Dick’s May Have to Close 35 Stores

[jltrent]

With sales falling after the implementation of corporate gun control Dick's Sporting Goods may have to close 35 stores across 18 states.


https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/1 ... ng-asylum/

 

[greybeard]

With sales falling after the implementation of corporate gun control Dick's Sporting Goods may have to close 35 stores across 18 states.


https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/1 ... ng-asylum/

I saw what you did there.....clever!

 

[backhoeboogie]

Good riddance. I aint shedding tears and they go completely belly up.

 

[farmerjan]

Goes to show that the public can affect a stores bottom line if they truly want to by protesting/boycotting them. Good for the sportsman who voted with their wallets.

 

[boondocks]

Just to clarify, what they decided to stop selling was assault rifles, and gun sales to people under 21.
I have no love lost for the chain. Only time I was ever in one (20 years ago), the staff was rude, and I swore I'd never step foot in one again. But they adopted this position after the Florida school shooting, and given how many of the shootings have been done by teens with assault-type rifles, I can't say it's an absurd policy.

 

[jehosofat]

I drive 40 miles past Dicks to get to an Academy, and another 20 after that to get to Bass Pro. Pizz on them, they'll never get a dime from me.

 

[M-5]

Just to clarify, what they decided to stop selling was assault rifles, and gun sales to people under 21.
I have no love lost for the chain. Only time I was ever in one (20 years ago), the staff was rude, and I swore I'd never step foot in one again. But they adopted this position after the Florida school shooting, and given how many of the shootings have been done by teens with assault-type rifles, I can't say it's an absurd policy.

Teens (LESS THAN 18) cant buy guns legally so it was ignorant statement . the silent majority will always prevail.

there is no such thing as an ASSAULT RIFLE , another ignorant misconception

 

[Caustic Burno]

Just to clarify, what they decided to stop selling was assault rifles, and gun sales to people under 21.
I have no love lost for the chain. Only time I was ever in one (20 years ago), the staff was rude, and I swore I'd never step foot in one again. But they adopted this position after the Florida school shooting, and given how many of the shootings have been done by teens with assault-type rifles, I can't say it's an absurd policy.

They targeted a group in society to discriminate against their legal right.
Only a lib would see the discrimination as justified. Funny the group they targeted are old enough to defend you but not themselves.
That is like a majority of the crimes committed are around public housing are located , so they should be torn down.
I assure you more kids have died around public housing.

Dicks chose to violate constitutional rights. Only legislation elected by the people has that right to make that decision. Now if passes the checks and balance of Justice system is another story.

 

[hurleyjd]

This is a little of subject but where did the saying Tighter than Dick's hat band originate from and why.

 

[ChrisB]

Dicks chose to violate constitutional rights. Only legislation elected by the people has that right to make that decision. Now if passes the checks and balance of Justice system is another story.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. At first I would disagree, thinking along the lines of the Christian baker who didn't want to bake a cake for certain customers. But that does get into the slippery slope of allowing someone to refuse service to people of a different race, etc. Something to ponder...

 

[Caustic Burno]

Dicks chose to violate constitutional rights. Only legislation elected by the people has that right to make that decision. Now if passes the checks and balance of Justice system is another story.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. At first I would disagree, thinking along the lines of the Christian baker who didn't want to bake a cake for certain customers. But that does get into the slippery slope of allowing someone to refuse service to people of a different race, etc. Something to ponder...

Had they chosen not to sell firearms at all they are well within their rights.
They carved out a segment of society that can legally own the firearm.

 

[boondocks]

Just to clarify, what they decided to stop selling was assault rifles, and gun sales to people under 21.
I have no love lost for the chain. Only time I was ever in one (20 years ago), the staff was rude, and I swore I'd never step foot in one again. But they adopted this position after the Florida school shooting, and given how many of the shootings have been done by teens with assault-type rifles, I can't say it's an absurd policy.

Teens (LESS THAN 18) cant buy guns legally so it was ignorant statement . the silent majority will always prevail.

there is no such thing as an ASSAULT RIFLE , another ignorant misconception

Parkland was a 19yo perp. (That is a teen). Dick's were responding (rightly or wrongly) to that. Agree that these perps come from a wide variety of ages; the common denominator is white male, but age ranges. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/p ... 018.304584
You can call the guns whatever you like. I have no trouble with the common parlance but realize the language is loaded (no pun intended)

 

[boondocks]

Dicks chose to violate constitutional rights. Only legislation elected by the people has that right to make that decision. Now if passes the checks and balance of Justice system is another story.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. At first I would disagree, thinking along the lines of the Christian baker who didn't want to bake a cake for certain customers. But that does get into the slippery slope of allowing someone to refuse service to people of a different race, etc. Something to ponder...

Had they chosen not to sell firearms at all they are well within their rights.
They carved out a segment of society that can legally own the firearm.

Waiting on your legal citation for this proposition....Gotta have some consistency here; are businesses allowed to restrict sales (of cakes, guns, widgets) based on their own sense of morality, or is there a higher duty to the consuming public?

 

[Caustic Burno]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. At first I would disagree, thinking along the lines of the Christian baker who didn't want to bake a cake for certain customers. But that does get into the slippery slope of allowing someone to refuse service to people of a different race, etc. Something to ponder...

Had they chosen not to sell firearms at all they are well within their rights.
They carved out a segment of society that can legally own the firearm.

Waiting on your legal citation for this proposition....Gotta have some consistency here; are businesses allowed to restrict sales (of cakes, guns, widgets) based on their own sense of morality, or is there a higher duty to the consuming public?

They have the right to not sale at all .
They do not have the right to violate one's constitutional right that is legal by state and federal law.
Their decision to not sell was not based on a first amendment right to override someone's second amendment right.
You either believe in the constitution or not. It was written to protect us from this very type of tyranny.
Madison was responsible for the first due to persecution of Baptist and Methodist ministers being in prisoned for their beliefs. He was neither by the way.

 

[boondocks]

Had they chosen not to sell firearms at all they are well within their rights.
They carved out a segment of society that can legally own the firearm.

Waiting on your legal citation for this proposition....Gotta have some consistency here; are businesses allowed to restrict sales (of cakes, guns, widgets) based on their own sense of morality, or is there a higher duty to the consuming public?

They have the right to not sale at all .
They do not have the right to violate one's constitutional right that is legal by state and federal law.
Their decision to not sell was not based on a first amendment right to override someone's second amendment right.
You either believe in the constitution or not. It was written to protect us from this very type of tyranny.
Madison was responsible for the first due to persecution of Baptist and Methodist ministers being in prisoned for their beliefs. He was neither by the way.

Cite?

 

[mwj]

The second says that we can own. Show me where it says someone has to sell us anything.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Read

Equal Protection – The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Consequently, state governments and their agencies are prohibited from discriminating against any individual on the basis of classifications such as race, sex, or religion.

 

[Caustic Burno]

The second says that we can own. Show me where it says someone has to sell us anything.

They don't if you had read what I said.
Dick's had the right to not sell any guns.
They didn't have the right to not sell to a segment of society that has the legal right to own. Dicks discriminated based on age.
It's no different in banning no shoes no service they have that right, as long as it applies to everyone.They can't only ban black people that don't wear shoes.
This is why the 14th amendment applies.

 

[JMJ Farms]

I had no idea the numbers were that high. That's a lot of swimmers.

 

[boondocks]

Still waiting on your case citation for Dick's being in violation of the law, CB.....