for a couple of .22LR that have military type styling.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sig-Sauer-M400-with-Prismatic-Scope/21677320

They also carry several 22rimfire"Tactacool Rifles"

in those stores that even carry guns. But I can see that on a nationwide business they could be the largest retailer in the country. That said I'm betting that all the mom & pop gun stores hope they do stop selling guns.

Every Wal Mart I have been in has between zero to a few "Fudd" guns and some ammo. I haven't seen any pretend military rifles.

This would put the number of stores that sell firearms at just over 2500.

Or are they just kind of a loss leader for the camping and fishing stuff? My local WM had a few long guns and some ammo. They moved to a different building and the ATF wouldn't renew their FFL for the guns, now just sell ammo.

That said, the WM that I have visited on the rare occasion is in NJ and none of those sell firearms. So I would never have seen it. Does not mean it does not happen.

Colt LE 6920 carbine. Last one in OKC.

1800 out of some 4000 have the licence to sell firearms. Not all of those actually sell them as some just sell ammo.

and I remember reading that just over half sell firearms.

The new legislation will be aiming at pistols with magazines that hold over ten rounds. He will be asking local gun stores to almost shut down.

Pretend assault weapons is what they should be called. But they sound so much more scary called assault weapons.

other stores will take up the slack. Where that is demand, a market will service that demand. Somebody will want that money.

better than a crap law. Walmart could quit selling guns and I still wouldn't shop there

maybe he is supporting locally owned small businesses? I certainly support my locally owned businesses.

would refuse.

Essentially he is asking to please stop selling these weapons because we are trying to ban the sales of them. The retailers would then be stuck with a pile of guns they cannot sell.

Each Walmart may only have one or two but when looked at from the total number of Wal Marts, that is a lot of inventory to throw away.

There will be no new "scary looking gun" ban.

I just checked their web site. No pistols, no AR-15s, or AK-47 are stuff like that, except for a couple of .22LR with AR styling. All their guns are fudd guns. The AWB won't say anything about fudd guns.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Colt-LE6920-Carbine-Semi-Auto-Rifle-223-Rem-5.56-NATO/21677322

They simply will not be available anywhere and if you want one you will have to order it and wait.

But when it finally does arrive in the store you will be unable to buy ammo for it as the shelves are and will be bare.

Politicians like Sen Schumer are responsible for the increased sales of these weapons. In all likelihood "assault weapons" will still be fairly easy for a civilian to buy a decade from now.

100% true.

I'm really considering letting go of an AR while the prices are stupid high.

Since practically every retailer is completely sold out of those weapons anyway...

GreenStormCloud: Sen. Schumer, Do you really expect your political enemies to listen to you and turn off their money spigot at a time when it is gushing money for them?

I've been a guncontrol advocate for maybe 20 years, but kind of agree with green storm cloud on this; it's mainly a cosmetic appeal by schumer for support, rather than any substantive guncontrol measure with teeth. I think schumer knows it too, yet I'm not calling him a publicity hound.

Sen. Schumer, Do you really expect your political enemies to listen to you and turn off their money spigot at a time when it is gushing money for them?

You do realize GSCloud, that you are inadvertently contending that gun makers are dancing in the graves of those who were killed? whether you admit it or not.
Gun makers are profitting from the massacres of children & mass shootings, based on paranoid fears of gun confiscatory solutions, when even if all the obama admin was asking for were passed, the result would be a ban on maybe ONE percent of national gunstock - owned by even less than a percent of americans.
.. the very same allegation, dancing in the graves, gunnuts have made against gun control advocates for calling for & supporting gun control measures. Gunnuts again complain while ignoring the gunmaker stink in their own backyards.

.. when bandits in the early 1800s used concealed pistols to hold up stagecoachs & banks & travelers, several states enacted bans on carrying concealed weapons. So don't claim 2ndA protection for banning amongst the most deadly of firearms.

Is the result of the calls for bans not the result of the dead children. Yes the calls for bans followed the shooting, but if there had been no shooting and the same bans were called for you would get the same amount of panic buying.

Also how is it paranoia to worry about bans when that is exactly what is being called for?

clffrd:The panic buying frenzy Is the result of the calls for bans not the result of the dead children. Yes the calls for bans followed the shooting, but if there had been no shooting and the same bans were called for you would get the same amount of panic buying

Beside the point; the current 'buying frenzy' is a direct result of the connecticut massacre of children, using an ar15 assault rifle with 30 round magazines.
.. certain gunsales &/or background checks, I believe, are setting monthly sales records, so your last sentence probably falls short.

Recall that what I wrote pertained to what GSCloud wrote, in HIS phrasing:

GSCloud: Do you really expect your political enemies to listen to you and turn off their money spigot at a time when it is gushing money for them?

.. what GSC is asking is do we think gunshops would stop selling ar15s, after the ar15 had been responsible for connecticut shooting, because money is gushing for the gunshops? and GSC implicitly answers his own question, no they won't stop selling because they're obviously happy, metaphorically can be known as dancing on the grave of a dead cash cow.
.. GSC suggests that gunshops, rather than refrain from sales, are ecstatic because they are making so much money, all because of the shooting which spurred the mere TALK of a gun ban, which wouldn't likely take place for another 3 months or more.

hmpf, just realized GSC could be including the nra here as well - political enemies - & I agree, gushing money for them as well.

..how is it paranoia to worry about bans when that is exactly what is being called for?

.. what percentage of americans own, or want to own, an assault rifle, a magazine or clip with 11 bullets or more, or intentionally want to sidestep a gunshow loophole?
What percentage of gun owners want to do that? You're talking about a small fraction of one percent, who will really be affected (gunshow loophole hard to say, surely a higher percent of americans are afeared of that).
.. the paranoia is that an assault rifle ban, or a magazine limit, or 'no gunshow loophole', are somehow detrimental, overall. That indeed, is PARANOIA. BIG DESTROYA.

Correlation now equals causation and the new definition of paranoia is any opinion that disagrees with yours. Any other changes I should know about?

clffrd: Correlation now equals causation ...

That really doesn't apply here; those people buying guns have admitted enough for a proper poll that they fear gun bans as a result of the connecticut shooting.
If so many hadn't admitted that the shooting & subsequent guncontrol talk was indeed the reason for the surge in buying those exact types of firearms & ammo being talked about being proscribed, you might have a point.
No I don't think gunmakers are happy or ecstatic that the kids died, but it was GSCloud who made the contention they were gushing with cash.

.. and the new definition of paranoia is anyone who disagrees with you.

.. could you copy & paste exactly where I said or implied that? thanks.

"the paranoia is that an assault rifle ban, or a magazine limit, or 'no gunshow loophole', are somehow detrimental, overall. That indeed, is PARANOIA. BIG DESTROYA."

For my next trick
That really doesn't apply here; those people buying guns have admitted enough for a proper poll that they fear gun bans as a result of the Connecticut shooting.
If so many hadn't admitted that the shooting & subsequent guncontrol talk was indeed the reason for the surge in buying those exact types of firearms & ammo being talked about being proscribed, you might have a point.

So people saying that they are buying because of the bans now being proposed, some how proves your assertion that without those bans this panic buying would still be happening?
Unless you think that people are buying because they are impressed with the level of destruction the arms used are capable of, which lets be realistic that is not the case.

47. What you can't be bothered to respond directly to me?

The point is you defined paranoia as an opinion that differs from yours. I am not the one changing rules to try and make the other side fit my hateful views.

That trick comment referred to the fact that you obviously thought yourself too perfect to make a mistake like the quoted statement and my quoting it was tantamount to pulling a rabbit out of my hat.

The "for my next" portion referred to how you once again argued against you own point and you yourself proved how ridiculous your assertion, that without the talk of gun bans the panic buying would still occur, truly is.

If you care to continue move back to the original side thread.

Military style rifles are the most popular type sold.

Many semi-auto handguns take more than 10 rounds in their standard magazine. Some take 18 in a mag without extending below the grip. A ban on mag of more than 10 rounds would effect lots of folks.

It would seen that a significant percentage of gun owners do own such weapons and magazines.



The AR-15 is just one of the many models of assault style rifles sold in the United States to civilians. For example semi-auto variants of the AK-47 are commonly owned by many civilians.

Most of the regular shooters that I know own at least one assault style semi-auto rifle and many if not most own pistols with magazines that have a higher capacity than 10 rounds. I am considered somewhat unusual as I don't own a "black rifle" or a pistol with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds. Admittedly I am somewhat behind the times as I personally prefer revolvers and am known as a "wheel gunner." I do own two target grade .22 caliber pistols with 10 round magazines and two 1911 .45 ACP pistols with 7 round magazines one of which is a highly accurate target pistol and the other I inherited.

But it is true that while gun owners who shoot weekly or monthly are more likely to own a semi-auto assault style rifle or a pistol with a hi-cap magazine than those who rarely go shooting. However I live in Florida and you would be surprised just how many people who rarely go shooting or hunting has such firearms. Obviously in many "gun unfriendly" states the regulations for owning a firearm are often expensive and time consuming hurdles that discourage gun ownership. In many red states such regulations simply do not exist and a much higher percentage of citizens own firearms.

The rush on guns is being fueld by pronouncements by gun-banners. It is the gun-banners who are dancing in the blood of the children by hoping to use that tradegy to advance gun control.

GSCloud: The rush on guns is being fueld by pronouncements by gun-banners. It is the gun-banners who are dancing in the blood of the children by hoping to use that tradegy to advance gun control.

.. that sounds exactly like what one of them thar gun sellers would say, while ignoring the stink in his own backyard.

.. the big difference, mr cloud, is that gunmakers & gun sellers are happy dancing to the song 'we're in the money, we're in the money', while guncontrol advocates are doleful dancing to dirges.

for the killed children; perhaps they think hatefulness is an assumed equivalent to sadness. It is not. In any case, it certainly has not stopped them from non-stop animosity and making the accusation that pro-2A folks don't sympathize or care.

Do you think controllers are on such a high moral plane that none of them didn't jump first to the attack, and never said a thing about doleful dirges?

LOL...

I must say however, I wouldn't mind seeing AR type rifles sold only at your local LGS that way mom&pop can get some business.

It would help the small local shops that specialize though. They won't have to compete with big chains for supply and can offer more choices to customers. Also means that the person behind the counter will be knowledgeable about specific details which you won't find very often at Walmart or Dick's. Let those big stores carry ammo and Henry's.

http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/reid_downplays_chances_for_assault_gun_ban_filibuster_changes-220713-1.html?popular=true&zkPrintable=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

... what is the difference between buying a firearm at a retail chain like Walmart, K-Mart or S-Mart (ask for Ash in housewares) versus a dedicated gun shop? Other than you'll get a better price and less knowledgeable staff at a Walmart (exceptions apply, of course) why is there a moral difference.

Michael Moore makes a huge thing out of this in his "documentary" on Columbine.

When guns are sold in big box stores they become more mainstream. And that is a horrifying thought for some people.

... one stop shopping

... and planned ahead. $$$$

GreenStormCloud Much more than a fraction of 1%. Military style rifles are the most popular type sold.

That's not what I said; when I wrote 1% I was referring to people who would 'really be affected' by new proposed legislation. I was not contending 1% was the ownership rate of ar15s or assault rifles. But you get slack on this, it was a bit unclear as it turned out, how I worded it, confusing 'gun owners' with all 'americans' I can see how you could read it that way. IE, when I asked how many gun owners want to do that, answer likely 10 -20 percent or so, imo.

what I wrote: .. what percentage of americans own, or want to own, an assault rifle, a magazine or clip with 11 bullets or more, or intentionally want to sidestep a gunshow loophole?
What percentage of gun owners want to do that? You're talking about a small fraction of one percent, who will really be affected (gunshow loophole hard to say, surely a higher percent of americans are afeared of that).
----------------------------------

clffrd wrote: ..the new definition of paranoia is any opinion that disagrees with yours.
I asked clffrd: .. could you copy & paste exactly where I said or implied that? thanks.
clffrd complied: "the paranoia is that an assault rifle ban, or a magazine limit, or 'no gunshow loophole', are somehow detrimental, overall. That indeed, is PARANOIA. BIG DESTROYA."
clffrd tacked on: For my next trick

trickery doesn't make your case. You evidently conflate my usage of 'overall' somehow as meaning 'everyone', which it doesn't; 'overall' simply applies to the mentioned guncontrol efforts 'overall'. Reread, I doubt many people would reach your conclusion that I meant 'everyone'. Because over 60% of american adults, by poll, approve of those guncontrol measures.

So people saying that they are buying because of the bans now being proposed, some how proves your assertion that without those bans this panic buying would still be happening?

The shooting spurred talk of guncontrol, talk of guncontrol spurred increased spending on guns. Dependency.

The point is you defined paranoia as an opinion that differs from yours. I am not the one changing rules to try and make the other side fit my hateful views.

That trick comment referred to the fact that you obviously thought yourself too perfect to make a mistake like the quoted statement and my quoting it was tantamount to pulling a rabbit out of my hat.

The "for my next" portion referred to how you once again argued against you own point and you yourself proved how ridiculous your assertion, that without the talk of gun bans the panic buying would still occur, truly is.

If you care to continue move back to the original side thread.

(as opposed to the gun lover's hoopla) product liability. Scoff, if you will, but it's coming. As goes WalMart, so goes retail.

Question: gun lovers, do you really expect your potential victims of Rambo helter-skelter mayhem and death to listen to you while they are burying children just learning to read? It's totally NOT FUNNY, COMICAL, or WORTHY OF DERISION.

The clock is ticking on the WMD (AKA multi-shot weapons) in every legal holster argument. If this describes anyone's sole livelihood or personal/family safety plan, they might want to revisit the days of 6 MPG for gas mileage and Hummers for transportation. Our own cultural Rambo...Arnold S... can sport his AK around in a tank and even afford the gas to rev it up and down his Hollywood film set, but not the majority. They pretty much just pay $6 to see the movie.

They have a firearms catalog at the sporting goods counter, you can pick from thousands and it will be shipped to the store for you to pick up within a few business days.

Those display models aren't the extent or an exame of their available inventory, maybe 1%.