After the Newtown tragedy, Dick’s Sporting Goods pulled “modern sporting rifles” from its shelves. Gun rights advocates were outraged at the move, but now, it appears that Dick’s has another gun-grabbing trick up its sleeve. Customers who placed orders for rifles from Dick’s before the Newtown shooting will have to look elsewhere; Dick’s is refusing to fulfill their orders.

Needless to say, Second-Amendment-supporting consumers are less than pleased.


It’s not just customers. The manufacturer of the guns, Troy industries says on its Facebook page that it’s deeply dismayed and shocked that Dick’s stopped selling its rifle.

Troy’s CEO says the company invested millions of dollars into its operations after selecting Dick’s as the sole distributor of this particular rifle.

You can read Troy’s full statement here.

Money talks; Dick’s had better get used to silence.

  • rant stocks

    I guess the truth is……..DICKS is anti-american.

  • LadyMacKeltar

    They are dickless. Wish Troy the best of luck in pursuing a new distributor.

    • Infinite_Indeterminism

      Company motto of the Dicks:

      Dick and cower!

  • ChampionCapua

    AKA “Eponymous Mart”

  • Steve_in_RR

    Their prices are high and they seem to be more of a clothing store anyway. Not shopping there since there’s a Sportsmans Warehouse in town.

  • lazypadawan

    Troy should sue for breach of contract.

    • BlueGood

      They’ve re~branded themselves as “Dyckhead’s Sporting Goofs”

      Many other outlets to spends thousands of your dollars….

  • name

    Dick’s no longer on my list for anything…take that.

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Not 1 cent ever again. And frankly, sporting goods customers and firearms enthusiasts can do better than Dicks.

  • Chris

    Happy not to shop there again. Too expensive anyway. I’ll take my business up to Academy Sports.

  • mickeyco

    Sorry, I have to disagree. It hurts. They have taken a moral stance, same as most of us (and Hobby Lobby) have taken re: abortion. They shouldn’t fill orders they’re morally opposed to filling. We’re certainly quite free to boycott & probably should since we disagree, but we should put away the anger and name-calling, etc. OK. Have at me, but remember I agree with most of you most of the time.

    • Penmar

      You are right, they have just as much right to do business as they see fit, however, contractually they are bound by whatever agreement they signed with the manufacturer.

      • mickeyco


      • SpinMeNot

        You are correct, as a business, DSG has the right to sell or not sell any particular product in their stores. The problem is that its not a moral decision — it was a political decision. If it was a moral decision, they would have removed all guns from their shelves.

        Obama and the left have politicized the Newtown shooting to achieve this very end .. if they can’t make them illegal, then find ways to get stores to stop selling them.

        Slippery slopes do exist … and we are standing on the very edge.

        • Penmar

          Regardless of the motive, they still have the right to choose what they do and don’t wish to sell. Can’t say it’s ok for Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-a to take a stand on an issue and not allow others to do the same, regardless of the reasoning behind the decision. We as consumers also have the right to not shop in places we do not wish to shop at, whatever our reasoning for doing so happens to be.

          • SpinMeNot

            Yes, actually I can say its not ok — the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dictate to a private company what benefits they *must* provide to employees. Comparing Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A to DSG is a false-analogy at best.

            I can object and will object to anyone suggesting that what DSG is doing is a moral decision/reaction.

            And for the record, you might want to re-read my response, apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. In particular the first sentence.

          • Penmar

            I never said they were instituting their policy based on moral issues, I said they had the right to sell or not sell regardless of whether it is a moral or political issue to them. As for your objection to Hobby Lobby, etc, they are still businesses and as such are subject to whatever law is passed. I personally don’t think they will win their case. A non-profit such as a Catholic Charity Hospital is founded on religious principles, whereas Hobby Lobby was not, it was founded for profit. I read you correctly, your issue was because you believe they decided based on political reasons. I said the point was moot, because it makes no difference whether it was religious or political because they are not a religious organization or church, as Hobby Lobby is neither of those.

          • SpinMeNot

            You don’t seem to understand what “no constitutional authority” means … It doesn’t matter if a corporation is for-profit, or not, the federal government has no authority to do what it has done with regard to health insurance. This is why 20 or so states are refusing to setup health-insurance exchanges.

            Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the power to dictate the benefits provided by any company, or the products purchased by an individual. You are rationalizing away your freedoms, and refusing to differentiate between politics and morality. Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A are standing up for their rights under the Constitution; DSG is out for good press and it has backfired on them horribly.

            Sorry about the confusion on the moral issue, the original poster you replied to brought that up; I took your “agreement” in total.

          • Penmar

            You don’t seem to understand it, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ Hobby Lobby is not a person, it is a corporation and therefore subject to the law as a corporation and not a person or a religion. It is governed by the Commerce Clause “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” is one of the Fed’s enumerated powers. And furthermore, SCOTUS has said it stands under the right of the Feds to levy a tax. There are several more suits based on different parts of the constitution still pending. Social Security is not constitutional either, but it stands because it’s called a tax. That leaves us three choices, repeal it, don’t fund it or an amendment from the states prohibiting the Feds from doing this and other things like it in the future.

          • Michael Rice

            THey are a business owend by a person, being forced to pay for a drug they find mroally reprehensible. Call them a corp or a person, they are still being forced to cover health care costs. Regardless of that being legal or not, it’s not right.
            As well, under your logic, the constitutional rights of an employee should nto existant because they are dealing with a company, nto an individual. A union member should nto be able to rely on the constutuion because he or she is being repped by an organization.
            SOrry, your logic is flawed.
            And you still missed the original point. Especially in the case of Chick-fil-a. All they did was make a statement that they believed marraige was between a man and a woman. A statement made by people, not a corp, by the way,

          • Penmar

            All businesses are owned by a person or group of people. The morality of the CEO or owner doesn’t qualify as lacking freedom of religion, he, himself is still able to practice his religion as he sees fit. As for the employees, not they are not part of the corporation they are individual employees of the corporation, thus as individuals they are entitled to their free practice of religion. Unless they are employee owned, which means conduct themselves as a corporation but still are able to practice their individual religious beliefs, they cannot however force others to practice it. None of the employees are owned by the company. The owner of chick-fil-a made a statement regarding how he, himself defines marriage, permissible because he doesn’t discriminate based on his personal beliefs nor is he claiming that gay people violate his religious freedoms nor is he forcing his employees to live by his religious beliefs. I mentioned chick-fil-a originally because of the calls for boycott of this company based on a religious belief by the left. The right said this was horrible and put teeth to their words by heading for Chick-fil-a. However, in the case of Hobby Lobby, it is not a matter of simply making a statement based on his religious beliefs, he’s claiming all his employees must also follow his religious belief in this particular matter. Union members have an elected official to communicate their desires in a business dealing, this does not violate the constitution either because they are not being forced into said negotiation, they vote their leaders into office, they vote whether or not to follow what their leaders suggest should be the next course of action. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic as it is based on the rule of law and the constitution. You can continue try and twist what I say and continue to repeat it as often as you like, doesn’t make it true. I am not a supporter of Obamacare, however, it is the law of the land at the moment.

          • SpinMeNot

            Sorry, but you are a supporter of it, you make no objections, and like the sheep you are offer justifications for the government behaving in a manner that is not authorized in the constitution. You are as worthless as the 1/3 of the population the decided not to vote.


          • Penmar

            SpinMeNot, who said I supported it, where does it say that in anything I’ve said? The law is the law until or unless the Supreme Court says it’s not or it’s unconstitutional, they have not done so. All your complaining and whining about it still won’t change the fact that as of this day, it is the law. And corporations will be obliged to follow the law or pay the tax. As for your opinion of me, I could really care less, because you are showing that you are no different than the left, accusing and calling people names whenever they don’t happen to pat you on the back for your marvelous interpretation of what you think the law should be, just because you said it should be that way. Oh, and I will rush right to my email and send poor Romney a letter of apology for giving him my worthless vote.
            Here is what Justice Robert’s said:
            Roberts then concludes that he while he considered the “penalty’ and “penalty” in determining that his court could take up Obamcare and rule on it, he will now consider the “penalty” a “tax” for purposes of allowing Congress to force people to buy health insurance.

            “The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty,” he says.

            He then further concludes that it would not be “unlawful” for Americans to disobey the law’s declaration that they “shall” buy health insurance, so long as they pay the “penalty”—or, strike that, the “tax”–for disobeying the law’s unambiguous mandate.

            “While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful,” says Roberts. “Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.

            In the end, then, for those who actually have to pay it for exercising their freedom in not buying the health insurance the government says they “shall” buy, it is neither a “penalty” nor a “tax,” but merely a required “payment to the IRS.”

            It is the law, regardless of your or mine or anyone’s “feelings” on the subject. This is also why I believe Hobby Lobby will lose their suit based on Religious Freedom.

          • SpinMeNot

            AS I SAID IN MY FIRST RESPONSE -“DSG has a right to sell, or not, whatever products they want”. DSG’s decision to pull ARs off the shelf is purely a political move and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Chik-Fil-A is a 1st Amendment issue.

            Hobby Lobby is standing up to a government overstepping the authority granted to it under the constitution. The SCOTUS decision is full of holes. Admin lawyers argued it wasn’t a tax, and yet Roberts decided it was … another political move, for what purpose I don’t know. Not to mention that the SCOTUS gave itself the power to legislate, in Marbury vs. Madison.

            You dodge the issues, and claim that under the commerce clause the government can dictate benefits and force individuals to purchase products they don’t want. Health insurance is not offered across state lines, it has nothing to do with commerce. It has everything to do with establishing a social state where the people have no rights but those the government grants them. If its such a good deal, why did Congress exempt themselves from participation?

            If you believe the commerce clause allows the government to force people to buy or pay for something they don’t want, then you are not a conservative. You have officially outed yourself as a liberal, and are hereby promoted to “useful idiot”, with all the disrespect you deserve.


          • Penmar

            You are an idiot, but you are forgiven, 1). I said the reasoning behind Dick’s decision to remove certain weapons is moot. The point I was making, since you find English so hard to understand is that, the people taking offense at Dicks for their decision and voicing a call for boycott is no different than those on the left who called for a boycott because they disagreed with what the CEO/Owner of Chick-fil-A said. 2)Roberts said it was a tax because the DOJ lawyers argued it was a tax. They said tax a number of times. Here is the link to the brief the DOJ filed calling it a tax. The commerce clause has been used by the gov’t for any number of issues because it involves commerce across state lines, which is one of the enumerated powers the FED has, Hobby Lobby does business across state lines, technically, the new Health care law does operate across state lines as quite a few states have declined to participate in the exchanges and therefore it will be up to the Federal Govt to supply those exchanges. I didn’t say the commerce clause allows the gov’t to force ppl into buying anything. I said Hobby Lobby is governed by the commerce clause as they do business across state lines, they are also bound by the Affordable Care Act because it has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a tax. That is the same way they skirted constitutionality with Social Security because it’s a tax and the Feds are allowed to tax. And as I said concerning religion, which you completely ignored, one of the rights, i.e., prohibiting the free exercise thereof regarding religion is that Hobby Lobby is claiming their right to free exercise of the owners religion is being violated by forcing him to purchase insurance that includes the morning after pill. This however is not true because he can opt to pay the tax for not purchasing insurance for his employees. His religious freedom is not being trampled. However, if he purchases insurance with certain coverages missing because of his religion, he is indeed forcing his employees to live under his religion’s edicts, ergo he is prohibiting their free exercise of their particular religions. He could argue it would place him under undue hardship and bankrupt his business by having to pay the tax, but as far as I know, he isn’t arguing that. Will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says and does. Just because you want it to be declared unconstitutional doesn’t mean it is going to happen. As for being a liberal, nothing I’ve said indicates or even hints at the charge that I am a liberal, I’m arguing points of law, not political views there is a huge difference. I have been debating since I was 16, you argue facts not feelings. Had you read post on the Hobby Lobby discussion, you would have found my post which said and I quote “I feel the need to go shopping at Hobby Lobby”. My whole point about this discussion is that some on here are not showing any particular difference between boycotting a business who made a decision they didn’t happen to agree with and when the left do the same, other than they aren’t wishing people dead or cussing them out.

          • SpinMeNot

            No, you have — said many things that out you as a liberal. Above you said DSG’s reasoning is moot, the reason for a decision is never moot. It is germaine to the reaction. DSG is free to do as it wishes, we are free to take our business elsewhere to send a message to political ideologues, namely the management of DSG.

            I saw your comment about feeling the need to go shopping at hobby lobby, and all the other statements you made, they are contradictory.

            If Hobby Lobby is governed by the Commerce Clause — why were the unions granted full exemptions, and an order of nuns told they must offer birth control to their member under their health insurance. Why are corporations that were big donors to Obama granted waivers, when Hobby Lobby can’t get a one clause exemption.”

            You are naive at best … you spend too much defending what you typed rather than addressing or answering the issues I’ve raised. Lets drop the DSG issue, as you seem to blissfully ignorant that the weapons pulled from DSG’s shelves are no different than any other autoloading hunting rifle. Have you looked at the bill Feinstein is introducing — they are going attempt to create a federal firearms registry, in spite of a large amount of previous decisions and laws that make this illegal. I have an M1911 in my gun safe that is illegal to own in California. It has a 7 round magazine.

            Dick’s is indeed covered by the commerce clause for any issues related to commerce. The providing of benefits is not interstate commerce, and therefore is not covered by the commerce clause. Next thing you know, you’ll be arguing that the commerce clause allows the government to pass a law requiring equality of wages for all employees. The commerce clause was not ever intended to include things like benefits. You are re-interpreting the Constitution and agreeing with the liberals … you are therefore a liberal.

            If DSG had pulled all guns from their stores, I’d have said, well, there goes another chain of stores committing suicide to line up with the liberal agenda. But they didn’t they pulled one specific weapon.

            You can not compare them to say Papa Johns or any of the companies that are going to have to cut hours to cover the increased costs associated to Obamacare. In other words, we are boycotting a business on moral grounds not some political outrage over the inability of our side to understand the impacts of a government takeover of health care.

            Those proposing a boycott of DSG are doing so because DSG is complicit in the effort to strip rights granted by the Constitution for political purposes, where as we were complaining about the “not fair” crowd shouting about the consequences of getting their way. It was all a farce, most of the stats heavily exaggerated, and pushed through with most of the Congress never having read it. They got the bill they wanted, they need to live with the consequences.

            You continue to prove yourself to be far more liberal than you are conservative.

          • Penmar

            I’m tired of arguing your feelings against the facts. Don’t really care what you think any longer. Am tired of rewording everything so you understand that facts are facts and feelings are feelings and that they can be at odds with one another. And not the least bit contradictory. I would love to drive a Porsche at any speed I like because it’s fun, but the law says I have to obey the speed limit so I won’t drive faster than what is posted. The first part of that statement is how I feel, second part is called common sense and reasoning based on fact. Don’t care why Dicks pulled whatever weapons they wanted from their stores, don’t shop there, never have never will, don’t really care who decides to not shop there in the future. But all I ever hear is how hypocritical it is for the left to say this or that when they do the same thing. So if you don’t want to be lumped in with the left, stop acting like them. I read two posts on here that had to do with how Dicks does business, those are excellent reasons for not doing business with the company. But to say you aren’t going to do business with them because they chose political reasons instead of moral ones isn’t any different than what the left did to Papa Johns and Chick-fil-a. So don’t be telling me I’m the liberal here. Your actions and words put you equally in line with all the other liberals out there saying they will boycott based on something with which they disagree. Which you are fully entitled to do, just don’t get on your high horse and act like it’s so much better and upstanding when you do it. Your boycott is based on moral issues, well so were the left’s when they tried to boycott Chick-fil-a and Papa Johns, just the left and right have different ideas on what constitutes morals.

          • SpinMeNot

            More circular logic. The states set the speed limits on highways — the NMSL (National Maximium Speed Law) was repealed by Congress in 1995. At least try to get your facts straight before using them to argue your indefensible statements.

            You are missing the point — the left is protesting the fallout of the law(s) they wanted — there is your hypocrisy. We are protesting the political decisions of DSG.

            Keep humping that coconut, your handlers will be by to give you a treat.

          • Penmar

            Doesn’t matter who sets the speed limit, I still will go to jail, loose my license or pay a fine for speeding. You are the one missing the point. Regardless of what you say, the Supreme Court has partially ruled on the Affordable Care Act, it is a tax, Feds can tax you and Justice Roberts has already stated in his decision that it can stand because as a tax because it does not create a legal punishment other than one must pay the tax. It does not force you into buying anything because you have the option of paying the tax. Which is why I said Hobby Lobby won’t win on a Religious Freedom defense, because they have the option to pay the tax. You might want to try to stop beating yourself in the head with that coconut because I’ve never met or heard any one so obtuse before in my life.
            Definition of Stupid:
            Knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still believing your own lies. You qualify.
            And I believe it’s the right protesting Dicks decision, not the left, go hump your own coconut.

          • SpinMeNot

            You can’t read, can you — let me quote myself:

            You are missing the point — the left is protesting the fallout of
            the law(s) they wanted — there is your hypocrisy. We (the right and free thinking independents) are protesting the political decisions of DSG. -* parenthetical annotation added to clear it up for the individuals with no reading comprehension -*

            Now let me quote you: @Penmar: “And I believe it’s the right protesting Dicks decision, not the left, go hump your own coconut.” You really don’t know what the hell you are saying at this point. Keep responding, you are only proving my point.

            Defendent Attorneys in oral arguments: “its not a tax”
            Chief Justice Roberts: “it is a tax.”

            Roberts was clearly overstepping judicial boundaries. A judge can not decide what the attorney means, that is called assumption not fact. Roberts ruled contrary to the facts presented by the defendants, agreed with the plaintiff and still found in favor of the defendant. I hope you are so supporting when they pass a law to equalize salaries and then another to prevent a company from laying off employees. Mark my words, its coming.

            But I am not surprised you are an ardent defender of Roberts, you are two peas in a pod.

            Oh, and yes, if you take the “annoying insensitive” definition of obtuse, then yes, I am obtuse.

            The UCMJ clearly states that a soldier must follow all orders that are legal, implying that a soldier need not obey any illegal orders (UCMJ 809.ART.90 (20). I will not follow an illegal law. Go be sensitive, join the ranks of sheep that believe equality of
            outcome, ignoring the Constitution and hiding behind the mantra “but its the law”, and suspension of constitutional rights is only fair.

            You are not a true conservative, you may be a Republican, but you are not a conservative. You are a useful idiot willing to roll over and lose your rights to a corrupt government.

            Oh, and try to come up with some original insults pls, you reusing mine is rather pathetic. Your handlers won’t like it. I’ve raised three sons, you need to try harder.

          • SpinMeNot

            Oh, sorry missed a point — the story of the Obama administration with regard to “its a tax” and “its a penalty” shifted constantly. During Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court, they said it was not a tax, but Roberts ruled based on his opinion that it was a tax and therefore legal.

            Taxes are levied against economic activity, not lack thereof. Therefore they can now tax us for anything we don’t do that they don’t like. Do you get significance of this?

          • Penmar

            You are wrong, the DOJ argued it was covered under Congresses power to tax. Read the freakin’ briefs, I did.
            Here is part of what they argued:

            The DOJ’s brief delineates the administration’s main legal arguments:

            The minimum coverage provision of the ACA falls “well within”
            Congress’ commerce power. In making this argument, the DOJ contends that Congress has broad power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact economic regulation. Further, the DOJ contends that the minimum coverage provision is an integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation, and the provision itself regulates the economic conduct with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

            The minimum coverage provision is independently authorized by
            Congress’ taxing power. The DOJ argues that the provision operates as a tax law, and the validity of an assessment under Congress’ taxing power does not depend on whether it is denominated a tax.

            Missing the Point, what point? You said ” the left is protesting the fallout of the law(s) they wanted — there is your hypocrisy.”
            You haven’t made a point all you said they are complaining about a ‘law’. What law they are whining about you didn’t say, just that they are whining which they do all the time. And then calling me a hypocrite, delusional much?

            You justify that it is all right for you to protest Dicks decision because your reasons for doing so are so much better than a lefty reasoning for doing so, you are the hypocrite.

            And what does the Military’s Code of Justice have to do with protesting Dicks? Is that your lefty squirrel training coming out?

            The title of this Twitchy piece is “Dick’s Sporting Goods refusing to honor rifle orders placed pre-Newtown” Who is protesting this decision the left or the right? And you insist I am the one who doesn’t know what I’m talking about? You need to go back to your loony bin. I didn’t realize how bad our mental health care system was until you started talking, I might be up for paying a little extra if they give people like you the help they need in dealing with their psychosis .

            Happy New Year.

          • SpinMeNot

            I did read the transcripts as well. The ones on Scribd — the official transcripts. We aren’t talking about the DoJ brief here, we are talking about the oral arguments.


            The Monday session dealt with whether the states and others could bring lawsuits to bear before the penalty/tax went into effect. Arguments for were made my Robert Long, based on the Anti-Injuction act (pay now, litegate later over taxes). The bench did not appear to be sympathetic with regard to the mandate, and Justice Breyer in particular was clear that the bill/law did not use the word tax, rather a penalty collected as a tax.

            Day 2 — was about the constitutionality of the law; and the License Tax was held up as an example of something that was not a tax, but could be collected as a tax. Verrilli argued that entire day that there are numerous examples of fees that are collected via the IRS, and have been previously ruled as constitutional under the taxation power of Congress. Scalia cornered Verrilli at one point over the words of the POTUS (It is not a tax) and even Ginsburg jumped on that bandwagon. Kagan even pointed out Congress went out of their way to avoid the use of the word tax in the bill/law.

            Day 3, morning — discussion of severability; the words tax, and tax penalty were used extensively by the bench, and in the end, Kneeler, arguing for the DoJ also used the phrase “a tax” after being prompted by Chief Justice Roberts.

            Ok, so let me be more clear — the left is complaining about the fallout of the Affordable Care Act, that is employers can’t afford the plans, so they either cut hours to below 28, a provision of the law or pass the costs on to the employee, or simply pay the “tax” which is less than the employer share of benefits. The left complained about Papa Johns, Applebee’s and others cutting hours. They wanted the law, and they complain about the results. Not being specific has nothing to do with hypocrisy and your attempt to manipulate this conversation. Again, I failed to be specific enough, the my statement of their is your hypocrisy,

            should have read “their is the hypocrisy you seem to be looking for so adamantly”.

            The UCMJ is an example of a code of conduct that requires an individual to disobey an order (or law) that is immoral or illegal. Just as attempting to make people purchase a specific product under penalty of law, or taking away our 2nd Amendment rights, or scoring political points by removing one particular firearm from the shelves, rather than all firearms, well as you say “delusional much?”

            And kudos, your last paragraph was at least original. If you believe the right boycotting DSG is on the same level as the left boycotting Papa Johns, Applebee’s, or other establishments that are meeting their fiduciary responsibility to stock holders, then “Hello Pot, I’m Kettle”. If you think standing up for what is right is less important then following the law, then you are not a true conservative. You may be a Republican, but you are not a true conservative.

          • Penmar

            Well, let me be clearer, you are still Wrong, wrong, wrong….first many thanks for the links which go to corroborate my point….I suggest you go back and reread pages 16-17-18-19-20, etc., of the first link since you are having reading comprehension issues. (Here I will interject, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a duck…i.e. it’s a tax). The second link was concerning whether or not the commerce clause was applicable. The last link deals with severability of the mandate from the rest of the bill and tax credits.

            Secondly, UCMJ is still a Squirrel and has no bearing on the conversation, UCMJ is not applicable for ordinary citizens, it applies to Military Members.

            And neither you nor I nor anyone else is obligated to purchase insurance, you can simply elect to pay the tax. You will not be detained, reprimanded or thrown in prison for not purchasing insurance. And really, from my understanding the most the IRS can do if you decide not to pay the tax is to hold your refund if you are so fortunate as to receive one. (Though I wouldn’t absolutely swear to that last bit, because I am quite sure the gov’t will find a way to get the money they want from whomever they want it from).

            Thirdly, I did not ever mention Applebee, Papa John or any other business pertaining to cutting hours, again Squirrel. I specifically mentioned Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a because the outrage against them was due to a disagreement in values. I also mentioned Hobby Lobby in regards to their suit before the Supreme Court, also my opinion was they would not win because they base it on Religious Liberty and because they were already denied an injunction, however, Papa John’s did win an injunction from a lower Federal Judge today, so I revise my opinion to have no idea which way it will go. Traditionally, SCOTUS has ruled in favor of clergymen or churches or religious organizations, but since Hobby Lobby is none of the above, have no clue if they will follow earlier cases.

            Hypocrisy:carry fire in one hand and water in the other (In other words, to show outrage over Dicks while condemning those who show outrage over Chick-fil-A.)To be duplicitous, to engage in double-dealing; to be two-faced, to speak with forked tongue. The expression comes from Plautus; it continues “to bear a stone in one hand, a piece of bread in the other.” Thus, the expression indicates that a person is prepared to act in totally contradictory ways to achieve his purposes.’

            Your statement ” If you think standing up for what is right is less important then following the law, then you are not a true conservative. You may be a Republican, but you are not a true conservative.” This is your opinion, which I believe I’ve said, makes me no nevermind one way or another. You argue your opinion of me because you have nothing else with which to argue and your opinion is biased by the fact that I’m not fawning over every word you print, because I’m challenging your perception of the truth. Again, because it is based on opinion rather than facts. Right and wrong is also based on opinion in quite a few cases. You like to argue opinion against facts, that’s fine, go right ahead, but you are still wrong.

          • Michael Rice

            You are badly missing the point.

    • wwbdinct

      Really? You agree with most of us most the time? Not really.

      • AaronHarrisinAlaska

        As hard as it may be to believe there are those of us who don’t agree with every little thing said by mind sets such as yours. We still remain conservative, regardless of your opinion.

        • wwbdinct

          a) my comment wasn’t directed at you and you haven’t a clue as to why I posted that; b) My belief is that Dick’s has right to do whatever they see fit to conduct their business as they see proper. You shouldn’t rush to judgement on other people’s opinions.

          • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

            Oh noes, someone replied to your reply to someone else on the interwebs…
            Hang on, let me call the WAHmbulance.

          • AaronHarrisinAlaska

            A) you made a comment on an open discussion, it is therefore open to scrutinisation and comment to any one who reads it. Don’t assume you’re immune to reproach simply because you wernt addressing the commentor.
            B) you made a vague statement about agreements and nothing about what Dicks can or can’t do with their business. With out concrete statements specifically detailing your meaning it should come as no surprise when folks assume you’re just being a snide ass hole, shamefully (or perhaps shamelessly) your choice of wording in your follow up statement has already removed all doubt.
            C) Letter lists are fun.

          • wwbdinct

            I made a comment on an open forum, yes – but it still wasn’t directed to you and you still have no idea what it was about but you still jump to conclusions that you are totally wrong about.

            I didn’t make a “vague” statement. I stated that I agree that Dick’s has a right to conduct their business in the manner that they see fit. They should refund any orders that were placed in advance and it seems that is what they are doing. What is so vague about that? You sound like an attorney. I’m not. So forgive me for not pointing out the fine, legal details of why I come to the conclusions that I do. Obviously, I may not have had the education that you have but silly me, I thought it was the left who were the elitists. Guess I was wrong. You seem hell bent on giving me a hard time for some reason. Assume what you will. I am a woman with strong, conservative values. Given what happened this past election, you might be happy to know that not all woman believe there is a war being waged upon them.
            BTW – no letter lists on this post. Happy?

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      Despite popular thought business does retain the right to refuse to do service with any one they choose, this includes contracts and suppliers. If it is right for a company such as hobby lobby to refuse to follow a law based on moral grounds why is it wrong for Dicks to refuse past and future sales of fire arms based on morality in the wake of a tragedy? Your absolutely right, Dicks, as a private business, has the right to conduct their business as they see fit. I read that very statement on this site quite often. Yet, oddly, it only seems to apply when the posters agree. As pointed out though, Dicks may be liable for breach of contract.

      • NRPax

        They are free to conduct their business as they see fit. However, they agreed to fulfill orders by customers and they had a contract with a company for being the exclusive distributor of their product. That’s where the problem is.

        • AaronHarrisinAlaska

          Yes, I did point that out at the end of my previous post. They face suit over breach of contract. Compounding this is the possibility that once they settle they will likely receive little to no new contracts because of this. Bad business dessisions have far reaching consequences

    • Gary

      If they have a moral issue with gun sales, why wait until a tragedy to show people where your moral compass points?

      • TugboatPhil

        Their Moral Compass is not magnetic, it’s wind powered.

        • Infinite_Indeterminism


      • SpinMeNot

        They don’t have a moral issue with guns, they are trying to score political points. If they had a moral issue with guns, they would all been pulled from the shelves.

        Stack is a neocon, that is to say a Moderate Democrat. Regardless of his claims.

    • lainer51

      then why is Hobby Lobby getting kicked in the teeth by SCOTUS?

      • SpinMeNot

        I’ll take “Because they are company that espouses Christian beliefs” for $500 please Alex …

    • TocksNedlog

      Moral opposition? More like a commercial miscalculation.

    • justlittlolme

      >>They shouldn’t fill orders they’re morally opposed to filling.

      Two huge differences in your comparison:
      1) While people morally object to abortion, the controversy comes in when someone is forced to pay for another person’s abortion. NO ONE was being forced to pay for someone else’s firearm
      2) Morality is a set of intrinsic standards, and since Dick’s Sporting Goods was not ‘morally opposed’ to taking money for firearms until after the shooting, it really isn’t a MORAL stance, but an opportunistic one.
      I understand your point. They have a right to sell (or not) whatever they wish just like WE have the right to buy (or not) from them, but them trying to justify their new policy by using the murder of innocent children as an excuse is insulting and degrading to every law-abiding American.

    • redheadgrl

      Agreed, but breach of contract is not a good business decision.

    • Michael Rice

      Please, this is not a moral thing with them. It is peer public relations. If it was a moral issue they would have stopped long ago or never started.

  • Annie Willoughby

    My whole gun-loving, hunting,Second Ammendment supporting family will never spend another dime there. They should look into Tupperware sales because I’m sure we’re not alone.

  • People Corporation

    So are they still selling the kinds of weapons that were actually used in that shooting?

  • MattiMuck

    They are refunding any pay-in-advance orders and giving $50 gift cards…which should promptly be discarded.

    • Tom Bannigan

      Sell the $50 gift cards to O’s people.

      • $36544368

        Or use them to scrape the bottom of the cat litter box.

  • pkill

    Dicks- run by Dick’s son Ed Stack…another sick, evil, billionaire trying to hurt America. Bloomberg, Osama Bin Laden, George Sorros… how many more are there?

    • DaMav

      The elites are trying to disarm the middle class.

      • Tom Bannigan

        We saw this coming when they wanted to outlaw dueling so they could bring in the political correctness bullshit.

  • LoneRangler

    This guy is in the wrong business. Try sympathy cards.

  • aegean1

    They can be stupid and not supply what the customer wants, but refusing to send out an item a customer already paid for? I don’t care if they issued refunds, that’s bullshit. They were for selling rifles before they were against them. Does John Kerry own this company?

  • KansasGirl

    If you live near a Cabela’s…shop there.
    They know how to treat customers…plus they beat their competitors prices.

  • Garth Haycock

    Well then, Dick’s get scratched off my list of businesses that will get my money. It’s about 30 miles farther from my house, but I’m going to Cabela’s from now on.

  • orringtonmom (D)

    what an appropriate name…

    • lainer51

      that is what I have ALWAYS thought.. There is one 2 miles from my house, eat very often at a restaurant next door to it, but NEVER shop there… WAY too expensive!!

  • Trudy Hill

    They have a Facebook page….

  • EqualForce

    With 300 million firearms in private hands (one-third of them pistols), the overwhelming majority of gun owners ARE responsible, law-abiding citizens, which is why these horrific massacres are not commonplace, but rather horrific outliers that can never be legislated away (e.g. DC, Chicago, and “Gun Free Zones”).

    For several examples for the recent use of firearms for defensive purposes not typically reported by the national media please visit: please forward this address to others to whom this information may be useful. @forceequalizer

  • Old_Conservative

    Dick’s will never, ever see another dime of my sporting dollars! Good riddance to bad rubbish!

  • Moue La Moue (D)

    So happy that I am a Cabela’s, Gander Mountain and Bass Pro Shops girl myself. Dick’s won’t ever see a dime of my money ever again.

  • DavidKramer

    Sue them for breach of contract as well.

  • ML

    Ah, everyone knows Dick’s has always been junk. Gander Mountain is so much better. Went to get an extra high-capacity magazine yesterday!

  • Guest

    The aptly named sporting goods company.

  • Lebowski

    Boycott Dick’s…please, they need to feel this.

  • SPCAndyJ

    This is what you could do to celebrate. (Do your own due diligence before attempting it however as this is not financial advice)

    Dick’s Sporting Goods – Symbol DKS

    1) Get yourself a stock trading account, put $200 in it,

    2) Go to the place where you trade options –

    3) Buy one $45 put option ( 1 DKS February 16 2013 45 PUT) contract

    4) Watch the stock price plummet below $43.05.

    5) Wait until it gets around $40 before February 16th 2013

    6) Sell the option

    7) Take the profit and put it towards a rifle at a store that actually values American freedom.

    There are many more examples just like this – enjoy!

    • SpinMeNot


      And the liberals say the free market doesn’t work …

      • Billy G.

        This is NOT about political parties, it is about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! USA needs to have better mental health care. Also, make it mandatory to put trigger locks on guns, who have the mentally challenged living at their homes. Why are they not dragging this kindergarten teacher through the coals who was extremely irresponsible?

        • SpinMeNot

          I disagree with your assertion that this not about political parties. It absolutely is driven by political issues that break down on party lines. On the right you have people that understand the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments along with USC 310 and FOPA. On the left you have people that through either willful ignorance or nefarious designs, are out to destroy the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

          As for your last assertion … They aren’t concerned with the mother, because it is the guns they want to take away. They don’t want to create responsible citizens, they want a dependent and unarmed population. Who gets to determine what constitutes mental disabilities? You are aware the academic left has published several papers recently claiming that conservatives are conservative due to faulty (compared to some mythical ideal structure of the human brain) wiring? Are you aware that it was the left that legislated away the ability of a state to institutionalize individuals that present a threat to themselves or others, or are otherwise incapable of integrating into society?

          Are you going to advocate the removal of all sharp objects? Large blunt objects? Where does it end?

  • Anonymous

    Well, I won’t be going there again.

  • JustLikeAnimals

    Hmph. Stupid move, Dick! I probably drop $1500-$2000 a year in DSG. Guess I’ll have to find another outfitter to give my business to. But, hey. Maybe all the Marxist-socialist, goosestepping brown shirts in the anti-gun crowd will start patronizing DSG now. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

  • djshawman

    Probably wouldn’t buy anything else from them anyway. Last year, we bought a shirt online from them for my son, a New ORLEANS Saints fan. My son opened the shirt on Christmas morning asking “Who are the New ENGLAND Saints”?

  • Dane Gunderson

    What dicks!

  • Kristin H

    Dick’s will never see another cent from me.

  • Whirlwinder

    Never did buy guns at Dicks-too flaky a place

  • Lamontyoubigdummy

    It’s called “Dick’s”. Is this really a surprise? Long live Bass Pro!!!

  • Lipstick

    So they won’t sell me a rifle when I am a law abiding gun owner, but I bet they are all over supporting me killing my unborn child that is just to dang inconvenient to me and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

  • An American Veteran

    Just contacted their Corporate Office, same old line. lets start the boycott, support your local small business sporting goods or gun shop

  • Brian Mouland

    What a bunch of D……!

  • AZWarrior

    Dick’s (perfect name by the way) can do as they please – it is still a semi-free country for now. We also can shop anywhere we want. Dick can forget my money as someone making marketing propaganda from the deaths of little children should go out of business. Sorry Dick, to coin a phrase, it’s not business, it’s personal.

  • Jeffrey Stuart

    You want to stop selling something, that’s perfectly fine. But live up to your agreements made prior to that decision.

    Don’t be a dick.

  • Bob Smooper

    Dick, we at twitchy and The Blaze salute you sir! You have our support! I think I speak for 95% of the readers on these websites! You will have repeat custom from us!

    • $36544368

      LOL…you think you speak for 95% of the readers on ‘these’ (including Twitchy) websites? Where do you get your figures? Dick’s made a knee-jerk reaction, most likely because someone threatened to boycott them and they freaked…and yes, I’m only guessing, but since people are threatening the NRA and members thereof, it seems logical that anyone who sells guns/ammo, etc., would be open to threats…did you read Cher’s plea to boycott “Wall-Mart” (sic) because they sell guns and ammo?

  • Grandma HeadInjury

    I used to go into Dicks to look at guns and knives and then go somewhere to pay an actual reasonable price for the same products. They’ve always been overpriced @$$holes, but I’ll gladly tell them that I am not buying there anymore for this reason. Idiots!

  • BeeKaaay

    “Troy’s CEO says the company invested millions of dollars into its
    operations after selecting Dick’s as the sole distributor of this
    particular rifle.”

    That’s what you get for trusting leftwingwackos. YOU GET HURT.

  • SPM_BC

    When a sporting goods store cowers to the PC crowd, that’s the day I’ll never set foot in it again. The Biden’s, Feinstein’s, Bloomberg’s, and the rest of the anti 2nd Amendment crowd can have the place all to themselves. Happy bankruptcy!

  • $36544368

    Wanna bet Cher will be over at her nearest Dick’s Sporting Goods location to give them a check for $10,000? I’m sure the letter attached will be touching as well.

  • tredglx

    After hearing of of the dicks at Dick’s pulling this move, I canceled almost a thousand dollar order of hunting gear and firearms accessories, in person, at their store near me.
    When asked why by the store manager, I told him bluntly (and in front of about 20 in line) that I didn’t do business with companies that try to curtail my Second-Amendment rights by cowardly actions such as theirs, and I would be speaking with family and friends to make sure they all canceled their orders as well, and shunned their stores in the future for more America-friendly options.

    At least two people behind me put their items on the floor (one was a nice, quite expensive climbing stand) and left behind me.

    • BeeKaaay

      Now THAT is how a boycott is to be done.

      Many people boycott without telling them (and others) why. Must tell both.

    • AndreaKlett


  • 12jc

    All you guys who want to boycot Dicks, all I can say is what took you so long.

    Here’s my story. Take the time to read it as it gives a pretty good impression of the lack of integrity of this company. Actually the name of the company is really quite fitting.

    Several years ago I went to Dick’s for the after Thanksgiving day sale (Black Friday) There was an ad with a coupon for 50% off on ammunition. I went to the store and purchased four boxes of 380’s. Upon getting home I looked at the receipt and saw that they only gave me 50% off on two boxes of ammunition and I had purchased four boxes. No discount on the other two? Hmmm. Two days later I went back to the store to tell the cashier she made a mistake. She called the manager and while we were waiting for the manager to arrive the person behind me in line told me that I would have been better off buying the amo before the sale or even after the ‘Black Friday’ sale as he had found that Dick’s raised the price of the ammunition during the Black Friday sale, he also went on Friday to buy some, and it was actually more expensive then if purchased any of the other 364 days of the year without the 50% off sale. Talk about a deceptive ad. After talking to the manager I came to find out that the ‘fine print’, which I neglected to read on the coupon said 50% off the second box.I had thought it was 50% off each box. I was wrong. I took the package to the car and went back in the store to check the ammunition price, I was pissed and wanted to verify the the customer behind me in line was right and I found that they in fact did raise the price of the ammunition for the Black Friday sale as it was now actually less per two boxes then even with the 50% off Black Friday second box sale. You get this? They put something on 50% off sale but at the same time raise the price so you actually end up paying more. I then raised hell with the manager. Of course she couldn’t take the ammunition back and give a refund but she ended up giving me the difference between the “SALE PRICE” on Black Friday and what I could have purchased the ammunition for any other day of the year including that Saturday. We’re not talking a lot of money here as it was, as I recall, only a few bucks. But it was the principal to me.
    I’ve never set foot in the store since and now it’s nice to see others are finally catching on. I wouldn’t think these are the kind of people you would want to deal with. I know I certainly won’t. Ever, ever again.

  • Dywlf

    Lets put the dick out of business.

  • John Leon

    These damn fools. Bankruptcy within 3 years. I was a loyal customer. I would purchase exercise equipment and ammo regularly. not one more penny. As others have stated, “Better options elsewhere.”

  • unclezip

    There are four(!) Dick’s within an hour of me; they are all off my X-mas list. It’s too bad their very good employees will be the ones paying for this liberal knee jerk crap. Boycott is on!

  • Rick Bowser

    There’s always DUNHAM’S, CABELA’S and OUTDOOR WORLD.

  • Lawrence Malcolm

    Screw them. I will NEVER haul another cheap-ass truckload for DSG again…sorry SOB’s….

  • garydon1

    Because of Newtown? Bad guy didn’t use a rifle- he left it in the car. He used 4 handguns. The police dept announced early on that the rifle was in the car, then the M.I. claimed the killings were done with a rifle. Made him look silly.

  • Dick Beninya

    Eat a Dick’s!