Gun Controllers Want Credit Card Companies to Monitor and Restrict Lawful Purchases

[Elderberry]

NRA ILA 1/4/2019

Gun controllers frustrated that their federal agenda has been repeatedly rejected by Americans through their elected representatives are seeking to restrict gun rights by way of the private financial system. The goal is to pressure financial services companies into either not doing business with the firearms industry and gun owners or to comprehensively surveille their lawful activity.

On December 24, the gun confiscation supporters at the New York Times ran a thinly-veiled advocacy piece by Andrew Ross Sorkin in the news section, titled, “Devastating Arsenals, Bought With Plastic and Nary a Red Flag.” The piece outlined how some of the perpetrators of high-profile mass murders had purchased firearms and ammunition in the same manner that many ordinary law-abiding Americans do, with credit cards.

The online edition of the piece carried the headline “How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings,” suggesting that financial services companies were somehow complicit in violence by facilitating the exchange of lawful goods that were ultimately used for criminal purposes. Under such juvenile logic the U.S. Treasury Department should have to answer for all of the unlawful conduct they’ve facilitated by printing dollars and minting coins.

According to the misbranded op-ed, banks and other financial services companies are “uniquely positioned” to monitor gun owner purchasing habits. Under Sorkin’s preferred scenario, credit card companies would require retailers to tag firearms-related purchases with additional data that could be used by the credit card companies to compile information on gun owners. The surveillance data could then be used to flag suspicious purchases for law enforcement.

Moreover, the piece suggests that this data collection could be used to restrict certain types of lawful firearms transactions outright. Sorkin suggested,

 

Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods this year announced that they would not sell firearms to anyone under 21. If banks chose to use the systems they already have in place, they might decide to monitor such customers, perhaps preventing them from buying multiple guns in a short period of time.

More: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190104/gun-controllers-want-credit-card-companies-to-monitor-and-restrict-lawful-purchases

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Funny, but with all those 4473 forms I filled out over the years I never once put the gun on a credit card.

(But if the effing keyboard of this effing piece of cheap, inported CRAP HP laptop of mine doesn't start behaving itself pretty soon it might get put to a framing hammer)

[Wingnut]

(But if the effing keyboard of this effing piece of cheap, inported CRAP HP laptop of mine doesn't start behaving itself pretty soon it might get put to a framing hammer)

Just shoot it!   

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Just shoot it!   

Mebbe I'll just call myself a trans sexual Muslim Congress Critter and "Impeach The Mother Bleep" instead.

 

[Smokin Joe]

NRA ILA 1/4/2019

Gun controllers frustrated that their federal agenda has been repeatedly rejected by Americans through their elected representatives are seeking to restrict gun rights by way of the private financial system. The goal is to pressure financial services companies into either not doing business with the firearms industry and gun owners or to comprehensively surveille their lawful activity.

On December 24, the gun confiscation supporters at the New York Times ran a thinly-veiled advocacy piece by Andrew Ross Sorkin in the news section, titled, “Devastating Arsenals, Bought With Plastic and Nary a Red Flag.” The piece outlined how some of the perpetrators of high-profile mass murders had purchased firearms and ammunition in the same manner that many ordinary law-abiding Americans do, with credit cards.

The online edition of the piece carried the headline “How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings,” suggesting that financial services companies were somehow complicit in violence by facilitating the exchange of lawful goods that were ultimately used for criminal purposes. Under such juvenile logic the U.S. Treasury Department should have to answer for all of the unlawful conduct they’ve facilitated by printing dollars and minting coins.

According to the misbranded op-ed, banks and other financial services companies are “uniquely positioned” to monitor gun owner purchasing habits. Under Sorkin’s preferred scenario, credit card companies would require retailers to tag firearms-related purchases with additional data that could be used by the credit card companies to compile information on gun owners. The surveillance data could then be used to flag suspicious purchases for law enforcement.

Moreover, the piece suggests that this data collection could be used to restrict certain types of lawful firearms transactions outright. Sorkin suggested,

 

Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods this year announced that they would not sell firearms to anyone under 21. If banks chose to use the systems they already have in place, they might decide to monitor such customers, perhaps preventing them from buying multiple guns in a short period of time.

More: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190104/gun-controllers-want-credit-card-companies-to-monitor-and-restrict-lawful-purchases

If they establish such a precedent, then anything goes. Not just your gun, but what you bought at the grocery store, how much fuel you bought, what movies you watch, etc.

Too many pizzas? the food police show up...

Used 'too much' fuel...you are cut off.

Too much porn? Off to counseling for you....

Not Enough porn....see above.

Not enough 'diversity' in your entertainment...yep, back to 'camp'.

"Enemies of the State" could be ferreted out by their spending habits, and Big Brother has been watching you through the rewards program at your local stores....

The 'cashless' society would quickly become a total control mechanism. I have little doubt that this sort of thought would give significant numbers of those in DC nocturnal emissions, but it is not a direction America either needs nor wants to go in.