quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Freakin' Delta.

I'll be sending them an email. And I'll also be canceling my Symantec subscription.

You'll be much happier without that bloatware anyway.

Hopefully they can be handed used Carthage casings, and high capacity mags to match with, in dc that’s instant arrest. If anything this might have more people joining the NRA now.To show stupidity of these company’s do they think only 5 million NRA members are the only ones to have guns ? There are far more than that, and seeing how gun owners are treated, might they not just tell these company’s to fuck off on using these company’s in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by 83v45magna:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Freakin' Delta.

I'll be sending them an email. And I'll also be canceling my Symantec subscription.

You'll be much happier without that bloatware anyway.

THIS.

I use Mac and Symantec (Norton) chokes Mac.

I'm speechless.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...le-change/ar-BBJndo4

Banks are mulling a creative way to enforce gun control even if the government doesn't make a single change

A New York Times columnist floated the idea of having banks and credit card companies cut business ties with retailers that sell assault weapons and accessories.

Some finance industry executives are already reportedly on board with the idea.

Credit card companies have enacted similar measures in the past, barring Bitcoin purchases, cutting ties with Backpage.com, and suspending payments to WikiLeaks.

Last week's deadly shooting in Florida sparked renewed calls for gun-control legislation — but some finance industry titans reportedly want to take the issue into their own hands.

New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote Monday that he'd spent several days speaking with "a handful of chief executives" to discuss how banks and credit-card companies could intervene in gun sales. Sorkin said he found universal enthusiasm, though none of the executives would speak on the record.

Sorkin drew upon Visa's espousal of "corporate responsibility" to argue that financial companies should change their terms of service to cut business ties with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stock devices that accelerate semiautomatic rifles' firing rate.

"Assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system," Sorkin wrote.

The idea has precedent, Sorkin added. Major banks including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America barred clients from using their credit cards to buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies due to risk and volatility.

The financial industry has also previously intervened in cases where the companies feared legal liability from their clients' purchases. In 2015, Visa and MasterCard cut business ties with Backpage.com, the classified advertising portal, after law-enforcement agencies accused site of facilitating sex trafficking.

Visa and MasterCard also suspended payments and donations to WikiLeaks in 2010 after the website published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables. MasterCard argued at the time that company rules prohibited customers from "directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal."

Sorkin acknowledged the idea may be a "pipe dream," and that at least two executives noted that they feared the reaction of the National Rifle Association and worried for their employees' safety.

"None of this is a panacea. But it's a start. It takes leadership and courage — exactly what these executives say they have," Sorkin wrote. "If they don't want to back up their words with actions, the next time there's a school shooting that prompts a conversation about gun companies, it should also include the financial complex that supports them."

I imagine what would happen, in response to such a move proving even moderately successful, would be the firearms industry creating their own financial exchange system, a la PayPal, and bypassing the normal financial systems entirely.

Banks refusing to handle the NRA's accounts would be a serious problem for them.
How would they conduct their business without access to banks?

Consumers would have problems buying guns, supplies and ammunition if credit card companies won't allow the transactions.

There must be a way to counter this.

Dipshits. Do they think that is really going to rid the world of evil black rifles? If the article is even true, and given the source, I really doubt it is, all this would do is cause gun shops to set up a separate cash only business that is in someone else's name.

It will just 1- Force a solution to the monopoly that the credit card processors have created. 2-Cause people to go to take a cash advance on their card to make a purchase at a cash only brick and mortar store 3- Turn the industry into an all cash business.

No matter how you slice it, black rifles are here to stay.

Either way, the financial district is just acting like a petulant child (also look under "last pResident STompy feet")

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

...If the article is even true, and given the source, I really doubt it is, all this would do is cause gun shops to set up a separate cash only business that is in someone else's name.

Sorry, it's true. The original article appeared in the (gag, puke) NY Times, it's much longer and nauseating to read, But here it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...banks-gun-sales.html

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t

By Andrew Ross Sorkin

DEALBOOK FEB. 19, 2018

For the past year, chief executives have often talked about the new sense of moral responsibility that corporations have to help their communities and confront social challenges even when Washington won’t.

In the aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 students and staff members — and at a time when Washington shows little interest in limiting the sales of assault weapons — there’s a real opportunity for the business community to fill the void and prove that all that talk about moral responsibility isn’t hollow.

Here’s an idea.

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand.

PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay announced years ago that they would not allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms.

“We do not believe permitting the sale of firearms on our platform is consistent with our values or in the best interests of our customers,” a spokesman for Square told me.

The big financial firms don’t even have to go that far.

For example, Visa, which published a 71-page paper in 2016 espousing its “corporate responsibility,” could easily change its terms of service to say that it won’t do business with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, which make semiautomatic rifles fire faster. (Even the National Rifle Association has said it would support tighter restrictions on bump stocks.)

If Mastercard were to do the same, assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system.

There is precedent for credit card issuers to ban the purchase of completely legal products. Just this month, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America banned the use of their cards to buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

To be clear: Those three banks won’t let you use your credit card to buy Bitcoin, but they will happily let you use it to buy an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle — the same kind of gun used in mass shootings in Parkland; Newtown, Conn.; San Bernardino, Calif.; Las Vegas; and Sutherland Springs, Tex.

Visa, oddly enough, is the card of choice of the N.R.A.: There is actually an N.R.A.-branded Visa card issued by First Bankcard, a division of First National Bank of Omaha. And Mastercard proudly announced last year that it was the branded card for Cabela’s, an outdoor gear megastore with a seemingly limitless assault-weapon catalog.

Visa spokesmen did not reply to several emails seeking comment. A spokesman for Mastercard sent a boilerplate statement that expressed “disgust with recent events, including last week in Florida.”

“Our payments network is governed by standards that have been established over time,” the statement said. “Chief among these is that we do not and will not permit merchants to engage in unlawful activity on our network.” He said the company would continue to talk to customers and lawmakers about its policies.

If Visa and Mastercard are unwilling to act on this issue, the credit card processors and banks that issue credit cards could try. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, which issues credit cards and owns a payment processor, has talked about how he and his bank have “a moral obligation but also a deeply vested interest” in helping “solve pressing societal challenges.” This is your chance, Mr. Dimon.

And here’s a variation on the same theme: What if the payment processing industry’s biggest customers — companies like McDonald’s, Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, AT&T, CVS and others that regularly talk about “social responsibility” — collectively pressured the industry to do it? There’s a chance that some of the payment processors would stop handling gun sales. Perhaps their voices would help push one of the banks to step out and lead?

Is all of this a pipe dream? Maybe, but I spent the last 72 hours calling and emailing a handful of chief executives to discuss these ideas. None wanted to speak on the record, because it’s a hot-button topic. But all applauded the idea and some said they had already been thinking about it. A few, I discovered later, called their peers to begin a conversation.

At least two executives said a reason that they haven’t been more outspoken yet is that they fear reprisals from the N.R.A. and other gun supporters — not just in the form of boycotts that could affect their bottom line, but also actions that could imperil the safety of their employees.

Obviously there would be opposition. When Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal, was asked at a conference about his former company’s decision to not do business with firearms merchants, he made his displeasure clear. “No, I wouldn’t be doing that if I was still running it,” said Mr. Thiel, who left the company years ago and is a supporter of President Trump.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to an approach like this are companies like Walmart, which has huge sway over the financial industry. While Walmart stopped selling assault rifles in 2015, it might look askance at any policy by a bank issuer or credit card company to limit the kinds of products it sells.

Critics of using the finance industry to influence gun sales might argue that such a move would be discriminatory against gun retailers. But gun sellers are not a protected class, like age, race, gender, religion or even political affiliation. This would be a strictly commercial decision.

Another critique is that it is impossible to prevent every shooting, no matter how guns are restricted. And the banks’ actions would affect millions of their own law-abiding customers, effectively dictating what they can and cannot buy.

The most troubling aspect of having the finance industry try to restrict gun sales is that it would push the most dangerous guns into an untraceable world where sales would depend on cash. That’s true. All things considered, though, it would make it considerably harder to even find such guns.

There are other sectors of the finance industry that could step up. For example, Lloyd’s of London is the favored insurance company for gun shows. It could pull out.

None of this is a panacea. But it’s a start. It takes leadership and courage — exactly what these executives say they have. If they don’t want to back up their words with actions, the next time there’s a school shooting that prompts a conversation about gun companies, it should also include the financial complex that supports them.



A version of this article appears in print on February 20, 2018, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Congress Fails To Curb Guns. Could Banks?. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

...If the article is even true, and given the source, I really doubt it is, all this would do is cause gun shops to set up a separate cash only business that is in someone else's name.

Sorry, it's true. The original article appeared in the (gag, puke) NY Times, but I've exceeded my free reads and cannot copy and past from this link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...banks-gun-sales.html

Sorry, I read the article twice, and I see no official statements from anyone in power at any of the companies. I see a "journalist" claiming to have talked to these people. Are there recordings or transcripts of the conversations? Or is it just another lefty making fake news to make it look like "the tide is turning on the evil NRA". The article is chock full of "If" "could" and "may" and other rooster crows, sun comes up, so the rooster had to make the sun come up assumptions that are loosing limped together.

Do you have proof that it is true and not fake news with made up sources? I mean, for goodness sakes, we KNOW the NY Times would NEVER publish a story that is made up, with made up sources.

What proof do you offer that the author didn't make this up as a hysteria hit piece?

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Sorry, it's true. The original article appeared in the (gag, puke) NY Times, ...

It may be true, but, given the source I wouldn't be getting too awfully concerned just yet.

Besides: What these jokers would mainly accomplish, by doing that, would be to prove just how easily they could be done away with.

I Kind-a wish that Gun-Pal payment service from 10 years ago didn't end up having so many issues.

Would have been an opportunity if it was run differently.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
Banks refusing to handle the NRA's accounts would be a serious problem for them.
How would they conduct their business without access to banks?

Consumers would have problems buying guns, supplies and ammunition if credit card companies won't allow the transactions.

There must be a way to counter this.

Trust me - this won't happen. It would create a nightmare for the IRS.

It’s something to be concerned about. If I recall, Bruce Gray even had problems with banking. Honestly though, if the banks really tried to do this, the backlash will be more than they bargained for. Gun owners have long memories.

Well, I just gave delta an earful.

I'm really starting to lose my sense of humor about this whole thing.

There are members of this forum that often speak about how great a cashless society would be.

They need to keep this story in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
There are members of this forum that often speak about how great a cashless society would be.
They need to keep this story in mind.

Yes, exactly. A cashless society would be a nightmare. But it will never happen. There will always be alternative methods of exchanging value. Of course, they may be less convenient than using the government fiat... but there will always be alternatives.

Banks? Who needs Banks when there are Credit Unions about. I'll bet they would cheerfully take up the slack.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
There are members of this forum that often speak about how great a cashless society would be.
They need to keep this story in mind.

Yes, exactly. A cashless society would be a nightmare. But it will never happen. There will always be alternative methods of exchanging value. Of course, they may be less convenient than using the government fiat... but there will always be alternatives.

And IF, and I do say IF, the hand wringers here were to get their wish that this article is true, and the card companies said that you couldn't use their cards to buy guns or ammo, someone would come along and fill the void. There is far too much money to be made. Even if it took an entire credit card and processing system to make it happen. Someone would fill the void, and laugh all the way to the bank.

And as far as some people having problems with banks and whatnot? I have a friend who owns a larger firearms parts company. They went to borrow a few million from Wells Fargo for a business expansion. Wells Fargo shut them down because they were in the firearms business. They said ok, shopped elsewhere for the loan, then advised WF that they were closing out their accounts to move them elsewhere. Guess what happened then? Yep, WF came back on bended knee begging for the business. They actually got into a bidding war with the other bank, and the company got a really sweet rate on the loan, that they wouldn't have got with WF going full retard.

Gents, money talks. These companies will only put ideology ahead of money when they think they can have ideology, AND money. You take the money away, and the ideology becomes less important to them. Somebody will always make the loans, as long as there is money to be made.

^^
Right, jljones. We just have to keep on fighting these tactics. See Shapiro, from the last page:

quote:

I’m generally not an advocate of boycotts. I think we should separate politics from the business world as often as humanly possible. But if the Left is going to use this tactic in order to pressure businesses to disassociate from conservatives, conservatives will be forced to respond in kind.