What gives Walmart the right to set the age to buy a gun?

You're a basic socialist....there is absolutely NOTHING liberal about you or your brand of politics.



LOL no you don't.

Seriously...I know this is over your head...but it was a rope to see who hung themself. Thanks for the laugh
 
I have not gone anywhere. I asked - What gives Walmart the right to set the age to buy a gun?

The law sets that age and Walmart does not have the right to supercede the law. They can chose not to sell guns at all. Or sell the to people who meet the qualifications. What they cannot do is choose their customer.

Same way you cannot sell wedding cakes and choose to only sell wedding cakes to people whose marriage you deem appropriate and refuse to sell them to others whose marriage you do not like, but is legal.
they don't. they have chosen not to sell to people below a certain age, not saying people of a certain age cannot buy the product elsewhere - and it would seem they are quite legally able to do that. It was a huge culture shock for me to even SEE guns on sale in a Walmart store. A company like Walmart would NEVER take those steps unless they knew the majority of their customers would support that decision - if it hurt their business, they'd never do it. imho.

Seems they can, and more companies are doing the same thing. Every store 'chooses' their customer. It's a basic part of how you market your stuff - who is targeted as a customer. Like a clothing company that used to carry plus-sized apparel but chooses to discontinue that and appeal to young, trendier buyers with a n entirely different range... it's not illegal, and a decision based on marketing more than anything else. If it's more profitable to sell to the younger money, or the vendor simply thinks that's what they want to do to make their shop more how they'd personally like it to be, they can. They aren't taking away the right to buy larger-sized clothing; the customers can simply go to outlets selling those.

Now Kroger has joined the bandwagon. The times they are a-changing.
ain't that the ever-present truth :)
 
See the above. The 4473 requires that you state that YOU are the actual buyer and that you aren't purchasing the firearm for another person. See Box 9a in the following"
How come you linked to a 20 year old copy of the form rather than the latest version, 2016?
The 2016 form makes it clear it's to prevent straw purchases by you stating you're not buying it on the behalf of someone else. Which doesn't mean you can't buy one as a gift.
In fact, the form explicitly states you can buy it as a gift.
 
You don't know shit.

But you know shit? Well...that's true...I will give you 100% nods to that. Glad to see you know what you know and how proud you are of knowing it. We do need shit knowers in society.
 
I'm certain you guys have another RELIC of an amendment that's let them do as they wish, said tongue in cheek.

Good on them (Walmart) for listening the majority, there is no need for anyone outside the military to owner use an assault rifle.... And 21 is a good age, for a minimum. Why your drinking age is 21 and you guys think that booze is more dangerous than a gun......REALLY ❗

It's more of a loud vocal minority than a majority who are busy pursuing not much more than their daily lives.
 
I posted a link about the two-faced stance of Dick's. All they are doing is virtue-signalling to the soccer moms who go there to buy cups for their transgendered girls.
 
Now Kroger has joined the bandwagon. The times they are a-changing.

True. Actually, they've been ahead of the game long before any of us realized this, only they didn't realize it until they found a way to profit from it in a more "acceptable" way while being low key about it.

I keep kicking myself in the head wondering wtf went wrong here. But I'm over it.
 
But you know shit? Well...that's true...I will give you 100% nods to that. Glad to see you know what you know and how proud you are of knowing it. We do need shit knowers in society.


Hell yea....lots of shit.

:cool:
 
I posted a link about the two-faced stance of Dick's. All they are doing is virtue-signalling to the soccer moms who go there to buy cups for their transgendered girls.

I hope we don’t have to down a shot every time you say “virtue-signaling” this year. Also, it’s a pretty stupid/lame term.
 
they don't. they have chosen not to sell to people below a certain age, not saying people of a certain age cannot buy the product elsewhere - and it would seem they are quite legally able to do that. It was a huge culture shock for me to even SEE guns on sale in a Walmart store. A company like Walmart would NEVER take those steps unless they knew the majority of their customers would support that decision - if it hurt their business, they'd never do it. imho.

Seems they can, and more companies are doing the same thing. Every store 'chooses' their customer. It's a basic part of how you market your stuff - who is targeted as a customer. Like a clothing company that used to carry plus-sized apparel but chooses to discontinue that and appeal to young, trendier buyers with a n entirely different range... it's not illegal, and a decision based on marketing more than anything else. If it's more profitable to sell to the younger money, or the vendor simply thinks that's what they want to do to make their shop more how they'd personally like it to be, they can. They aren't taking away the right to buy larger-sized clothing; the customers can simply go to outlets selling those.

ain't that the ever-present truth :)


It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple getting married even though you'll sell the same cake to a straight couple. Sell them or don't - you cannot not choose your customer.
 
I hope we don’t have to down a shot every time you say “virtue-signaling” this year. Also, it’s a pretty stupid/lame term.

It does not, to decry the label, negate the behavior, especially in the age of social media, bots, and SJWs who seem to have nothing to do other than to berate those whom will not follow their dictates in such a nasty fashion that companies will give in to them just so that they can get back to doing their business.
 
I'm certain you guys have another RELIC of an amendment that's let them do as they wish, said tongue in cheek.

Good on them (Walmart) for listening the majority, there is no need for anyone outside the military to owner use an assault rifle.... And 21 is a good age, for a minimum. Why your drinking age is 21 and you guys think that booze is more dangerous than a gun......REALLY ❗

My point is it is not up to some retailer to make public policy.
 
We will control all the farms...

Well, at least you admit to TRYING to relive the days of the Russian revolution, when Stalin 'collectivized' the farms and starved the very farmers whose crops they had taken. That's why we are keeping our guns, and would have no problem in using them to stop your Stalinist desires.
 
It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple getting married even though you'll sell the same cake to a straight couple. Sell them or don't - you cannot not choose your customer.

Even though they are welcome to purchase anything else in your shop, but instead decided to shop around to find a Christian baker who balked over freedom of religion, in order to teach everyone from Dick's to Walmart a lesson, we will come for you and we will make it expensive to you one way or another. That same fucking couple knew they could get their cake anywhere, but they decided to weaponize their marriage in the name of the cause, which serves to give the next person pause. Perfect proof of why these companies are jumping up to virtue-signal.
 
Then please, contact your local ACLU office and ask them about your rights and if they're willing to sue Walmart to protect them.

If you're interested in protecting your rights and the rights of Americans in general, the ACLU is the very LAST place you want to look! <geeesh>
 
"a nonprofit organization[6][7] whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Yes, I can see where you might be against it.

As only CERTAIN people should have these rights. :rolleyes:
 
"a nonprofit organization[6][7] whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Yes, I can see where you might be against it.

As only CERTAIN people should have these rights. :rolleyes:

The actual actions of the ACLU are ANYTHING but Constitutional and they have NEVER supported the rights of Americans. They are nothing but a front group for the destruction of America and the Constitution. To the contrary of what they say....
 
Back
Top