New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

[Cathoholic]

John24

Making guns more inconvenient to purchase and own is just the first step . . . .

.

U.S. Constitution . . . .

. . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

.

It has already been done and it has been a terrible “step”.

 

[Cathoholic]

LastStand . . .

Do tell, what is the final step?

.

John24 . . . .

Greatly restricting if not banning gun ownership, of course.

Why in the world would you want to disarm our police John24?

What about our military? Why would you take away their firearms?

Why do you think ex-president Obama’s security detail needs to be disarmed?

.

DENNYINMI

Constitutional rights unhindered until they violate the right to life.

DENNYINMI. Why do YOU think our brave protectors are violating the right to life? What is your rationale for these ideas?

 

[Cathoholic]

JonNC . . .

The right isn’t a constitutional right, it is a constitutionally protected right. The right exists antecedent to the existence of government.

Thank you JonNC for posting this important point.

 

[DisInherited2006]

Greatly restricting if not banning gun ownership, of course.

Should we also ban free speech? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.

What’s wrong with using democracy?

The list of “What’s wrong with using democracy” is too long to list. Democracy is a terrible way to govern as it gives all the power to the masses at the expenses of the human rights that God gave to individual humans.

Greatly restricting if not banning gun ownership, of course.

Finally…an honest leftist.

Nothing will happen to you if you don’t violate the gun laws. If you choose to do so I imagine there will be civil and criminal penalties.

That, and the “Democratic” removal of your right to defend yourself.

Come and take them.

Molon Labe brother.

That will happen when we change the laws. Until then I’ll do my part to make gun ownership more expensive, less convenient, and less socially acceptable (mostly through ballot initiatives and pressuring corporations).

Which is why many of us give to the NRA to defend our personal God-given rights against usurpers like you.

To me, this slogan indicates that the speaker is prepared, if the law is not to his liking, to resist enforcement with lethal force.

Not exactly civic-minded.

Just like those Catholics in China who are gathering together in secret to celebrate Mass. Or the priests in the Soviet Union who tended to their flocks.

They weren’t exactly civic-minded either, were they?

When there’s a law I don’t like I don’t threaten to start a war, I work to change the law.

How would that work in Tiannaman square?

Constitutional rights unhindered until they violate the right to life.

The human rights captured in our Constitution are given to us by God, and none of them violate a right to life.

 

[TheNoseKnows]

Then Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo kicks off.

Sholom brother

To me, this slogan indicates that the speaker is prepared, if the law is not to his liking, to resist enforcement with lethal force.

Of course, from my cold dead hands.

I guess that’s the difference between you and me. When there’s a law I don’t like I don’t threaten to start a war, I work to change the law.

No you just advocate for State sanctioned murder against those who refuse to give up their rights.

I mean if you really want to start a war and shoot cops and soldiers go ahead, but I doubt it will help your cause (and threatening such greatly helps mine, so please continue).

When you fight your enemies you lose? What are you Justin Trudeau?

 

[DisInherited2006]

I mean if you really want to start a war and shoot cops and soldiers go ahead, but I doubt it will help your cause (and threatening such greatly helps mine, so please continue).

Doubt you would see cops, and especially not soldiers, participating in the leftist side of such a war. Most soldiers (and veterans/retirees) are proud believers in the 2nd Amendment. It is WE who would be the ones saying Molon Labe.

point of resisting the significance of common sense gun laws.

Common sense gun laws?
Like prohibiting felons from owning guns? Oh, wait, already in place.
Like prohibiting drug addicts from owning guns? Oh wait, already in place.
Like prohibiting automatic weapons? Oh wait, already in place.
Like prohibiting explosive weapons? Oh wait, already in place.
Like requiring people who sell more than a few weapons a year to be registered with the government? Oh wait, already in place.
Like requiring gun dealers to ensure people they sell guns to aren’t prohibited? Oh wait, already in place.

I don’t know anyone who disagrees with common sense gun laws.

I defend the NRA because they defend my family’s rights, YOUR rights, and my rights, against people who whose goal is to take away gun ownership, thus subjugating us to the tyranny that John24 dreams of.

The right isn’t a constitutional right, it is a constitutionally protected right. The right exists antecedent to the existence of government.

The right isn’t a constitutional right, it is a constitutionally protected right. The right exists antecedent to the existence of government.

Correct. These are HUMAN rights, given to us by God, written down in our Constitution, and defended by our blood.

Can we assume you are okay with being just as coercive and heavy-handed with stopping women from aborting their children? Just looking for consistency, at least. If so, good on ya’.

Perhaps John24 would be all for sending the military into abortion clinics?

he military was only brought up when someone said their response to that would be killing those who disagreed with them.

Just read the entire thread…don’t recall anyone ever saying that. Are you making things up?

 

[DisInherited2006]

That history is ugly because black people could not protect themselves from white people with guns. Take away all the guns and it ceases to be an issue.

If you “take away all the guns”, then only two classes will have guns: The government, and the criminals. You would’t have the ability to protect yourself from either.

don’t consider an amendment guaranteeing the rights of militias to hunt down black people like animals to a document written by slave owners to be as worthy of protection as amendments protecting speech, religious expression, etc.

I think you are making up things again John24…I’ve read the entire Constitution several times, never read any amendment guaranteeing such rights.

Unlucky for the 30,000 annual gun victims.

Did you make up that statistic too John?

 

[JonNC]

No, the solution advocated is greatly restricting or banning gun ownership. The military was only brought up when someone said their response to that would be killing those who disagreed with them

I’ll ask for a second time: would the “ban” include government ownership of firearms?

That history is ugly because black people could not protect themselves from white people with guns. Take away all the guns and it ceases to be an issue

A significant part of that inability to defend themselves had to do with government having guns. Would you include in a ban the government?

You would be correct. I don’t consider an amendment guaranteeing the rights of militias to hunt down black people like animals to a document written by slave owners to be as worthy of protection as amendments protecting speech, religious expression, etc.

As we’ve seen over the last decade or so, this same mindset has advocated for a suspension of due process rights, limits on free speech rights, and making religious free expression a secondary right, as well.

Let’s be honest. What the real issue is here is that you think the 2nd amendment is a second class right, ie it isn’t really a right at all.

While not presuming to speak for @John24, your assertion probably has little significance for many progressives, as the basic principle of progressivism is that the power of the state/collective trumps all individual rights, that individualism is detrimental to the state/collective.

 

[JonNC]

Cash purchases over $10,000 need to be reported to state banking authorities.

:woman_shrugging:t2:

Why? If I buy a car with cash, why is that the business of any government agency?

 

[powerless]

Note the implications of the article. It starts with the extreme and rare cases of mass shootings

Extreme, agreed, but Rare? Hardly.

Loading…

www.usatoday.com

 

[F_Marturana]

The reason it’s reported is to prevent money laundering, tax evasion etc.

Loading…

www.irs.gov

Any place that receives large cash payments can be a hub for money laundering, funeral homes and catering halls are as well.

 

[JonNC]

U

The reason it’s reported is to prevent money laundering, tax evasion etc.

Loading…

www.irs.gov

Any place that receives large cash payments can be a hub for money laundering, funeral homes and catering halls are as well.

Oh, I know what the reasoning is.
My point is the regulation has the potential for government abuse. The IRS is the most abused agency in government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Getting back to the original article, one could simply cite the New York Times and then read what they wrote. In doing that, one can see that the New York Times was not “Pressuring Credit Cards” to blacklist gun purchases. As it is, the NYT took no editorial position on the question. What it did was exercise good investigative journalism and quote proponents on both sides of the issue. They quoted a former New York City police fraud investigator who was in favor of making credit card companies report or intercept such purchases, and they quoted a Visa spokeswoman who gave a clear, concise, and compelling argument against such interference in legal commerce. The only reason that Breitbart chose to invent the misleading headline, “New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchases” is to stir up outrage and drive traffic to their site. Mission accomplished, Breitbart!

(Personally, I side with the credit card companies on this question. It is not their job.)

 

[DENNYINMI]

Common sense gun laws?
Like prohibiting felons from owning guns? Oh, wait, already in place.
Like prohibiting drug addicts from owning guns? Oh wait, already in place.
Like prohibiting automatic weapons? Oh wait, already in place.
Like prohibiting explosive weapons? Oh wait, already in place.
Like requiring people who sell more than a few weapons a year to be registered with the government? Oh wait, already in place.
Like requiring gun dealers to ensure people they sell guns to aren’t prohibited? Oh wait, already in place.

Universal (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) for the sale of ALL guns? Not in place.

The current federal law allows people not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell firearms without a license or records. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) states that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System has prevented over two million felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing firearms. According to the CSGV, the law also has a prohibitive effect, that deters illegal purchases…(quote)

BTW, these persons not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms are not necessarily criminal underground movements selling guns, some are right in your face selling their wares in the open. And, it’s legal.

Common sense would say any/all gun sales should undergo background checks. That includes Uncle Tommy giving his gun/rifle to his nephew who unbenounced to him has succumbed to the opiate epidemic and plans on selling it anyway. Innocently enough, disaster can/does happen.

 

[DisInherited2006]

Denny - I understand your point, but you are only painting one side of the story.

You are talking about restricting the rights of people to sell what belongs to them. The CSGV would want me to pay for a background check on my son before giving him my grandfather’s shotgun. This is too extreme, and is not “common sense”.

What is common sense is making it illegal for me to sell (or give) any of my personal firearms to someone whom I believe to be a prohibited person. Oh, wait, already in place.

Yes, in America, you can sell your personal belongings right out in the open, and it’s legal. Let’s keep it that way.

 

[Guinness]

I wonder if anybody has given thought to the notion that once you give the “big banks” the authority to “blacklist” gun purchasers, you’ve also given them the authority to “blacklist” people who donate to political or religious groups they might disapprove of. Use your credit card to donate to the Catholic Church and you could end up on a “blacklist”. Donate to “National Right to Life”? Blacklist for you.

I guess I just don’t understand how people will let fear cause them to ask, even beg, powerful and unaccountable people to strip them of their natural rights. Do you really think it will stop at gun purchasers?

 

[DENNYINMI]

You are talking about restricting the rights of people to sell what belongs to them

You bet I am. It’s common sense. There’s laws selling cars and registering the title, and even stricter laws regarding who belongs behind the wheel.

Regarding guns, you betcha.

 

[Guinness]

Regarding guns, you betcha.

Are you really confident that this will just stop at guns? Or do guns so frighten you that you’re willing surrender all your rights to get rid of them?

 

[DisInherited2006]

There are no laws restricting buying or selling cars. There are certainly laws about the operation of vehicles, but not ownership (beyond paying property tax on them).

Those who give up their freedom in exchange for security deserve neither, and eventually will have none.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Are you really confident that this will just stop at guns? Or do guns so frighten you that you’re willing surrender all your rights to get rid of them?

Assumptions aren’t wise. Assuming all persons due to the constitution have rights is outright dangerous. A universal background check on all sales is wise and can clear up any misconceptions I may have about anyone that wants to own.

Similar to your assumption I’m fearful of them, which I am not.

I grew up in rural Michigan with a Father who was retired Coast Guard and an avid pheasant hunter (when they weren’t darn near extinct) and he taught us a healthy reverence of two things. One was the power of water (the river in my case) and the necessity of safety measures of a gun. Still never knew where he kept them…

Kind of like the fear of God. One type is unhealthy, the other type is the beginning of wisdom.

No sir. Common sense gun laws make sense. Universal checks for everyone makes sense.