Over a year ago I covered a push by the New York Times to get credit card companies and banks to enact gun control that government wouldn’t by telling us what lawful products we can and cannot use our credit cards to purchase.  In essence, if you wanted to buy an AR or high capacity magazines, the New York Times wanted your credit card to be declined.

At the time I said this was a bad idea.  It would be inviting pushback from Conservatives would be forced to punish the banks with regulations.

In addition, this raises the question that if credit card companies have the obligation to limit our purchase of legal products “to save lives” than shouldn’t the credit card companies first stop the sale of alcohol which is responsible for 88,000 deaths per year or tobacco which is responsible for 480,000 deaths per year?

One would think that old-school Liberalism, which was suspicious of big banks and corporations, would be disinclined to let private industry micromanage our lives.  But since the banks turned their eyes to limiting gun sales, now the big banks are their friends.

Fast forward to today, and Robert “Cultural Appropriation” O’Rourke decided to make forcing the banks and credit card companies to be our nannies by declining the sales of gun purchases part of his platform.


Sure, he’s trending at <1% right now, but don’t underestimate that.  Eric “Douche Nukem” Swalwell was trending at a whopping 0% but managed to make make gun confiscation part of the Democrat platform with multiple candidates talking about mandatory buybacks.

Let him push this for a little bit, maybe bring it up at a debate, and watch as Warren, Sanders, and Harris all vie for the position of Face-Stamping Regulator in Chief.

Just wait until they decide to give the banks the power to Red Flag you.

Did you just make a $1,200 dollar purchase at Cabela’s?  Was that for guns an ammo?  Why are you buying that much ammo?  That’s a Red Flag.

Right now, the banks have the duty to report cash deposits over $10,000, because that could be terrorism or drug money.  But if you make too many smaller deposits that add up to $10,000, they have to report that too, because that be you trying to hide your terrorism or drug money.

Once they ban using credit cards to buy guns, should the banks report large cash withdraws?  Why do you need $1,200 in cash if not to buy something you can’t use your credit card for?

Since eating meat is bad for the planet, will the credit card companies be given the ability to decline my card at a steak house?

I can only see bad things happening when the banks are given the authority to limit our ability to purchase lawful products.  It would be the ugliest runaround of the Constitution imaginable.  If they can’t deny us our rights by law, they will make them impossible to access by restricting our ability to purchase them with our money.  Which is exactly why I can see the Democrats thinking this is such a good idea.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

12 thoughts on “A bad NYT idea is now a Beto platform and will soon be Democrat policy”
  1. Op Chokepoint 2:
    Time for trump to strongarm some credit card companies into not allowing donations to dems. Since we don’t have to respect the 2nd, why look out for the 1st?

  2. I chat with my bank teller when I conduct business at the bank. At one point she was looking at my account and said “oh! you bought a gizmo at store Y. My boyfriend shops there too.” I looked at her and told her that it was absolutely in appropriate that she was discussing things that I had purchased or where I bought them.

    Since that time, before I purchase things at that store, I stop and pull cash out of the bank. It is not as easy, but it works.

    I can easily see the case where a store is no longer allowed to take credit cards so they just install an ATM.

    For the longest time, a local theater did exactly that. They did it because they were greedy. They got an extra buck every time somebody had to pull cash out of the machine for tickets and popcorn.

    They were bought out, the theaters are no cleaner and they take CCs.

  3. Tortious interference. They’re putting themselves between two legal adults conducting legal business. Especially if they change the terms and conditions of existing cards and accounts.

    1. It’s only tortious interference because that the law as it exists now. Wait until the Democrats give the banks and social media companies the legal right to police your actions because the are our Progressive moral betters.

      1. CASH is king baby!! Banks do this and it will hurt them. (Eventually)…..
        Hey “beto”, so the guy in sandy hook who KILLED his mother to get guns musta killed her with a credit card….. why do we even give this asshole any time??

        1. I thought that “go woke , go broke” would only have to happen once or twice and companies would get the message. Apparently some CEO’s don’t care if they lose money to virtue signal.

          Remember that Hollywood lost a lot of money making anti-war moves during the GW Bush years to lecture us how bad America was and how much the Military was a bunch of psychos and dumb kids taken advantage of by the government.

  4. Somewhat related: Rasmussen reports that 28% of Democrats think membership in the NRA should be illegal.
    I wonder if any D candidates are going to endorse that notion. I hope someone asks them.

  5. I am not a lawyer of course but I believe cash deposit reporting has been lowered for 5k but realistically expect every transaction as reported at this point.

    Also don’t purposefully avoid that 5k limit by depositing smaller amounts, that is structuring and is illegal.

    Also don’t expect your money to be available to you in demand let alone actually exist.

    The whole banking system has you by the short ones.

    Personally if a bank wants to cancel my accounts because of guns sure thing go right ahead. I’m not gonna pay you what I owe and good luck collecting because I have everything I need for a destroyed credit report to be meaningless to me.

    1. Of course. But what else is new?
      “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do.” — James Clyburn (D-SC)

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.