Read these amazing stories which highlight accounts of law-abiding gun owners in America using their Second Amendment rights for self-defense in this online edition of the Armed Citizen®.
Great stories. It happens all the time and all over the country.
“Make locating the various exits in a public place part of your personal defense plan. You won’t ever regret that you did.” Here.
Following up on my post about NY Times reporter and CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin’s advocacy for forcing banks and credit card companies to track purchases of firearms products. This template was developed for the tobacco companies and can be replicated.
Progressives’ plan here is to hassle any organization that handles firearms and ammunition — manufacturers, distributors, etc — into an arrangement similar to what the tobacco industry entered into in 1998.
The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement:
The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered in November 1998, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard – the “original participating manufacturers”, referred to as the “Majors”) and the attorneys general of 46 states. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health-care costs.:25 In exchange, the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses.
This scheme enriched lawyers, created an industry cartel among large tobacco companies, and provided a revenue stream to state governments. State governments then issued bonds backed by the revenue from the settlement. This had the perverse incentive to increase support of the tobacco industry, on whom states are now dependent for future payments against this debt. Of course, it raised taxes on the product and hit lower income smokers hardest.
Boycott the NY Times, CNBC, and their advertisers.
The New York Times published an article on Monday suggesting that credit card companies surveil cardholders who purchase firearms.
The NYT piece, authored by Andrew Ross Sorkin, noted that a number of mass shooters purchased their weapons and ammo using credit cards. Banks are required to alert federal authorities to purchases exceeding $10,000, but there are rules preventing them from seeing precisely what goods users are purchasing.
Nonetheless, NYT’s Sorkin suggests that banks track purchases at sporting goods stores and gun shops and prevent cardholders from purchasing multiple firearms “in a short period of time” and report unusual spending patterns.
Visa, Mastercard respond:
“We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods or services,” Amanda Pires, a Visa spokeswoman, told NYT. “Our role in commerce is to efficiently process, protect and settle all legal payments. Asking Visa or other payment networks to arbitrate what legal goods can be purchased sets a dangerous precedent.”
MasterCard similarly touted the “privacy of [cardholders’] purchasing decisions.”
Progressives know no bounds to their greed. Greed for power, for coercion, for curtailing of civil liberties, for pressuring others to do their bidding, for tyranny.
Sun-Sentinel: “Two decades after Columbine and five years after Sandy Hook, educators and police still weren’t ready for Parkland.”
The article provides a minute-by-minute timeline of events at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
This morning, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed the Trump Administration’s new regulation banning bump stocks.
. . .
The Administration’s main contention continues to be that language of the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act—which has not needed clarification in some 80 years—is ambiguous in regards to bump firing, a contention we dispatched back in June. Yet the government is attempting to use this supposed ambiguity to shoehorn bump stocks into a statute that regulates possession of machine guns.
. . .
Regardless of what public opinion is at this moment, the law means what it says. The executive branch has the power to interpret existing law, not write new ones. The administration argues, essentially, that because the statute did not provide a separate definition of the terms “automatically” and “function,” that it gets to insert their own meaning. That simply isn’t the case. Administrative interpretations are supposed to do just that—interpret existing law—not give new meaning to an old one.
. . .
If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks, it needs to do so by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one.
The administration’s ruling may satisfy gun-control advocates but political expediency is not the way to do it.