Bank of America Dumps Gun Industry Client, McMillan Group Int'l, ...Because...

the CMP would be a distribution/sales system already in place.... there's no "danger" whatsoever, the CMP already sells M1s and M1 carbines to civilians who meet the qualifications... hmmm...

 

...and of course now we know (as a fact) that holder's DOJ/BATFE was actually facilitating the illegal trafficking of guns into mexico, without a tracking mechanism, (Operation Fast-n-Furious)... at the same time, we are told this, hmmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD4dU5i4qx8&feature=related

 

By the number of assault weapons shown by members on this site, which isn't even a gun site, I don't think that it's all that hard for Americans to purchase and own assault weapons, "banned" or not. If you want to own an assault weapon it's fine by me but I personally don't see much sense in having one for civilian use. I suppose that those large-capacity mags might be useful if you are a really poor shot but if you can't hit what you are aiming at with ten rounds then I'd just as soon you not be shooting in the first place.

Speaking of lying to the American public about illegal operations, well I'd really be interested in hearing of an administration since Eisenhower's that didn't do that.

 

I put B of A on the shelf long before the crisis hit. They were a shit company for a long time now. I hated them long before they went anti gun, if that is true. I will never choose to do business with them ever again.

 

...sir, all i did was refute your earlier statement/claim... i'm not going to expound about this admin, that admin, .and attract unwanted attention from the modstaff... now, this thread is about BofA, ...you made your statement, you've been pwnd, ...now let's get back to the topic at hand...

 

Like many here, I have been sworn to defend the United States Constitution and have served this country both in the military and civilian services for a good number of years. I've also owned guns for over forty years. One can hardly say I'm anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment. However, I'm not so rabidly one-sided that I don't look into things, no matter which "side" of an issue makes the claims.

Let me ask this: If Bank of America has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial relations with Cerberus (owner of Remington and several other gun companies) and Cabela's (one of the country's largest gun and hunting supply stores), then why does its reevaluation of a line of credit for a single small gun-related company make the bank "anti 2nd amendment"? Don't you think that perhaps the decision might have been a tiny bit economically motivated?

By the way, Winchester is now now owned by a Belgian company. Does this make Winchester anti-American? Of course not, and it would be silly to make such a claim. Don't you think though it's perhaps equally silly to say that Bank of America is anti-2nd Amendment because it didn't continue to financially support one small gun-related company?

 

I don't understand how people that are so pro-second are so threatened by gun control. If you are a mentally healthy law abiding citizen, why is gun control such a bad thing? Do you really want EVERYONE, including mentally unstable and dangerous criminals, to be able to get guns as easily as they do? Do you really think that our forefathers were thinking about drive-byes, school shootings, office shootings, and gang banger children holding up another kid for his Nikes when they were constructing the bill of rights/constitution?

 

do you think the founding fathers believed in righteous free people giving in on their liberties just because the vermin in society take advantage? gun control is a slippery slope to people control...

 

No, but as a lawful gun owner, I would rather it be more difficult for those that illegally have weapons to purchase both guns and ammunition, afterall if I have not done anything to prove that I am not capable of being a responsible gun owner, what should I be worried about while trying to purchase another? If I have to wait 2 weeks to take possession rather than immediately, this won't keep me from buying a gun that I want, it would just somewhat reassure that I am not going to have to use it while at the ATM or while purchasing a bottle of water at the local convenience store.

 

what does a waiting period solve?... crooks obtain things via the "street", ...theft, blackmarket deals, etc... it's scary that you are so quick to give in, ...especially for feel-gooder laws that only bind the hands of those who follow laws in the first place... tell that to the woman who suddenly finds she has a stalker, ...threats, ... - oh, you'll have to wait, we've got this "law" you see

 

Yeah it's a bullshit contingency by Anti-gunners that make them feel like they got something for nothing.

If I can buy a rifle and cash/carry, they what would the difference be with a handgun. A criminal background check can be done instantly. This is done whenever you buy a long gun, so whats the difference with a handgun? A criminal still cannot buy it, because of the instant background check. In the rare case someone has a mental break and wants to buy a gun, but has no prior criminal/psychiatric history, you cannot justify denial of the 2nd Amendment Rights of the rest of the population in an attempt to curb a small, insignificant percentage of violent crimes.

In fact, given a SHALL ISSUE mentality, it is statistically proven that legal concealed carry permit holders LOWER per capita violent crimes.

An armed society is a polite society.

My biggest fear is the daylight home invasion. My wife is a stay at home mother of 4 boys. Three are in school during the day, but she's alone with my youngest son for the rest of the day in a remote neighborhood halfway between Philadelphia and baltimore. These neighborhoods are typically targeted by the dreggs of Philadelphia/Baltimore who get in a car and run to the country, kick in the back door and take what the want/kill who they need to. This happened to my cousin last year. Two males in an F-150 targeted their home while his two teenage daughters were home alone. They called the cops, but the intruders were long gone by the time they got there.

I have electronic monitoring of the house, video surveillance of the property, but this is simply a deterrent. The real equalizer between an intruder with nothing to lose and my wife protecting our infant son is a Remington 870 express with an 18 inch barrel and Low Recoil Police Buckshot. Or a Springfield XDm, but if she's feeling particularly cocky the AR isnt far away either. She knows how to use them, and she knows the legal doctrine of our state when it comes to self defense. So should everyone. Those protections SHOULD NOT end at your front door step. They should extend to everywhere you may be, and that's what the constructors of our constitution intended when they penned the 2nd Amendment to paper.

 

Gun control has never been about keeping guns away from criminals. It is strickly about getting guns out of the hands of currently legal gun owners to eliminate the power of the proletariat. The main purpose of the second amendment was to put guns into the hands of people so they could over throw the government, should it become corrupt. Self defense was secondary and sporting use was not something thought to need to be defended. The founding fathers wanted us to have as equal footing as possible to fight a standing army, foreign or domestic. The govt has, as all govts do, steadily removed our rights as gun owners to increase the security of itself and the upper class it serves.

To say you don't see the point in not having waiting periods, bans on full auto, bans on artillery, band on magazine capacity, etc. Means you do not understand the reason wehi have a second amendment in the first place. The govt will move down the list... banning features, banning capacity, banning capability, banning the number of guns you can buy, banning effective ammo, etc. Untill you are whittled down to a Daisy BB gun that requires you leave it locked in a safe at the local shooting range.

Gun control has never EVER has been about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable.

 

+1

well said!

 

+1
exactly right! it's disheartening when you hear the uninformed talk of administering rights based on "need", as determined by a collective of elititists having concentrated power over others... "need", and of course the fallacy that the 2A is about hunting or some other such thing...

 

Oh and to stay on topic LOL... I closed my bank account due to BoA's rediculous fee's. I'll be closing my open credit line through them due to this bullshit. I hate BoA, they're greedy fucks and push politics with buisness. Instead of helping Americans in economic hardship they've capitalized off the suffering of american familys through rediculous bank fees and rediculous shortsale and mortgage modification policies.