Dick's no longer selling "assult rifles" and all firearms under age 21.

Dusty Rivers said:
They have the right to do this, but we have the right to shop elsewhere, free choice ( at least for now).
Click to expand...
If you don't like their policy, boycott them. I won't even go in there store anymore ever since Sandy Hook. I want to see them go out of business and I'll write a letter to the CEO saying glad to see them go.

But be prepared for someone else to post a thread about the great deal they got at Dick's then play stupid when reminded of everyone boycotting them. Many people are just not the sharpest pencils in the drawer.
 
But be prepared for someone else to post a thread about the great deal they got at Dick's then play stupid when reminded of everyone boycotting them. Many people are just not the sharpest pencils in the drawer.
Click to expand...

Not every gun owner is going to agree that this is reason to boycott Dicks. As I believe in the right of private individuals, and thus private companies, to determine the scope of their business within the confines of the law I don't really have an issue with it. If Dicks does not want to sell AR-15's or sell firearms to individuals under 21 and they are not a legally protected or effective monopoly its not my concern. Could I chose to not do business with them? Sure but I don't not go into Sears just because they stopped selling firearms.
 
Lohman446 said:
Not every gun owner is going to agree that this is reason to boycott Dicks. As I believe in the right of private individuals, and thus private companies, to determine the scope of their business within the confines of the law I don't really have an issue with it. If Dicks does not want to sell AR-15's or sell firearms to individuals under 21 and they are not a legally protected or effective monopoly its not my concern. Could I chose to not do business with them? Sure but I don't not go into Sears just because they stopped selling firearms.
Click to expand...



What they want to sell is their business. Calling for support of a ban on SACF rifles is MY business and unacceptable meddling in my rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
 
I haven't bought anything from Dick's in years (I think the last thing were some cornhole sacks maybe 7 or 8 years ago).

I've NEVER bought any firearms or ammo there - looked once or twice but the prices were laughable.

I could care less what they sell, but their press release to pander to the freedom-stealers out there was pretty gross. So one more reason to never go back.
 
What they want to sell is their business. Calling for support of a ban on SACF rifles is MY business and unacceptable meddling in my rights.
Click to expand...

You have the right to not do business with who you please. Not going to fault you for that.

I find it interesting that your solution is to not do business with them because of how they have conducted themselves in regards to speech while being defensive of individual rights.
 
Lohmann said:
I'm not 100% certain that age is not a protected class.
Click to expand...

In federal code and state codes modelled on federal code, age is a protected class, but not all ages. My state code requires one to be 40 or over to part of an age protected class.

There are state codes that ban discrimination by age in retail sales too, but that's a simple statutory ban. Dick's is big enough that it has experience dealing with all sorts of different state and local laws.
 
I agree with Dr. Meyer that it is unlikely the court will rule with 18 year olds. There's certainly a difference in the maturity of 18 and 21 year olds, and it is enough to define the legal definition of adult in some cases. I'm not sure it is a battle worth fighting.

What they want to sell is their business. Calling for support of a ban on SACF rifles is MY business and unacceptable meddling in my rights.
Click to expand...

They have the right to advocate for gun control if they choose, even if it offends me or you. The first and second amendments go together, "like peas and carrots" to paraphrase Forrest Gump. We have the right to take our business elsewhere and make our reasons known. Freedom is a complicated pursuit.
 
Really couldnt care less. The only reason I might care is if I was a shareholder. One year ago, the stock was trading at $51. Now it is at $32 - all during a historic run in the market. Ticking off half of your potential customer base in an act of political grandstanding seems like a bad idea, especially when your business is down.

I really dont think anyone cares if they sell guns, I doubt if it is more than a rounding error on their income statement. I cant imagine there is a bunch of NEW business because they took this public position.. So why grandstand? If they really had a concern about selling them, why not just quietly sell the remaining inventory and not restock. Business wise, its stupid. Politically its pointless, it changes absolutely nothing. If anything, it sends potential customers to their local gun shop that has someone to help them that actually knows something about the products, which IMHO is a better idea anyway.

So they want to be a clothing store... good luck with that. No skin off my back in any case.
 
Good news for locally owned shops. And I suspect that Dick’s will sell enough additional youth soccer gear to compensate for lost gun revenue.
 
Lohman446 said:
You have the right to not do business with who you please. Not going to fault you for that.

I find it interesting that your solution is to not do business with them because of how they have conducted themselves in regards to speech while being defensive of individual rights.
Click to expand...



A corporation has NO individual rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andrew - Lancaster, CA
 
A corporation has NO individual rights.
Click to expand...

As has been noted by rule of law this is incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

From a different perspective: can you articulate an argument in which corporations, such as Dicks Sporting Goods, do not retain individual rights and yet the NRA does?
 
Don't go to the above story unless you want your blood pressure raised...they have a 'graphic' showing how mass shooters 'Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops.' Sheesh.
Click to expand...


There is a VERY simple solution to ruin that chart.... Make the infantry carry 50 cal ammo, then we can say that everything smaller isn't made for the military...
 
The ironic part is if they got their way and banned “military calibers” and limited it to ten round non-detachable magazines, the first thing that would happen would be everyone would start using real high-powered rifle calibers and not intermediate calibers.

Just like they got their panties in a bunch during the ban when everyone started coming out with small pistols in .45 and .40; because if you can only have ten bullets, they might as well be big ones, right?
 
I pointed out elsewhere that companies banning guns is not unknown.

Sears, JC Penneys, Macy's did. Walmart ditched handguns in 1993. The risk is a culture change to make guns seem evil to new folk. Gun folks are waking up to the fact that guns might become the new smoking. Evil.

The NRA doesn't help when its cultural message is that God gave you the right to have a gun to keep the kindergarten teacher from making your kid a socialist.

Sorry to say and get mad - that's not a good cultural message. A member for years and supporter but disappointed in their grasp of cultural strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top