Corporate Gun Control Might Be the Worst Threat to Gun Rights

[ArcadiaGP]

Corporate Gun Control Might Be the Worst Threat to Gun Rights

Moreover, meaningful federal gun control has been blocked for a generation, and red-state legislatures are moving almost uniformly to liberalize state gun laws. Witness, for example, the steady spread of “constitutional carry” in red states across the land.

But another threat looms, one that can stretch across the entire American landscape, is immune to the filibuster, and is largely sheltered from judicial review. It’s a threat that can choke off financing for the gun industry, stifle speech about guns, and lock the gun-rights community into offline (and small online) ghettos that restrict their ability to communicate.

So, what’s happening? Titans of American banking and communication are taking steps to restrict the use of their funds or platforms by gun makers, gun-rights advocates, and others. The threat is just now emerging, but it may be as great a danger to gun rights as it is to the culture of free speech in this nation, and indeed the two are linked.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Interesting. I see the point being made, and the issue... but if the suggestion is that banks be forced to finance private companies, I can't agree.

 

[CCCCCCC]

Petty Tyrants

I canceled my BOA credit card as a consequence of their anti gun nonsense. NYS is in the process of blocking the NRA from selling insurance. On and on it goes. The petty tyrants never tire of “making the world a better place”

 

[CCCCCCC]

Monopoly

Interesting. I see the point being made, and the issue... but if the suggestion is that banks be forced to finance private companies, I can't agree.

The problem is that banks have become too big to fail monopolies. There is nothing “free market” about it. Big tech has the same stranglehold on free speech. The progressives are using “private industry” as a back door to squash freedom - make no mistake about it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I've said it before but I will say it again. I see absolutely NO difference between refusing to do business with someone (or a business) with which you disagree politically, and refusing to do business with someone (or a business) with which you disagree for religious reasons. The outcome is precisely the same. If one is allowed, or disallowed, then the other should be allowed or disallowed.

 

[actaeon277]

The problem is that banks have become too big to fail monopolies. There is nothing “free market” about it. Big tech has the same stranglehold on free speech. The progressives are using “private industry” as a back door to squash freedom - make no mistake about it.

This.
When you take money from the government because you are "too big to fail", or if you have a stranglehold (monopoly), then I kind of think maybe they are now not a private entity.

Otherwise, now our only option is to start shooting board members.
And, we wouldn't want violence to be our only recourse.

 

[CCCCCCC]

This.
When you take money from the government because you are "too big to fail", or if you have a stranglehold (monopoly), then I kind of think maybe they are now not a private entity.

Otherwise, now our only option is to start shooting board members.
And, we wouldn't want violence to be our only recourse.

The banks are government subsidized monopolies which are now being used against we the people. This attack on our freedom goes well beyond private business. The social media tech monopoly is doing the same thing to free speech. We have to evolve past this "private business" mindset when these businesses are anything but private.

The enemies of freedom are now utilizing "private business" along with useful idiots and politicians to achieve their objective.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wait, so when more and more money accumulates in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and then those people get to decide who has access to the "free market" and who doesn't, democracy suffers? Gosh, who knew?

 

[CampingJosh]

I'm really not concerned. It requires too many diverse companies to all make the same decision, even when that decision (eventually) is bad for business.

All it would take is for one regional bank to spot the incredible business opportunity of a huge, wide-open market to undercut any attempt to cut off funding.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm really not concerned. It requires too many diverse companies to all make the same decision, even when that decision (eventually) is bad for business.

All it would take is for one regional bank to spot the incredible business opportunity of a huge, wide-open market to undercut any attempt to cut off funding.

Except, many of those small banks, have to deal with the big banks. And if the big banks won't deal with them, they go under.
How are the small regional banks going to serve businesses nationwide?
Where are they going to get the capital to expand?

 

[indykid]

I'm really not concerned. It requires too many diverse companies to all make the same decision, even when that decision (eventually) is bad for business.

All it would take is for one regional bank to spot the incredible business opportunity of a huge, wide-open market to undercut any attempt to cut off funding.

While it sounds good, banks borrow money from the feds to then spread as they desire. Any bank trying to take advantage of being the only bank lending to firearm manufacturers would be forced to pay higher fees to borrow the money. They would then have to lend it out at higher rates which all would be passed along to we the people as firearms with prices most could no longer afford.

Getting scary out there!

 

[CampingJosh]

While it sounds good, banks borrow money from the feds to then spread as they desire. Any bank trying to take advantage of being the only bank lending to firearm manufacturers would be forced to pay higher fees to borrow the money. They would then have to lend it out at higher rates which all would be passed along to we the people as firearms with prices most could no longer afford.

Getting scary out there!

No.

Banks borrow money from the Federal Reserve, often shortened to "the Fed," but that's different from borrowing from the feds.

The article posted made claims that individual banks are shifting their policies. That's an entirely different thing than saying that the Federal Reserve is shifting its policy.

The Federal Reserve offers the same interest rate to all banks in the country.

 

[Vigilant]

The way I understand the Federal Reserve, banks only borrow from it when their on hand cash is below the threshold of the law? Banks are required to keep enough cash on hand to cover a percentage of their deposits. It’s a scary low percentage, but it has to be there. If at close of business, a bank’s on hand cash is below the threshold, they borrow money to go above that threshold. The Reserve rate is higher than the rate the bank would get from borrowing from another bank, but evidently there is no hassle to it. I’m familiar with a person involved with a group of folks that bought out a struggling bank, to obtain the FDIC charter, and create their own bank, just to get TARP funds. Banking is screwy, and undoubtedly criminally crooked, but it is what it is.

 

[CCCCCCC]

There is no question, this attack on our rights from so called “private business” creates a bit of a dilemma. But it goes back to the governments responsibility of protecting our natural rights.

 

[Lex Concord]

I canceled my BOA credit card as a consequence of their anti gun nonsense. NYS is in the process of blocking the NRA from selling insurance. On and on it goes. The petty tyrants never tire of “making the world a better place”

I've taken a different tack; I pay everything off each month, pay them no interest, rack up points, and make them send me several hundred dollars in gift cards each year.

I cost them (inconsequential sums of) money. Such is my revenge.

 

[Lex Concord]

It seems many people hate "the banks"... pretty much everyone here has a "bank" account, as most employers now require direct deposit.

If you really want to take some direct action, and you have any funds on deposit at any of the big banks (especially those involved in shutting out gun-related businesses), find a credit union, open an account, and pull all of your money out of that big bad bank and put it in your new credit union account.

It's still insured by the feds (NCUA - for whatever its worth), but credit unions tend to operate very locally, none is anywhere near being the "too big to fail" leagues and, they tend not to do stupid **** "because politics" precisely because they are small and a different type of organization. It's pretty easy to find a "free" ATM as there is a nationwide network of (mostly) credit unions and small banks that offer fee-free transactions for members in the network. My nearest credit union branch is a 30-plus minute drive, but I don't need it much, and just bundle other errands in the area when I need to go there. I have avoided true banks for a long time, and will continue to do so as long as possible.

Also, it is not from ATM fees, but from using the funds you have on deposit (for making loans and other types of investments) that banks make the bulk of their profit. Take your money out, and they will not be making ATM fees from you or making interest on loaning out your deposits.

 

[JeepHammer]

Interesting. I see the point being made, and the issue... but if the suggestion is that banks be forced to finance private companies, I can't agree.

I was wondering about that myself...

I agree a private enterprise shouldn't be forced to cater to a particular sector of product manufacturing.
Since TV's, microwaves, DVD players, etc. (Technology consumer goods) were allowed to die in this country, I don't see an issue with not financing firearms makers, after all, it's still profitable with record sales in recent years isn't it?

I didn't agree with allowing banks to gamble in derivatives,
I didn't agree with banking across state lines that created banks 'Too Big To Fail', now the local bank, investing in the community, is a thing of the past.
I didn't agree with bundling home loans and reclassifying as 'Securities'... It didn't go well the first time in the 80s.

Derivatives sank two of the largest banks in the world, but Congress changed the rules anyway.

Banking across state lines was a protection against the same catastrophic failures from the great depression, but Congress did it anyway.

While savings and loan collapse in the 80s should have been a lesson in what NOT to do with mortgages, Congress allowed it anyway.

Now Congress has repealed or suspended most of Frank-Dodd that was supposed to protect the assets of regular folks...

Anyone else see this repeating itself again?

I won't even get into taking the US off the gold standard, but it doesn't matter anyway, the gold has left the US, as a country we don't own it anymore...

Wouldn't surprise me if the gun lobby wound up getting taxpayer dollars to subsidize the firearms industry, same people in Congress all through these catastrophic events, 96% reelection rate. They can do anything they want...

 

[JeepHammer]

It seems many people hate "the banks"... pretty much everyone here has a "bank" account, as most employers now require direct deposit.

How I see it,
Everyone has a bank account so they can get credit.
Credit reporting agencies are hand & glove with banking.
Without a bank account you can't get starter loans, and the banks report the credit to the credit reporting services, which in turn bump up your credit score, so you can get more credit at the bank.

Of you really want to take some direct action, and you have any funds on deposit at any of the big banks (especially those involved in shutting out gun-related businesses), find a credit union, open an account, and pull all of your money out of that big bad bank and put it in your new credit union account.

It's still insured by the feds (NCUA - for whatever its worth), but credit unions tend to operate very locally, none is anywhere near being the "too big to fail" leagues and, they tend not to do stupid **** "because politics" precisely because they are small and a different type of organization. It's pretty easy to find a "free" ATM as there is a nationwide network of (mostly) credit unions and small banks that offer fee-free transactions for members in the network. My nearest credit union branch is a 30-plus minute drive, but I don't need it much, and just bundle other errands in the area when I need to go there. I have avoided true banks for a long time, and will continue to do so as long as possible.

Very nearly what I did...
I scrapped the commercial banks entirely, opting for an account at the local level, a savings & loan that doesn't sell mortgages.
The money stays local.

I also didn't buy I to the 'Consumer' (false) economy idea.
If it wasn't real materials or real estate I didn't buy it, opting to pay as I went and save/reinvest in what I knew.

Since a 'Banker' laughed in my face when I wanted to buy a common house (instead of rent) because it seems a disabled Marine doesn't make enough to qualify for a loan at his bank,
I saved, started a business, worked my butt off and bought my land outright.
Banks would lend me money to build, so I started a second business on that land, rented to myself to make enough to build a shop, also rented from myself,
Shop paid for, sold first business to pay for building a house, which I couldn't get a loan for because it wasn't the standard flimsy stick frame build...

Now everything is paid for, since I didn't pay for it two or three times over in interest & fees.
Income is cash or improvements, and I didn't miss a thing not owning an 'SUV', beeanie babies, pet rocks or whatever the consumer economy extends you credit for...

Also, it is not from ATM fees, but from using the funds you have on deposit (for making loans and other types of investments) that banks make the bulk of their profit. Take your money out, and they will not be making ATM fees from you or making interest on loaning out your deposits.

No sense what so ever giving away money in 'Fees'. It's my money, it should be a privilege for them to use it until I need it.

In God we trust, Jesus needs a cosigner, and all others pay cash...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Income is cash or improvements, and I didn't miss a thing not owning an 'SUV', beeanie babies, pet rocks or whatever the consumer economy extends you credit for...

Reminds me... I've got a basement full of beanie babies I need to check the value on... and binders full of pokemon cards... I could be a potential thousand-aire.

 

[rhino]

It seems many people hate "the banks"... pretty much everyone here has a "bank" account, as most employers now require direct deposit.

If you really want to take some direct action, and you have any funds on deposit at any of the big banks (especially those involved in shutting out gun-related businesses), find a credit union, open an account, and pull all of your money out of that big bad bank and put it in your new credit union account.

It's still insured by the feds (NCUA - for whatever its worth), but credit unions tend to operate very locally, none is anywhere near being the "too big to fail" leagues and, they tend not to do stupid **** "because politics" precisely because they are small and a different type of organization. It's pretty easy to find a "free" ATM as there is a nationwide network of (mostly) credit unions and small banks that offer fee-free transactions for members in the network. My nearest credit union branch is a 30-plus minute drive, but I don't need it much, and just bundle other errands in the area when I need to go there. I have avoided true banks for a long time, and will continue to do so as long as possible.

Also, it is not from ATM fees, but from using the funds you have on deposit (for making loans and other types of investments) that banks make the bulk of their profit. Take your money out, and they will not be making ATM fees from you or making interest on loaning out your deposits.

Banks don't like it when you take your business elsewhere (ask me how I know!). Their level of displeasure is directly proportional to the size of your account.

Which suggest DO EET.