Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Surprised he didn’t shoot himAt the annual shareholders meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, CEO Edward Stack of Dick's Sporting Goods was confronted and grilled by shareholder and Second Amendment advocate David Almasi as to why the sporting good giant betrayed it's customers and more importantly "America's right to keep and bear arms" which is a founding principle of our democracy.
Almasi, a vice president at the National Center for Public Policy Research, attended the meeting representing the think tank's Free Enterprise Project, confronted Stack, accusing him of violating his responsibilities and fiduciary duties, by purposely giving money in support of anti gun propagandists.
Within the crowded assembly Almasi challenged Stack's anti gun stand, blasting the retailer's recent capitulation to the frenzied anti-gun zealots, stating; "Dick's has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment."
Adding, "30% of American adults own guns and another 11% live with someone who does. You've now alienated them."
The sudden assault to our Second Amendment by the retail sporting-goods giant began soon after the February 17th Parkland massacre, in which 17-innocent individuals were senselessly gunned down by a deranged loner.
The company also announced that it would raise the age limit to 21, for purchasing "all firearms," ironically the age limit is 3-years after the legal age for someone serving within the military.
However the most egregious policy change by Dick's is in their mistreatment of their loyal customer's, which are avoid sports enthusiasts, who respect the Second Amendment.
The scorched earth business decision by Dick's to willfully abandon a sizable portion of their loyal customer base, has had a profound negative effect on their bottom-line admitted Stack.
Well what you know could be written in a matchbox with a crayon. Maybe its like that in the US but not over here in the civilised world.Is that a US law ? In the UK any shareholder can get up and ask a question.You can actually buy just one share and attend an AGM if you want to be a nuisance. I have done it myself in the past. Its a standard agitators tactic.Oh noes. One share holder. Oh my.
OP, why is this significant?
You don't get to speak if all you have is a single share. What that share will buy you is the ability to sue the company. Yet again you have no idea of what you are speaking.
Highly doubtful. Shareholder meetings are very regulated to keep idiots from wasting the very valuable time of fellow shareholders. Like i said, the single share ploy allows you to sue, but little else. I've been to dozens of shareholder meetings and not once has a gadfly been allowed to speak.
Lol, you consies snowflakes forget that second amendment doesn't say he has to sell guns?At the annual shareholders meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, CEO Edward Stack of Dick's Sporting Goods was confronted and grilled by shareholder and Second Amendment advocate David Almasi as to why the sporting good giant betrayed it's customers and more importantly "America's right to keep and bear arms" which is a founding principle of our democracy.
Almasi, a vice president at the National Center for Public Policy Research, attended the meeting representing the think tank's Free Enterprise Project, confronted Stack, accusing him of violating his responsibilities and fiduciary duties, by purposely giving money in support of anti gun propagandists.
Within the crowded assembly Almasi challenged Stack's anti gun stand, blasting the retailer's recent capitulation to the frenzied anti-gun zealots, stating; "Dick's has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment."
Adding, "30% of American adults own guns and another 11% live with someone who does. You've now alienated them."
The sudden assault to our Second Amendment by the retail sporting-goods giant began soon after the February 17th Parkland massacre, in which 17-innocent individuals were senselessly gunned down by a deranged loner.
The company also announced that it would raise the age limit to 21, for purchasing "all firearms," ironically the age limit is 3-years after the legal age for someone serving within the military.
However the most egregious policy change by Dick's is in their mistreatment of their loyal customer's, which are avoid sports enthusiasts, who respect the Second Amendment.
The scorched earth business decision by Dick's to willfully abandon a sizable portion of their loyal customer base, has had a profound negative effect on their bottom-line admitted Stack.
Part of the problem here is that a shotgun makes it a lot easier to infringe someone else's right to life or freedom.You're welcome. See, we have normalized these items that are chiefly used to put holes in living things. They should not ever have been normalized. They should have a stigma attached to them. And this is starting to happen.So what? I'm sure horse and buggy stock isn't doing so well, either. Times are changing, and people are waking up to what guns really are : death tools.
Golly, that's helpful, 'cuz when I was a kid, we all thought firearms were tools to make rainbows.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If I saw a guy in line at the grocery store with a spiked club and samurai swords across his back, I would think, "Wow, look at this fucking freak!" I think the same thing should happen with guns, and I think it will.
If that doesn't make sense, I could try to dumb it down further.
What doesn't make sense it to suggest we haven't always understood how firearms work.
Personally, I don't give a shit what someone carries as long as they do not infringe on the rights of another.
Your out are will fade an nextime you will stop at dicks.I just received a black powder flintlock rifle that was my Dad’s. It has been with my Brother since my Dad died. My Brother is downsizing and looking to relocate. I took the stuff, and loved the visit with my Brother.
To test the rifle out, I needed black powder, flints, ball, and all the other stuff. The closest retailer that I knew would have everything was Dicks Sporting Goods. I drove right on by and went literally twice as far to go to Bass Pro Shops where I got everything I needed. Will that bankrupt Dick’s? Nope. But I am not alone, and I know it. Dick’s knows it. They are hoping that the outdoorsy types who aren’t interested in hunting or shooting will support them. But I live in Georgia, and mostly outdoors stuff is hunting or fishing.
I wonder how long it will be before we start hearing about how Amazon is what is driving the loss of retail locations like Dick’s.
Sorry but lol, no.Nothing true about this statement at all. However, more and more people ARE waking up to the cowardice of such positions.So what? I'm sure horse and buggy stock isn't doing so well, either. Times are changing, and people are waking up to what guns really are : death tools.
Well, at least two.Oh noes. One share holder. Oh my.
OP, why is this significant?
Are ya daft?
Because the shareholder knows millions of customers will now go elsewhere for their sporting goods needs.
Myself included.
And the vast majority of people shouldn't be using them.A firearm is not a "tool of death". It is a tool to use to provide food, to provide entertainment and recreation, and a tool of self defense
It is,first and foremost, a tool of death. I am not saying it cannot also be used to accomplish those things,and you are missing my point.
No, I'm pointing out that you have no point because your fear and hatred is blinding you to the truth. It is NOT a tool of death. It is so much more than that. It's all about the PERSON that is using it.
Those who can't get what they want will go elsewhere out of need.Well, at least two.Oh noes. One share holder. Oh my.
OP, why is this significant?
Are ya daft?
Because the shareholder knows millions of customers will now go elsewhere for their sporting goods needs.
Myself included.
Not so sure about the millions.
Well, at least two.Oh noes. One share holder. Oh my.
OP, why is this significant?
Are ya daft?
Because the shareholder knows millions of customers will now go elsewhere for their sporting goods needs.
Myself included.
Not so sure about the millions.
Those who can't get what they want will go elsewhere out of need.Well, at least two.Oh noes. One share holder. Oh my.
OP, why is this significant?
Are ya daft?
Because the shareholder knows millions of customers will now go elsewhere for their sporting goods needs.
Myself included.
Not so sure about the millions.
Those who won't shop at Dick's because of a perceived slur to the 2dA: five maybe?
At the annual shareholders meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, CEO Edward Stack of Dick's Sporting Goods was confronted and grilled by shareholder and Second Amendment advocate David Almasi as to why the sporting good giant betrayed it's customers and more importantly "America's right to keep and bear arms" which is a founding principle of our democracy.
Almasi, a vice president at the National Center for Public Policy Research, attended the meeting representing the think tank's Free Enterprise Project, confronted Stack, accusing him of violating his responsibilities and fiduciary duties, by purposely giving money in support of anti gun propagandists.
Within the crowded assembly Almasi challenged Stack's anti gun stand, blasting the retailer's recent capitulation to the frenzied anti-gun zealots, stating; "Dick's has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment."
Adding, "30% of American adults own guns and another 11% live with someone who does. You've now alienated them."
The sudden assault to our Second Amendment by the retail sporting-goods giant began soon after the February 17th Parkland massacre, in which 17-innocent individuals were senselessly gunned down by a deranged loner.
The company also announced that it would raise the age limit to 21, for purchasing "all firearms," ironically the age limit is 3-years after the legal age for someone serving within the military.
However the most egregious policy change by Dick's is in their mistreatment of their loyal customer's, which are avoid sports enthusiasts, who respect the Second Amendment.
The scorched earth business decision by Dick's to willfully abandon a sizable portion of their loyal customer base, has had a profound negative effect on their bottom-line admitted Stack.
Their Nanny State insists on telling you what merchandise you must sellDoes not the right believe that business may sell or not what it pleases, as long as it follows the law?
Now they are "just" waking up?So what? I'm sure horse and buggy stock isn't doing so well, either. Times are changing, and people are waking up to what guns really are : death tools.
Part of the problem here is that a shotgun makes it a lot easier to infringe someone else's right to life or freedom.You're welcome. See, we have normalized these items that are chiefly used to put holes in living things. They should not ever have been normalized. They should have a stigma attached to them. And this is starting to happen.So what? I'm sure horse and buggy stock isn't doing so well, either. Times are changing, and people are waking up to what guns really are : death tools.
Golly, that's helpful, 'cuz when I was a kid, we all thought firearms were tools to make rainbows.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If I saw a guy in line at the grocery store with a spiked club and samurai swords across his back, I would think, "Wow, look at this fucking freak!" I think the same thing should happen with guns, and I think it will.
If that doesn't make sense, I could try to dumb it down further.
What doesn't make sense it to suggest we haven't always understood how firearms work.
Personally, I don't give a shit what someone carries as long as they do not infringe on the rights of another.
Their Nanny State insists on telling you what merchandise you must sellDoes not the right believe that business may sell or not what it pleases, as long as it follows the law?
Now, if Dicks refused to sell to a gay couple, they would applaud
Their Nanny State insists on telling you what merchandise you must sellDoes not the right believe that business may sell or not what it pleases, as long as it follows the law?
Now, if Dicks refused to sell to a gay couple, they would applaud
Their Nanny State insists on telling you what merchandise you must sellDoes not the right believe that business may sell or not what it pleases, as long as it follows the law?
Now, if Dicks refused to sell to a gay couple, they would applaud
A shareholder pointing out correctly, that the CEO is not doing his job,
is not the State, you moron.
