Dick’s Sporting Goods Makes A Courageous Political Statement

[Pop23]

Maybe they can hire the same attorneys that helped Remington through their bankruptcy!

Maybe Remington could start selling bump stocks. Oh but they're a proven loser in the marketplace. I still think Remington Security Blankets for conservatives is the way to go.

Kevlar?

No doubt cons would think a Kevlar blanket would 'pertect them from tha gubmint'.

Oh, heavens no, it’s meant to cover bedwetters like you when the fighting starts.

View attachment 188983

Not everything, you gonna teach the folks everything there is to know about guns with training session? How Friggen long are these training sessions gonna be?

 

[Kondor3]

...Are you denying my rights?...

Nope. Keep your guns.

Right after you undergo a standard national-level background check, licensing and weapons registration and training. No problem.

...Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry....

I couldn't care less about sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals).

...Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Doesn't impact upon future gun control measures in the slightest.

You mean those controls that won’t ever pass?

Those controls?

Keep tellin' yourself that, Pop...

From a political perspective, complacency on the part of Gun Rights Purists will be an enormous help to Gun Control Advocates.

 

[Pop23]

...Are you denying my rights?...

Nope. Keep your guns.

Right after you undergo a standard national-level background check, licensing and weapons registration and training. No problem.

...Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry....

I couldn't care less about sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals).

...Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Doesn't impact upon future gun control measures in the slightest.

You mean those controls that won’t ever pass?

Those controls?

Keep tellin' yourself that, Pop...

From a political perspective, complacency on the part of Gun Rights Purists will be an enormous help to Gun Control Advocates.

O I C, so what problem are these "controls" gonna solve?

None, that's what I thought.

And no child, you can't have any candy until after supper.

 

[Kondor3]

Right after you undergo a standard national-level background check, licensing and weapons registration and training. No problem.

Can we do the same for voting? So many times I've suggested to the left that maybe we need a requirement that anybody wanting to vote pass a test first; nothing too hard and multiple choice. The left told me that would be a disenfranchisement of voters. In fact they claim that just having to obtain an ID is disenfranchisement. ...

Nationwide insistence upon the presentation of a Voter ID sounds like a grand idea.

...I mean.......if the right to bear arms can be subject to harassment, red tape, and regulation...

Background checks, licensing, registration, mandatory training, etc., do not constitute harassment; merely responsibility and accountability.

...why can't all constitutional rights?...

You can't kill somebody by punching a ballot card.

...Now they are talking about raising the age to 21 to buy AR's. Great by me. Do the same with voting.

You can't kill somebody by punching a ballot card.

 

[Kondor3]

...Are you denying my rights?...

Nope. Keep your guns.

Right after you undergo a standard national-level background check, licensing and weapons registration and training. No problem.

...Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry....

I couldn't care less about sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals).

...Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Doesn't impact upon future gun control measures in the slightest.

You mean those controls that won’t ever pass?

Those controls?

Keep tellin' yourself that, Pop...

From a political perspective, complacency on the part of Gun Rights Purists will be an enormous help to Gun Control Advocates.

O I C, so what problem are these "controls" gonna solve?

None, that's what I thought.

And no child, you can't have any candy until after supper.

I have already explained, repeatedly, what these cotrols are going to "solve"...

Namely, the gradual drying-up of the illicit firearms marketplace; with both short-term and long-term milestones...

As to "...that's what I thought... " --- what the hell is that about... a delay in response?

Unlike you, I do not haunt the board throughout the day; I'm a bit too busy in the outside world to do that.

You'll have my considered and measured responses whenever I happen to be online and looking for such prompting.

Meanwhile, as to the "child" reference, you go right on ahead believing that, too, Pop...

 

[Pop23]

...Are you denying my rights?...

Nope. Keep your guns.

Right after you undergo a standard national-level background check, licensing and weapons registration and training. No problem.

...Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry....

I couldn't care less about sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals).

...Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Doesn't impact upon future gun control measures in the slightest.

You mean those controls that won’t ever pass?

Those controls?

Keep tellin' yourself that, Pop...

From a political perspective, complacency on the part of Gun Rights Purists will be an enormous help to Gun Control Advocates.

O I C, so what problem are these "controls" gonna solve?

None, that's what I thought.

And no child, you can't have any candy until after supper.

I have already explained, repeatedly, what these cotrols are going to "solve"...

Namely, the gradual drying-up of the illicit firearms marketplace; with both short-term and long-term milestones...

As to "...that's what I thought... " --- what the hell is that about... a delay in response?

Unlike you, I do not haunt the board throughout the day; I'm a bit too busy in the outside world to do that.

You'll have my considered and measured responses whenever I happen to be online and looking for such prompting.

Meanwhile, as to the "child" reference, you go right on ahead believing that, too, Pop...

So, your "training" will stop criminals from committing crimes, or obtain guns through alternative means, and your ban will stop those who commit suicide (who by the way never use AR's to do the deed), from committing suicide?

That is 99% of all gun related deaths.

You do remember prohibition, right? Didn't work so well then, this would work the same, and probably worse. Homicides would rise as would rape.

Do you have a point. Criminals don't care about your new laws any more than they care about current laws, and neither do the suicidal.

All you accomplish is making the weakest in this country more available to the strong. Rapists applaud the idea.

 

[Kondor3]

...So, your "training" will stop criminals from committing crimes, or obtain guns through alternative means...

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Mandatory training would consist of both classroom and lab (firing range) and proctored testing-center activity.

Mandatory training is merely one component of a holistic nationwide Gun Control program.

Think of it as a DMV for firearms; you can take care of everything in one place; perhaps even with one visit.

A pain in the ass but something you only do once every five or ten years, unless you need to upgrade your license to acquire a different class of weaponry.

Training ensures that every owner understands the Rules of the Road with respect to transactions, licensing, registration, weapon handling, carrying, storage, reporting, recertifications, etc.

"An important part of a healthy breakfast" ( an important element in a much broader solution )

...and your ban...

Ban?

What ban?

I propose no ban, nor am I in favor of any, above and beyond the prohibition of common sense items ( artillery, mortars and grenades, fully automatic weapons, etc. ).

Good luck finding a post of mine that has ever come down in favor of a "ban".

... will stop those who commit suicide (who by the way never use AR's to do the deed), from committing suicide?...

Suicides? I couldn't care less. If somebody is licensed and their firearm is registered and they want to blow their brains out... have fun with that... buh-bye.

But the life of even one school-child makes the whole goddamned thing worthwhile, ten times over.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of gang-related gun violence in those $hitholes that America calls its Inner City ghettos.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of domestic violence shootings by people who could not pass a substantive background check.

...That is 99% of all gun related deaths....

The numbers are so large that even a percentage point or two or three or ten is enough to warrant a sea change in our approach to firearms control.

...You do remember prohibition, right? Didn't work so well then, this would work the same, and probably worse...

You cannot kill someone by giving them a drink of liquor.

...Homicides would rise as would rape...

Only amongst those who fail to pass a substantive background check.

...Do you have a point...

I've been making it all along... you just don't like hearing it.

...Criminals don't care about your new laws any more than they care about current laws, and neither do the suicidal...

Quite true. That's why we need to dry-up the marketplace of illicit firearms; even if it takes a couple of generations to get where we need to be.

It will take some time, but... "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step", eh?

...All you accomplish is making the weakest in this country more available to the strong...

Incorrect. If you can conform to new national standards (vetting, licensing, registration, training, etc.), you're just as strong then as you are now.

... Rapists applaud the idea.

Maudlin bumper-sticker -caliber hyperbole... unworthy... ignored.

 

[Pop23]

...So, your "training" will stop criminals from committing crimes, or obtain guns through alternative means...

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Mandatory training would consist of both classroom and lab (firing range) and proctored testing-center activity.

Mandatory training is merely one component of a holistic nationwide Gun Control program.

Think of it as a DMV for firearms; you can take care of everything in one place; perhaps even with one visit.

A pain in the ass but something you only do once every five or ten years, unless you need to upgrade your license to acquire a different class of weaponry.

Training ensures that every owner understands the Rules of the Road with respect to transactions, licensing, registration, weapon handling, carrying, storage, reporting, recertifications, etc.

"An important part of a healthy breakfast" ( an important element in a much broader solution )

...and your ban...

Ban?

What ban?

I propose no ban, nor am I in favor of any, above and beyond the prohibition of common sense items ( artillery, mortars and grenades, fully automatic weapons, etc. ).

Good luck finding a post of mine that has ever come down in favor of a "ban".

... will stop those who commit suicide (who by the way never use AR's to do the deed), from committing suicide?...

Suicides? I couldn't care less. If somebody is licensed and their firearm is registered and they want to blow their brains out... have fun with that... buh-bye.

But the life of even one school-child makes the whole goddamned thing worthwhile, ten times over.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of gang-related gun violence in those $hitholes that America calls its Inner City ghettos.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of domestic violence shootings by people who could not pass a substantive background check.

...That is 99% of all gun related deaths....

The numbers are so large that even a percentage point or two or three or ten is enough to warrant a sea change in our approach to firearms control.

...You do remember prohibition, right? Didn't work so well then, this would work the same, and probably worse...

You cannot kill someone by giving them a drink of liquor.

...Homicides would rise as would rape...

Only amongst those who fail to pass a substantive background check.

...Do you have a point...

I've been making it all along... you just don't like hearing it.

...Criminals don't care about your new laws any more than they care about current laws, and neither do the suicidal...

Quite true. That's why we need to dry-up the marketplace of illicit firearms; even if it takes a couple of generations to get where we need to be.

...All you accomplish is making the weakest in this country more available to the strong...

Incorrect. If you can conform to new national standards (vetting, licensing, registration, training, etc.), you're just as strong then as you are now.

... Rapists applaud the idea.

Maudlin bumper-sticker -caliber hyperbole... unworthy... ignored.

AND THROUGH ALL THAT, WHAT PROBLEM DO YOU SOLVE (it's like pulling teeth)

 

[Kondor3]

...So, your "training" will stop criminals from committing crimes, or obtain guns through alternative means...

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Mandatory training would consist of both classroom and lab (firing range) and proctored testing-center activity.

Mandatory training is merely one component of a holistic nationwide Gun Control program.

Think of it as a DMV for firearms; you can take care of everything in one place; perhaps even with one visit.

A pain in the ass but something you only do once every five or ten years, unless you need to upgrade your license to acquire a different class of weaponry.

Training ensures that every owner understands the Rules of the Road with respect to transactions, licensing, registration, weapon handling, carrying, storage, reporting, recertifications, etc.

"An important part of a healthy breakfast" ( an important element in a much broader solution )

...and your ban...

Ban?

What ban?

I propose no ban, nor am I in favor of any, above and beyond the prohibition of common sense items ( artillery, mortars and grenades, fully automatic weapons, etc. ).

Good luck finding a post of mine that has ever come down in favor of a "ban".

... will stop those who commit suicide (who by the way never use AR's to do the deed), from committing suicide?...

Suicides? I couldn't care less. If somebody is licensed and their firearm is registered and they want to blow their brains out... have fun with that... buh-bye.

But the life of even one school-child makes the whole goddamned thing worthwhile, ten times over.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of gang-related gun violence in those $hitholes that America calls its Inner City ghettos.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of domestic violence shootings by people who could not pass a substantive background check.

...That is 99% of all gun related deaths....

The numbers are so large that even a percentage point or two or three or ten is enough to warrant a sea change in our approach to firearms control.

...You do remember prohibition, right? Didn't work so well then, this would work the same, and probably worse...

You cannot kill someone by giving them a drink of liquor.

...Homicides would rise as would rape...

Only amongst those who fail to pass a substantive background check.

...Do you have a point...

I've been making it all along... you just don't like hearing it.

...Criminals don't care about your new laws any more than they care about current laws, and neither do the suicidal...

Quite true. That's why we need to dry-up the marketplace of illicit firearms; even if it takes a couple of generations to get where we need to be.

...All you accomplish is making the weakest in this country more available to the strong...

Incorrect. If you can conform to new national standards (vetting, licensing, registration, training, etc.), you're just as strong then as you are now.

... Rapists applaud the idea.

Maudlin bumper-sticker -caliber hyperbole... unworthy... ignored.

AND THROUGH ALL THAT, WHAT PROBLEM DO YOU SOLVE (it's like pulling teeth)

Your answer lies within the embedded text.

If you cannot comprehend the problem being described during the course of the last couple of posts, then I cannot help you.

I am not certified to deal with Reading Comprehension Disability symptoms and manifestations.

 

[Pop23]

...So, your "training" will stop criminals from committing crimes, or obtain guns through alternative means...

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Mandatory training would consist of both classroom and lab (firing range) and proctored testing-center activity.

Mandatory training is merely one component of a holistic nationwide Gun Control program.

Think of it as a DMV for firearms; you can take care of everything in one place; perhaps even with one visit.

A pain in the ass but something you only do once every five or ten years, unless you need to upgrade your license to acquire a different class of weaponry.

Training ensures that every owner understands the Rules of the Road with respect to transactions, licensing, registration, weapon handling, carrying, storage, reporting, recertifications, etc.

"An important part of a healthy breakfast" ( an important element in a much broader solution )

...and your ban...

Ban?

What ban?

I propose no ban, nor am I in favor of any, above and beyond the prohibition of common sense items ( artillery, mortars and grenades, fully automatic weapons, etc. ).

Good luck finding a post of mine that has ever come down in favor of a "ban".

... will stop those who commit suicide (who by the way never use AR's to do the deed), from committing suicide?...

Suicides? I couldn't care less. If somebody is licensed and their firearm is registered and they want to blow their brains out... have fun with that... buh-bye.

But the life of even one school-child makes the whole goddamned thing worthwhile, ten times over.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of gang-related gun violence in those $hitholes that America calls its Inner City ghettos.

Not to mention the thousands of victims each year, of domestic violence shootings by people who could not pass a substantive background check.

...That is 99% of all gun related deaths....

The numbers are so large that even a percentage point or two or three or ten is enough to warrant a sea change in our approach to firearms control.

...You do remember prohibition, right? Didn't work so well then, this would work the same, and probably worse...

You cannot kill someone by giving them a drink of liquor.

...Homicides would rise as would rape...

Only amongst those who fail to pass a substantive background check.

...Do you have a point...

I've been making it all along... you just don't like hearing it.

...Criminals don't care about your new laws any more than they care about current laws, and neither do the suicidal...

Quite true. That's why we need to dry-up the marketplace of illicit firearms; even if it takes a couple of generations to get where we need to be.

...All you accomplish is making the weakest in this country more available to the strong...

Incorrect. If you can conform to new national standards (vetting, licensing, registration, training, etc.), you're just as strong then as you are now.

... Rapists applaud the idea.

Maudlin bumper-sticker -caliber hyperbole... unworthy... ignored.

AND THROUGH ALL THAT, WHAT PROBLEM DO YOU SOLVE (it's like pulling teeth)

Your answer lies within the embedded text.

If you cannot comprehend the problem being described during the course of the last couple of posts, then I cannot help you.

I am not certified to deal with Reading Comprehension Disability symptoms and manifestations.

What this shows is the difficulty you are having defining a problem that can be solved by Governmental fiat.

Work on that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Background checks, licensing, registration, mandatory training, etc., do not constitute harassment; merely responsibility and accountability.

It constitutes cost, much time, and more government. The fact is many people would not want to go through all that just to exercise their constitutional rights nor should they. They merely want to purchase a tool for self-defense--not land a jetliner.

The problem with you anti-gunners is that you propose all these ideas that won't solve one problem. It sounds good, but doesn't do anything for anybody.

You can't kill somebody by punching a ballot card.

Deflection noted: But you can help change the entire direction of this country by vote.

You can't kill somebody by punching a ballot card.

Deflection noted: A constitutional violation is a constitutional violation no matter what right you are talking about.

 

[Kondor3]

Background checks, licensing, registration, mandatory training, etc., do not constitute harassment; merely responsibility and accountability.

It constitutes cost, much time, and more government. The fact is many people would not want to go through all that just to exercise their constitutional rights nor should they. They merely want to purchase a tool for self-defense--not land a jetliner...

They want to purchase a lethal firearm - a weapon designed to kill - not a tool.

The time has come in our National Life for the owners of lethal weapons to be held to a higher degree of responsibility and accountability.

This will be a decision made by The People at large.

...The problem with you anti-gunners is that you propose all these ideas that won't solve one problem. It sounds good, but doesn't do anything for anybody....

We will not know for sure whether such Controls solve the problem of illicit gun acquisitions and usage until such laws have been on the books for a generation or two.

It will take a while to clean up the mess left behind by poor State oversight of such matters.

...

You can't kill somebody by punching a ballot card.

Deflection noted: But you can help change the entire direction of this country by vote. ..

No deflection presented nor intended.

Rather, that was a direct counterpoint; illustrating an inappropriate and false equivalency that you were attempting to serve-up in a previous post.

You can't kill somebody by punching a ballot card.

Deflection noted: A constitutional violation is a constitutional violation no matter what right you are talking about.

Right up to the moment that SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of nationwide Gun Control in a more favorably constituted Court.

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 188765
Dick's Sporting Goods to destroy all unsold assault-style weapons

there Dick's! That's an odd sentence. But...


btw: If anyone finds a video of them being scrapped, post it for DOPer Gun Nutters to enjoy!

I WANT TO WATCH.

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

 

[Pogo]

.

Two weeks after seventeen students and staff members were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods took steps to limit their sales of firearms. Announcing a policy change, Dick’s would no longer sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws.

In addition to the new policy concerning the age requirement, the company also ended sales of all assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in its stores.

Despite a frivolous age discrimination lawsuit filed for Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old boy from Gold Hill, Oregon, Dick’s Sporting Goods is standing firm on this and other policy changes concerning the sales of deadly weapons and other related paraphernalia.

To assure certain dangerous weapons currently in their inventory never wind up in the hands of the wrong people, Dick’s has decided not to return the many items to the manufacturers for reimbursement and redistribution to other dealers. Instead, Dick’s will destroy all such inventory, taking the hit in the company’s bottom line.

A spokeswoman for Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change. We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.’ ”

The specified weapons will be destroyed at the company’s distribution centers, after which the resulting scrap will sent to a salvage company to be recycled.

Given the growing number of corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, and retailers changing their policies so as to limit people’s ability to purchase dangerous weapons and attachments, it’s apparent times-are-a-changin’.

The surviving students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have inspired, not only a grassroots movement in school age kids, their parents, and adults nationwide, but also forced radical changes in the U.S. political climate and the corporate mind set.

A few congressional Republicans have shown a willingness to work to pass commonsense gun regulations, while others are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have tucked their tails between their legs and are resigning or retiring, rather than face the hundreds-of-thousands of high school students who will be 18 YOA, who will definitely vote this November, and will be a major influence in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Dick's Sporting Goods will destroy assault-style rifles pulled from shelves

.

"Courageous"? I would say asinine. The guns are legal and they are now saying that any customer who owns one should be destroyed. Dicks is going to be in Chapter 11 PDQ if they keep up with this political bullshit.

You can say asinine all you like but it's their stock and their decision on what to do with it. Tough shit.

On the other hand you can't say "they are now saying that any customer who owns one should be destroyed", unless you have a link to that effect.

Finally there isn't any "political bullshit" going on. This is simply a corporation following its conscience. Hate to break this to ya but Dick's, like any business, is free to choose what it sells and what it doesn't . That's not "political". It's principle.

 

[westwall]

.

Two weeks after seventeen students and staff members were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods took steps to limit their sales of firearms. Announcing a policy change, Dick’s would no longer sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws.

In addition to the new policy concerning the age requirement, the company also ended sales of all assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in its stores.

Despite a frivolous age discrimination lawsuit filed for Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old boy from Gold Hill, Oregon, Dick’s Sporting Goods is standing firm on this and other policy changes concerning the sales of deadly weapons and other related paraphernalia.

To assure certain dangerous weapons currently in their inventory never wind up in the hands of the wrong people, Dick’s has decided not to return the many items to the manufacturers for reimbursement and redistribution to other dealers. Instead, Dick’s will destroy all such inventory, taking the hit in the company’s bottom line.

A spokeswoman for Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change. We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.’ ”

The specified weapons will be destroyed at the company’s distribution centers, after which the resulting scrap will sent to a salvage company to be recycled.

Given the growing number of corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, and retailers changing their policies so as to limit people’s ability to purchase dangerous weapons and attachments, it’s apparent times-are-a-changin’.

The surviving students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have inspired, not only a grassroots movement in school age kids, their parents, and adults nationwide, but also forced radical changes in the U.S. political climate and the corporate mind set.

A few congressional Republicans have shown a willingness to work to pass commonsense gun regulations, while others are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have tucked their tails between their legs and are resigning or retiring, rather than face the hundreds-of-thousands of high school students who will be 18 YOA, who will definitely vote this November, and will be a major influence in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Dick's Sporting Goods will destroy assault-style rifles pulled from shelves

.

"Courageous"? I would say asinine. The guns are legal and they are now saying that any customer who owns one should be destroyed. Dicks is going to be in Chapter 11 PDQ if they keep up with this political bullshit.

You can say asinine all you like but it's their stock and their decision on what to do with it. Tough shit.

On the other hand you can't say "they are now saying that any customer who owns one should be destroyed", unless you have a link to that effect.

Finally there isn't any "political bullshit" going on. This is simply a corporation following its conscience. Hate to break this to ya but Dick's, like any business, is free to choose what it sells and what it doesn't . That's not "political". It's principle.

No, they are not. Their actions are pandering to the lowest common denominator. I understand the corporate mentality even if you don't. Yes, it is absolutely asinine to lower investor value in the company by destroying legal firearms. They are violating their fiduciary responsibility to their investors and if the investors don't like what they are doing they will remove the board of directors. Time will tell.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They want to purchase a lethal firearm - a weapon designed to kill - not a tool.

The time has come in our National Life for the owners of lethal weapons to be held to a higher degree of responsibility and accountability.

This will be a decision made by The People at large.

I think the decision has already been made. With over 100 million gun owners in this country, very few would want to go through all that unless THEY decide to conceal carry. All firearm owners are already held to a high degree of responsibility and accountability. The only ones who are not are those who illegally have a weapon or use one in a crime, and all the laws in the world won't change them one bit.

We will not know for sure whether such Controls solve the problem of illicit gun acquisitions and usage until such laws have been on the books for a generation or two.

It will take a while to clean up the mess left behind by poor State oversight of such matters.

There is nothing poor about it. All guns purchases from a licensed seller are ran through the background check. Most people who drive today had some training. They all had to pass a test. Yet over 35,000 Americans get killed every year in vehicles. Your idea won't work. Trust me, I drive for a living, and there are times I don't believe what I see from licensed drivers. You can't teach responsibility. You either have it or you don't.

No deflection presented nor intended.

Rather, that was a direct counterpoint; illustrating an inappropriate and false equivalency that you were attempting to serve-up in a previous post.

Nothing false about it. Guns are a right, free speech is a right, voting is a right. You can't be selective in saying only one right is subject to your political way of thinking. Rights belong to every American--not just Americans you approve of or subject to what insanity you think they should have to go through to exercise their right.

Right up to the moment that SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of nationwide Gun Control in a more favorably constituted Court.

Bring it on. I would love to see that in the SC. However the way the left is pushing the envelope, it probably won't be long until somebody sues their city or state for a constitutional violation.

 

[Pogo]

.

Two weeks after seventeen students and staff members were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods took steps to limit their sales of firearms. Announcing a policy change, Dick’s would no longer sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws.

In addition to the new policy concerning the age requirement, the company also ended sales of all assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in its stores.

Despite a frivolous age discrimination lawsuit filed for Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old boy from Gold Hill, Oregon, Dick’s Sporting Goods is standing firm on this and other policy changes concerning the sales of deadly weapons and other related paraphernalia.

To assure certain dangerous weapons currently in their inventory never wind up in the hands of the wrong people, Dick’s has decided not to return the many items to the manufacturers for reimbursement and redistribution to other dealers. Instead, Dick’s will destroy all such inventory, taking the hit in the company’s bottom line.

A spokeswoman for Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change. We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.’ ”

The specified weapons will be destroyed at the company’s distribution centers, after which the resulting scrap will sent to a salvage company to be recycled.

Given the growing number of corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, and retailers changing their policies so as to limit people’s ability to purchase dangerous weapons and attachments, it’s apparent times-are-a-changin’.

The surviving students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have inspired, not only a grassroots movement in school age kids, their parents, and adults nationwide, but also forced radical changes in the U.S. political climate and the corporate mind set.

A few congressional Republicans have shown a willingness to work to pass commonsense gun regulations, while others are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have tucked their tails between their legs and are resigning or retiring, rather than face the hundreds-of-thousands of high school students who will be 18 YOA, who will definitely vote this November, and will be a major influence in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Dick's Sporting Goods will destroy assault-style rifles pulled from shelves

.

"Courageous"? I would say asinine. The guns are legal and they are now saying that any customer who owns one should be destroyed. Dicks is going to be in Chapter 11 PDQ if they keep up with this political bullshit.

You can say asinine all you like but it's their stock and their decision on what to do with it. Tough shit.

On the other hand you can't say "they are now saying that any customer who owns one should be destroyed", unless you have a link to that effect.

Finally there isn't any "political bullshit" going on. This is simply a corporation following its conscience. Hate to break this to ya but Dick's, like any business, is free to choose what it sells and what it doesn't . That's not "political". It's principle.

No, they are not. Their actions are pandering to the lowest common denominator. I understand the corporate mentality even if you don't. Yes, it is absolutely asinine to lower investor value in the company by destroying legal firearms. They are violating their fiduciary responsibility to their investors and if the investors don't like what they are doing they will remove the board of directors. Time will tell.

Soooooooooooooo no link to "destroying customers". Quelle surprise.

 

[Paulie]

.

Two weeks after seventeen students and staff members were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods took steps to limit their sales of firearms. Announcing a policy change, Dick’s would no longer sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws.

In addition to the new policy concerning the age requirement, the company also ended sales of all assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in its stores.

Despite a frivolous age discrimination lawsuit filed for Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old boy from Gold Hill, Oregon, Dick’s Sporting Goods is standing firm on this and other policy changes concerning the sales of deadly weapons and other related paraphernalia.

To assure certain dangerous weapons currently in their inventory never wind up in the hands of the wrong people, Dick’s has decided not to return the many items to the manufacturers for reimbursement and redistribution to other dealers. Instead, Dick’s will destroy all such inventory, taking the hit in the company’s bottom line.

A spokeswoman for Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change. We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.’ ”

The specified weapons will be destroyed at the company’s distribution centers, after which the resulting scrap will sent to a salvage company to be recycled.

Given the growing number of corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, and retailers changing their policies so as to limit people’s ability to purchase dangerous weapons and attachments, it’s apparent times-are-a-changin’.

The surviving students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have inspired, not only a grassroots movement in school age kids, their parents, and adults nationwide, but also forced radical changes in the U.S. political climate and the corporate mind set.

A few congressional Republicans have shown a willingness to work to pass commonsense gun regulations, while others are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have tucked their tails between their legs and are resigning or retiring, rather than face the hundreds-of-thousands of high school students who will be 18 YOA, who will definitely vote this November, and will be a major influence in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Dick's Sporting Goods will destroy assault-style rifles pulled from shelves





.

They should buy a million more assault rifles and scrap them.........morons.

What's an assault rifle? I'm only aware of rifles in general I've never seen this mythical assault rifle

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

Two weeks after seventeen students and staff members were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods took steps to limit their sales of firearms. Announcing a policy change, Dick’s would no longer sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws.

In addition to the new policy concerning the age requirement, the company also ended sales of all assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in its stores.

Despite a frivolous age discrimination lawsuit filed for Tyler Watson, a 20-year-old boy from Gold Hill, Oregon, Dick’s Sporting Goods is standing firm on this and other policy changes concerning the sales of deadly weapons and other related paraphernalia.

To assure certain dangerous weapons currently in their inventory never wind up in the hands of the wrong people, Dick’s has decided not to return the many items to the manufacturers for reimbursement and redistribution to other dealers. Instead, Dick’s will destroy all such inventory, taking the hit in the company’s bottom line.

A spokeswoman for Dick’s Sporting Goods told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change. We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.’ ”

The specified weapons will be destroyed at the company’s distribution centers, after which the resulting scrap will sent to a salvage company to be recycled.

Given the growing number of corporations distancing themselves from the NRA, and retailers changing their policies so as to limit people’s ability to purchase dangerous weapons and attachments, it’s apparent times-are-a-changin’.

The surviving students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have inspired, not only a grassroots movement in school age kids, their parents, and adults nationwide, but also forced radical changes in the U.S. political climate and the corporate mind set.

A few congressional Republicans have shown a willingness to work to pass commonsense gun regulations, while others are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have tucked their tails between their legs and are resigning or retiring, rather than face the hundreds-of-thousands of high school students who will be 18 YOA, who will definitely vote this November, and will be a major influence in the 2018 mid-term elections.

Dick's Sporting Goods will destroy assault-style rifles pulled from shelves





.

They should buy a million more assault rifles and scrap them.........morons.

What's an assault rifle? I'm only aware of rifles in general I've never seen this mythical assault rifle

I think it's one that's black and scary.

 

[bgrouse]

View attachment 188765
Dick's Sporting Goods to destroy all unsold assault-style weapons

there Dick's! That's an odd sentence. But...


btw: If anyone finds a video of them being scrapped, post it for DOPer Gun Nutters to enjoy!

I WANT TO WATCH.

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.