New York Attorney General Letitia James and her California comrade, Rob Bonta, send a letter to Visa, Mastercard and American Express, urging them to track gun purchases as a way to reduce mass shootings and gun trafficking. But a “recommendation” from a state’s top prosecutor sounds more like a threat. At least one credit card firm sounds ready to roll over. Since they already track grocery and other types of purchases, is this just common sense that no law-abiding gun owner would oppose, or an invitation to make all weapon transactions happen in cash going forward?
Scott Ott, Bill Whittle, and Stephen Green create 260 new Right Angle episodes each year, thanks to our Members. To join our team of producers, and access Members-only tools, tap the big green button above. If you value this episode, and would like to make a one-time donation, tap the big blue button.
17 replies on “Guns and Credit Cards: Prosecutors Urge (Threaten) Firms to Track Gun Buys to Cut Mass Shootings”
Monero
This sort of political machination is how fascism takes root in a society and, inevitably, becomes totalitarian rule of the populace. I fear that we (society) have breached the rubicon, and the only way back is very unpleasant.
One answer is 80% guns. Sure, California outlawed them, but they also outlawed high-capacity magazines and the 9th Circuit struck that down as unconstitutional, but our betters in California don’t let a little thing like the Constitution stop them. Besides, you can hop over the border and pick one up. No serial number? No problem.
Bill made the point about how both the BIG criminals and the LITTLE criminals do all their gun transactions with cash, to be untraceable. Which is EXACTLY correct. Therefore any thinking person knows the point of this credit card restriction is NOT to slow or stop crime, because, again as Bill outlined, CRIMINALS DO NOT us credit cards to purchase their guns.
However, a big point none of you guys made is the fact that the government is now working hard to ELIMINATE CASH. Which Bill now gave them another reason to outlaw cash. When the government can track every dollar made and spent, AND put an expiration date or cancel your dollars, in real-time electronically, THAT is the end of Freedom and Liberty!! GAME OVER!!
Just another reason to go full Dave Ramsey and get rid of your credit cards.
Along the lines of “if it only saved one life”;
1)Dear CDC; If it only saved one life, could we not be required to vaccinate anyone under 35 who has no risk factors for death from Covid?
2)Dear Mainstream Media; If it saved only one life, could you quit taking every death of a black criminal at the hands of the police as a racist assault, at least until all the facts are out?
3)Dear Popeye’s Fried Chicken; If it saved only one life, could you quit using all of the yummy ingredients in your fast food and start serving more leafy greens and sugarless/fatless food? Morbid obesity and diabetes are rampant. You should awaken every day with the mission of saving fat people from self-destruction.
Bill’s right on this as far as I’m concerned …
“If it saves one life for everyone who wants to go armed can go armed anywhere and anytime they choose, it’s worth it and we have the statistics to back that up.”
Two can play that game. This is an example of legitimately using the tactics of our enemies against them and without “stooping to their level”.
We don’t want to become like them but we can take legitimate lessons from how they do things and use those against them too. We don’t want to “stoop to their level” because then we become indistinguishable from our political foes. This is incontrovertible and we have recent historical examples to guide us.
Everyone knows about the deterioration of the Republican party years ago (before the Tea Party and etc.) into nothing more than squishes and Leftists operating as RINOs under the Republican brand name. I ‘left’ the Republican Party decades back and started calling myself an Independent because it was clear there were enough Republicans aiding and abetting the other side that the Republican Party no longer represented my interests nor interests I considered vital to this nation.
The political condition in this country at that point had devolved into the equivalent of a high school football rivalry between two schools. It was ‘Rah rah rah for my side!’ and had little more gravity than Monday Night Football. The Bread and Circuses mentality was in full swing and other than the labels the players were becoming indistinguishable from each other. People were rooting for their own team and bragging rights were more sought than the security and future of the United States of America.
The Leftists on the other side had almost won when they convinced people that politics was no more than a Saturday afternoon game viewed from the bleachers with beer and hotdog in hand.
We’ve stepped back from those days due in no small part to the view of the brink plummeting to destruction to be had from that position. The political death of the Wicked Witch of Wyoming is a very good sign. That it took this long to throw a bucket of water on her and melt her to slag is not a good sign.
It was also at that time that I started arguing to support Conservatism and making the distinction between Conservatism and Leftism rather than Republican and Democrat. Back then there were a couple conservative Democrats and there were way, way too many Leftist Republicans. So the distinction was vital.
We don’t want to be like the enemy, to stoop to their level. That doesn’t mean we can’t use some of the tactics they use against them. We just have to be careful about which tactics we employ. We don’t want to lie, cheat, manipulate and do all the other things the Left has to do in order to fool people regarding their intentions. The Left knows that even now this late in their plans they still have to deceive people and they will go on needing to deceive people right up until it’s too late and deception doesn’t matter anymore.
So we ought have our antennae up and tuning in things like Bill said in this video. Notice that even Bill Whittle didn’t lead with this, it was an afterthought and a good one he needed to inject into the conversation. He came up with it late but I’m glad he did because it’s a serious arrow for our quiver and can be applied in other areas than just the topic of guns.
This Is practical, actionable, tactical application we can actually use. I’m thinking someone might ought to write a pamphlet or book, along the lines of “Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals” but with the arguments and tactics of our side laid out in simple terms to combat the sort of crap the other side pulls all the time.
Always love the argument from the collectivists that if everyone was armed we would “devolve” into the “wild, wild west” with shootouts ever present.
Another stunning lack of historical context on the side of the collectivists.
The Gold Rush was an 1840s phenomenon and started the Go West, young man hullaballoo.
The building of the railroad west was coincident with Lincoln and the Civil War.
Most of those who went west after the war were war veterans who would have been armed against all types of wild animals, including other humans, and due to their service knew how to handle those weapons.
Nearly everyone was armed and shootouts were not commonplace, despite Hollywood drama showing other wise.
If you are in a saloon with 20 guys who are all armed, you are not that likely to draw your own weapon. it is 50/50 proposition, at best. Significantly worse if he has friends.
Thugs get away with terrorizing with their guns simply because they know the other guy is more than likely NOT armed.
I live in an open carry area and have had conversations with LEO about whether it is better to Conceal Carry or Open Carry. There is a good argument to be made that wearing a visible firearm is more dissuading. The immediate counter is that if the bad guy is determined to rob you, he may just shoot in the back first and then take what he wants.
I tend to lean toward the former.
What do you think?
I think that there’s a lot to be said for situational awareness either way. It’s pretty hard for the bad guy to shoot you in the back if you don’t turn your back on him. If you’re going to go armed then you have a responsibility regarding the weapon you carry. In my not-so-humble opinion you can’t just strap on a gun and then ignore the fact you’re carrying it until a situation develops where you need it. You should be reasonably certain of your marksmanship, assessing risks, evaluating potential targets and fully aware of all of your surroundings at all times but then … That also applies even if you’re unarmed.
In my younger days and another life I carried a nice, compact .45 ACP at condition 1 in a pancake holster on my strong side and often a Gerber Mk II fighting knife somewhere else. I like pancake holsters because they carry the weapon high and tight to the body. The knife either on my weak side or small of the back. Sometimes, when the situation called for it, I had another knife and/or a small .22 also secreted somewhere on my body. This of course only pertains to times when I wasn’t wearing some sort of uniform and carrying a real rifle. I’ll take a rifle over a handgun every time if that’s the choice available.
When concealed carry was prudent I would wear something light over the pancake holster. Then I would be very careful the weapon did not ‘print’ and make its presence known. Usually I’d wear a T-Shirt to keep it from gouging on my skin and something like a long safari or “river” shirt on top of that. I own a lot of those sorts of shirts even today. They’re very comfortable.
There are arguments and circumstances where either or both open carry and concealed carry are the better choice. One size does not fit all and it’s best to have the situational awareness to know the difference.
For example, it’s probably not a great idea to have an obvious handgun hanging on your waist in Disneyland. There’s plenty of security there anyway and it’s a very safe place. Or at least it used to be.
Conversely when I lived in Arizona I almost never bothered to conceal my sidearm. Open carry there is very common and largely unremarkable. Or at least it used to be.
Sometimes I’d have a .22 Magnum derringer in a back pocket or taped to my leg even when I was carrying an obvious sidearm openly. The little derringer gave me two positive CNS shots at close range and was not susceptible to sweat rust or pocket lint and never jams. You never know when you might need something smaller to get something bigger. Even when not carrying anything else the little derringer gave me that option if I needed it and my moves were good. In a hip pocket it was also where an armed bad guy would expect me to reach if he demanded my wallet … Big mistake on his part that one.
So a lot depends on the situation and the circumstances. Even a U.S. Marshal or FBI agent who has virtually unlimited authorization to be armed anywhere he wants to will usually go concealed just to avoid drawing undue attention to himself.
All of that said, you may have seen my previous comments on what I think of an armed population. As far as personal weapons go I’d prefer no restrictions at all on anyone. Including felons who have served their time, completed their parole and are back in circulation among the population having fully discharged any further criminal liability.
If a guy’s trying to set his life right he isn’t deserving of death by unprovoked, unjustified attack anymore than anyone else is. If he’s going to go armed and continue to be a problem then everyone else being armed will act to keep his criminal proclivities in check and provide reasonable cause to terminate him if that doesn’t work.
I want him out here where he can be got at when he puts himself in the way of being dealt with.
I have zero issues with people being shot as long as it’s the right people. If you do things that make you deserving of being shot and killed then you have no complaint.
If you shoot someone without being certain that they needed to be shot you need to face the Rule of Law the same as anyone else.
Former felons, law or no, will go armed as they choose anyway. It’s the good ones who made a mistake and are trying to get their life straight that obey the laws. The same argument applies to them as it does to any other peaceful, law abiding citizen. This is exactly like non former felons and they don’t deserve to die at the hands of criminals any more than you or I do. The only exception I would grant is that if they’re involved in a shooting the circumstances are scrupulously investigated but that ought to happen in any shooting.
If fathers taught their sons and daughters during upbringing how to comport themselves and when to and not to use deadly force there would be very little of that sort of thing. If you don’t care about your kids then … Well they’ll go out and get themselves removed from the gene pool then won’t they?
I don’t see that as a bad thing so call me awful if you like.
The “Wild West with a gunfight every night on every street corner” argument is absurd and anti-historical. I won’t go into that for now but suffice it to say that people who learn their scholastics from fictional entertainment are idiots and should be ignored, scorned and mocked at the very least.
If I had to choose regarding arms between living under the circumstances in the Old West or in Harlem or Compton I’d take the Old West every time. It was safer by several orders of magnitude. Once again this nonsense of people wanting to save us from something they paint as worse is actually the exact opposite and much less worse than the situation they’re responsible for creating.
I think everyone being armed in whatever manner they choose, concealed or open, is a win for everyone. But then I know how to use my weapons and have had decades of experience with them. For all the other sins I need forgiveness over and they are many, I’ll not face my Maker with intentionally spilled innocent blood on my hands. Not by word nor deed. I’m exceedingly careful in that regard and following that policy hasn’t been as easy as a lot might think. Most people would say “well duh, of course you wouldn’t do that” but most people never face a shoot/no shoot situation so I don’t care what they think in this matter.
All in all I’m fairly confident about such things and I can understand why others might not be. I think they’re wrong, btw. Because my weapons and yours and everyone else like us protects them too. Whether they’re comfortable with that or not is irrelevant. They’ll be plenty comfortable when their life or the life of someone they care about is saved somewhere down the line.
I suppose the comeback would be “you mean, turn the suburbs into the inner city? where the guns are common and the shootings are daily?”
The encroachment upon the suburbs by the inner city mobs is inevitable. The real question is whether one will be ready to defend against the hordes.
As you may recall, Bank of America and some other financial institutions rolled over to the demands of Bloomsberg’s anti-gun group and stopped doing business with firearms-related businesses. This left thousands of gun shops and producers scrambling to secure banking and credit services upon which they depend. The ESG scoring of companies was the wedge to introduce all kinds of social engineering.
Bill, as you are a history buff, you might want to know that referring to a cheap handgun gun as a “Saturday Night Special” is racist. Really.
It was coined in reference to crimes committed in a certain section of a city. The term from which is morphed was “Nixxertown Saturday Night”. I would provide the reference if I still had that book. Lost is (and many others) in a house fire. Sorry.
While the origin of the phrase Saturday Night Special may have been coded to certain section of town, the phrase is now part of broader colloquial usage that simply means, as you stated, cheap handgun to be used to rob on Saturday night.
Just because something had racial over tones, or under tones, when created, does not mean it still has them. Cops all over the US refer to that weapon with that designation and it has no connection to the ethnicity of the criminal.
This is a prime example of a thing no longer meaning what it originally did so is no longer applicable to the original indication and is exemplary of my argument regarding the Confederate “Stars ‘n Bars” battle flag. Which no longer represents a military unit on active campaign maneuvers in open rebellion to its legitimate civil authority. Southerners have changed the meaning of that flag just as the meaning of (N-word) Saturday Night” has changed too.
It’s also a good example of why we should not allow our political opponents to change meanings to suit their agenda. Nor get overly picky regarding changed meanings. If we do that there’s no end to it.
It’s every bit as bad and absurd when Conservatives do that too.
Take the word “coon” as an example. The derogatory connotation is an etymological morph of the word “barricoon”, which was an area where black African slaves were held on the African continent prior to sale and being loaded for transport on a ship. That’s where the word ‘coon comes from when it is applied to black people.
Where I grew up, “coon” hunting was a completely different thing. It had nothing to do with black people, it referred to furry little four-legged critters with bandit mask markings on their faces being pursued by dogs and taken in the middle of the night. For the value of their pelts and to limit the damage they do when allowed to multiply. There were no black people for more than 100 miles in any direction. If there were, you certainly were not going to find them up a tree with a pack of hounds baying below at 3AM.
Though not common I’ve seen people interpret innocent conversations about ‘coon hunting as meaning “going out to hunt black people”. Which is absurd. Yet I’ve been scolded by various Karens for talking about raccoon hunting even so.
I see this scolding about “Saturday Night Specials” in the same vein. It means “small inexpensive unreliable handgun” not “weapon of choice of black armed robbers”. It might have meant that once upon a time but it doesn’t in the modern vernacular.
Not the least of reasons being that black or any other color of armed robbers can afford and use much better handguns today than they might have been able to procure in the ’30s or so. Back then you had to either buy the gun in a store (and chose the cheapest you could get) or go steal a decent gun from someone who was more likely to shoot you with it than not.
Sadly, Saturday Night Specials are often chosen by legitimate people, some of them minorities, who can’t afford anything better for lawful self defense. Someone should not have to die wrongly because they couldn’t afford a $1,000 Safari Arms .45 Combat Commander or Enforcer (love that spider on the grip scales). This is why even Saturday Night Specials should not be outlawed. Poor people deserve a fighting chance too. In fact, I would argue that outlawing Saturday Night Specials is a racist thing to do.
It’s a long game that The Radical Left is playing. You can’t eliminate the First Amendment without first eliminating the Second Amendment.
I worked in credit cards for a few years, and I can personally attest that we never saw ourselves as the front line in crime prevention