03-04-2018, 09:41 PM
(03-04-2018, 05:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:You don't see an issue/problem with a LEGAL age group of LEGAL status, who are LEGAL to LEGALLY purchase a LEGAL product (firearm, alcohol, cigarettes or any other products available for sale to public in their store) being refused and denied of the right of doing so? THE LAW OR THEMSELVES. IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T THE LAW.(03-03-2018, 09:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:David Horn Wrote:You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have. If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't. Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race. You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.
No. I'm saying Dick's doesn't have a legal right or the legal authority to change a state or federal law. Do you agree with me or not? I'm saying an 18-20 year old citizen of the USA are legal adults with legal status who are of legal age who have a legal right to purchase a rifle within Minnesota and The United States of America according to the law of the state and the federal government. Is age another one of those protected categories commonly associated with discrimination? I think so.
No one has the right to tell a company they must sell firearms to anyone. They also have no prohibition on deciding who is or is not eligible to buy -- unless the buyer is denied because he or she is in a protected class. 18-21 is not a protected class. If you have a lawyer, feel free to ask. I know the answer.
C-Xer Wrote:I know what I would do as Republican, I'd let it linger and grow and allow it to turn Dick's parking lots into political battle grounds over gun rights. If Cabelas is listening and wants Dick's disgruntled customer's or employees, I have a marketing slogan for you and others to use. "We Ain't Dick's"
I think you miss the point of the exercise. Dick's management decided that the number of future gun owners is small in the youth demographic, but they do buy other athletic equipment. More to the point, that demographic is trending anti-gun, so doing the same is good business. Cabela's can have the residual business.
Who gave them that right (a group of arrogant blue idiots view themselves as being above the law who are used being held unaccountable or a group self righteous blues who view themselves as morally superior to everyone else or a group foolish blues who make their business decisions based feelings or popularity instead of business knowledge and common sense) to do what they did in AMERICA?
ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE RUSSIANS (AN OLD RUSSIAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLD SOVIET UNION IN YOUR CASE OR REMNANT FROM THE COLD WAR IN YOUR CASE) that I'm still hearing about in the news? If so, that would explain why you are so off as far as your understanding and knowledge of AMERICA AND AMERICANS. Now, if its a matter of reasoning and serious lack of reasoning for whatever reason, that would explain it too. My values are clear and rather steady and widely held and recognized. My values aren't confusing and do not contradict and run into conflict and sparsely held and unrecognizable.
If the banks don't kill them by shutting down or severely limiting their credit lines, the class action lawsuits and major lawsuits and the federal and state fines associated with breaking the law and the business disruptions that scare off/turn off customers and costumer losses and the sell off of stock by shareholders are going to severely cripple and most likely kill them from losses of operating capital and cash flow. Bye Bye Dick's Sporting Goods.