I really hate to say it, but Stuka, you’re really wrong on this one. Citibank has a policy (corporate, so all branches must comply) that they will not allow gun dealers to open accounts with them. Sadly, this is not rare, as more of the larger banks are doing the same thing. Yes, its corporate America -and it defies reason -MOST large gun shops and supplie shops do quite a bit of business, so we aren’t talking ‘chump change’. For whatever reason, these banks are letting their politics dictate their business. Were I a stock holder and became aware of such a thing, I’d certainly let my voice be heard. After all, the primary business of a bank (or any other business) is supposed to be to earn a profit -and there is nothing illegal about selling firearms or supplies for the same -they are legitimate businesses dealing in legitimate products.
I don’t know where or why they started doing it, but they absolutely are doing it.
Well, I’m going to have to say ‘see ya’ to all of yall. I’m getting ready to take off (early fri. morning, after getting off shift) to Alabama, and see if I can bag me some deer. Even if I don’t, its always relaxing to get away from it all, as it were.
Deer sausage, Ummm.
Do you have access to that corporate policy? I’ve found stories about scattered incidents involving mail order firearms dealers and citibank as far back as 2000, mostly involving the Nevada Pistol Academy. Anything “citi” has riled gunnies for some time.
Citibank sold it’s credit card unit (Citi Merchant Services ,CMS) to FirstData in 2005 and only licenses it’s name and logo to FirstData. I found this on FirstData’s web site;
Ownership First Data Corporation is wholly owned by affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR). Publicly owned since 1992, First Data and KKR announced a merger agreement in April 2007. The transaction closed in September 2007, at which time, First Data became a private-equity company and was no longer listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
FirstData processes credit card transactions for many banking institutions. Basically they are the credit card industry. CitiBank has little, if any, input into the group that wrote the letter to the merchant.
There is much more to the story than what’s floating around on the Gunnies’ web sites. Somehow the credit card processor has some risk when the gun, purchased via mail order or online, is used to kill someone (see Virginia Tech). When lawsuits are filed, EVERYONE involved is sued. Usually those with the deepest packets are the main targets. A lawyer could easily link the credit card processor to the purchase of the VA Tech shooters purchase. FirstData is in business to make money, not to support our right to by guns, or anything else with possible liability.
Upon further research, I found that Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. is a heavy contributor to the, (guess who?), REPUBLICAN party. So there you are, some of your fellow Republicans are more interested in their money that our access to buying firearms remotely(not face to face).
Either way I doubt even Firstdata has a blanket ban on on-line/mail-order firearms shops. The account closure was probably due to specific issues with that company.
I really hate to say it, but Stuka, you’re really wrong on this one. Citibank has a policy (corporate, so all branches must comply) that they will not allow gun dealers to open accounts with them. Sadly, this is not rare, as more of the larger banks are doing the same thing. Yes, its corporate America -and it defies reason -MOST large gun shops and supplie shops do quite a bit of business, so we aren’t talking ‘chump change’. For whatever reason, these banks are letting their politics dictate their business. Were I a stock holder and became aware of such a thing, I’d certainly let my voice be heard. After all, the primary business of a bank (or any other business) is supposed to be to earn a profit -and there is nothing illegal about selling firearms or supplies for the same -they are legitimate businesses dealing in legitimate products.
I don’t know where or why they started doing it, but they absolutely are doing it.
Well, I’m going to have to say ‘see ya’ to all of yall. I’m getting ready to take off (early fri. morning, after getting off shift) to Alabama, and see if I can bag me some deer. Even if I don’t, its always relaxing to get away from it all, as it were.
Deer sausage, Ummm.
Do you have access to that corporate policy? I’ve found stories about scattered incidents involving mail order firearms dealers and citibank as far back as 2000, mostly involving the Nevada Pistol Academy. Anything “citi” has riled gunnies for some time.
Citibank sold it’s credit card unit (Citi Merchant Services ,CMS) to FirstData in 2005 and only licenses it’s name and logo to FirstData. I found this on FirstData’s web site;
Ownership First Data Corporation is wholly owned by affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR). Publicly owned since 1992, First Data and KKR announced a merger agreement in April 2007. The transaction closed in September 2007, at which time, First Data became a private-equity company and was no longer listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
FirstData processes credit card transactions for many banking institutions. Basically they are the credit card industry. CitiBank has little, if any, input into the group that wrote the letter to the merchant.
There is much more to the story than what’s floating around on the Gunnies’ web sites. Somehow the credit card processor has some risk when the gun, purchased via mail order or online, is used to kill someone (see Virginia Tech). When lawsuits are filed, EVERYONE involved is sued. Usually those with the deepest packets are the main targets. A lawyer could easily link the credit card processor to the purchase of the VA Tech shooters purchase. FirstData is in business to make money, not to support our right to by guns, or anything else with possible liability.
Upon further research, I found that Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. is a heavy contributor the the,guess who, REPUBLICAN party. So there you are, some of your fellow Republicans are more interested in their money that your access to buying firearms remotely(not face to face).
First it was cigarettes now it is guns.
That’s what happens when we thought cigarettes was ok to go after. Now that all the money is gone out of them. Guns are the new issue.
There is alot of money there to be had. Those lawyers have to keep themselves in business somehow.
I wonder where you will be able to use a legal gun when they get finished with their lawsuits.
Where can you legally smoke a cigarette anymore?
Your some is alot for most smokers.
List where you can’t smoke anymore? Now in rental aparrtments, owned condos, hotels, yourworkplace, hospitals,restaurants,mass transits,planes, government building including schools etc. even on the outside of building there are retrictions on how far away from the building you have to be.
So I guess your right again.
SH: There are no laws prohibiting smoked tobacco use in rented apartments
J: , owned condos,
SH: Such cases of course are individual decisions of the condo owners, but are civil restrictions rather than criminal and of course only cover a couple thousand square feet.
J: hotels,
SH: The only notable hotel chain which does not have rooms for tobacco users is the Marriott hotel corporation. I like Marriotts and still patronize them if they provide an outside patio (most do) where I can go for a toke.
J: yourworkplace
SH: Not my workplace. But even if we add up all the workplaces, we’re still left with over 99.99% of space within Florida where a tobacco user may freely imbibe. It’s a big state.
J: , hospitals
S: True...A very teeny, tiny amount of space within any community
J: ,restaurants
S: Only in a very few states. As Floridians, we may have become unfamiliar with the notion that in almost every other state in the U.S. restaurants have separate seating areas for tobacco users.
J: ,mass transits,planes, government building including schools etc. even on the outside of building there are retrictions on how far away
S: And when you add all those places together, you’re still left with 99.999% of Florida (or elsewhere) where tobacco users may smoke without criminal or civil penalty.
It was uttered -tax gun use, to support victims of crime. Makes a lot of sense (to a liberal) -tax MY legal use of firearms to support victims of criminal use of the same. Only a liberal could think this was fair.
At least until liberal justices take bigger swipes at it, our rights as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment are still sound. Why must I be subject to more punishment because of the illegal activities of others? Let the criminals pay for their crimes, not the rest of us.
In short, keep your paws off my firearms.
I never have been able to think like a liberal. Guess that explains my personal success..
Do you know what a liberal even is?
For grins, I looked liberalism up in Wikipedia. In the first couple of sentences I read
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
In reference restrictions to the ownership of guns, I don’t believe it’s part of the liberal doctrine. There may be some that claim to be liberals that also want to restrict gun ownership. There are also those that claim to be conservatives that want to restrict individuals from enjoying a variety of activities, like drug use, gambling and sexual promiscuity. Some Conservatives can oppose many individual rights The use of simple terminology is, well, simple minded.
Using labels like liberal and conservative in reference to a Gun Control, is not necessarily accurate. From where I stand, the term liberal allows and the term conservative restricts individual rights. I’m for the rights of the individual.
I never have been able to think like a liberal. Guess that explains my personal success..
Do you know what a liberal even is?
For grins, I looked liberalism up in Wikipedia. In the first couple of sentences I read
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
In reference restrictions to the ownership of guns, I don’t believe it’s part of the liberal doctrine. There may be some that claim to be liberals that also want to restrict gun ownership. There are also those that claim to be conservatives that want to restrict individuals from enjoying a variety of activities, like drug use, gambling and sexual promiscuity. Some Conservatives can oppose many individual rights The use of simple terminology is, well, simple minded.
Using labels like liberal and conservative in reference to a Gun Control, is not necessarily accurate. From where I stand, the term liberal allows and the term conservative restricts individual rights. I’m for the rights of the individual.
BTW “personal success” is entirely subjective.
You would argue with a hooker about what a BJ is, wouldn’t you?
I remain confident that even when the Democrats take back the White House, no law-abiding American who wants a firearm will have any trouble scoring as many as he or she wants.
If one feels differently, I suppose moving to another more gun-friendly country is an option, but then you have to ask yourself if you can live without good cable TV
I never have been able to think like a liberal. Guess that explains my personal success..
Do you know what a liberal even is?
For grins, I looked liberalism up in Wikipedia. In the first couple of sentences I read
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
In reference restrictions to the ownership of guns, I don’t believe it’s part of the liberal doctrine. There may be some that claim to be liberals that also want to restrict gun ownership. There are also those that claim to be conservatives that want to restrict individuals from enjoying a variety of activities, like drug use, gambling and sexual promiscuity. Some Conservatives can oppose many individual rights The use of simple terminology is, well, simple minded.
Using labels like liberal and conservative in reference to a Gun Control, is not necessarily accurate. From where I stand, the term liberal allows and the term conservative restricts individual rights. I’m for the rights of the individual.
BTW “personal success” is entirely subjective.
You would argue with a hooker about what a BJ is, wouldn’t you?
Just a matter of accuracy. IOW information exchange.
I used terminology and labels that I don’t completely understand. It’s interesting to hear from others how they understand the meaning of labels like liberal, conservative and neo-con. The answers vary widely.
Take Conservative for instance.
Republicans are experiencing a major struggle to define what conservative really means today. Many hate Huckabee while others loathe McCain. Some don’t like Romney while others find Rudy off the mark.
Is it OK to spend money on social programs?
How important is religion?
Does a candidates personal life reflect their true being?
Should the immigration issues be dealt with harshly?
When someone changes their position, do they really mean it?
Should we go to war with anyone we perceive as the enemy and could be a threat sometime in the future?
The answers will vary amongst those that call themselves conservatives. Simple labels like liberal or conservative really aren’t that accurate.
When I hear conservative, I always see liquor sales banned on Sundays (or completely ), millions of Americans continuing to break the law on Super Bowl Sunday and the government interfering in personal family squabbles like the Terry Schiavo case.
There’s much about BJ’s that needs to be explained. Otherwise you might not get what you’re paying for.
(and yeah, they’re a bit more difficulty (lot more) to conceal)
