New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

[Cathoholic]

John24 . . .

With rights come responsibilities.

John24. That goes for Governments too. Not merely citizens.

.

Please answer JonNC’s question if you don’t mind. I really want to know your rationale for how you have formed your ideas on this.

Here it is again (if you have forgotten it) . . . .

New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers World News

John24. You said . . . . I wish their (gun owners) guns were taken away however. (Parenthetical addition mine for context) JonNC asked you several times in various ways . . . Do you wish the guns were taken away from the government? . I think it would be a reasonable time here to answer him.

 

[LastStand]

No, I wish they didn’t have guns.

I think we just went through the logical consequences of that wish.

At least the anti-terrorism laws will get some legitimate use.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

If I’m understanding correctly you and others in the thread think gun ownership (or self defense, whatever) is an inherent, God-given right. How can man take that right away, and why are similar constitutional rights (free speech, religion, etc.) not taken away from felons, aliens, dishonorable discharges, or the mentally ill?

Other rights are routinely taken away from those classes too. No inconsistency. Depending on the felony however, I would have absolutely no objection to gun rights being restored after a period of good behavior.

 

[JonNC]

With rights come responsibilities.

Indeed, and the vast majority of the over 100 million gun owners in America handle this right responsibly.

No, I wish they didn’t have guns.

I wish government agencies enforced the laws already on the books, preventing those who shouldn’t have guns from getting them, apprehending and prosecuting those who have and use guns illegally, the largest group committing gun violence.

 

[JonNC]

If I’m understanding correctly you and others in the thread think gun ownership (or self defense, whatever) is an inherent, God-given right. How can man take that right away, and why are similar constitutional rights (free speech, religion, etc.) not taken away from felons, aliens, dishonorable discharges, or the mentally ill?

It has to with another constitutionally protected right; due process.
No right should be taken away with due process. Those who have been adjudicated as incapable of handling firearms because of mental illness, those who have committed crimes with firearms and have shown themselves a danger to themselves and others.
This is the “responsibility” you mentioned earlier, and it is done on an individual basis because rights are individual in nature, and no one is guilty by reason of association.

 

[exnihilo]

It would have been good if someone had noticed his insane spending spree.

His licensed by the state, professional psychiatrist fails to protect society so we are supposed to rely on credit card companies combing through our purchases? If a man who knows the guys mentally unbalanced state can’t save us then nothing will.

 

[exnihilo]

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

Having that much cash is illegal. The government can seize it. And if you withdraw or deposit it or amounts close to it then you are reported to the government. So really the spy state is already at work on that front.

 

[exnihilo]

No threat, that is a prediction of what will happen. If you seriously think everyone is going to lie down and comply like good little sheep just because you passed a law, you really need to study the history of this country better. Nocompliance both peaceful and otherwise with laws perceived as tyrannical by various sectors of the population is an American tradition.

I disagree with your prediction. Modern Americans are the most compliant people ever. They allow the state to spy on their emails and do nothing. They allowed the government to confiscate their gold and did nothing, thus ending any economic freedom. They allow a court to say two men can marry and they have to approve of it. There isn’t anything modern Americans won’t put up with. Americans are fat and happy. They won’t risk that for any mere principle.

 

[JonNC]

LastStand:

No threat, that is a prediction of what will happen. If you seriously think everyone is going to lie down and comply like good little sheep just because you passed a law, you really need to study the history of this country better. Nocompliance both peaceful and otherwise with laws perceived as tyrannical by various sectors of the population is an American tradition.

I disagree with your prediction. Modern Americans are the most compliant people ever. They allow the state to spy on their emails and do nothing. They allowed the government to confiscate their gold and did nothing, thus ending any economic freedom. They allow a court to say two men can marry and they have to approve of it. There isn’t anything modern Americans won’t put up with. Americans are fat and happy. They won’t risk that for any mere principle.

This can easily be solved, if the government would get out of the marriage business all together.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

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.

Believe me, I’d much rather pass a law.

Maybe you would, but laws tend to be more limited in their impact than leverage of giant corporation resources. That’s why the Left is heavily aligned with big business.

They were using big companies to push the gay agenda long before they had the votes to do so. They will use Visa to monitor and modify behavior of ordinary citizens, who would not (yet) consent to the government doing it.

 

[exnihilo]

True, but when has government ever removed itself from an issue? At this point it is a moral issue that some people want forced on everyone else. They aren’t going to give up.

 

[LastStand]

That is because they still have too much to lose. Revolutions are started by angry men with nothing else to lose.

 

[LastStand]

That is why I regard libertarians as controlled opposition, because they effectively provided cover for the culture to slide left.

 

[exnihilo]

I’d say revolutions are often started that way. But in the US the revolution and later secession were started by men who did have a lot to lose. But certainly our current culture isn’t a particularly principled one that would rise up in the face of outrages due to having too much to lose.

 

[JonNC]

True, but when has government ever removed itself from an issue? At this point it is a moral issue that some people want forced on everyone else. They aren’t going to give up.

No doubt. And I suspect the next step will be a lawsuit against a priest who refused to perform a same gender “wedding “.

 

[LastStand]

To be fair, those men were of a different and better stock. They or their recent ancestors had just turned up in a wilderness and built a functional, European-style, Christian civilization where none had existed before. No mean feat if you ask me. We take our inheritance for granted.

 

[exnihilo]

No doubt. And I suspect the next step will be a lawsuit against a priest who refused to perform a same gender “wedding “.

Given enough time that may happen. Right now they don’t need to go that far and it might be enough to lose some support. But in states like a California or Massachusetts it could eventually happen.

To be fair, those men were of a different and better stock. They or their recent ancestors had just turned up in a wilderness and built a functional, European-style, Christian civilization where none had existed before. No mean feat if you ask me. We take our inheritance for granted.

True. The early Americans were a mix. That mix contained a fair amount of people who came here and were willing to fight for religious freedom, which is a principle. It also contained a fair amount of people who gave up everything to build a new life in a distant, wild land. Such men would be willing to fight.

I’m afraid at this point we’ve spent our inheritance.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

No doubt. And I suspect the next step will be a lawsuit against a priest who refused to perform a same gender “wedding “.

Given enough time that may happen. Right now they don’t need to go that far and it might be enough to lose some support. But in states like a California or Massachusetts it could eventually happen.

To be fair, those men were of a different and better stock. They or their recent ancestors had just turned up in a wilderness and built a functional, European-style, Christian civilization where none had existed before. No mean feat if you ask me. We take our inheritance for granted.

True. The early Americans were a mix. That mix contained a fair amount of people who came here and were willing to fight for religious freedom, which is a principle. It also contained a fair amount of people who gave up everything to build a new life in a distant, wild land. Such men would be willing to fight.

I’m afraid at this point we’ve spent our inheritance.

One can rest assured that those who oppose these rights will not be unwilling to fight. Representative Swalwell made that clear. He jumped right to nukes, and while it was obviously hyperbole, it clearly sends the message that enforcement would be by the point of a gun, ironically.

 

[LastStand]

@John24

So when should the New Jersey cops start kicking down doors to enforce their immoral law?

 

[Inisfallen]

To be fair, those men were of a different and better stock. They or their recent ancestors had just turned up in a wilderness and built a functional, European-style, Chris

This is true. It’s worth remembering that out nation was built by economic migrants.

 

[DisInherited2006]

I’m glad that when guns are banned they will abide by the law.

Yeah, just like George Washington, who was a Colonel in the British Army, abided by the increasingly authoritarian laws set down by his King.

Cathoholic, none of us (or at least very few of us) are talking about “banning” guns. It’s just not on the table.

Few talk about “banning” guns, although some do. Still others would like to ban guns outright, but don’t talk about it because they realize how extreme it is. But still…they would like to do it, and wouldn’t lift a finger to prevent it…and would vote for people who WOULD ban guns.

Well, yes . It’s far from extreme to suggest that gifts of firearms be subject to the same regulations as sales of firearms.

Perfect example of why the CSGV position is too extreme.

Why should the transfer of ownership of a firearm without a corresponding payment be exempt from a background check, while a transfer of ownership in exchange for money be subject to a check?

Which is why the status quo works. If you have reason to believe that I am a prohibited person then you can’t sell or give me a firearm. Other than that, you are free to give/sell what you have. However if you deal in firearms, then you must undergo strenuous regulations.

This system works well. There are very, very, very few firearms bought/sold/given by private citizens who are used in illegal violence.

Meanwhile, if we require every gun transaction to undergo a fee to ensure the buyer is not a prohibited person, the government now has a list of everyone who has bought a gun, which I think everyone can understand would be a necessary first step in a confiscation plan.

But please answer me this: Why do liberals get outraged when voter identification laws are passed, using the excuse that poor people can’t afford their $10 government identification to vote, yet have no problem with requiring gun sellers to spend much more than that to ensure private purchasers are not prohibited person?