Dick's and Hypocrites

[Prestor John]

But does that mean that someone else is required to help in a way that they believe dangerous?

Yes, if they are helping some other person lawfully.

Dicks isn't preventing a kid from buying a weapon, just opting out of being part of it.

This is the argument I would make for the Christian baker, but the key difference here is that having a cake isn't a God-given right as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Since Federal Law states that an 18-year old can purchase rifles, shotguns and ammunition from a retail store, any store that sells those items must make those items available for 18-year olds. (Unless, of course, the 18-year old is a convicted felon or for any other lawful reason)

I think the best option for Dick's would be to stop selling rifles, shotguns and ammunition for those types of weapons all together and stick to selling only handguns and handgun ammunition.

Federal Law states that an 18-year old cannot purchase any handgun or handgun ammunition.

No denying of God-given rights or violations of Federal Law.

You can't sell items to one who is lawfully entitled to them and then refuse to sell them to another person who is also lawfully entitled to them.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What liability is there in a fancy cake?

I need to clarify something here.

The discussion surrounding Christian bakers and same-sex weddings has nothing to do with "fancy cakes", but rather "wedding cakes."

Most of the Christian bakers in these instances offered to make baked goods, including cakes, for the wedding.

They simply did not want to make the actual wedding cake because they felt that that would look as though they were encouraging what they considered to be sinful behavior.

They were willing to participate in the celebration, but they did not want to appear to be promoting homosexual behavior.

But, frankly, I agree that bakers shouldn't be required to bake a cake they don't want to.

Me too.

And I think that requiring people to provide weaponry, when they think it's a bad idea, is wrong. Your argument appears to be a "two wrongs make a right".

When it comes to our rights, there isn't a lot of wiggle room.

Why should all 18-21 year olds be blamed for what a few have done?

What's next? No one should be required to sell firearms to any man because men commit most shootings?

Things like this can lead to some real slippery slopes.

 

[columbus]

This is the argument I would make for the Christian baker, but the key difference here is that having a cake isn't a God-given right as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

You believe that the USA Constitution is God Given?

Sorry, I don't. I think it's a human contract, and commonly contradicts the Bible. In fact, I hardly see a thing in the Constitution that can be supported by Scripture.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Think there are some that need to check their sources.
First Federal law only stipulates that a FFL dealer may not sell a handgun or hand gun ammunition to anyone under 21
Second Federal law only stipulates that a FFL dealer may not sell or deliver a long gun or ammunition to anyone under 18
Third Federal law stipulates that unlicensed persons may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to anyone under 18
Fourth Federal law stipulates that unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.
Now states may have laws that go beyond this, but can not be less restrictive.

 

[Wu Wei]

6 pages and I still can't figure out why Richard is a hypocrite

 

[columbus]

I need to clarify something here.

The discussion surrounding Christian bakers and same-sex weddings has nothing to do with "fancy cakes", but rather "wedding cakes."

What's the difference?
If you don't believe that the gay couple are being wedded then it isn't a wedding cake. It's just a fancy cake.

What am I missing here?
Tom

 

[Wirey]

I don't think so.
I think requiring Dicks to act against their best interest is a bigger problem.
I would be perfectly fine with them simply choosing not to sell guns at all. But I don't have a problem with them deciding that a person under a certain age needs to get someone else to buy one for them.
Tom

I can't speak for the US, but denying a sale to someone based on age is illegal in Canada unless the age limit is established by the government. If a 67 year old tried to buy a car and the salesman said "Nope, old people are dangerous drivers" do you suppose the AARP would say "Well, he has a point"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is the argument I would make for the Christian baker, but the key difference here is that having a cake isn't a God-given right as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Since Federal Law states that an 18-year old can purchase rifles, shotguns and ammunition from a retail store, any store that sells those items must make those items available for 18-year olds. (Unless, of course, the 18-year old is a convicted felon or for any other lawful reason)

Justify your use of "must" in that last sentence, please. How do you think that the freedom to sell a weapon becomes a requirement to sell a weapon?

Seems like you have some serious misunderstandings of the law here. There is no right to a weapon enshrined in the US constitution. The actual right is to not have your rights infringed by the government. No business is obligated to sell you a gun or let you bring your gun on their premises.

The gun and the cake are the same in that respect: no business is required to sell you either one, but in both cases, they aren't allowed to refuse to sell it to you on the basis of illegal discrimination.

Those cake cases were in jurisdictions where it was illegal for businesses selling to the public to refuse service based on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

In the case of Dick's, there are apparently a handful of states where age discrimination against customers is illegal; in those states, Dick's wouldn't be allowed to implement their plan without adjusting it. Federally and in most states, it's not illegal to put an age restriction on gun sales over and above what the law requires.

 

[esmith]

Justify your use of "must" in that last sentence, please. How do you think that the freedom to sell a weapon becomes a requirement to sell a weapon?

Seems like you have some serious misunderstandings of the law here. There is no right to a weapon enshrined in the US constitution. The actual right is to not have your rights infringed by the government. No business is obligated to sell you a gun or let you bring your gun on their premises.

The gun and the cake are the same in that respect: no business is required to sell you either one, but in both cases, they aren't allowed to refuse to sell it to you on the basis of illegal discrimination.

Those cake cases were in jurisdictions where it was illegal for businesses selling to the public to refuse service based on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

In the case of Dick's, there are apparently a handful of states where age discrimination against customers is illegal; in those states, Dick's wouldn't be allowed to implement their plan without adjusting it. Federally and in most states, it's not illegal to put an age restriction on gun sales over and above what the law requires.

We can discuss this point until our faces turn blue. If and when a case is brought up against a business that goes beyond the age requirement of the State then we will see what the law says, not until then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can discuss this point until our faces turn blue. If and when a case is brought up against a business that goes beyond the age requirement of the State then we will see what the law says, not until then.

You're right: it is pretty ridiculous for people to argue that Dick's is engaging in illegal discrimination when, so far, nobody's even claiming that it's engaged in discrimination at all. At this point, all we have are a bunch of gun nuts clutching their metaphorical pearls as they read way too much into a social media post.

 

[esmith]

You're right: it is pretty ridiculous for people to argue that Dick's is engaging in illegal discrimination when, so far, nobody's even claiming that it's engaged in discrimination at all. At this point, all we have are a bunch of gun nuts clutching their metaphorical pearls as they read way too much into a social media post.

How about stop referring to people as gun nuts. When you do this is just indicates one is incapable of expressing oneself without the use of innuendos.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about stop referring to people as gun nuts.

"Gun nuts" captures my intended meaning.

When you do this is just indicates one is incapable of expressing oneself without the use of innuendos.

It's not an innuendo; it's a dysphonism and I'm completely capable of expressing myself without them. The extra connotation of "gun nut" versus other terms is a deliberate choice on my part.

 

[esmith]

"Gun nuts" captures my intended meaning.


It's not an innuendo; it's a dysphonism and I'm completely capable of expressing myself without them. The extra connotation of "gun nut" versus other terms is a deliberate choice on my part.

ok then you be anti-gun nutty fruitcake

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ok then you be anti-gun nutty fruitcake

Keep in mind that there are more apt ways to describe someone who would use the force of law to make a private business sell an 18-year-old a weapon of war. "Gun nut" is the toned-down version that wouldn't get starred out by the profanity filter.

 

[Revoltingest]

Keep in mind that there are more apt ways to describe someone who would use the force of law to make a private business sell an 18-year-old a weapon of war. "Gun nut" is the toned-down version that wouldn't get starred out by the profanity filter.

"Government thug" is a good term for prosecutors I've known.
But as a fan of big government, I'm surprised you'd use expletives against them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Government thug" is a good term for prosecutors I've known.
But as a fan of big government, I'm surprised you'd use expletives against them.

I’m not a fan of big government; I’m a fan of freedom. I just know that there are more threats to my freedom than the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m not a fan of big government; I’m a fan of freedom. I just know that there are more threats to my freedom than the government.

It's a "big government" view to want governmental
authority to be powerful enuf to disarm the populace.

 

[Curious George]

"Gun nuts" captures my intended meaning.


It's not an innuendo; it's a dysphonism and I'm completely capable of expressing myself without them. The extra connotation of "gun nut" versus other terms is a deliberate choice on my part.

The question is how is the use of a dysphemism best suited to your purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question is how is the use of a dysphemism best suited to your purpose.

It acknowledges the irrationality of the pro-gun side of the gun control debate.

 

[Curious George]

It acknowledges the irrationality of the pro-gun side of the gun control debate.

Or it attempts to degrade the other side while simultaneously using vernacular that is aimed at demeaning the mentally ill.

I personally don't mind your choice, but at least own your intentions.

It is emotional rhetoric that is meant to attack. Vilification is often used in politics. The last election depicts this well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or it attempts to degrade the other side while simultaneously using vernacular that is aimed at demeaning the mentally ill.

Fair point: I suppose the expression is ableist. I was out of line in that respect.

I personally don't mind your choice, but at least own your intentions.

It is emotional rhetoric that is meant to attack.

It was intended to paint their position as unreasonable, which it is. "Clutching their pearls" was also meant in a similar spirit: I'm dismissing their concerns as overblown.

Vilification is often used in politics. The last election depicts this well.

False equivalency - as you're doing here - seems to be more popular lately as well.

There's a fallacious idea that sometimes goes around that the midpoint between two positions is a reasonable common ground. In cases like the gun control debate, where one extreme is arguing that not only should nothing be done that would actually reduce mass school shootings, but there should be more weapons in schools and the other side is saying that we should try to eliminate mass school shootings is acceptable, it isn't a reasonable compromise to say that some school shootings are okay.