1. We are exceedingly sorrowful to report that one of the Founding Members has passed on. Dee (Righthand) is well remembered as contributing much to the operation of SurvivalMonkey, and is already greatly missed. Little lady, big person.

Operation Chokepoint

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by CATO, Sep 4, 2014.

  1. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Dont, Yard Dart and Brokor like this.
  2. gunbunny

    gunbunny Never Trust A Bunny

    I wish McMillan Merchant Solutions would publish the number of companies that have been prejudiced against and switched to them, just so we could get a handle on whether or not the situation has changed.
    Dunerunner and kellory like this.
  3. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Perhaps they should produce a public letter thanking their competition for the spike in business.
  4. Gopherman

    Gopherman Sometimes I Wish I Could Go Back to Sleep

    I read something that made a lot of sense about the gun subject! I can't remember where I read it.
    It stated that pumping a lot of money into guns and ammo was a waste of money, one well placed shot and you own everything the other guy is carrying!
    Some basic protection maybe a Handgun, 9mm large clips and easy to get ammo, and a Deer rifle with a GOOD scope, maybe a
    12 gauge shotgun, and you pretty much have what you need. Ammo is plentiful and relatively cheap.
    To me, with all that's going on right now, stockpiling food and water as well as purification for water, makes more sense.
    If it gets to the point where we need automatic weapons, there will be plenty lying around for the taking.
    If you think about what you'll pay for a gun and ammo for it, you could get a years worth of freeze dries food for the same money!
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  5. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    The fact that the Government brings pressure on credit card and banking institutions to restrict the sale of firearms and firearms related accessories is troublesome to me. This amounts to a back door infringement of the 2A.
  6. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    Nothing backdoor about it. If the government is in fact bringing pressure to bear on credit card processors and banks it is a DIRECT violation of the 2nd Amendment with the expressed purpose of INFRINGING on an individuals rights to keep and bear arms by illegally restricting their ability, to acquire them in the first place. Period, end of discussion. If, however, an individual or company chooses a policy to not support firearms or anything associated with them, the 2nd Amendment doesn't come into play as it doesn't apply to individuals, only to the government (they still lose my business though).

    And queue @Brokor in 3...2...1 :D

    Edit - clarity
    tulianr and AmericanRedoubt1776 like this.
  7. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I don't like Cheetos. I much prefer Doritos for many reasons.

    Oh...you guys are talking about the corrupt government? @DarkLight would you like it if I called you into every thread to comment on the Constitution? Huh? ;)

    Maybe it's all just a misunderstanding that got blown out of proportion. Plus, we shouldn't ever underestimate the power of 'stupid'. The folks blocking the gun company's credit are probably low wage semi-retards and just want to get back home to watch the next episode of COPS and America's DUmbEst CriMinalZ! Because that's how they roll. Word.
    Dunerunner likes this.
  8. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    My thinking is that a business cannot post a notice saying, "We only deal with Christians, Whites, and Heterosexuals", so how can a business infringe on my Second Amendment rights. It is time that we as firearms owners decide whether we are going to allow ourselves to be segregated from the rest of society or whether we are going to fight for our rights.
    tulianr and AmericanRedoubt1776 like this.
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Methinks the 2nd is aimed at what dot gov cannot do, not what an individual (or corporation, defined as a "person") can do. Thus, a person can hang out a sign showing preferences for only one class of citizens if so desired. That would have to be tested under other rules than 2A.
    Dunerunner likes this.
  10. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    Because a gun is not a person. A gun is a thing where as a christian/white/heterosexual is a person. They aren't declaring a thing illegal, only that they don't want to be associated with it. Now, if you were forced to shop there, patronize the place then yeah, that would be illegal but you aren't so it isn't. Do I agree with it? No, which is why I choose to not give them my money. Do they have the right of association? Abso-frikken-lutely and that, I will defend for them. What I won't defend is when they get robbed, when they get abused or when they go out of business because of the decisions that they freely made.

    Ultimately, I agree with you that it is a form of segregation but not at the same level and as long as an individual does it and not the government, it's protected. I guarantee that you are guilty, in some form or fashion, of the same thing for different reasons. You don't associate with certain people or groups because you don't agree with what they believe. Whether it be a group bent on larger government or one that thinks NAMBLA is a good idea or folks who think that GMO is the only way to pop, you make the same choice and don't associate with them. Just because you haven't put a sign around your neck that says "No GMO food allowed within 12 ft." doesn't mean you aren't doing the exact same thing by deliberately avoiding those things/people.

    Forcing your opinion on another (I should be able to carry/concealed carry wherever I want/use Visa/MC/Discover/American Express to buy firearm related stuff if I want) is no different or in fact worse than an INDIVIDUAL (or company, without being coerced) into banning said OBJECT from their property/place of business or use of their "tools".
  11. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    Fair enough, I won't tag you even in jest ever again.
  12. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    ...I was joking.

    CLEARLY? o_O
  13. Gopherman

    Gopherman Sometimes I Wish I Could Go Back to Sleep

    Alright u 2, don't make me call ghrit!!![lolol]
    oldawg likes this.
  14. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    [listening, sweetly --]
    Gopherman likes this.
  15. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    A Christian is a belief, White is a color, Hetero is an orientation. They are not people, they are choices and beliefs protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I see no difference between those choices and my choosing to carry a firearm or engage in discussion about firearms. Those freedoms are protected by the same Bill of Rights and Constitution that protect the other guaranteed choices granted a free people.\

    Just food for thought...
  16. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    For those of you who are looking at this and thinking TL;DR

    Overview - The BoR protects you from the government, not people, in almost every regard. It prevents the government from passing laws that would infringe on God given rights. It does NOT prevent individuals from making rules with regards to their private property and your exercise of those rights therein. It doesn't, it just doesn't.

    Protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, from the Government, not individuals. If/when an individual chooses not to associate with you and says so via a sign or a statement, what's protected is their right to say so. You are NOT guaranteed the right to associate with people who do not agree with you and they are NOT required to associate with you. Period. You don't have to like it, hell, you don't have to agree with it. You DO have to ABIDE by it though as that's the law. Especially in the case of private property, which a store that posts against concealed carry is (which is a different conversation but related more than tangentially).

    Even a publicly owned company can choose (especially since corporations are now people) to not associate with something they don't agree with. If you your right to not associate is protected, then it's protected at their level too. Never mind that we're arguing the WRONG thing since the BoR was designed to provide additional restrictions on and protect peoples right from infringement by the government. It is illegal to make LAWS that do this, that or the other thing. On the flip side, it's morally bankrupt of someone who want to legislate thought and to force people to associate with those they don't agree with.

    Yes, your right to carry is protected...right up until it infringes on ANOTHER'S personal, private property.

    By the way, the original story wasn't about your right to engage in discussion about firearms, it was about a credit card processing company that has decided not to allow its services to be used for anything related to firearms. A company (think Hobby Lobby) deciding they don't want to have anything to do with something they are against (think abortion).

    Same Bill of Rights, same Constitution. Where do you stand on the Hobby Lobby decision? I ask because yes, it's relevant to the discussion as you don't get to have it both ways, at least not and be intellectually honest with yourself and those around you.

    Either a company has the right to not participate in or support or facilitate an activity they are against (Hobby Lobby & abortion) or they don't (Credit Card company and firearms). Which is it? And no, I'm not calling you out on something, I admit I haven't looked at the Hobby Lobby thread to see if you chimed in and what your position was...I'm asking now.

    MY beef is that if the company didn't care one way or another and they got pressure from the GOVERNMENT. That is not cool and IS illegal and protected by the BoR and Constitution, specifically, as it's designed to (see above) to limit what the government can and cannot do with regards to our rights.

    The Bible/Ten Commandments are the rules and laws that most people would associate with the "rules for the people" (or pick your religious flavor, not trying to bible thump here). The BoR and Constitution limit NOT the people, but the Government. I know I keep harping on this but it's important and trotting out the 2nd Amendment when anyone other than the government tries to restrict where it can be exercised is disingenuous at best. Your 2nd amendment rights END at my property line, whether that be home or business. In this day and age they also end when MY resources are used. My credit card processing facility, my ISP for hosting websites, my licensed radio frequencies (it's the law now, whether we like it or not, the frequencies are licensed and the licensee is the "owner" until the license expires), whatever. If I'm paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the resources, your rights end at that point.

    I don't know if it was the baker in Colorado but there was one that had been ruled against with regards to who he had to have as clientele and eventually that was overturned. He does NOT have to associate with those he doesn't agree with, period. He doesn't have to take your money, he doesn't have to make you a product and he doesn't have to have you as a customer. What he CAN'T do is post a sign preventing you from entering his establishment. He also can't prevent you from mounting a campaign to prevent people from using his services (but you can't block the door...that's illegal).

    If you don't agree with something either don't associate with it or work to get it changed. Notice I didn't just stop at don't associate with it? I think people should be educated when they make a decision and a pronouncement like this company has. I guarantee you that MONEY drives their decisions more than any other single thing. If a company takes a large enough financial hit there is a good possibility they will change their policies or they will go out of business. If they feel that strongly about it, then they go out of business or live with a reduced revenue stream (Chick-fil-a actually had an increase in business when the LGBTQ community tried to stage the boycotts. Those that AGREED with Chick-fil-a flocked to the restaurants to show their support. No change has been made to the owner's stance, btw.)

    Lastly, I don't want it to be said that I agree with the CC company about this. I do not. It doesn't, however, make me sick to my stomach. What I do agree with is that they have the right to do what they've done as long as they aren't being compelled by the government. If it's truly a moral stance they feel they need/want to take, more power to 'em. I will do what I can to not patronize any business that uses them AND let them know why. For example, I refuse to let someone who uses Square run my credit card. I will pay cash but if I don't have cash and they don't have another form of payment I put my purchase down, inform them that I can't support them at this time as the only method of payment is against something I strongly believe in and I walk away. It's happened before and will happen again. Usually they don't know that is an issue and in more than one case the next time I went to purchase something they had changed to a different CC processor. This has happened more than once at the local Farmer's Market. I disagree with their stance but I cannot disagree with anything more than that except at a moral level.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
    tulianr and kellory like this.
  17. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus Site Supporter

    No sir. "A Christian" is a person with a belief. Christianity is a belief. "A white" or "whites" is a person of a specific ethnicity, white is a color. "A heterosexual" is a person of a specific sexual orientation, heterosexuality is that orientation.

    I can't even say they are subtle but distinct differences because it's not subtle at all.

    It is currently illegal to ban a Christian, a white or a heterosexual from entering your private property. It is, however, completely legal to ban the practice of Christianity and heterosexual behavior on your private property. As you cannot change your ethnicity (it's not race), I don't see it becoming legal any time in the near future to ban "being white" on your private property.

    You can, however, ban everyone but those you explicitly invite from your private property (businesses are a special case for this specific issue) and said PERSONAL decision to invite or not invite is left solely to the property owner.
  18. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    @ghrit said it. It will have to be tested in the courts. Not going to play semantics.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  19. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  20. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    Well Said here...
    I hope she gets her day in court, as this practice does scream out as being a shakedown of the banking industry by government.
  1. Dunerunner
  2. OldDude49
  3. oldman11
  4. Ura-Ki
  5. OldDude49
  6. OldDude49
  7. Motomom34
  8. Dunerunner
  9. T. Riley
  10. enloopious
  11. Motomom34
  12. Yard Dart
  13. Gator 45/70
  14. Motomom34
  15. Motomom34
  16. Bandit99
  17. Yard Dart
  18. Yard Dart
  19. Yard Dart
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary