Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Gun makers refuse LEO sales


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:43 PM

Banks already do influence politics. So do many other groups that have lobbying groups.

Personally in America most communities in America now have local banks that are FDA insured but all of there income is in/out from the community. So Big banks could become obsolete except for the Govmnt needs them for there financial shenanigans. Little of that has to do with average Joe. One just needs to be smart to avoid the pitfall you presented.

On the other note banks have tried to stick it to there customers more then once and it was stopped by the Trade Commision I believe as being an unfair practice. Not 100% who stopped em but they were doing alot of funky stuff after the bailouts to raise revenue through "penalties and fees" on the public who were also the ones that bailed them out with our tax dollars.

Most of the Big Banks got caught up with the Big Rate fixing deal that went through the Euro Banking system as well. And that is only now being disclosed...So again I ask you to look at the whole pictur and not each piece of the problem. It presents a better picture when looked at that way.

No love lost here for the Big Bank or whatever happens to them.


#17    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,800 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:46 PM

Quote

Banks already do influence politics. So do many other groups that have lobbying groups.

I know. And I know how much people hate that and are against it aswell. Are you for or against?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#18    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

Quote

I know. And I know how much people hate that and are against it aswell. Are you for or against?

In its current form Im very much against it. Ill even have to say Im against the NRA as a lobbying group....Just to show Im not being impartial. Today it is about special interests and specific interests of groups being put into Legislation nothing what a lobbying group is suppose to be like.

An example of appropriate Lobbying...We had a horrible corn crop last year because of tornadoes and flooding. The farmers in x community need help getting there crops going this year because of forces out of there control. We are asking the Congress for assistance (notice it is a 1 item Bill) so they can get there crops going this year.

Congress votes and it is either aid given or not. IMO that is what Lobbying is meant to be in regards to the Federal Govmnt.


#19    mysticwerewolf

mysticwerewolf

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Joined:27 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lost in space without a paddle. ( or any PU-238)

  • let thy insanity keep thee sane, but if that doesn't work then go fishing... I need to go fishing real Real bad!.. catch a big one

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

Personally, were i a police chief and i could not order ammo for  my men, i would tell my men sorry i don't have ammo today,  go to the local gun store and buy your own if you want protection. we will consider reimbursing you for it.  As to allowing business to run the government  don't they already???  only difference is WHICH Businesses ????
It might not work everywhere  ( such as NYC or Jersy) but it would in most places in the USA

Edited by mysticwerewolf, 16 February 2013 - 10:03 PM.


#20    BiffSplitkins

BiffSplitkins

    Vertically Challenged

  • Member
  • 7,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Home of 'The Orange'

  • We all have a song inside us, it tells us who we are.

    'John Doeber' fellow musician

Posted 16 February 2013 - 10:51 PM

View PostStellar, on 16 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

This brings about an interesting discussion... People in general don't want Corporations influencing politics, right? Well, isn't this a way to influence political decisions as well?
This is a very good point.

"The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864

Posted Image


#21    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:58 PM

Quote

This is a very good point.

This is closer to an example of free enterprise and if I dont like your rules Ill take my business elsewhere.  Like the Gun manufacturer in Colorado says. If I cannot sell the product I make in your state I am moving my business out of the state. Makes perfect sense.

If NY policies are counter to what the bread and butter is of an industry they have every right to take it elsewhere. The fact people want to make it political because the politicians are the ones that made the restrictions. Well so sorry you feel that way. Im not gonna go to a Hindu neighborhood and open up a McDonalds. Why. Because they cant eat the beef. Nothing political about it. Business sense only.

That is Free Enterprise ladies and Gents.


#22    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,800 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:08 AM

Ok. Just wanted the bring up the aspect for discussion. If banks hold the country hostage by the same process, it'll be ok too.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#23    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:14 AM

Quote

If banks hold the country hostage

There already holding the World hostage. :whistle:


#24    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,800 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:05 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 17 February 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

There already holding the World hostage. :whistle:

And there should be no issues with that then.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#25    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:41 AM

Quote

And there should be no issues with that then.

Depends who you ask. Were far far from solving that problem regardless if the solution is  a good thing or a bad thing, perhaps we agree the people in charge of it currently are not appropriate to be in such a position...aka corrupted banking and rate fixers. which is the closest we have seen to corrupt world banking. Recently as well.


#26    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,332 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:17 AM

View PostStellar, on 16 February 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

Thats fine then. So when larger, more influencial corporations such as banks and such take actions that collapse the economy if certain political decisions are made, that will be ok too, right? For instance, if, say, a certain person is elected, they'll raise interest rates sky high so no one can take out a loan? Or they'll start charging hundreds of dollars a month in bank fees? Those are all their right as well.
Committing corporate suicide for political reasons?  That's not for corporations, that's the government's game since they have taxpayers to put on the hook later and a magic printing press to inflate the balance sheet now.   Banks aren't going to do what you're suggesting since there's too many good competing alternatives for customers to flock to these days.  The only way corporations would shun competition is if they had government guarantees they wouldn't put themselves out of business by raising costs of doing business or refusing loans.  That won't collapse the economy that'll collapse that particular bank.  Beyond playing politics with money, if there's a legitimate reason that banks will raise interest rates together to a natural market-driven rate (the Keynesian punch bowl dries up), then that will start the economic recovery we've only claimed to begin.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#27    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,657 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

View PostStellar, on 16 February 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

I know. And I know how much people hate that and are against it aswell. Are you for or against?

You really think a company refusing to sell the state a product, and a bank stealing tax payers money to the tune of several trillion dollars directly because of thier coruption, is the same thing? Are you high?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#28    Clyde the Glyde

Clyde the Glyde

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts
  • Joined:07 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:12 PM

Midway USA has joined the list.  They are a VERY large supplier / distributer.

http://www.thetrutha...ian-bans-apply/

Currently, there are several parts of the country that have restrictions on civilian ownership of certain magazines or types of ammunition. Sometimes it is entire states and sometimes local municipalities pass these regulations, which I consider unconstitutional. At any rate, when we encounter these situations it has always been our policy not to sell to anyone in these areas, regardless of what law enforcement or government credentials they offer up. If the laws change and all law abiding citizens can buy these products we would be happy to sell to Law Enforcement, but not before then. Thanks for taking the time to be involved. I wish all firearms would follow your lead.
On Behalf of Larry, Thanks For Your Business,
Eric Ellingson
Contact Center Supervisor
MidwayUSA

NRA Endowment Member


#29    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,800 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:14 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 17 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

You really think a company refusing to sell the state a product, and a bank stealing tax payers money to the tune of several trillion dollars directly because of thier coruption, is the same thing? Are you high?

I think that refusing to sell ammo to LEO is a political move to try to pressure them into changing back the laws, and if its OK to do that, then it'd be ok for banks and large corporations to also make decisions which may adversely affect you or the country in order to pressure the government to pass certain laws that they want.

Banks breaking the law is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is largely influencial organizations taking lawful action to influence politics. It just seems to me that people are all against corporations and banks putting pressure on political decisions when the pressure works against people. At that point, the evil and vile banks and corporations should stay out of politics. BUT, as soon as other companies put pressure on political decisions that some people do believe in, then they're championed as heros.

Now, I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I'm just pointing it out and looking for consistency. Personally, I find the whole issue to be a large grey area.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#30    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:25 PM

If the banks were holding the govt. to ransom because they were infringing on the rights of everyday citizens, then it would be a fair comparison. IMO it would more likely be the other way around.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users