New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
We need anti-discrimination laws that are applicable here to allow people to exercise Constitutional rights unhindered.

Inappropriate that the NYT would be using one Costitutional Right to attack other persons Constitutional Rights.
.

New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers​

AWR Hawkins 24 Dec 2018 Breitbart News

The New York Times ( NYT ) is pressuring credit card giants to monitor customers’ buying habits and blacklist gun purchases.​

The Times suggests banks are “unwittingly financing mass shootings” by allowing individuals to use their cards to buy firearms and related accessories. . . .
Click to expand...
www.breitbart.com

New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchases

The New York Times is pressuring credit card giants to monitor customers' buying habits and blacklist gun purchases.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
The Times story to which the Breitbart article links says:
A little more than a month before James E. Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others at a Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in 2012, a psychiatrist was considering having him involuntarily committed. Mr. Holmes quit his job, filed for unemployment benefits and used a new Mastercard issued by USAA to help buy more than $11,000 in weapons and military gear. He bought two tear-gas grenades, a gas mask and filter, a .40-caliber Glock handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, a .223-caliber AR-15, a 100-round drum magazine, two 40-round magazines, a laser sight, a bulletproof vest, 5,000 rounds of ammunition, two sets of handcuffs and “road stars” meant to slice through car tires.
Click to expand...
It would have been good if someone had noticed his insane spending spree.
 
This a great idea. Credit card companies won’t like it if we start referencing mass shootings as “financed by Visa” or whatever.
 
Last edited:
would have been good if someone had noticed his insane spending spree…end post

What’s wrong with using democracy?
Always better to address problems directly, rather than round about methods that set precedent for monitoring on a much wider scale. If people want to restrict this person from buying a preposterous amount of weapons, let them pass a law.

Do you really trust giant corporations more than the people? The NYT would use an extreme case to eventually stop people from buying cigarettes, Trump posters, high carbon vehicles, or whatever else they want.
 
This one of the reasons why I make purchases in cash. Less convenient, but the price of freedom can never be too high. If credit card companies start doing this, we need to hit them in the wallet and hard.

Note the implications of the article. It starts with the extreme and rare cases of mass shootings and then gives an example of a single firearm purchase at the end. Thereby trying to equate anyone who purchases a firearm with murderers. It is a vicious smear on millions of Americans whose only “crime” is exercising a right that the NYT hates.
 
commenter said:
Always better to address problems directly, rather than round about methods that set precedent for monitoring on a much wider scale. If people want to restrict this person from buying a preposterous amount of weapons, let them pass a law.
Click to expand...
Believe me, I’d much rather pass a law.
 
Cash purchases over $10,000 need to be reported to state banking authorities.

:woman_shrugging:t2:
 
commenter said:
What’s wrong with using democracy?
Click to expand...
That’s the end goal. It’s not right to let people needlessly die in the meantime however. Making guns more inconvenient to purchase and own is just the first step in changing America’s bizarre gun culture.
 
What happens to men like me who think we have a right to self-defense and access to the means necessary for that end?
 
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 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).
 
Correction, that is when you try to take them. Then Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo kicks off. An honest analysis admits that the gun-grabbers lose this one, badly.

In the meantime, to avert bloodshed, it sounds like we need to make holding left-wing opinions more costly and less socially acceptable.
 
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.
 
The Founding Fathers would disagree with you. They tried to change the laws and when that did not work, they started a war. Either way, they still held onto their guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top