Boycott Dick's

[j-bird]

I don't think many are worried about "the world stopping" as much as these signals we see in our society that seem to erode at the foundation of being responsible for ones self and your own actions at the cost of liberty of the law abiding citizen. This "it's not my fault" syndrome our society seems to have and seems to be growing is a cancer to what made this country great! Things like sacrifice, hard work, self dependency, and personal AND SOCIAL responsibility are what made this country great. This "it's not my fault" and "what can I get for free" and "what's in it for me"and "how can I be a victim" mentality that is growing and some are actually supporting is going to be the downfall of this countries moral fabric!

I don't care that Dick's carries AR's or not. They want to run themselves out of business by trying to be two-faced with gun owners and shooters, that's their business. What I DO care about is how we have a generation that is eating tide pods one minute and then clamoring for gun laws the next and our media outlets being as biased as they are fueling the fire. When was the last time you saw a story about when a firearm was used to stop a crime that got any serious air time??? Everybody wants to make rash decisions based on emotion and NOT the facts and foundation of our constitution! Many of these folks want to blame the "tool" yet it seems very few want to truly address the SOCIAL ISSUE. Guns do NOT kill people - PEOPLE kill people! We have a SOCIAL issue.....until that is resolved banning guns is not going to matter. Criminals are ALWAYS going to have guns....they are criminals, they break the law....it's what they do!

I want the kids to be safe, lock down the schools and put law enforcement on campus. But we HAVE to address the failed system and the social aspect as well. More laws that are not enforced or poorly funded do nothing....we know that.

We don't NEED more laws....we NEED to better FUND and ENFORCE those we have!!! This holds true for MANY issue, not just this one, across this country!

 

[Bill]

^^^^^What J-Bird said.
As for Dicks. Think they stopped selling those guns after sandy hook and this is just a publicity stunt to get the media wet...Again.

 

[Northbound]

Was that a regional kinda thing after Sandy hook? I don't recall anything and things like that normally I carry a grudge about

 

[ksgobbler]

Walmart just announced gun sale age at 21 in their stores

 

[Catscratch]

I knew about it in KS...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[bueller]

A little off topic from the Dick's conversation but overall still relevant and an interesting read.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ago-police-paul-bauer-gun-20180228-story.html

 

[Northbound]

Walmart just announced gun sale age at 21 in their stores

Haven't been in one of those in at least ten years so that's easy for me. Didn't even know they sold guns. More ma and pa outdoor shops would be nice but they don't seem to exist in my area

 

[ksgobbler]

Haven't been in one of those in at least ten years so that's easy for me. Didn't even know they sold guns. More ma and pa outdoor shops would be nice but they don't seem to exist in my area

Your missing out. Brother just bought a bunch of camo for our wives. Long sleeve shirts and pants for $2. For that price she can wear them cutting firewood, working in the garden, etc.

 

[Bill]

Was that a regional kinda thing after Sandy hook? I don't recall anything and things like that normally I carry a grudge about

Could be. In the NE, stores around me haven't had black guns in a while

 

[j-bird]

Walmart just announced gun sale age at 21 in their stores

is that even constitutional? I know a store can refuse to sell a firearm to an individual if they feel there is adequate cause for concern.....but by instituting their own age policy.....I am not sure you can legally do that? That is technically age discrimination.

Sorry - constitutional isn't really the word I was looking for but you get the idea!

 

[Bill]

If a cake gets a couple millions who how much will a constitutional right get some kid under 21.

Sorry hate is hate and a business can’t refuse service based upon a bias.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder if the ACLU will get in on that case..
You have a damn valid point though. Sounds like age discrimination to me if an 18 year old could legally buy.

 

[Apple Junkie]

It is a bit of a slap in the face to their customers base. I may have to travel a little farther, but anything I can find at Dicks / Field & Stream, I can find at Bass Pro.

I don't see Rite-Aid discontinuing the sale of opioids, even though a hell of lot more kids die of drug over-doses every day.

 

[Smallplot]

If a cake gets a couple millions who how much will a constitutional right get some kid under 21.

Sorry hate is hate and a business can’t refuse service based upon a bias.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder if the ACLU will get in on that case..
You have a damn valid point though. Sounds like age discrimination to me if an 18 year old could legally buy.

Just saw a video thumbnail saying Trump calling for involuntary commitment won’t stop gun violence. Ummm it will do more than making more laws and taking away rights of lawful firearms owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4wanderingeyes]

Wonder if the ACLU will get in on that case..
You have a damn valid point though. Sounds like age discrimination to me if an 18 year old could legally buy.

If I were 19, I would be making an attempt to buy one at all the stores. Then hire a lawyer for discrimination.

It would be like a liquor store saying they won’t sell to anyone below the age of 30.

 

[yoderjac]

Wonder if the ACLU will get in on that case..
You have a damn valid point though. Sounds like age discrimination to me if an 18 year old could legally buy.

Well to start with, age discrimination doesn't even kick in until you hit 50. A private store could easily refuse to sell alcohol to anyone under 25 with no legal consequences. While selling based on race or religion may be problematic, I don't see any issue with age here. Age discrimination laws are specifically aimed at businesses laying off or firing more expensive older employees in favor of younger less expensive employees.

In my opinion, Dicks made a smart and well calculated business decision. Regardless of my personal position, if I had a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders of Dicks, I probably would have made the same decision. If you look at the demographics, those of us who participate in consumptive sports is declining significantly. Our attrition rate is smaller than our recruitment rate and I see nothing in the foreseeable future to counter that trend.

On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive sports is increasing. Attitudes toward treatment of animals is changing significantly. I've seen many kids with sound mentorship in hunting when young yield to peer pressure in college and become vegans. Perhaps a passing fad like the different personalities many of us tried on for size during those developmental years, but it looks to me that the animal rights folks have been successful at infiltrating the education system and influencing our youth.

Look a how much floor space in any Dicks is devoted to consumptive sports compared to non-consumptive sports. Stores like Cabelas and Bass Pro are still mainly cater to consumptive sports but even there, I'm seeing some movement toward more non-consumptive outdoor activities.

The most recent shooter evidently bought a firearm at Dick's (not one used in the shooting). How hard would it be for the anti-gun lobby to use that fact to rally a boycott of Dick's? What percentage of non-consumptive outdoor folks would participate in that? If that group represents 90% of Dick's business and only a small percentage of them participate, it would probably have more impact on Dick's bottom line than if a large percentage of hunters boycotted Dick's. In some ways they are caught between a rock and a had place. What they are probably even more interested in than today's customers is tomorrows. I think they are trying to take a hit now if necessary in order to be on the "right" side of the issue for the next generation of customer, those kids in high school and college now.

Dick's has every right to make whatever business decision they wish in terms of selling or not selling firearms. You and I have every right to take our business wherever we like.

While it saddens me to see this trend and to see stores like Dick's respond like this, I certainly understand it.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[H20fwler]

Another reason for me to not shop at Dicks or F&S.

 

[TreeDaddy]

They know their clientele is shifting younger, urban, and more liberal. They were making more sales in Patagonia gear and Uggs than guns anyway. Their base isn’t old, cheap, white, conservative guys. Heck their softball/baseball bat area is larger than the hunting/fishing area in every one I have ever been to.

Dude,

Did you just profile me?

bill

 

[Diesel5610]

is that even constitutional? I know a store can refuse to sell a firearm to an individual if they feel there is adequate cause for concern.....but by instituting their own age policy.....I am not sure you can legally do that? That is technically age discrimination.

Sorry - constitutional isn't really the word I was looking for but you get the idea!

You are going to see that one headed for court. Absolutely age discrimination.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

J-Bird ...... post #21 ( and I'm not picking on you !! ) - I think we all would like to see more TRAINED, ARMED security in schools to protect kids. Question #1 - how are they going to be paid for ??? Those folks aren't going to do it cheap, considering all the responsibility that rests on them. NO ONE wants to hear taxes to pay for them, and in my opinion, if our current government can give hundreds of billions of tax breaks to corporations, couldn't a small % of that go instead to fund the school security people ?? The corporations would still be way ahead, and we'd have security folks in the schools. ( And before any of the guys on here who might be worth a few million get upset - I'm NOT talking about you guys. I'm talking big corporations, and I hold a bunch of stock in many of them. It wouldn't break most shareholders. ) Maybe a % of the hoped-for re-patriated money that's been hidden overseas by corporations to avoid taxes ??

You mentioned programs that are poorly funded .............. who's been doing the slashing of budgets ???

OR SHOULD WE SOCK MOM & POP, THE DELI OWNER, OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT BUSINESS OWNER, THE RECEPTIONIST IN THE DENTIST'S OFFICE, TEACHER, STORE CLERK, SALESMAN, FARMER, AND EMT FOLKS, with the tax to pay for the security folks in schools ??? GOD KNOWS THEY ALL MAKE HUGE SALARIES ( so let's stick them again. )

What about metal detectors at EVERY school ??? My thought would be to pay for those with a ONE TIME tax / assessment for all school districts, and not a permanent tax hike that sticks around. That way, every citizen has some skin in the game. Being an electrician for 37 years, I know the cost per installation would not be that big - IF you only have one point of entry to the schools.

What about the mental health assessment and care that's been bandied about lately. Who's going to pay for all that ?? How many here think it should come out of YOUR pockets with more taxes ?? Health care budgets have already been slashed. Maybe the folks worth 30 million on up to 90 billion dollars should get another tax break and we'll ( us little schmucks ) pick up even more tab. Sounds FAIR .............. doesn't it ???

I make this post not being angry, hot-headed, slobbering mad - but trying to ask rational questions about how to solve the school shooting issue, and how to / where should the money needed come from.

 

[Northbound]

J-Bird ...... post #21 ( and I'm not picking on you !! ) - I think we all would like to see more TRAINED, ARMED security in schools to protect kids. Question #1 - how are they going to be paid for ??? Those folks aren't going to do it cheap, considering all the responsibility that rests on them. NO ONE wants to hear taxes to pay for them, and in my opinion, if our current government can give hundreds of billions of tax breaks to corporations, couldn't a small % of that go instead to fund the school security people ?? The corporations would still be way ahead, and we'd have security folks in the schools. ( And before any of the guys on here who might be worth a few million get upset - I'm NOT talking about you guys. I'm talking big corporations, and I hold a bunch of stock in many of them. It wouldn't break most shareholders. ) Maybe a % of the hoped-for re-patriated money that's been hidden overseas by corporations to avoid taxes ??

You mentioned programs that are poorly funded .............. who's been doing the slashing of budgets ???

OR SHOULD WE SOCK MOM & POP, THE DELI OWNER, OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT BUSINESS OWNER, THE RECEPTIONIST IN THE DENTIST'S OFFICE, TEACHER, STORE CLERK, SALESMAN, FARMER, AND EMT FOLKS, with the tax to pay for the security folks in schools ??? GOD KNOWS THEY ALL MAKE HUGE SALARIES ( so let's stick them again. )

What about metal detectors at EVERY school ??? My thought would be to pay for those with a ONE TIME tax / assessment for all school districts, and not a permanent tax hike that sticks around. That way, every citizen has some skin in the game. Being an electrician for 37 years, I know the cost per installation would not be that big - IF you only have one point of entry to the schools.

What about the mental health assessment and care that's been bandied about lately. Who's going to pay for all that ?? How many here think it should come out of YOUR pockets with more taxes ?? Health care budgets have already been slashed. Maybe the folks worth 30 million on up to 90 billion dollars should get another tax break and we'll ( us little schmucks ) pick up even more tab. Sounds FAIR .............. doesn't it ???

I make this post not being angry, hot-headed, slobbering mad - but trying to ask rational questions about how to solve the school shooting issue, and how to / where should the money needed come from.

Many schools around here are spending tons on sports facilities, even water slides in pools. Could easily stop the unnecessary spending to cover security.

My personal take (which will never happen) is schools should be a privately held business. Charge tuition to cover whatever biz expenses needed such as security. Competition between businesses (schools) for customers (students) would keep prices in check. Parents should pay for their own children. Maybe this would keep people from having countless kids to live off the handouts.
Don't take this the wrong way, I don't hate children. Plan to have some in near future and am perfectly happy to be obligated to cover the costs of them.
This country has a approximately 1 human for every 7 acres of land. And that's not just productive green space land that we're used to, that's taking into account wasteland desserts, blacktop covered parking lots ext.... talk about crowded, no need to encourage people to have more children than they can afford