rockmom

Well, then it will be no worse than all of the other solutions proposed by the NRA.

I haven't seen them lobbying for bans. I'll have to look for that.

This argument works if there is an attempt to actually stop US citizens from owning firearms. There are no conditions proposed or in place that prevent prevent citizens from owning firearms. Further, it cannot be put into place. That does not preclude corporate or private entities from choosing to stop transacting in certain or all firearm products, or to set their own policies under which they will conduct transactions. And to extend THAT, it those decisions do not preclude a citizen from buying from a different retailer or in a p2p transaction. The outcry is overblown. The retailers simply don't want to be a part of the narrative. I am confused by the negative reaction to these announcements. If we want to move the conversation about solutions away from governmental action/constitutional considerations, then the solutions have to come from citizens, even corporate citizens.

I believe you're trying to stretch the argument. I think everyone is having a knee jerk reaction because it's what is done when any limits or regulations are suggested on guns of any type. But this isn't at all related to laws, governmental regulations or bans. This is simply a business making a policy for their business. It does not seem to do so based on ethical standards or morals. It simply is a matter of not wanting to be tied to a future school shooting.

It happens all the time already.

Correct. A liquor store could decide they have a policy that they won't sell to people under 25 and it would be their choice to make.

The law does not require that someone sells guns to 18 year olds

There isn't a federal law saying you can buy a gun at 18 either. There is a Constitutional amendment that one can own a gun. It does not state that one attains that right at 18. It also doesn't say one has to sell a gun to all without restrictions.

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

Wrong thread

I work in hotels. We require that you be 21 to rent a room.

Completely false.

Wal-Mart announces the same.

***Sigh***

Heck, anyone can buy a gun at any age on a Facebook yard sale group and meet at a seedy truck stop motel at an exit on the WK. Dick's is just saying at their establishment, they don't sell to folks under 21

They can go to Joe's Gun Shack and buy their weapon. The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to buy a gun at Dick's.

No. The Constitution does not say if a gun is for sale it must be able to be sold to an 18 year old. It does say that if we decide an 18 year old can buy a gun, he/she may do so. But nothing says Dicks cannot decide the age they require their customers to be In order to buy a gun

Why? It is up to the retailer to decide who the do or do not sell to. It may be legal to purchase a gun at 18. It doesn’t mean someone has to sell it to you when you are 18.

If Dick’s chooses to not sell a product, more power to them. It’s not illegal for a company to choose which products they will or won’t sell. They are able to set policy related to their business as well. I’m sure Dick’s may lose some customers. But it appears they are willing to do so. We don’t want legislation to affect our rights. It appears it is preferred that we figure this out as citizens. I just see this as a company choosing to do what they feel they can to work toward a solution.

My first paying job (not tobacco or hay) was selling Makita power tools. I cannot use any of them except a drill/screwdriver. I sang the National Anthem at the 1984 Girls LIT games I am missing a knuckle on my right hand I have never and will never play a sport of any sort. In fact, I my be the most unathletic person born. As an example I tripped over a crack in the sidewalk while merely walking, fell and took a chunk out of my forehead, broke my nose and blacked both eyes. A few years later, while running laps in the gym in PE class, I got my feet tangled up with those of the girl running next to me and she fell and broke her arm. That’s only one example... more can be provided of more evidence is needed.

That's all fine and well until there's no one teaching. There is already a shortage of teachers in many communities. What happens when it becomes critical?

My mom has a Rav-4 and I really love it. I love the feel of driving it. A friend has a CR-V, and while there's nothing wrong with it, I feel like it's not as "sturdy" as the Rav-4.

Steipper gate and this is two different things. But we still have the Bowen thing going on. Which is a part of this thing. On the last point, I’d be happy if they just did away with the 2013 season for everyone.

This is exactly is how I feel about the idea of arming teachers. We will ask them to teach our kids, call them incompetent when our kid is failing, be angry when they tell us our kid is suspended, but expect them to become the police in an instant. I don’t doubt for one minute there are teachers willing and able to do that. But I also don’t doubt for a minute that there are many who don’t want to, and some who are willing, but end up unable in the moment.

So, my question is, with all this info, what now happens to UL with what they’re already being investigated for? Does this mitigate any further major smack downs from the NCAA? Perhaps they went so hard on stripper gate because they knew that UL wouldn’t be able to be crushed much further (except for death penalty)? So, they handed down the harshest possible in advance?