In the letter, Stack explained, "We support and respect the Second Amendment, and we recognize and appreciate that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens. But we have to help solve the problem that's in front of us. Gun violence is an epidemic that's taking the lives of too many people, including the brightest hope for the future of America –- our kids."
Twitchy TeamExactly. Go to your local gun shop.
â€Verified account @TwitchyTeam
13m13 minutes ago
Dick's Sporting Goods unveils BOLD plan to help small business owners sell more guns
How can one disagree with that? Preserve the right, but acknowledge and help solve the problem.
I thought Dickless's dropped Sporting Rifles a long time ago....
How can one disagree with that? Preserve the right, but acknowledge and help solve the problem.
I thought Dickless's dropped Sporting Rifles a long time ago....
I thought Dickless's dropped Sporting Rifles a long time ago....
Vendors should be free to sell or not sell whatever they please, right? "How can one disagree with that?"
...In 2012, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Dick’s removed assault-style rifles from its main retail stores. But a few months later, the company began carrying the firearms at its outdoor and hunting retail chain, Field & Stream.
This time, Mr. Stack said, the changes will be permanent....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dicks-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dicks-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html)
They just opened up an Academy Sports out there. Don't know if they sell firearms or not, but if I have a need to find frisbees for the GSD, I might pop in sometime to have a lookie around.
They opened a Bass Pro Shops in my area. Their opening weekend people had to park a mile away. The place is packed every weekend and they certainly don't mind selling sporting rifles.
Nor does Cabella's. I don't have one near me now but I loved the one in North Fort Worth by the "Ross Perot" Acre's (Alliance Airport)
How can one disagree with that? Preserve the right, but acknowledge and help solve the problem.
...and yet Dick's Sporting Goods now makes themselves a "part of the story", with their CEO going on national TV interviews (including this morning on ABC's Good Morning America) to promote his brand, and one, supposes, their moral superiority.
One can make the case that (as Dick's CEO did) that it is risky to sell firearms under the current environment, which suffers from insufficient background checks for criminal histories and mental illness, and other failures of law enforcement. But why then sell guns at all, as opposed to not selling only semi-automatic rifles? More crazy people kill others with pistols than with rifles, after all.
But the entire problem here is that such violence is in fact, rare in the United States, in spite of highly-publicized events such as those in Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and now in Florida. Most firearms deaths in the US are the result of suicide (pistols, again). There is no good reason though, to refuse to sell semi-autos to responsible citizens, who in any event can buy the same weapons at dozens of other sporting goods and firearms outlets.
It is hyperbole that does nothing to address root causes nor solves any problem. It is a marketing calculation, nothing more. They think it will bring good PR.
It's not Dick's job to address root causes or solve problems. What it can do is acknowledge the concerns many of its customers have regarding kids being shot in cold blood at concerts, schools and other public places. Yes, it wants to portray itself as virtuous - and will likely suffer a loss of business for it. Perhaps the rest of us should strive to be virtuous and civic-minded as well.
What saccharine pap.
I thought Dickless's dropped Sporting Rifles a long time ago....
It's not Dick's job to address root causes or solve problems. What it can do is acknowledge the concerns many of its customers have regarding kids being shot in cold blood at concerts, schools and other public places. Yes, it wants to portray itself as virtuous - and will likely suffer a loss of business for it. Perhaps the rest of us should strive to be virtuous and civic-minded as well.
You just said in the comment I was responding to it was helping solve the problem.
But we have to help solve the problem that's in front of us. Gun violence is an epidemic that's taking the lives of too many people . . .
@andy58-in-nh
More felons commit murder with firearms then crazies. Felons don't purchase their firearms at a gun store.
It's not Dick's job to address root causes or solve problems. What it can do is acknowledge the concerns many of its customers have regarding kids being shot in cold blood at concerts, schools and other public places. Yes, it wants to portray itself as virtuous - and will likely suffer a loss of business for it. Perhaps the rest of us should strive to be virtuous and civic-minded as well.
My original comment tracked the language of Dick's statement:
Now is Dick's action, by itself, going to "solve the problem", even in a small way? Probably not. But I like the old adage that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Dick's will likely lose business for being civic-minded rather than selfish. Virtue is its own, and this case likely only, reward.
@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives? They kill a lot more people then guns.
That's exactly right. Which is why all gun control laws are ultimately useless.
We have culture and morality problems. We have behavioral and mental illness problems. We have law enforcement problems.
Guns did not cause any of these problems, and banning them won't solve them, either.
Guns did not cause any of these problems, and banning them won't solve them, either.
And focusing on guns is a cop-out to avoid talking about the root causes, which contain a lot of 'inconvenient truths'.
I believe the idea is that banning certain types of guns with large capacities and rapid fire, that the carnage at mass shootings may be less. For example, if the Las Vegas shooter didn't have an array of high capacity semi-autos, he may have killed 10 folks and wounded 25, rather than killed 50 and wounded 500.
So the idea isn't to "solve" the problem of crazies with guns, but rather limit their ability to cause multiple deaths in a short period of time.
I'm not saying I support these types of bans; I'm merely describing what appears to be the motivation behind them.
@Jazzhead
First you commend them for helping to solve the 'problem' and then say its not their job to address the problem.
Is this true?
What cop out? Why not address both?
@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives? They kill a lot more people then guns.
My main complaint against them is I went in a couple weeks ago to buy a Henry 45/70 and they were sold out.
Like I said, at least they're willing to try to be part of a civic-minded solution. They are not being merely selfish.
I believe the idea is that banning certain types of guns with large capacities and rapid fire, that the carnage at mass shootings may be less. For example, if the Las Vegas shooter didn't have an array of high capacity semi-autos, he may have killed 10 folks and wounded 25, rather than killed 50 and wounded 500.
So the idea isn't to "solve" the problem of crazies with guns, but rather limit their ability to cause multiple deaths in a short period of time.
I'm not saying I support these types of bans; I'm merely describing what appears to be the motivation behind them.
@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives? They kill a lot more people then guns.
@driftdiver
Uh, no. Not even close, at least in the US.
The problem with that is that there are many millions of these weapons currently owned by Americans, and 99.999% of them will never be used to harm innocent life. They are, however, highly useful in defending and saving human lives.
Bear in mind also that these are not automatic weapons, they are not "weapons of war", nor do they allow the truly high rates of fire associated with such military weapons. If outfitted with so-called "bump-stocks", an AR-15 can fire more rapidly by reducing the time required between trigger pulls, although with a significant sacrifice in accuracy (which of course, did not help those poor people in Las Vegas).
But that sick, twisted bastard never should have had access to a gun in the first place, and that is primarily a failure of law enforcement, FBI background reporting and the detritus of cultural rot.
Guns, like cars, should be registered and insured. It's called being responsible.
So like cars, registered and insured if used in public funded areas? but not private property?
Dick's announcement is utterly irrelevant to most gun owners in my area. We generally patronize local gunshops or Cabela's. Now if Cabela's starts pandering to snowflakes, it may be a problem (though not for me, I'll stick to one of the locally-owned dealers).
Good point! I only go to my local shop, with people I know. That reminds me...I need to go get some more magazines.
So like cars, registered and insured if used in public funded areas? but not private property?
A whole bunch of jeeps out here that are fitted with a tow bar, or trailered to the sticks. not registered or insured. Legal off the paved road last I looked.
Never bought a dang thing at Cabelas. Too spendy.
Too many folks in the city that don't understand common things in rural life, or even in the suburbs.That's exactly the problem with that little snowflake Hogg and his pals. Having lived only in large urban areas or affluent suburbs, they seem to have no clue why people own guns and how they might actually need to own them.
You've beaten this drum before, and I don't understand what you're driving at (pun intended).
Exactly. @Jazzhead repeatedly implies that owning a car requires insurance and registration. Too many folks in the city that don't understand common things in rural life, or even in the suburbs.
That's exactly the problem with that little snowflake Hogg and his pals. Having lived only in large urban areas or affluent suburbs, they seem to have no clue why people own guns and how they might actually need to own them.
Exactly. @Jazzhead repeatedly implies that owning a car requires insurance and registration. Too many folks in the city that don't understand common things in rural life, or even in the suburbs.
That's exactly the problem with that little snowflake Hogg and his pals. Having lived only in large urban areas or affluent suburbs, they seem to have no clue why people own guns and how they might actually need to own them.
You've beaten this drum before, and I don't understand what you're driving at (pun intended).
Cars and guns are different things; obviously the details of their respective registration/insurance regimes will differ. But, broadly states, guns and cars are both (i) very useful (ii) have the potential to be very deadly, and (iii) very easily stolen by those intending to use them irresponsibly. The rationale for registration and insurance exists for each, when each will be used for its intended purpose.
And too many folks from rural areas don't understand the special problems with gun violence that exist in the cities and suburbs. In Montana, the "wild west" ethos may be charming; in Philadelphia it's deadly.
Guns, however, are. Gun registries invariably lead to confiscation. That is the point.
So write your damn laws in Philadelphia FOR Philadelphia and leave Montana the hell alone. How is that so hard?
But we're all part of the same nation. Try to understand why people who aren't from rural areas might seek to reduce the number of guns, especially of the high-powered variety. To you it's sport, to us it's survival.
Actually, just the opposite. Look at Chicago and Gary, Indiana. Two cities very physically close yet with very different gun laws and resulting gun violence. In Chicago, where many law abiding citizens are disarmed by government, more gun violence.
No, that's not the point, because the Constitution guarantees the RKBA. Gun registries IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RKBA do not lead to confiscation.
And you do the same. That's why I strongly oppose the proposed concealed carry reciprocity law.
What cop out? Why not address both?
I'd like to see per capita statistics on that. Chicago and Gary are probably demographically similar. What are the differences in gun laws between the two cities?
That's why I strongly oppose the proposed concealed carry reciprocity law.
Exactly. @Jazzhead repeatedly implies that owning a car requires insurance and registration. Too many folks in the city that don't understand common things in rural life, or even in the suburbs.
Been there done that a hundred times. Australia had the right to bear arms. Registration and confiscation ensued.
How can one disagree with that? Preserve the right, but acknowledge and help solve the problem.
We are not Australia.
But it is funny, as an aside, that you are against reciprocity in gun licenses, but all for it in homo marriage licenses. Jussayin. *****rollingeyes*****
Since when does a gay couple's desire to marry place you or anyone else in potential danger?
Public safety is traditionally a local matter. What exposes you to arrest for drunk driving in Montana may not expose you to arrest in Pennsylvania (or vice versa).
Yes, marriage laws have also traditionally been a state matter. But the foundation of gay marriage rights is the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Montana has to recognize gay marriages because it recognizes straight marriage. Equal protection. If Montana wanted to refuse to provide any benefits or official recognition of marriage altogether (gay or straight) it could do so. But it cannot provide valuable benefits and protections for straight couples but not for gay couples. Equal protection.
@Jazzhead
Thats right, we're smarter then they were. We know what you anti-gun zealots want and were not playing that game.
@Jazzhead
Equal protection eh? So any woman could marry any man, or any man could marry any woman.
Sounds like it was equal
So write your damn laws in Philadelphia FOR Philadelphia and leave Montana the hell alone. How is that so hard?
I'm not an anti-gun zealot. But I recognize the selfishness of both sides' extremist positions. I want to preserve the RKBA while addressing the epidemic of gun violence through efficacious, reasonable laws.
We are not Australia.
Not in the eyes of the law. But I'm not going to further derail this thread.
We are not Australia.
Since when does a gay couple's desire to marry place you or anyone else in potential danger?
Public safety is traditionally a local matter. What exposes you to arrest for drunk driving in Montana may not expose you to arrest in Pennsylvania (or vice versa).
Yes, marriage laws have also traditionally been a state matter. But the foundation of gay marriage rights is the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Montana has to recognize gay marriages because it recognizes straight marriage. Equal protection. If Montana wanted to refuse to provide any benefits or official recognition of marriage altogether (gay or straight) it could do so. But it cannot provide valuable benefits and protections for straight couples but not for gay couples. Equal protection.
I'm not an anti-gun zealot. But I recognize the selfishness of both sides' extremist positions. I want to preserve the RKBA while addressing the epidemic of gun violence through efficacious, reasonable laws.
We don't have any such epidemic here. So make your laws for yourself and quit trying to jam them down our throats federally.
But we're all part of the same nation.
This is where he launches into his lecture about respecting "states' rights," then continues with his argument in favor of a Federal gun registration. *****rollingeyes*****
@Suppressed
Sure they do.
| Total murders was | 15,070 |
| Total firearm murders was | 11,004 |
| Total knife murders was | 1,604 |
@driftdiver
Would you please provide a citation for such a wild claim?
For murder, here are the stats from the FBI UCR for 2016:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12
For US, including DC and USVI:
Total murders was 15,070 Total firearm murders was 11,004 Total knife murders was 1,604
I don't think there's a huge number of accidental knife deaths compared to firearms (I'll let you look that up), and 60% of firearm deaths are suicide, and I don't think there are thousands upon thousands of knife suicides.
Are you trying to say that there's a lot more utility in using a knife for self-defense than a gun? If not, then where are all these invisible knife deaths you're claiming?
Knives don't "kill a lot more people then [sic] guns" in the US, unless you're being silly and saying that you meant that knives kill a lot more people than knives kill guns.
Besides, guns and knives don't kill people....people and bump stocks kill people (at least, according to the NRA)}.
Even though Dick's advertises themselves as sellers of Sporting Goods and guns, they shouldn't be forced to sell things they find morally repugnant. "How can one disagree with that?"
I see what you did there. 888high58888
Shhh!
(Last time I did the high-five thing I got hit with a frying pan.... **nononono* )
My main complaint against them is I went in a couple weeks ago to buy a Henry 45/70 and they were sold out.
Maybe you should be more discerning with who you are high fiving. :whistle:
@Jazzhead
An out of control judiciary and a 'living' Constitution most certainly are pertinent to this thread.
An out of control judiciary? You should thank your lucky stars for the Heller opinion. It was the first time in 200 years that the Court acknowledged the Constitution's protection of an individual RKBA, outside the militia context of the 2A. Your individual right to self defense is the PRODUCT of a "living Constitution"!
Henry Rifle 45-70 loads
I asked Henry rifle technical representative what loads their rifle was designed to handle - those for the old Springfield Trapdoors, the lever actions like the Win 1886 or the Ruger#1 falling blocks actions? The response was any manufactured load with bullets of 405 grains or less. So I sent him the page from Hodgdon reloading data showing loads for the Ruger#1 or equivalent with loads under 405 grains, some of which reach 50,000 cup and asked would these be acceptable. The response was we do not recommend reloads and will not therefore comment on those but it is safe to use any manufactured load with bullets of 405 grains or less.
I guess I knew what their response would be, but I still dislike their attorneys as all the manufacturers know reloads will be used and don't care enough about the safety of their customers to give us pertinent specs for the rifles or even refer us to the generally used reloading data which would keep us safe assuming we follow the data correctly.
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/45-70-govt/137160-henry-rifle-45-70-loads.html (http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/45-70-govt/137160-henry-rifle-45-70-loads.html)
I've loaded for several different 45/70 rifles that would handle differing pressures safely.
I have not been able to discern the save pressure level for the Henry.
@Jazzhead
BTW, owning a firearm is not an extremist position.
Don't be a fool. No one is trying to take your precious guns away. Your right is protected by the Constitution. But all rights under the Constitution are subject to one degree or anther to reasonable regulation. Every last one.
I say own all the guns you want. Just be responsible and register them.
Just be responsible and register them.
Just be responsible and register them.
Your right is protected by the Constitution. But all rights under the Constitution are subject to one degree or anther to reasonable regulation. Every last one.
I say own all the guns you want. Just be responsible and register them.
I say own all the guns you want. Just be responsible and register them.
Don't be a fool. No one is trying to take your precious guns away. Your right is protected by the Constitution. But all rights under the Constitution are subject to one degree or anther to reasonable regulation. Every last one.
I say own all the guns you want. Just be responsible and register them.
Don't be a fool. No one is trying to take your precious guns away.
I never did catch what part of the Constitution you claim covers individual ownership of guns, since it seemed your were arguing the other day that A2 was specifically about militia.
I never did catch what part of the Constitution you claim covers individual ownership of guns, since it seemed your were arguing the other day that A2 was specifically about militia.
His life and reasoning revolves around the infallible decrees judges in black robes have to rule about what they think the parchment means and says.
The same part of the Constitution that protects other natural rights, such as the right to privacy. That natural right, btw, is the right to defense of home and property. Facially, the 2A doesn't address the natural right; it's about the citizens' militia. Heller confirms that the RKBA for purposes of individual self defense is protected by the Constitution. Just as the right to abortion (derivative of the right of privacy) is. You can't be denied your right to own guns to protect your home, but that has nothing to do with whether the peoples' elected representatives can decide to require for reasons of public safety that you register your guns (or, in the case of abortion, to require the dirty deed be done prior to the 20th week of pregnancy). Registration isn't denial of the right. Nor does reasonable regulation constitute denial of the abortion right.
All rights are not absolute, and can be regulated as to time, place and manner of exercise. Heller confirms as much with respect to the gun right.
And what is the point of registration?
The "parchment" says the RKBA is in connection with the maintenance of the citizens' militia. The Constitution's protection of the natural right to individual self defense is the product of those judges in black robes. Yes, it is protected because of the "living Constitution". The "parchment" doesn't say squat.
And what is the point of registration?
And what is the point of registration?
Public safety.
@RoosGirl @Jazzhead
The point of registration now is to make it easy to confiscate later. Anyone that supporters
registration now will support confiscation later. It is the old Marxist bait a switch.
Public safety.
Public safety.
The "parchment" says the RKBA is in connection with the maintenance of the citizens' militia. The Constitution's protection of the natural right to individual self defense is the product of those judges in black robes. Yes, it is protected because of the "living Constitution". The "parchment" doesn't say squat.
@Jazzhead
How does registration improve public safety?
DC has registration. So does Chicago. Also, Baltimore.
Has it made those cities safer?
@Jazzhead
How does registration improve public safety?
DC has registration. So does Chicago. Also, Baltimore.
Has it made those cities safer?
I say we drop him off in the middle of Baltimore at 10 Friday night and see how he fares. He gets a bottle of water and a body cam. This could be a whole new reality show.
@RoosGirl @Jazzhead
The point of registration now is to make it easy to confiscate later. Anyone that supporters
registration now will support confiscation later. It is the old Marxist bait a switch.
I say we drop him off in the middle of Baltimore at 10 Friday night and see how he fares. He gets a bottle of water and a body cam. This could be a whole new reality show.
That's paranoia, not reasoned argument.
That's paranoia, not reasoned argument.
IOW, you can't refute it. Calling insanity is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
@Jazzhead
When history provides precedent after precedent then its not paranoia.
De Nile is more then just a river.
I say we drop him off in the middle of Baltimore at 10 Friday night and see how he fares. He gets a bottle of water and a body cam. This could be a whole new reality show.
That's paranoia, not reasoned argument.
I'll drive. Hell I'll even slow down to 30 mph while you and Cyber push him out of the van.
@Wingnut
You're braver then me, I'd rather drive through Bhagdad at night then the southside of Chicago or Baltimore.
@Wingnut
You're braver then me, I'd rather drive through Bhagdad at night then the southside of Chicago or Baltimore.
WEST, West side of Chicago.
Daley and Emmanuel cleaned out a good chunk of the South side and shipped the Section 8 ghetto rats out to the suburbs and the Near West side from what relatives have to say.
@Cyber Liberty
You saw how he attacks the messenger and doesn't address the specific question.
Welcome to my world. I've probably received over the years a thousand responses to my posts that consist of personal insults without any sort of substantive response. *****rollingeyes*****
But concluding that registration of firearms leads to confiscation IS paranoia. The Constitution protects your right to defend yourself. Registration of motor vehicles - for purposes of public safety - hasn't led to confiscation or infringement of the right to travel.
But concluding that registration of firearms leads to confiscation IS paranoia. The Constitution protects your right to defend yourself. Registration of motor vehicles - for purposes of public safety - hasn't led to confiscation or infringement of the right to travel.
Now you folks are fantasizing how you'd like to see me harmed.
But concluding that registration of firearms leads to confiscation IS paranoia.
Welcome to my world. I've probably received over the years a thousand responses to my posts that consist of personal insults without any sort of substantive response. Now you folks are fantasizing how you'd like to see me harmed. *****rollingeyes*****
But concluding that registration of firearms leads to confiscation IS paranoia. The Constitution protects your right to defend yourself.
Registration of motor vehicles - for purposes of public safety - hasn't led to confiscation or infringement of the right to travel.
I say own all the guns you want. Just be responsible and register them.
Someone is letting their inner Marxist out.
It has me letting my inner anarchist out. I will not comply.
But concluding that registration of firearms leads to confiscation IS paranoia.
Please point out one time in history where gun registration didn't lead to confiscation.
Right here, right now, in the United States of America.
Is this true?
IOW, @txradioguy, he can't come up with an example. :silly: :silly: :silly:
@Jazzhead I don't think you're an idiot, but you sure as Hell think the rest of us on this forum are. You insult everybody's intelligence with a dumbass statement like that.
Right here, right now, in the United States of America.
yet.
Except guns are NOT registered here. Even in cities with draconian laws, there is little compliance, as proven by the high crime on their streets.
New Jersey is in the process of passing laws which will require registration and allow for confiscation for any reason without due process.
New Jersey is in the process of passing laws which will require registration and allow for confiscation for any reason without due process.
I’m still waiting for @Jazzhead to explain why he’s not demanding Dicks sell guns. They’re a sporting goods store after all. If cake makers are required to make homosexual wedding cakes because their business is cakes, then logically Dicks should be required to sell guns.
I’m still waiting for @Jazzhead to explain why he’s not demanding Dicks sell guns. They’re a sporting goods store after all. If cake makers are required to make homosexual wedding cakes because their business is cakes, then logically Dicks should be required to sell guns.
the only history that's relevant as far as I'm concerned is U.S. history.
New Jersey is in the process of passing laws which will require registration and allow for confiscation for any reason without due process.
There will never be compliance. Grandma, with her .38 two-inch in the nightstand drawer, isn't about to register her gun. I've said this before, there are about 300 Million firearms in this country, and they'll be lucky if one Million ever get registered.
Yet another reason why I will never be found east of Michigan and north of the Mason Dixon Line.
New Jersey is in the process of passing laws which will require registration and allow for confiscation for any reason without due process.
I don't ever want to be North of the Ohio River.
Sadly I got family stuck behind enemy lines in the People's Republic of Illinois.
I’m still waiting for @Jazzhead to explain why he’s not demanding Dicks sell guns. They’re a sporting goods store after all. If cake makers are required to make homosexual wedding cakes because their business is cakes, then logically Dicks should be required to sell guns.
It does sell guns, and as far as I know they'll sell 'em for a gay shotgun wedding same as a straight one. :seeya:
What?! They sell guns but not "assault style rifles"? That is totally unacceptable. If they say they sell guns, they should sell ALL guns. They can't just pick and choose who they want to do business with.
What?! They sell guns but not "assault style rifles"? That is totally unacceptable. If they say they sell guns, they should sell ALL guns. They can't just pick and choose who they want to do business with.
I'm bummed. I've been beating this drum the whole thread, but he only answered at #168. I must be on Ignore gain....it's just as well...
He won't answer me either.
Even though Dick's advertises themselves as sellers of Sporting Goods and guns, they shouldn't be forced to sell things they find morally repugnant. "How can one disagree with that?"Precisely.
I'm bummed. I've been beating this drum the whole thread, but he only answered at #168. I must be on Ignore gain....it's just as well...He's tooling with us. He's just here to spout his Leftist claptrap and try to convince us all on this board that we are a bunch of selfish, extreme bigots who do not understand 'true' Conservatism because our closed minds will not allow his wisdom that he lectures to us ad nauseum to permeate and be accepted. Even though he promotes the entire Leftist agenda from gays and guns to abortion and amnesty, and goes to great lengths to explain it all to us.
He's tooling with us. He's just here to spout his Leftist claptrap and try to convince us all on this board that we are a bunch of selfish, extreme bigots who do not understand 'true' Conservatism because our closed minds will not allow his wisdom that he lectures to us ad nauseum to permeate and be accepted. Even though he promotes the entire Leftist agenda from gays and guns to abortion and amnesty, and goes to great lengths to explain it all to us.
Dick’s Sporting Goods, Kroger, Walmart, and now L.L. Bean are among the companies raising the minimum age to purchase a gun and or limiting what weapons they stock.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/consumers-buycotting-stores-like-dicks-aftermath-parkland-shooting-195019792.html#comments (https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/consumers-buycotting-stores-like-dicks-aftermath-parkland-shooting-195019792.html#comments)
Kroger???