Gun NewsTrending Commentary

The Selective Hypocrisy of Dick’s Sporting Goods

DicksWe are all by now familiar with the tragedy that occurred on December 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. CDN readers & contributors have provided several excellent articles and analyses of what happened.

Kevin Fobbs provided an analysis what happened and why Connecticut laws failed to keep a gun out of the hands of Adam Lanza. Fobbs offers another article about what could have prevented Lanza’s attack. Fobbs says, “What if there had been a ‘Three Strike Rule’ in place for Adam Lanza, which allowed automatic involuntary commitment by mental health authorities?” He then offers what is (to me) obvious to us Second Amendment supporters and should be obvious to gun-control advocates: “This disturbed gunman may have used guns as weapons to kill, but it was his mental illness that was the true deadly assault weapon!” Well said, Kevin, well said.

An article by Kyle Becker places (intentional) “Firearm Homicide” in perspective with other perfectly legal activities. The chart Kyle offers has this at the bottom: “WHY is there No outcry to RESTRICT baseball bat ownership?” That statement brings me to the point of my article.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has over 500 locations in 44 states. Dick’s Sporting Goods has decided to stop the sale of some semi-automatic rifles from its stores nationwide and remove all guns previously sold in the stores nearest Newtown, CT. The move came in response to authorities’ attempt to determine whether gunman Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a gun from Dick’s in Danbury, CT, just 12 miles from Newtown, CT.

That’s well and good. Dick’s is free (for now) to pull any merchandise it chooses. But, at the same time I did not hear about Dick’s pulling baseball bats or golf clubs or archery sets. Or did I simply miss that announcement? Selective hypocrisy from Dick’s? If Dick’s is going to stop sales of semi-automatic rifles, can we expect Dick’s to be consistent and pull all sporting goods merchandise that can be used as a weapon as well?

Speaking specifically about baseball bats, I am reminded of the scene in The Untouchables movie where Al Capone (played by Robert De Niro) beat one of his subordinates to death with a (wait for it…) baseball bat. While I’m sure that the beating in the scene was not real (I hope not), it graphically illustrates what can be accomplished when a baseball bat is used as a weapon. I am certain that (at least some of the) Dick’s executives saw that movie and scene. The person being beaten was just as dead as if he had been shot. So, Dick’s, are baseball bats going to be pulled next?

And that sentiment goes for medical doctors as well. Most of us are born with two hands and two feet. When we reach puberty, or 14 or so years old, we can use our hands as weapons to strangle people, and our feet as weapons to kick people to death. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. The human brain is the ultimate weapon. Where does the reductio ad absurdum of gun control (or any weapon control) ever stop? Is Dick’s going to try to pull brains off the shelves as well?

But that’s just my opinion.

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Related Articles


  1. I love The Untouchables. It was the first R rated movie my parents let me see. Deaths by bat:1. Deaths by gun:upwards of 20.

  2. OK. By that Logic. A golf club I can play golf with as well, a baseball bat I can hit a ball and play the nations past time. What other use does a gun have again besides firing a bullet and killing the object you fire at. Yeah Dick’s course of action was the correct one.

      1. I have heard of target shooting. Its for practice so when you do have to kill your aim is not off. But last time I checked you don’t shoot skeet with a semi or fully automatic as that kind of takes away the skill part. I’m not asking for a ban on guns. I get that people hunt, and people like to target practice. What I want is a ban on all semi and automatic weapons, there is no use in civilized society for that kind of weapon. Second if you buy a gun you must register it (annually). You and I have to register our car with the state, why is there such a big deal about registering your gun and having a background check. No more gun show purchases without a background check.

        1. Steve, you say, “What I want is a ban on all semi and automatic weapons, there is no use in civilized society for that kind of weapon.” Please tell us who died and left you in charge of determining what weapons have no use. Can we say that here is no use in civilized society for YOU as a reason to get rid of you? The slope is quite slippery here, so be very careful what you say or wish for. Others may not agree with your assessments and come after you.
          You continue, “Second if you buy a gun you must register it (annually). You and I have to register our car with the state, why is there such a big deal about registering your gun …” About annual car registration, you are incorrect. We pay an annual tax for a license plate (and/or sticker), but we register our car only once.

          1. Warren:
            Car registration depends on the state. NY my last state of residence is every 2yrs, no stickers on licence. Each state has there own process.
            Who left me in charge, no one. I am exercising my right to opinion and to freely express it, just as you are yourself. I am under no pre-tenses that my opinion will radically change your mind. How ever that is the essence of debate. Two sides in disagreement stating there points. Hopefully those two sides can come to a compromise every one can live with. We recently in this country have forgotten the great art of debate and have fallen into the trap of a divisive all or nothing approach. (or we just troll each other). Convince me that Automatic weapons are useful in society, give me a reason we need them that’s logical and well thought out and not some silly tit for tat answer Because there are many many more like me who think and feel this way and we are angry and we are making waves with our congressmen and senators. Truth be told Politicians(Dems and Gop’s) will change law based on there chances of being elected.

        2. You’re lucky I wasn’t with you in person. I’d just shoot you and be done with it. That goes for any government hack reading this too.

          What part of “shall not be infringed” do you idiots not understand?

          in·fringe verb \in-ˈfrinj\
          transitive verb
          1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

          1. 1mur·der
            noun \ˈmər-dər\
            Definition of MURDER
            : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

            so you propose to change what you consider an unlawful situation with another unlawful situation. As life liberty and property are guaranteed by the constitution, and cannot be unlawfully taken away . I see you cherry pick and choose your laws indiscriminately. How hypocritical of you.

          2. Sticks and stones. You won’t understand my words. You and your ilk twist definitions to suit your evil desires. I know your games too well. I’m not one of the faceless sheep.

            Unlawful implies a law exists that limits something. Laws are ONLY capable of limiting an action with a prescribe set of regulations. It is not possible to limit rights. Your right to life is secondary when you try and take away anothers right.

            I would say that you should educate yourself on what a right is, however, it is being proven that education on that topic is beyond you and your friends capabilites and that even the word “education” has already been perverted.

            I don’t expect you to understand what I say. You suspect you never will. Only when you breath your last breath after trying to disarm someone will you possibly get it. Here’s to your life being short or you discovering the truth. Which ever happens first makes no matter but either one can’t happen fast enough.

            And to save you the trouble:
            I am (insert whatever perverted word you want). (violent, insane, retard, stupid, ignorant, redneck, etc…).

            “I am whatever you say I am.
            If I wasn’t then why would I say I am.” – Eminem

          3. self–de·fense noun \ˌself-di-ˈfen(t)s\

            1: a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
            2: the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative

            This includes your rights. You see how this works? You try and take away one of my rights and I end you. It takes an action from you.

            Murder only applies if I am the first to act. Just because your act is to send others after my rights it doesn’t mean you will be any less culpable.

          1. I assume you mean cars, and no they are not, but also think of this. If you are going to interpret the constitution literally instead of how the supreme court did in 2008. I as you neighbour having the right to bear arms legally should be able to put a cruise missile on my front lawn and keep at aimed at your house….for protection of course (Webster:Definition of ARM
            transitive verb
            : to furnish or equip with weapons

            also: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :The Supreme court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”, saying that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

            So gentleman (and ladies), as I propose I would not ban shotguns or handguns, but I would want to see and would recommend to my duly elected state and federal officials, automatic weapons and semi auto weapons banned or restricted as based on this Legal constitutional ruling!

  3. Steve, you say, “… give me a reason we need them that’s logical and well thought out and not some silly tit for tat answer ….” Well, that is certainly a reasonable (NOT) position on your part. I don’t think that I can ever offer a “reason that’s logical” to you. You also state, “Hopefully those two sides can come to a compromise every one can live with.” Why compromise? You have already said that I must forward a reason that YOU find logical. So, by extention, compromise can only be reached if you find my argument logical. The only statement you make with which agree is, “Truth be told Politicians(Dems and Gop’s) will change law based on there chances of being elected.”

Back to top button