Flip flopping again? Come on Cheese!

 

I would ask you to show me how I was flip flopping, but since you disappeared the last time I asked you to prove something you were saying, I won't waste my time again. :lol:

I would ask you to show me how I was flip flopping, but since you disappeared the last time I asked you to prove something you were saying, I won't waste my time again. :lol:

 

Oh no, I clearly showed you last time. So you do or do not support banning them? Or just don’t think they should be used until 21, unless if you’re in the military? Maybe I am confused on which side you’re currently on with your mixed thoughts.

Raise your hand if you knew Dicks had stores open under the Field and Stream name?

I would imagine Dicks total sales from guns is a very small number. I wonder if they would do the same if it was a significant number?

I would imagine Dicks total sales from guns is a very small number. I wonder if they would do the same if it was a significant number?

 

Probably not.

But they did, and I don’t expect much backlash. Risk/reward has been evaluated thoroughly.

Oh no, I clearly showed you last time. So you do or do not support banning them? Or just don’t think they should be used until 21, unless if you’re in the military? Maybe I am confused on which side you’re currently on?

 

You are bad at this posting online thing... :lol2: :lol2:

 

While I see no need for civilians to have these type of weapons, I do not think we need to ban anything in order to take steps in the right direction. I clearly stated that in my post where I said we at least need to make it more difficult for someone to get one.

 

The age requirement is a completely separate discussion. I have no issues with the age restrictions put in place by one retailer.

 

If someone is under 21 and wants to buy a gun from Dick's, I have no problem with either A.) Dick's telling them no or B.) Dick's writing something in their policy to allow military or LEO's to purchase weapons.

 

None of this is hard to understand, really.

Lay off the personal comments!!! Do you want the thread shut down?

You are bad at this posting online thing... :lol2: :lol2:

 

While I see no need for civilians to have these type of weapons, I do not think we need to ban anything in order to take steps in the right direction. I clearly stated that in my post where I said we at least need to make it more difficult for someone to get one.

 

The age requirement is a completely separate discussion. I have no issues with the age restrictions put in place by one retailer.

 

If someone is under 21 and wants to buy a gun from Dick's, I have no problem with either A.) Dick's telling them no or B.) Dick's writing something in their policy to allow military or LEO's to purchase weapons.

 

None of this is hard to understand, really.

 

My man playing the drums and guitar at the same time, you got skills. Back to the subject, I do agree that Dicks as a retailer can do whatever they want.

My man playing the drums and guitar at the same time.

 

Please elaborate.

Wrong thread

Cruz bought his assault rifle from Sunrise Tactical 3 days after being expelled from high school at 18 years old.

 

Who can blame any national retailer for not wanting to be a part of this.

Cruz bought his assault rifle from Sunrise Tactical 3 days after being expelled from high school at 18 years old.

 

Who can blame any national retailer for not wanting to be a part of this.

 

Phew, good thing they didn't discriminate against him because of his age... Imagine what might have happened then.

Dick's Sporting Goods hardens stance on gun sales | Cronkite News

Woods said Dick’s has every right to make this decision. He said it was unlikely Dick’s would be sued for age discrimination because those laws usually apply to those older than 40, but the situation could change if other retailers follow suit.

 

If every major retailer required customers to be 21 or older to buy a firearm, he said, it would amount to a de facto ban – even though that wouldn’t violate constitutional rights.

 

“Is it age discrimination? Well, now maybe it is,” he said. “It’s possible if more and more retailers engage in this behavior.”

Probably not.

But they did, and I don’t expect much backlash. Risk/reward has been evaluated thoroughly.

No doubt. My point is as many have pointed out, this is nothing more than a PR move. It could have an undesired effect on their Feild and Stream stores.

No doubt. My point is as many have pointed out, this is nothing more than a PR move. It could have an undesired effect on their Feild and Stream stores.

 

Wait, wait it wasn’t a PR move... everyone officially knows they own Field and Stream now.