Citibank to require clients to restrict gun sales

originally posted by: Jusvistn

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JinMI

Fair enough, I don't really see it as a bad thing. I'm all for restrictions on kids getting guns, in my opinion 21 is not unreasonable, it's the same for alcohol is it not in the U. S?

Yet they will work to recruit a child of 17 and require them to take up arms to protect the US.

Old enough to die fighting

NOT old enough to own a firearm for protection.

So who is worse?

Shouldn't it be about even?

Can't buy a pack of smokes at 17.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JinMI

Fair enough, I don't really see it as a bad thing. I'm all for restrictions on kids getting guns, in my opinion 21 is not unreasonable, it's the same for alcohol is it not in the U. S?

Hell, I agree.

They shouldn't vote or be allowed in the military until 21 either. They are just to irresponsible and not mature enough to be trusted with big decisions.

This could backfire on Citibank. I can see the signs going up now from merchants who won't accept a Citibank card as payment.

a reply to: Jusvistn

The deference is that the military will TRAIN that 18 year old how to not only use the firearm safely but also discipline.
The military does this before giving them guns and sending them into battle.

I would trust an 18 your old that has gone through boot camp with a weapon.
I do not trust my neighbors 18 year old kid with one. Unless they have been trained in it's safe use for months before hand.

HA...what a joke!

The same bank who will collude with some hedge fund in the middle of the night to fleece your 401K, investments or retirement savings account before you can trade on a market trend in the morning (when the trading starts up), or make a billion electronic trades on some insider knowledge before it's widely public...is now getting into the moral compass business over firearms sales!

Yeah, real Classy! /sarcasm.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Jusvistn

The deference is that the military will TRAIN that 18 year old how to not only use the firearm safely but also discipline.
The military does this before giving them guns and sending them into battle.

I would trust an 18 your old that has gone through boot camp with a weapon.
I do not trust my neighbors 18 year old kid with one. Unless they have been trained in it's safe use for months before hand.

As a parent, I've "trained" my kids the same. How to safely handle, fire, clean & store a firearm. "trained for months".... My kids had a firearm in their hands when they were 6 or 7. They were taught to respect the danger of a firearm practically from birth. Taught to NEVER point a weapon of any type at a human being.

Guns do not randomly kill people. PEOPLE randomly kill people, using all means & ways of doing it. Cars, Knives, Explosives, poison..... the list could go on.

It is not what is in your closet or your gun safe that is the danger. It is what is in your heart.

ETA: I agree, in that i have some neighbors children whom I would not trust with a firearm as well. As you stated, it comes down to teaching, training & respect.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

you do realize ex military as well as regular citizens and circus clowns can be murderers, thst statement is obtuse.

I and most kids I knew in the 70s received range and safety training between age 8 and 11 and responsibly continue that tradition.

Op, I vote with my dollars...no more Starbucks, Walmart, Dicks and now Citibank...which I dont use any way. Their loss not mine.

eta...Ohio and every other state Ive lived in requires a background check with each purchase...FFL for bloody hell

So glad I cancelled all of my accounts with them.

Add to the garbage, I believe they are mostly owned by Saudi's. Why would a muslim owned entity be so interested in disarming American citizens?

If Citibank starts down this road, they have a long road to travel. Why not have a 5 page form to fill out with every transaction stating you haven't engaged in any number of business dealings?

What will the response be if you don't follow their policy? Sorry sir, but we can't allow you to use your money in any unspecified manner? Maybe the machine at the checkout will cancel your card when you're intending to buy some tobacco or alcohol because they don't want you to buy that.

Apparently, and I don't have a reference for this one, but the bank technically "owns" any money you put into it. If you allow them to hold it for you, it's in their control, not yours.

With all the policies, penalties, withdrawal limits and non-existent interest rates, the First Bank of the Mattress seems a viable alternative these days.

Awesome opportunity for a financier to get involved and take full of advantage of this

If any investors are interested I can start working on a business plan immediately

This seems unprecedented. I can’t think of any other items that a bank has prohibited it’s clients from selling or buying. I’m not even sure if this is legal. It’s not their money. And I guess you can’t even go to the ATM, pull the money out, and then go to the gun store, because they are prohibiting the store from selling to people under the age of 21. Which then leaves people who are legally able to own a firearm, in a position where they have to buy from a store that is not affiliated with Citibank, or a trusted friend.

This just seems like a bad move by Citibank. I forsee many stores ending any relationship they had with them.

Citibank can GO TO HELL.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It’s not about banks. It’s about the corporatocracy that is emerging as the new rulers of the NWO.

a reply to: JinMI

I'd be licking my chops if I were the owner of another banking institution because I have a feeling a lot of people are about to leave Citi wallowing in its own cess.

Just another step in the direction of the banks to gain more control over the people.

It is a shame that I can’t cancel my Citibank accounts again, but I already didn’t like them for crappy customer service. I will never do business with them again.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Jusvistn

The deference is that the military will TRAIN that 18 year old how to not only use the firearm safely but also discipline.
The military does this before giving them guns and sending them into battle.

I would trust an 18 your old that has gone through boot camp with a weapon.
I do not trust my neighbors 18 year old kid with one. Unless they have been trained in it's safe use for months before hand.

Trained does not mean responsible. Friendly fire? Tell that to the FBI agent that shot himself in the leg in front of a class of children?

Say it again. I trust a well armed population over a well armed police state.

And maybe only highly educated party officials should get to vote comrade?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its ok to violate civil rights so long as we have mob rule supporting it.

Ageism...apparently only legally relevant on the topside of chronology.

You think ageism is bad now, just wait until healthcare providers begin actively price gouging elderly folks with an "age tax," while not covering pre-existing conditions.

Brought to you by the GOP.

I'm slightly confused here, even though I'm on the outside looking in.

How many of the mass shooters in the states were all of the following:

- Under 21
- Personally owned the firearm they used
- Bought bump stocks or high-capacity magazines.

I'm guessing... zero?

Also, it kinda reads like they are only doing this to business clients?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Banks trying to be a bastion of morality? Bahaha, they're a joke. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Banks are the most morally bankrupt institutions in existence, I don't see how they think they can define what is right or wrong.

Whats funny is this is putting their FEDERALLY INSURED status at risk due to the Feds have not changed the Law and this is discrimination.