Citi becomes first big bank to press clients to restrict gun sales

Yes. If you say no, then you must also believe that the minimum military age should be 21. Should the voting age also be 21?

Should the drinking age be 18?

I think 21 is a better age to join the military as the person is more mature. Voting should be lowered to 16
 
ok so clearly they will no longer have armed guards picking up their money

Mentally ill teenagers cant buy guns.

So he legally bought a gun?

just because a few people are idiots shouldnt take away my rights.

I didnt do anything.

So if a few idiots go call people the N word I lose my right to free speech?

Are you having a stroke or a psychotic episode?
 
What limitations have gun owners been "attacked" with. Serious question. Tell me somethings that you would like to do and feel that you should be able to do that you currently cannot. My mind could be changed on this issue

I would like to see a federal carry permit for one thing.

I would like to see the bull shit stop that the left is not coming to take your guns. Because a large portion on the left want just that.

They want laws added that would not have stoped these shootings.

How are universal background checks going to stop these stootings?

You would need a regersty of all guns for that to work.

We have plenty of guns control now but if they can come up with reasonable ways to prevent crazies from getting them then I will hear them put.

Banning certain semi auto type weapons will not stop this.

How bout we enforce laws we have like a felon with a gun and add real time to the punishment

They they can come up with a free and easy way to do a background check that is not a registry then I will hear them out and might even be ok with it.

I'm in favor
 
Big government tells private companies what to do all the time. Since citi bank was more than willing to take a bail out from our government, then maybe they should have a even more open ear to what our government tells them.

And if it was 3 years ago, with Obama telling them to cut all ties with gun sellers?
 
I would like to see a federal carry permit for one thing.

I would like to see the bull shit stop that the left is not coming to take your guns. Because a large portion on the left want just that.

They want laws added that would not have stoped these shootings.

How are universal background checks going to stop these stootings?

You would need a regersty of all guns for that to work.

We have plenty of guns control now but if they can come up with reasonable ways to prevent crazies from getting them then I will hear them put.

Banning certain semi auto type weapons will not stop this.

How bout we enforce laws we have like a felon with a gun and add real time to the punishment

They they can come up with a free and easy way to do a background check that is not a registry then I will hear them out and might even be ok with it.

I'm in favor

With all due respect you didn't answer my question. You turned it around to Dems want to do this and that and all this stuff wont work. What do you want to do that you currently cannot was the question.
 
Should the drinking age be 18?

I think 21 is a better age to join the military as the person is more mature. Voting should be lowered to 16
So you can be mature enough at 16 to vote but not mature enough to join the military at 18? Voting carries much more responsibility. People already complain on here about stupid conservative adults and how they voted this past election. So, maybe we should just allow 16yr olds to vote and completely stop adults from voting? But, what if the majority of 16yrs olds were conservative?

But we can play that game ad nauseam.
 
And if it was 3 years ago, with Obama telling them to cut all ties with gun sellers?

I think that would violate the 2nd amendment
 
With all due respect you didn't answer my question. You turned it around to Dems want to do this and that and all this stuff wont work. What do you want to do that you currently cannot was the question.
For me, there is nothing about the current limitations I have any real problem with. I can legally purchase the majority of the firearms I am interested in. I can purchase magazines with various capacities that interest me. For more specialized items such as suppressors, I can own those too with a more in depth background check and the expensive tax on top of the purchase. That one I could do without as far as the stamp tax, but I can still purchase one.

Further limitations on what I can purchase is an issue. Further limitations on the capacity of the magazines I am interested in working with is an issue. Any limitations on the amount of ammunition I can purchase within a given time period is an issue. These are some examples on what I consider further infringement on my rights.
 
I'll be upfront about the fact the current regulation fervor does nothing to convince me that "they don't want my guns".

I'm a relatively old guy and all I can remember over the years have been people likes these taking, not giving, when it comes to my right to a firearm. Nor do I remember much civil or educated conversation on the subject from those looking to take. I do remember plenty of justifications on why I should just accept it though.

That's one of the reasons why those who favor gun rights don't give an inch.

Those who favor gun control are never willing to actually trade horses. They simply demand concessions and act as though they shouldn't even be expected to concede anything in return.

The only way for negotiation to be successful is for both sides to feel as though they have profited.
 
So you are ok with govt getting involved with companies, but only if they agree with you. shocking.

Meh, we all have our flaws.
 
I might agree with your point if they either just stopped business completely with firearm companies or if these restrictions are applied in States were these restrictions have been written into law.

As it is, it's a restrictive policy regarding service directed at specific businesses for specific reasons that are not currently illegal. I really don't see that as much different than the mentioned baker saying I'll sell you a cake, just not a gay cake. Or that they'll sell them a cake as long as the cake won't be used at any "gay" functions.

Yes it's a restrictive policy. It's different from the cake situation - for it to be a parallel, the bakers would have to be saying "We're not selling any wedding cakes, although we will sell sakes for birthday parties or celebratory dinners."

There is no legal obligation that companies sell a product, only that when they sell it they do so within the bounds of the law. There is no law that requires anyone to sell bump stocks or any other firearm accessory. There are laws that prevent discrimination if they choose to sell those accessories.

To take it another example - Imagine that a Walmart in one town sells rifles but the Walmart in the next town over refuses to carry them.

Question #1: Are you arguing that the second Walmart is infringing on 2nd Amendment rights because they refuse to sell rifles while the first Walmart does?

Question #2: Does this mean that every retailer in the 1st town must also carry rifles since the Walmart does?
 
With all due respect you didn't answer my question. You turned it around to Dems want to do this and that and all this stuff wont work. What do you want to do that you currently cannot was the question.

I gave 1. I don't go north much because I cannot carry or have a gun.

I can't buy a hand gun in another state.

There are guns and modifications I can't have.

We have infringements already and some I can live with the same as other rights.

I'm just not ready to give up more, then more , then more.
 
Back
Top