Bank of America cuts off the makers of military style weapons

a reply to: Edumakated


I have a question about that.

Not directed at you so much but referred to what you said.


Why is being anti-rights (2nd Amendment) considered a higher moral ground?

I would think that it would be a lower (base) moral foundation to want to remove freedoms.

a reply to: MarkOfTheV

I wonder if this is the reason?????

insider.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated


I have a question about that.

Not directed at you so much but referred to what you said.


Why is being anti-rights (2nd Amendment) considered a higher moral ground?

I would think that it would be a lower (base) moral foundation to want to remove freedoms.

It isn't a higher moral ground position... it virtue signaling to appeal to ignorant progressives who really believe there is some epidemic of gun violence committed by AR-15s even though the data shows that they barely register in overall gun violence figures. BofA probably feels they need to do this to stave off a boycott.

My wife is a communications executive for a major brand. They are constantly getting demands from special interest groups to stop advertising on certain shows or wanting the company to denounce whatever the cause du jour happens to be in fashion. If they don't cave, twitter and facebook blows up. It doesn't even matter if the company's core customers don't give a flip about the cause. They have to deal with the social media fall out.

This would be an excellent opportunity for a run on Bank of America. The NRA could spearhead a movement to organize everyone who believes in the US Constitution to divest in BofA. If you have accounts with them, close them and move the money elsewhere. If you have a mortgage or any other loan with BofA, refinance with someone else. If you have BofA stock or any other investment, sell it. If you have a business, you can refuse to accept checks, credit cards, or debit cards from BofA.

I think this would be a positive step even without the gun aspect of the situation. It would show the American people that we aren't helpless when it comes to dealing with the banks. We sure as heck can't count on our government to represent the interests of the American people when those interests conflict with banks.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
This would be an excellent opportunity for a run on Bank of America. The NRA could spearhead a movement to organize everyone who believes in the US Constitution to divest in BofA. If you have accounts with them, close them and move the money elsewhere. If you have a mortgage or any other loan with BofA, refinance with someone else. If you have BofA stock or any other investment, sell it. If you have a business, you can refuse to accept checks, credit cards, or debit cards from BofA.

I think this would be a positive step even without the gun aspect of the situation. It would show the American people that we aren't helpless when it comes to dealing with the banks. We sure as heck can't count on our government to represent the interests of the American people when those interests conflict with banks.

Yeah, I think BofA is underestimating the influence of the NRA and loyalty of their members.

I'm thinking that the larger firearm companies won't have a problem borrowing money at all. They will just give their interest to European banks if the banks here decide not to fund their ventures. Or maybe borrow from billionaires.

I have to tell a friend of mine that he better sell all his bank of America stock.

How surreal, a bank attempting to make a moral stance, who woulda thunk.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
The restaurant has a dress code and the bank has a policy. You make ugly semi's, you don't get a loan.

Well...fiduciary responsibility.
BOA, by law, must protect the dividends of shareholders. If the shareholders are not happy with losing potential dividends due to not doing lawful business, BOA and its officers are civilly liable

This little political battle hasnt ended yet.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Should banks be free to discriminate?

Bank of America was already doing this 20 years with their automated telephone banking system. The first message you heard was a greeting in Spanish to press '1' for service in Spanish. Then you had to wait to get the English greeting. They could have had two telephone numbers; one for English, one for Spanish, and that wouldn't be needed. Of course, they wouldn't make as much profit from those extra 30 seconds on the telephone line.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe instead of doing away with banking regulations they should be making more?

Making more regulations or guns?

Telling banks as long as they are FDIC insured they WILL do business with Law abiding americans regardless of their Political beliefs.

a reply to: MarkOfTheV


I can’t stand BOA; what next are they going to hand out free pool noodles to protect ourselves with for signing up with them lol!

Found some more info relating to all of this...


In March, Delta Air Lines ended a travel discount for National Rifle Association members -- one that had apparently only been used by 13 people - which drew outrage from gun owners and Georgia lawmakers, who quickly voted to revoke tax breaks for the Atlanta-based airline.

Citigroup announced last month it would not do business with retail clients if they sold firearms to people under 21. Citi also said it would require its clients to not sell "bump stocks" and not sell firearms to those who did not pass a background check.

"There are about 20 manufacturers of assault weapons in the U.S., but more than 65,000 gun retailers nationwide - more than the number of Starbucks and McDonald's combined," he said. "Banks should think about what they can do with both gun manufacturers and retailers to encourage the entire gun industry to act responsibly and help keep guns out of the hands of people who have been barred from having them for the past 50 years."

Chicago Tribune

Interesting. Remington, along with other manufacturers, is owned by a corprate conglomerate that happens to be owned by a former nazi servent and self hating jew, that gives big bucks to commie, socialist, democratic, "global order", "men can be wives too" type outfits.
Funny how history never changes with bankers, lawyers, politicians.
How a mom and pop shop can't refuse to bake a "wedding cake" fot two mentally ill people on moral grounds. But a "bank" can refuse service for a perfectly legal operation based on what? I know, they'll say "risk" "profitability" "return".
But since the U.S. dollar is now based on promises anyway and is technically nothing but an IOU. Yeah, never mind.

a reply to: yuppa

+1 Exactly how it should be!

Seriously? So they will launder money for cartels but draw the line at this?

Hypocrits.