Interesting move by Dick's. Given my stance on high capacity magazines, I applaud their efforts to take steps like this even when not required by the law.

Nice move, Dick's.

I don't agree with it all but I understand and support it if we really think it will make a difference and start a trend.

• Age 21 - good
• High capacity magazines - good
• Bump stocks - crazy that this isn't even done yet
• Universal background checks - good
• Database of gun buyers/owners - good
• Close loopholes - good

Ban assault weapons - not sure what this means, devil is in the details.

Other than for magazine capacity (which is already accounted for) is there really a difference from other semi-automatic rifles? Does it really just mean we can't have semi-automatic rifles that look "tacti-cool" or allow the hookup of flashights, scope etc.

TBH, a couple other things I can live with

• Tax on guns and ammo to increase prices
• Longer wait periods (e.g. I can be in-and-out in 30 min with new AR-15). I can live with 60-90 days or longer TBH
• Required basic training and annual re-certification
• Proof there is some sort of gun safe/cabinet
• ... etc

I am encouraged by the students really taking a stand and hope it is sustained. I don't remember this happening in prior shootings, it was basically the parents. It gives me hope that the next generation will erode the NRA political influence and real change will come in next 20-30 years.

With that said, I might buy a couple more weapons now just in case ...

I hope other chains will follow suit.

Actually, I think I disagree. It might be difficult to put an "assault weapon ban" into official statute or regulations, because writing up the wording precisely to anticipate every manufacturer change or model number or whatnot would be imperfect at best. Maybe the devil is in the details if you're writing legislation (though I'm inclined to think that's overblown itself).

But if Dick's stands by the point of this statement, not that hard. Someone just looks at a potential model they might sell, and can just say "nope." Much easier.

In all honesty this post amazes me after the previous few pages, in a good way I hasten to add (other than the last sentence!).

As an outsider looking in, am I wrong in thinking this level of legislation is actually way beyond what is realistically expected by the gun control lobby?

I know it’s only one person’s voice, but they are all sensible measures that I thought NRA folk and gun owners in general would never accept? If this is the “hold your line” position, there has to be a good degree of common ground here?

This made me laugh.

Edit: I didn’t mean to make light of all of this. I just found that particular sentence funny.

Hmmm....

REPORT SHOTS FIRED GEORGIA SCHOOL: Teacher in custody after 'shots fired' report at Dalton High School; no students in danger | WSB-TV

Not going to take long for the SOROS LIBERAL DEEP STATE PAID CRISIS ACTORS CONSPIRACY folks to come out about this one, is it?

So...umm.... let's go arm more teachers?

Maybe he was looking for that gun bonus.

And given my stance on the absurdity of this sort of shit, I'll never step foot in DSG again. {shrug} Not like I spent a helluva lot of time there anyway.

As my wife (who grew up less than a half hour from there) noted earlier ... "if I had to teach in Dalton I'd probably lock myself in a room with a gun too"

I guess we can add capitalism to the list of things conservatives now oppose.

Wonder how many times we can find something like "a company should have the right to choose what kind of business they are willing to engage in" in, I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thread?

I'm certainly on the list of people who are now more likely to shop at Dick's. I always like to cancel out Jon. :)

Maybe if they were gay semi-automatic (or semi-erotic) guns. Maybe they'd be colored pink or rainbow colored.

In Jon's defense, I have been known to vote with my wallet at times too. Haven't bought Yuengling beer since they supported Trump. I won't see any movie with Mel Gibson in it. Won't buy gas at a BP station.

Isn't consumer choice rather essential to capitalism?

I'm not proposing that DSG be required to carry anything, I simply don't care to contribute to the continued existence of anyone that I have nothing but contempt left for.

How is that anti-capitalist?

Do what you want. I just think this tantrum is akin to me swearing off Kroger because they no longer sell tampons.

Yeah it was a bit of false equivalence to the gay wedding cake thing. In this case you are saying you won't shop there and in the other they are saying the service must be provided at the gun of the government. If you said they must provide guns or you will get the government involved than I see how it is the wedding cake thing.

I find your position absurd but not logically unsound. :)

Uh, yeah, I've said the same thing here many times: vote with your wallet. If you don't like someone not selling gay wedding cakes, don't shop there, and organize a boycott if you're particularly passionate about it. If you don't like someone not selling the most powerful legal weapons, don't shop there, and organize a boycott if you're particularly passionate about it. Let the free market decide.

I think a better equivalence might be if the owner of a gun shop decided they weren't going to sell anything to non-vegetarians.

Yes to the wedding cake thing, I was saying they were trying to make johns boycott of dick’s sporting goods the same as the cake thing. Jon just said he wasnt shopping there, didn’t ask for some sort of government intervention.

I disagree here as well. The point of capitalism is to give people choices on who to buy things from and allow them to make their own mind for whatever reason. I chose to pay more for a wooden welcome sign because a friend of mine starting his own business made it. I could have gone to Hobby Lobby or Michaels and paid less - so you could say I opposed capitalism there. I also don't go to a local restaurant because some people I know who worked there were treated like crap. But, it gets really good reviews and many people love it. Choosing where you shop for whatever reason you feel fit is encouraged and I think most of us do this in some manner from time to time.

All that said, I still can't fathom why even hard-line conservatives wouldn't atleast be OK with magazines that hold over 30-rounds outlawed for normal citizens (but allowed at shooting ranges).

I'm not commenting on his spending, I'm mocking his tantrum about his spending.

But, hey, I'll add it to the growing pile of new "liberal" things like football.

In case of what?

If there is serious momentum, assault weapon prices will increase and will be hard to find. Isn't that a logical assumption?

Just in case he needs to take on the military, duh!! Well regulated militia and all.

You really need to learn to keep a secret, no opsec at all.

But now that its out, not really the military, its more like the UN and/or Illuminati that I really worry about.

What are the odds that civilization breaks down a little, at a regional or national level, in our lifetimes - due to terrorism, global warming or other environmental dangers, economic collapse, war etc? Not 0%. Firearms are a pretty good little hedge against that, both for self-defense, and as a currency. I think some people do think about that as at least a secondary justification for growing their weapons stash. I only have one handgun but if I had more money and more property I might get some more weapons. I don't want to be the only unarmed guy in Idaho if Trump starts WW III or if the world loses some signficant % of its livable land and water supply in the next few decades due to global warming.

I see alot of confusion if its not defined well and it probably won't be implemented well or consistently.

We can use Dick's procurement as an example which is great but what if Walmart/BassPro/etc. procurement depts don't agree on a common definition? I think "define" it and have companies figure out if the rifle is an "assault" vs hunting/etc. weapon.

TBH, I don't know what a good definition is. Karlifornia has been trying to come up with a definition and manufacturers find a way around it.

And now Walmart.

I wonder if the age limitation can hold without some sort of legislation. I'm sure there will be legal challenges.

Walmart raises minimum age for firearm purchases to 21 - Feb. 28, 2018

I think the tax on guns and ammo is a good idea due to the amount of money guns cost citizens. Similar to why we should tax alcohol at high levels even if I enjoy a few drinks. Drunks take up a disproportionate amount of our police use.

As for the tacti-cool stuff, I don't really know what the function is of it for the general public. I guess I'd be OK with some people owning them, but I think you have to have some use in mind that's approved.

I'd also add that there should be more punishment for criminal activity involving guns. Those that use them in robberies for instance should be more harshly punished. Felons in possession should be harshly punished. Illegally carrying or storing them should face harsh punishment.

Right now the feds do almost nothing to stop illegal gun sales. That would help cut down on a lot of violent gang crime if they actually used their resources for that instead of worrying about what college coach is paying his basketball players.

Age isn't federally protected against discrimination, so as long as Wal-Mart's position is universal, and isn't arbitrary, it's fine. In the wake of a 19 year old shooting up a school, no court in the country is going to call a 21-year old age limit arbitrary. And the 2nd Amendment applies to Wal-Mart about as much as the 1st Amendment does.

Now we have to arm the students to keep the armed teachers in check who will keep the armed mass murderers in check.

I'm pretty sure I went to Dalton once. Was a bit of a culture shock. It's right by Lookout Mountain? I seem to remember there was some place that had these humongous cheeseburgers

Thom, be careful, you know he's going to double down on the thought soon.

I broke down on the interstate outside Dalton in 1994. Local tow guy charged me $450 for a 7-mile tow and overnight storage because I wouldn't pay his brother $1000 to replace my timing belt.

Fuck Dalton, Georgia.

Unrelated:

Bought the first gun I ever owned from Dick's -- a lever action .22 Henry rifle. Given what I paid for it there vs. just about anywhere else not named Cabela's, it was also the last time I set foot in a Dick's.


I think you'd be likely to find that "gun owners in general" don't really line up with the NRA and the sorts of "gun guy" rants you find on YouTube (Iraqveteran8888, MrGunsnGear, Yankee Marshall, etc.) That said, the YouTube crowd has been bending over backwards all week to denounce the soft stance of the NRA and President Trump.

My general rule is that if you find yourself to the right of the NRA on gun issues, you should probably just accept that you're no longer part of the mainstream culture. (Which is not to say that should deter them from their positions, just that they can't simultaneously claim to speak from a position of cultural authority. I like to have a balance between the left-wing gun-grabbers and right-wing gun extremists, because it gives the rest of us a reasonable place to settle somewhere in the middle.)

I hate Dick's cause their corporate HQ is adjacent to the Pittsburgh Airport. All their employees park over there and take Uber|Lyft when they go on vacation. Nothing like waiting 1hr+ in the Airport Queue to get a $5 ride and go back to the end of the line. Arguably a cab is the same price. So fuck Dick's

Well this is odd

Georgia teacher who fired gun in classroom previously told police he hired hitmen, report says

Sigh.

(tiredly flips the number on the board back to 'zero')

Nah, we are still good. This one was just domestic violence that happened to take place at school.

Yep

Nice momentum so far ... Blackrock below. Krogers owned Fred Myers, LL Bean not selling to under 21, Delta etc.

Not really sure how much of this will really help but corporate America is getting (the beginnings of) a social conscience re: guns which is good.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/blac...influence.html

Well the NRA and Trump had a long meeting last night, so I'm sure he's changed his mind again...

Probably 2.5 hours of massaging his ego, and closing with "so, being the greatest president of our lives, if not of all time, it is obviously your call, but we feel the status quo is probably the best strategy going forward."

Only 13 NRA members used Delta’s discount. Ending it cost the airline a $40 million tax break.

It seemed like a worthless political statement from Delta.

Go donate free flights to relatives, give money to the families for treatment, donate to mental health, give to the PAC that are anti-gun etc.

Counterpoint: the NRA felt strongly enough to tout it as a corporate partnership for their "5 million" members, even though only 13 had ever used it.