Citibank to require clients to restrict gun sales

a reply to: RomeByFire

If you don’t impose an “age tax”, how is a government over 18 trillion in debt going to pay for everyone’s health care? Take more by raising taxes. You still pay one way or another. It’s like government hasn’t tried to rugulate salt, soda, and sugar intake?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JinMI

Just curious why you would be upset about a bank placing restrictions on under 21s buying guns through their financial institutions?

So it's okay with you if a bank can tell a retail establishment what to sell and who to sell it to? What if a bank told a grocery store it could no longer sell meat because the bank had decided to push vegetarianism? How about if a bank decided pharmacies could no longer sell condoms because the bank had decided condoms were evil? How about if a bank decided to no longer do business with you because it found out you were a gun owner so they closed your checking account? Here you have a private corporation cramming its social agenda down the throats of its customers. Just think about that for awhile.

Although I do not agree that a credit card company or bank can do this, I have to say that this might be good. Now people won't go into debt buying expensive guns, they have to save up and buy them in their local sports store. I bet there are a lot of people out there that have high credit card debt partially from buying expensive guns. I like guns, I wouldn't mind there being a rule that you need to pass a background check to buy a gun. I remember when a person had to sign to buy bullets, that was not a problem with me. I used to go hunting and target practicing a lot, I thought it was a good idea that this restriction was there, some guys were hoarding bullets and they brought the price up so high, I had to pay more. That just recently happened where bullets went through the roof.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JinMI

Just curious why you would be upset about a bank placing restrictions on under 21s buying guns through their financial institutions?

So it's okay with you if a bank can tell a retail establishment what to sell and who to sell it to? What if a bank told a grocery store it could no longer sell meat because the bank had decided to push vegetarianism? How about if a bank decided pharmacies could no longer sell condoms because the bank had decided condoms were evil? How about if a bank decided to no longer do business with you because it found out you were a gun owner so they closed your checking account? Here you have a private corporation cramming its social agenda down the throats of its customers. Just think about that for awhile.

Evil bank....saying you cannot sell meat. I will have to eat venison and rabbit then, need my guns and ammo in case the banks push this.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: JinMI
I don't think you will have to worry. I look for gun owners to quickly drop citibank if they currently use them.

BINGO!!!

If anyone is upset about this, please realize that this is capitalism and a bit of idealism mixed together. *IF* this hurts Citibank, which it won't, then the policy will change. Until that time, you are free to do business with any other bank to your heart/wallet's content.

Everyone seems to support corporations and their decision making when it comes to something they believe in; but never when it comes to something with which they disagree. It's really the free market and capitalism. If a corporation believes in something this strongly, then I support their right to make policy pertaining to that belief. I also support the right of the individual to shop/bank/buy somewhere else.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Although I do not agree that a credit card company or bank can do this, I have to say that this might be good. Now people won't go into debt buying expensive guns, they have to save up and buy them in their local sports store.

That's not what is happening here. The bank is dictating to retailers how they must do business. It's not about just credit cards at the consumer level. It is also not about you as a consumer taking your business elsewhere. It's about the retailer using Citibank as their business bank and having Citibank dictate how and to whom they can sell firearms. It doesn't matter what credit card you have or even if you have one. It's about the conditions under which you can buy a firearm, credit or cash.

a reply to: schuyler

Well it's a bank, a #ty bank at that, banks are the scummiest businesses out there and are free of morals.

If a business is affected by this decision they are free to change to a bank that has no restrictions on purchases. What's the big deal, this is no different to that idiot gun shop owner who refused to sell weapons to muslims.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse
Although I do not agree that a credit card company or bank can do this, I have to say that this might be good. Now people won't go into debt buying expensive guns, they have to save up and buy them in their local sports store.

That's not what is happening here. The bank is dictating to retailers how they must do business. It's not about just credit cards at the consumer level. It is also not about you as a consumer taking your business elsewhere. It's about the retailer using Citibank as their business bank and having Citibank dictate how and to whom they can sell firearms. It doesn't matter what credit card you have or even if you have one. It's about the conditions under which you can buy a firearm, credit or cash.

No law says they can't do it though, so either suck it up or contact your elected representative.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: schuyler

If a business is affected by this decision they are free to change to a bank that has no restrictions on purchases. What's the big deal, this is no different to that idiot gun shop owner who refused to sell weapons to muslims.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

No law says they can't do it though, so either suck it up or contact your elected representative.

OK, so you can play it that way if you want. So next time a bank tells a retailer they can't sell meat because the bank has gone vegan, you're okay with that? Here's a bank telling a retail establishment what they can sell and who they can sell to, pushing their own social agenda trying to affect you through the retailer. You think a bank ought to dictate what you can or cannot purchase from a retailer? Really? Wow.

originally posted by: schuyler
OK, so you can play it that way if you want. So next time a bank tells a retailer they can't sell meat because the bank has gone vegan, you're okay with that? Here's a bank telling a retail establishment what they can sell and who they can sell to, pushing their own social agenda trying to affect you through the retailer. You think a bank ought to dictate what you can or cannot purchase from a retailer? Really? Wow.

Yep, I've no problem with that.
Who tf are you to dictate to me who I lend money to?
Land of the free my ass if that's how commerce rolls in your nation.

EDIT
If the policy of the bank is lawful then suck it up or campaign your elected representatives cup cake.

a reply to: schuyler

Who are you to dictate to a bank who they can and can't do business with ?

Who are you to dictate to any business anywhere what they can and cannot do ?

It's not government it's a private bank, they can do business with whoever the hell they want.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

There is a 25 Billion tax dollar argument in there somewhere.

However, it has all been paid back with interest according to all sources.

a reply to: JinMI

Completely different argument.
Who are you to tell me who I provide banking or lending services to if my policies are within the law?
Campaign your elected representatives if you disagree with legislation.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Seriously, a strawman isn't helping your cause.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh please, quit the holier than thou pseudo logical argument and simply explain why you think you can stop me lending money or offering banking services to people who are under 21.
There is no law stopping that, just you bitchin.

EDIT
...stop me refusing business with anyone under 21 because of my policies. You can't, so go run and cry to your elected representatives lol x

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

First you're going to have to quote in saying what you claim I'm saying.

You look like a fool

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: schuyler
OK, so you can play it that way if you want. So next time a bank tells a retailer they can't sell meat because the bank has gone vegan, you're okay with that? Here's a bank telling a retail establishment what they can sell and who they can sell to, pushing their own social agenda trying to affect you through the retailer. You think a bank ought to dictate what you can or cannot purchase from a retailer? Really? Wow.

Yep, I've no problem with that.
Who tf are you to dictate to me who I lend money to?
Land of the free my ass if that's how commerce rolls in your nation.

EDIT
If the policy of the bank is lawful then suck it up or campaign your elected representatives cup cake.

I must say I am completely amazed at this attitude. Here we are on ATS where the prevalent attitude is Big Bad Corporations and Big Bad Government all interacting to stifle our freedoms, TPTB and One World Government all against the individual, and here we have a bona fide case of exactly that kind of behavior and you are not just okay with it, but militant about it?

Really, ATS? This kind of behavior is Okay with you, ATS? This kind of totalitarian Big Brother behavior is what you want, ATS? I feel like I'm in a totalitarian nightmare here. This is a perfect example of jack boot behavior and you're all for it. Friggin' amazing. And it completely sucks.

a reply to: JinMI

Lol, okay, but I still legally retain the legal option of choosing if I want to sell firearms to under 21's or not, you can't change that no matter how much you may wish to.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

From the first page of THIS thread I said:

I'm not upset. I surely do enjoy it when a company overplays its hand and informs folks to make acquire and utilize an educated opinion.

I wouldn't shop at a store that made me be age 25 to buy certain games, alcohol, tobacco etc.

a reply to: schuyler

I think we should be thankful actually that this is very public knowledge. What folks do with that knowledge is a whole other lengthy thread.