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.
Assuming all persons due to the constitution have rights is outright dangerous.
So only certain people have rights? Which ones and which rights? Who decides?
A universal background check on all sales is wise and can clear up any misconceptions I may have about anyone that wants to own.
We already have “universal background checks” through NICS. Every mass shooter of recent vintage either stole his firearms (like the Sandy Hook shooter who stole them from his mother after killing her) or went through a background check.
Common sense gun laws make sense.
What specific “common sense” law are you advocating for and how would it have stopped a single shooting?
Universal checks for everyone makes sense.
We already have “universal checks” to the extent that it is possible. Attempting to enforce an NICS check on private sales would be impossible without a national gun registry, which is also not possible. Canada tried it a couple years ago, it didn’t work and they have a lot smaller population with a lot fewer firearms.
 
DENNYINMI
Universal (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) for the sale of ALL guns? Not in place.
Nor should it be.

The no-sell laws are still in place even with private sales.

The net effect?

No change in who gets a gun (at least for law-abiders), . . .
. . . but BIG changes in Government “snooping” opportunities.

People who have imbibed these terrible ideas always default the same way . . . Statism.

More Government, BIGGER Government, More Programs, MORE rules, MORE regulations, more nanny because of my “low-ball view” of people.

We want GOVERNMENT to take care of us!

This is what those IDEAS essentially say.

And when we parrot those ideas (as some here have), they risk interiorizing that terrible view of humanity that the statist idealogues have.
 
Last edited:
More Government, BIGGER Government, More Programs, MORE rules, MORE regulations, more nanny because of my “low-ball view” of people.

We want GOVERNMENT to take care of us!

This is what those IDEAS essentially say.
IF this were true, you’d have a point. The so called “nanny” state has put regulations in place due to reaction, not pro-action. Point being:

Regulations are a result in the United States of a reactive nation, not proactive. They’ve come into being not because someone or something may do harm. But rather because someone or something did do harm. From factory pollution, child labor laws, poor working conditions all the way up the spectrum of evils to guns including all other safety issues in between.

No sir. The U.S is reactive, not pro-active. We’ve forced Uncle Sam to act on the grim realities of things that have happened.
 
Last edited:
DENNYINMI . . .
If this were true, you’d have a point. The so called “nanny” state has put regulations in place due to reaction, not pro-action.
There is a few problems with this DENNYINMI. Not the least of which is it is unlawful.

Congress shall make NO LAW hindering the right of law abiding citizens to procure and bear arms.

They have no power to do this.

So that makes void the other issue.

That laws are “reactive” instead of “pro-active”.

Reactive or proactive is irrelevant when usurpation of power is being undertaken.

And there HAS been usurpations of power by the Government.

That’s what Heller was all about for example.

The other issue is, we as a country need to learn from history. Our own history and how if we as “settlers” had been disarmed by our Government (England), we would be mere subjects today instead of free citizens.

We can also learn from other countries mistakes in this regard and how many millions of lives were lost by ignoring such wisdom as to maintain an armed citizenry.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...1545939184&sr=1-12&keywords=Democide+in+books
This is R. J. Rummel’s fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. He presents the primary results, in tables and figures, as well as a historical sketch of the major cases of democide, those in which one million or more people were killed by a regime. In Death by Government , Rummel does not aim to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and scope in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent.

Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His results clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.”

Death by Government is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. Among other examples, the book includes the massacre of Europeans during the Thirty Years’ War, the relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution, and the slaughtering of American Indians by colonists in the New World. This riveting account is an essential tool for historians, political scientists, and scholars interested in the study of genocide.
 
Last edited:
There is a few problems with this DENNYINMI. Not the least of which is it is unlawful.
It is not unlawful Cathoholic to put regulations in place for the safety of the people. Period.

That is the number one reason for government.
 
DENNYINMI . . .
It is not unlawful Cathoholic to put regulations in place for the safety of the people. Period.

That is the number one reason for government.
The “safety of the people” is exactly what our forefathers had in mind when they recognized the Second Amendment formally in our Constitution.

From God. Self evident. For the people. Formally recognized by us as a nation.

But I’ll notfy the Supreme Court that some folks over here at CAF think they got it wrong with Heller. (Just kidding.)

In the meantime, irrespective of how the laws are written, learn from the mistakes of countries who have embraced totalitarianism.

Learn from those democides.

It’s always good to learn from your mistakes.
It is even better, when you can learn from someone else’s.
 
Last edited:
The “safety of the people” is exactly what our forefathers had in mind when they recognized the Second Amendment formally in our Constitution.
Well if you’re talking about a well regulated militia to protect yourself, allow me to wish you and the other guns at all cost to the detriment of “common sense” gun law folks the best of Luck!~

Should the government whom you wish to protect yourself against ever decide to bring those nuclear Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles out of retirement…haha…you’ll need it!~ lol (wink)

We’ll never agree honey and I’m fine with it. Unbridled gun rights is silly.
 
DENNYINMI . . .
Should the government whom you wish to protect yourself against ever decide to bring those nuclear Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles out of retirement…haha…you’ll need it!~ lol (wink)
But it is not about firepower so much as it is principle.
You don’t descend into lawlessness merely because the state can “out-firepower” you DENNYINMI.

Ignoring one segment of the Constitution to further statism, leaves ALL segments of the Constitution vulnerable.

Then you have yet another Totalitarian state which invents its own rules instead of a Federal Republic.
 
Last edited:
This is more for the lurkers since I doubt you will attempt to seriously defend this claim.

Scenario:

The year is 2037. Newly elected President Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has declared the proliferation of firearms within the United States a public health crisis. Her executive powers have been expanded with the Equality Amendment which states that any policy or institution within the United States that is found to have a disparate and debilitating effect on minority groups is subject to executive order.

Citing the numerous minority deaths by firearm as justification, she issues an order banning all firearms The only exceptions are the police force (federalized under the Equality Amendment), the military, federal law enforcement officers, and body guards for VIPs.

Possession of a firearm, part of a firearm, or ammunition is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine and registration as a gun-offender.

Unsure of the loyalty of the entire military and reluctant to declare martial law, enforcement of this executive order is the duty of the newly expanded BATF, and the US Police Force are augmented by UN Peacekeepers.

Initial Reaction:

The BATF, US Police Force, and UN Peacekeepers start operations in predominately red counties as determined by the electoral map. Based on demographic analysis and available survey data, the greatest concentrations of privately owned firearms are in these counties.

The policy is enforced as follows. Operating from the local police stations, National Guard armories, and US Military reserve centers, the combined UN and Federal Task forces declare a 12 hour amnesty period. During this time, all firearms, parts of firearms, and ammunition may be turned in with no questions asked. The collected contraband is destroyed publicly at the end of this period. Then systemic house to house searches are conducted using dogs, metal detectors, and armored vehicles. Unarmed drones and helicopters are kept on standby. The Supreme Court (expanded to 13 justices under President Elizabeth Warren in 2027) rules that due to the nature of the crisis, the 4th, 5th, and 2nd Amendments are suspended.

Resistance is nonexistent, few people are willing to risk everything and those that might be willing are unwilling to act without help. The only casualty is an elderly US Marine veteran of the Vietnam War who refused to give up his old service pistol. A confrontation ensues and he is killed by a UN Peacekeeper’s dog. The mainstream media attempts to downplay or suppress the incident, but unedited videos of the incident keep popping up everywhere.

To be continued…
 
Last edited:
Response:

Word spreads about the “Massacred Marine”. A group of USMC vets organizes a protest. Antifa organizes a counterprotest. Law enforcement (sympathetic to left wing ideals) declares the USMC rally an unlawful assembly and drives the USMC vets into Antifa. A clash ensues. Several Marines are wounded and numerous Antifa are killed. The remaining Marine protesters are identified, arrested and charged with federal hate crimes and murder. The Federal Hate Crimes Tribunal finds them collectively guilty and they are sentenced to consecutive life sentences with no chance of parole.

For one group of men, this is the final straw. Composed of numerous combat veterans from US War on Terror and the Russo-Syrian conflict in 2020, along with a few first responders, these men are well-schooled in guerilla tactics, counterinsurgency operations, and conventional warfare. The group has largely stayed off the radar since they have no official patch or name, and they communicate on a face to face basis.

They carefully observe how the UN Peacekeepers and federal law enforcement conduct their operations, their numbers, standard equipment, and where they are based. A plan is formed. Any communications that must be handled electronically are carried out via prepaid burner phones with innocuous, prearranged, codewords.

UN Peacekeepers and federal law enforcement have become lax since the job has been easier than they expected. This leaves them open to a very public and well-executed sniper ambush. Drones and reinforcements are scrambled but the attackers fade away before the response is mobilized. This public defeat inspires copycat attacks. The attackers pop up, take a few shots and disengage. They never stay and fight unless trapped. Then they fight to the last man. Law enforcement officers who live near the insurgents are attacked in their own homes.

UN Peacekeepers and federal law enforcement are demoralized and far more cautious. They crack down hard. Official policy is still to arrest gun-offenders, but rumors spread that gun-offenders and their households are being subjected to summary executions, and suspected sympathizers are brutalized. These atrocities are written off as “enforcement against resistors”. This brutality inspires more resistance and attacks. Tactics are changed from law enforcement, to military occupying hostile areas. The National Guard is called up. Several governors resist outright, and numerous Guard units refuse to follow orders or actively attack UN Peacekeepers and federal law enforcement.

Air support and armor are used by both sides but logistics are difficult due to the inability for both sides to establish secure supply lines in a country turned into no man’s land. Therefore infantry is the primary force used on both sides. Because the rebels are intermixed with the local population, air strikes and nuclear weapons are unfeasible.

To be continued…
 
Last edited:
Resolution:

UN Peacekeepers and federal law enforcement have impregnable bases, but do not own the surrounding terrain. The locals view them as foreign and hostile occupiers and their high-handed tactics win them no friends. The rebels lack sufficient firepower to directly attack the bases and so a stalemate occurs with mounting casualties on both sides.

The rebels then switch tactics. They begin targeting leftist media personalities and politicians who have been relatively untouched until recently. This has a chilling effect on national and international commentary on the events that would have favored President Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters. Leftist VIPs then begin demanding their own personal security details. This marks them publicly and when the VIPs are no longer able to be targeted, their guards on the perimeter are targeted. Very quickly it becomes hard to find dependable security, a shortage of mid-level and low-level government employees ensues.

Due to the decentralized and localized nature of their operations, the rebels have no overall leadership or goals. This changes when various militia groups link up with each other. Working together to provide security and stability for their communities and running operations against their common enemy, they become the defacto government. Because they are local and trusted by their neighbors, they have the support of their communities. The coordination keeps spreading until a sizable chunk of the so-called flyover country and the South declare themselves an independent nation. They also announce the possession of nuclear weapons. Various enemies of the United States immediately acknowledge this new republic. With declining public support, mounting casualties, and a country in shambles, President Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is forced to acknowledge the inevitable and the United States splits into 2 nations.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t seen this point addressed in this thread:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But that right cannot be enforced unless one also has the right to defend that life. Further, this can be extended to right to defend the lives of those who cannot defend their own right to life, such as the old, the invalid, the children and the unborn. Take away the right to defend that life and one has effectively taken away the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness themselves.
 
Nice story. Our government will allow China to pillage us long before that scenario occurs. 🇨🇳 🇺🇸

In the meantime, I’ll keep my Smith and Wesson® M&P® M2.0, Benelli M4 Super 90, and Benchmade Protagonist 167. :cowboy_hat_face:
 
Last edited:
I do not know which source to trust for this info…but I read that US is the " capital city of gun owners." .
Then I read in different sources that between 25 and 40% of the population (depending on the source…)own guns.
So hopefully,in case of tyranny,the say 30% who own guns won t end 15% shooting against the other 15% and 70% watching until they come to an agreement about if the tyrant is a tyrant or not 😩.
That is what would happen where I live these days. Cannot come.to an agreement about what is in front of our noses.
Just venting some frustration :confused:
 
Last edited:
How do you plan to take away guns from people? Seems like guns are going to be necessary for that.
I assume gun owners are law-abiding, good people. If, as you say, gun owners really are so violent they’ll start gunning down people who don’t share their political opinions that’s all the more reason to take their guns away.
Should we also ban free speech? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.
We can start considering it when pens kill 30,000 people a year. Until then it will do more good to focus on banning guns.
Correct. These are HUMAN rights, given to us by God, written down in our Constitution, and defended by our blood.
I guess it’s easy to forget how pro-gun God is.
Just read the entire thread…don’t recall anyone ever saying that. Are you making things up?
I assume the gleefully-referenced “Civil War 2” will involve violence.
they quoted a Visa spokeswoman who gave a clear, concise, and compelling argument against such interference in legal commerce.
This argument ceases to be compelling in light of the fact that credit card companies regularly interfere in legal commerce.
Scenario :
Are we writing fan fiction now or something?
 
40.png
LastStand:
How do you plan to take away guns from people? Seems like guns are going to be necessary for that.
I assume gun owners are law-abiding, good people. If, as you say, gun owners really are so violent they’ll start gunning down people who don’t share their political opinions that’s all the more reason to take their guns away.
I think law abiding gun owners would resort to violence only as a last resort, when no other option to defend their rights.
quote=“DisInherited2006, post:44, topic:526698”]
Should we also ban free speech? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.
[/quote]
We can start considering it when pens kill 30,000 people a year. Until then it will do more good to focus on banning guns.
Guns kill far more people than that, mostly guns held by governments. So, I’ll ask again:
does your proposed “ban” include government ?
quote=“DisInherited2006, post:46, topic:526698”]
Correct. These are HUMAN rights, given to us by God, written down in our Constitution, and defended by our blood.
[/quote]
I guess it’s easy to forget how pro-gun God is.
Do you think God is pro-gun when it comes to government?
 
Last edited:
I think law abiding gun owners would resort to violence only as a last resort, when no other option to defend their rights.
Everyone except me seems to have a really low opinion of gun owners.
 
I assume gun owners are law-abiding, good people.
I assume automobile owners are law-abiding and good people, but I doubt they react well to a law banning car ownership and confiscating all autos in private hands. I wouldn’t be surprised if some reacted violently. But I don’t think that a good argument for banning cars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top