Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Classic-Xer]

(03-06-2018, 07:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 03:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class.  The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true.  Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose.  You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate.  All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution.  In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice.  Even Scalia balked at that.  I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.

Privately speaking or conducting business man to man/person to person or while conducting private business within a private setting that's true/correct. We're not talking about those situations, we talking about a national chain who is in retail business whose doors are open to the general public. A corporation who is operating under the legal jurisdiction of both the state and federal government and the state and federal laws that pertain to gun sales. The 18-20 year old's who Dick's has excluded are of legal age to purchase a shotgun of any kind or a long gun or rifle of any kind within the United State of America and The State of Minnesota according to the states and federal law that exist today. They also have a legal right to purchase legal guns according to the US Constitution as it stands today. I mentioned AGE. Is age discrimination mentioned and recognized in state and federal laws.  

Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40.  It doesn't apply here

Classic-Xer Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This I seriously doubt.  Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result.  Management made a business decision.  That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me.  I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons.  Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.

I'll be saying "I told you so" within a year or two.

Perhaps or perhaps not.  The NRA may finally be losing it's grip on the issue.  If so, then Dick's is making a smart move.

If the poll brower posted on the Trump poll thread is correct, then Classic Xer's opinion will not prevail, and ours will, when it comes to shopping at Dick's.

It's not a Trump issue or blue issue (Trump is a blue issue), it's a second amendment/Constitutional right issue and an American issue in general. I don't expect much response because it's early and only small things like individual refusals, small scale preparation type things like gathering information for large scale lawsuits are going on at this point. I'm sure business is pretty slow at Dick's considering we are in a seasonal/monthly transition from winter activity to spring/summer/fall activity. Which may have had something to do with Dick's decision announce now as a ploy to bump up sales. How many fishermen are gun owners or second amendment supporters? I am both a fisherman and a hunter and an avid second amendment rights believer and supporter. How many people know people like me than know people like you? Think about it, blues hang with blue. I hang out and get along with everyone to the right of you from the more American minded blues like Bob to the least liberal minded American Reds like the Devil's Advocate.