20-year-old Dick's employees are quitting their jobs

originally posted by: Shamrock6

18-21 should be able to purchase with military id or training certificate certifying ones ability to bare arms.

Strange, I can't seem to recall that part of the 2nd.

Strange, I don't seem to recall the 2nd ever specifying an age. According strictly to the letter of the Constitution, we shouldn't have gun free zones and 6 year olds should have access to weapons everywhere.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: howtonhawky>>>> I would think this could get challenged in court, but maybe those in the know could say if it will be or not. We have drinking and tobacco age minimums. I'm not sure how this would work in the military, though. An 18 year old can't be in possession of an assault rifle or semi automatic pistol unless he's 21.

"Can't buy" is the rule. The government owns the guns and issues them. They don't belong to the soldier.

A parent could buy an automatic pistol and keep it and allow his kids to shoot it at the gun range. And that would be legal (unless the range has some sort of rule about who can be there and who can fire guns at their place.)

I commend the kid for quitting since he feels strongly about it. I also commend Dick's for their action and hope other retailers will follow up.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Shamrock6

18-21 should be able to purchase with military id or training certificate certifying ones ability to bare arms.

Strange, I can't seem to recall that part of the 2nd.

Strange, I don't seem to recall the 2nd ever specifying an age. According strictly to the letter of the Constitution, we shouldn't have gun free zones and 6 year olds should have access to weapons everywhere.

Constitution doesn't say anything about gun free zones or age.



FOR CATSSAKES, FOLKS, IT'S BEAR ARMS!

"BARE ARMS" means you DON'T WEAR SLEEVES.

Sheesh. If you're going to argue the letter of the law, at least spell things correctly. And it's "Martial" law, not "marital" or "Marshall" law.

originally posted by: Byrd
FOR CATSSAKES, FOLKS, IT'S BEAR ARMS!

"BARE ARMS" means you DON'T WEAR SLEEVES.

What about armed bears?

a reply to: Byrd

As with my two earlier posts, here, the Gov't is in the driver's seat, as you must have a Federal Firearm License, in order to sell any kind of firearm, IF YOU HAVE A SIGN on a business. So Trump can pull the rug out from under these SJW's, no matter how big they are. When the Feds get sued, as they will be, then let Wally World and Dick's, explain to a Court how their age discrimination is the way to go. With a Go Getter, like Trump, this turns into a chess game, PDQ.

We need to train up kids to hunt, target shoot, and safely handle long firearms, well before they turn 21 years of age. Handguns can bite you quicker, so leaving that age limit at 21 also makes sense. You need to learn to shoot shotguns and rifles first, and only then migrate over to sidearms.
I've got about a 50-50 split between long and short firearms, in my gun room. And I've been an NRA annual member since the end of the Seventies. Unlike a Life Member, if they go off into the weeds, following some Pied Piper, then I'm gone!

originally posted by: carpooler
When the Feds get sued, as they will be, then let Wally World and Dick's, explain to a Court how their age discrimination is the way to go. With a Go Getter, like Trump, this turns into a chess game, PDQ.

We need to train up kids to hunt, target shoot, and safely handle long firearms, well before they turn 21 years of age. Handguns can bite you quicker, so leaving that age limit at 21 also makes sense.

Nope, age discrimination on the handguns. I think it should be 8. Why? Just because. Come at me Sessions. I'm playing 4D chess like Spock on steroids.

originally posted by: Byrd
Constitution doesn't say anything about gun free zones or age.

It does however say "shall not be infringed", and rights apply to everyone, not just adults. So straight from the Constitution, a 4 year old should have access to a gun and be able to use it on any public land they decide they want to.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I admire these people standing up for our rights.
Not easy finding jobs these days so it is no small sacrifice on their part.
Corporate management jumping on every political bandwagon is disheartening.

The unemployment rate in the US is 4.1% i don't think they will have a problem finding a new job.

Likely a pro-gun employer will hire them when the story gets out.
I know i world but i have retired.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If these big retailers are serious, then they should lobby Congress to get the long arms, including shotguns, raised to 21 years of age. Then there's no hassles with their F.F.L.'s. being pulled out from under them, over discrimination. Wally World is threatening to break the rice bowls of a whole bunch of BATFX Feds. They rightly feel that this is their show, and that they make the rules, subject to the occasional Court decisions.

Where this gets out into the weeds is in outlawing "Bump Stocks". These things push you trigger finger off of the trigger, momentarily. Only if you keep constant pressure on your finger, will the firearm keep firing. They realized it's a P.I.T.A. to write legislation to outlaw these, and so far have only thrown their hands up.

John Brownings original Proof of concept for autoloaders was a 1873 Winchester, with a spring loaded, "Toilet Flapper", device fitted to the muzzle. A reciprocating rod operated it's lever action, and it would be called a tube magazine machine gun today. So then John Mose invented the "disconnector", which forces the shooter to let loose of the trigger in order for it to reset, against the disconnector. This is what makes a self loader possible. This is what a bump stock defeats, but only to a degree.

It's made for getting off multiple shots in a panicked situation, where you freeze up. If the maker just slowed it down, to where an able bodied man could pull his trigger quicker, then it would be very hard to outlaw, and you would still shoot several rounds if you froze, facing an imminent threat, at close range. Think "Death Grip" here, as you could be shot dead in your tracks and still wipe out that threat, albeit belatedly.

Using a rifle or handgun with only John Browning's disconnector, means it will stop shooting until someone pries the firearm away from your cold dead fingers. Only then can that trigger reset.

There is an almost urban legend where a dinky 25 acp pocket pistol was dropped onto a hard floor. It hit on it's butt, and the inertia of it's trigger fired it up at the ceiling. Then it's reciprocating slide made it jump up in the air, and it kept firing every time the butt end hit the floor. So in a way, that solid hard flooring became a momentary "Bump Stock".

Just how long will it take for someone like yours truly, to figure out a means to fit a separate toggled lever to one's wrist which takes the place of that hard floor?? This might take the form of something, looking like a spring loaded brass knuckle. You could hold it in the fingers of your shooting hand, but it wouldn't be "attached" to the firearm. Now let's see the BATFX outlaw something that doesn't even attach to a firearm. Think of a brass knuckle, bred to a small pocket metronome. To stop shooting you'd just lock down on the last trigger pull, harder than the little inertial operated metronome could pull your finger back off it. But stay loose, and your firearm would run right to empty.

These things are stupid ideas, if you have trained to the point where you are comfortable, pulling the trigger as fast as possible. Having said that, Life and Death Stress can do strange things to your reflexes.

a reply to: Byrd

FOR CATSSAKES, FOLKS, IT'S BEAR ARMS!

"BARE ARMS" means you DON'T WEAR SLEEVES.

I barely even notice that anymore...

a reply to: carpooler


What does all that triviality have to do with the fact that Dick's and Walmart can do whatever they want?

originally posted by: Aazadan
It does however say "shall not be infringed", and rights apply to everyone, not just adults. So straight from the Constitution, a 4 year old should have access to a gun and be able to use it on any public land they decide they want to.

Where did the government in this scenario infringe on someone's rights?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Byrd
FOR CATSSAKES, FOLKS, IT'S BEAR ARMS!

"BARE ARMS" means you DON'T WEAR SLEEVES.

What about armed bears?

I see a pay-per-view slam dunk here.

a reply to: Nyiah


But only the polar bears would get them, those evil brown and black bears don't get no pew pew lovin'.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Business Insider

"I cannot be the face of these new gun policies in affect [sic]," the letter reads. "I find them morally and constitutionally wrong. I refuse to be a part of a corporation with these liberal policies." Mccullar — who identifies himself as a 20-year-old avid hunter — apologizes for the inconvenience, stating that otherwise he had great experiences with Dick's coworkers and management.

"I firmly believe that it is morally and constitutionally wrong to infringe upon the rights of a law abiding citizen in any way, and I will not work for a company that pushes for the restriction of the Second Amendment," Degarmo wrote. "Also I will not take part in the systematic discrimination Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Edward Stack has arbitrarily decided to implement."

Thinking long term this could soften dicks new policies to the point that even 60's style discrimination of 18-21 yo comes undone. Yep i believe that there is a suit in the works and not only dick's & wal-mart's new policies will be shot down in the courts along with all restrictions on 18-21yo's.

I have been clear from the start in my position and i believe i am correct that it is simply discrimination to force age limits on buying guns. The only restrictions that can legally be placed on the 2nd is one of ability and not age.

18-21 should be able to purchase with military id or training certificate certifying ones ability to bare arms.

NO OTHER RESTRICTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

Wait, this is for real?

I though it was a joke or something. Are people really getting mad that the age was raised and that a corp decided to stop selling assault style weapons?

I mean are our priorities as a society that warped? We got kids quitting jobs because of some rule set by the company they work for then claim it's infringing on rights? LMFAO. Ya lets throw a rage at a company who is trying to do what they can to prevent mass shootings from happening, but let's be ok with fast food restaurants and grocery stores being allowed to sell people garbage just because the FDA says its ok to eat. Let's allow insurance companies to continue to rob people of hard earned money only to raise the rates on people who don't get into accidents just because other people get into accidents. Let's also allow schools to teach the next generation the same nonsense over and over while underpaying the most influential people on the next generations coming after us, the teachers.

There is so much things in this world that is way more important than complaining about some age restriction on weapons.

originally posted by: carpooler
a reply to: Byrd

As with my two earlier posts, here, the Gov't is in the driver's seat, as you must have a Federal Firearm License, in order to sell any kind of firearm, IF YOU HAVE A SIGN on a business. So Trump can pull the rug out from under these SJW's, no matter how big they are.

Actually, Trump can't make the law here. To quote from the BATF website:

Regulations are issued by federal agencies, boards, or commissions. They explain how the agency intends to carry out a law.

See the ATF website for full documentation

When the Feds get sued, as they will be, then let Wally World and Dick's, explain to a Court how their age discrimination is the way to go. With a Go Getter, like Trump, this turns into a chess game, PDQ.

There's some confusion here:
* not sure what the Federal government will be sued for
* Walmart and Dick's are companies owned by individuals as you can see in their SEC filings here and here
* Age discrimination is a body of law that ONLY deals with employment - as you can see in the descriptor for "Age Discrimination" over on Findlaw

There is no possible lawsuit there.

We need to train up kids to hunt, target shoot, and safely handle long firearms, well before they turn 21 years of age.

Why?

Lots of kids and families don't hunt and have no interest in guns (my kids, for example. They don't want to hunt and have no interest in fishing and neither do their daughters.) My husband and I have never felt the need to go out and kill things in order to eat. He hunted once and hated it. I have never hunted and neither of us fishes.

Why must kids be trained to shoot? I'd rather they be trained to read and to make films and other things that are needed in modern life.

Handguns can bite you quicker, so leaving that age limit at 21 also makes sense. You need to learn to shoot shotguns and rifles first, and only then migrate over to sidearms.

I have no experience with this and am not intending to get any experience with it.

originally posted by: jidnum

Wait, this is for real?

Yup.

I though it was a joke or something. Are people really getting mad that the age was raised and that a corp decided to stop selling assault style weapons?

Yup.

I mean are our priorities as a society that warped? We got kids quitting jobs because of some rule set by the company they work for then claim it's infringing on rights? LMFAO. Ya lets throw a rage at a company who is trying to do what they can to prevent mass shootings from happening, but let's be ok with fast food restaurants and grocery stores being allowed to sell people garbage just because the FDA says its ok to eat.

Actually, the FDA is being hamstrung and some rules have been rolled back. You'd think folks would be more angry about that, wouldn't you?

Let's allow insurance companies to continue to rob people of hard earned money only to raise the rates on people who don't get into accidents just because other people get into accidents.

So far Trump hasn't touched the insurance industry... that I recall.

Let's also allow schools to teach the next generation the same nonsense over and over while underpaying the most influential people on the next generations coming after us, the teachers.

Yes, please. Let's stop teaching to some testing standard and let teachers get back to teaching. And raise the pay and add more teachers so classes are smaller. More time for the kids then and better learning environment.

There is so much things in this world that is way more important than complaining about some age restriction on weapons.

...and only at a few companies.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Aazadan
It does however say "shall not be infringed", and rights apply to everyone, not just adults. So straight from the Constitution, a 4 year old should have access to a gun and be able to use it on any public land they decide they want to.

Where did the government in this scenario infringe on someone's rights?

It didn't. That's my whole point. I was pushing the "everyone gets a gun at all times" argument to an extreme. Rights have reasonable limitations placed on them, and one of those limitations is that companies (or even the government) could place age limits on sales.

a reply to: Aazadan


Gotcha.

I see most still have ears firmly closed.

Who needs freedoms anyhow.

I mean if you do not have them then they can not be taken away.

It seems that you all are ok with a giant store putting all competition out of business then deciding what you can and can not have.

You are only ok with it now because there are still a few smaller retailers. for now

When you finally wake up it will be too late.

Tell me when you have completely shredded the freedoms what will you have left.

Do you not understand wtf you are saying that it is ok now for you not to have freedom of speech anymore.

Most of all this will not save one single life but only pander to a feeling you all were sent through staged events designed to remove the last strings that were keeping your freedom intact.

You have answered the question of what is more important freedom of the illusion of freedom.

One would think that since you all have access to information you could see around the world what it means to have freedom and what it means to not have freedom.