"The Warne Scope Mounts Company of Oregon was doing business - the
manufacture of scope mounts and components thereof. ... Charles Lake,
President of Warne Scope Mounts, submitted an application from the company
for a business line of credit to purchase materials to make work benches as
well as to purchase appliances, to the Home Depot. ... The credit line was
approved on September 28. On the 29th, Mr. Lake received a call from the
Home Depot credit department saying the line of credit was rescinded. He
asked if it was something in the company's credit rating. "No," he was told.
"It's because of the industry you are in."

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/223490

In article s.com,
(DA) wrote:

Since you've been asked repeatedly to stop posting from the spam portal,
and you insist on persisting, you must be the spam portal owner. So,
**** you.

In article s.com,
(DA) wrote:

responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...sn-t-like-gun-
makers-561601-.htm
DA wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

As is the gunowner, which I think was the reason behind the posting.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article s.com,
DA wrote:
responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...rs-561601-.htm
DA wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit. Apparently it did not seem like a
good investment to them. City has probably looked at the market and
realized that the jump in sales of guns and ammo precipitated by the
election of a black president will soon lead to slump and this investment
may not pan out. Who's to tell them how to run their business?

The Warne Scope Mounts Company might do well for themselves and the local
Oregon economy by asking a local bank for a credit line.


Suppose they decided not to issue a LOC to Obama's campaign office because
they thought having a black president would lead to a slump. Would that be
OK too?


--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

In article ,
(Larry W) wrote:



Suppose they decided not to issue a LOC to Obama's campaign office because
they thought having a black president would lead to a slump. Would that be
OK too?

Under discrimination law, blacks are a protected group, so it would not
be legal. Gun makers aren't/

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In the USA at present, a white male Christian gun owner who lives in
the country. Is everyone's enemy, then?

An unarmed, black, Muslim would be totally protected?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman"
wrote in message
...

Under discrimination law, blacks are a protected group, so it would
not
be legal. Gun makers aren't/

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

I'd be OK with that. Except, I'd not issue cause the candidate is a
liberal tax raiser. I judge people based on the content of their
character, not the color of their skin. I can't stand the racists who
keep complaining about the past. Such as one fellow who is often on
the airwaves talking about slavery and the black man finally becoming
free.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Larry W" wrote in message
...

Suppose they decided not to issue a LOC to Obama's campaign office
because
they thought having a black president would lead to a slump. Would
that be
OK too?


--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.
org

"DA" wrote in message
roups.com...

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are closing
their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their policy.

"Money can't breathe and money can't see,
But when I pull out a fiver people listen to me.
Money can't run and money can't walk,
But when I write out a cheque I swear to God I hear money talk."

R. Davies

"Larry W" wrote in message
...

Suppose they decided not to issue a LOC to Obama's campaign office because
they thought having a black president would lead to a slump. Would that be
OK too?

It would be okay with me, not that I need any additional information to
suggest that Citi is run by cretins.

On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their
policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.

Perce

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:54:25 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their
policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Sure if your family and friends all think the same way.

I commend this bank in Texas.

Motto: “Modern Banking with Old Fashioned Courtesy.”

http://www.chappellhillbank.com/

Sign at entrance front of the bank:

http://sleepless.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...7d6851e970c-pi

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their
policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.

Perce

Also yup, that's how it works. But keep in mind Citi is concerned about
profits, not morality, so your plea only works if Citi is convinced you are
in the majority.

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...


And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their
policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.

Perce

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for
Home Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money,
City is free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Absolutely. Be sure to explain why you think their policy is a good one.
Note that the article says Citi's policy is not to support any entity that
is a purveyor to the U.S. military.

I take this as an extension of the more basic underpinning that Citi wants
our warrior class to die.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
"DA" wrote in message
roups.com...

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing
their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their policy.

"Money can't breathe and money can't see,
But when I pull out a fiver people listen to me.
Money can't run and money can't walk,
But when I write out a cheque I swear to God I hear money talk."

R. Davies

Justice may be blind, but she can sure smell money.

--
Bobby G.

On 10/8/2010 5:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for
Home Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money,
City is free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Absolutely. Be sure to explain why you think their policy is a good one.
Note that the article says Citi's policy is not to support any entity that
is a purveyor to the U.S. military.

I take this as an extension of the more basic underpinning that Citi wants
our warrior class to die.



Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked in
my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in there
says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held by people
that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a good chunk of
change off the military.

--
aem sends...

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:31:16 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 10/8/2010 5:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for
Home Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money,
City is free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Absolutely. Be sure to explain why you think their policy is a good one.
Note that the article says Citi's policy is not to support any entity that
is a purveyor to the U.S. military.

I take this as an extension of the more basic underpinning that Citi wants
our warrior class to die.



Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked in
my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in there
says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held by people
that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a good chunk of
change off the military.

Government employees should not be issued a US Govt credit card. I've
seen/heard abuses of them.

A guy gets cash from the machine in Boulder, while at a titty bar.
Another buys four tires and has fresh tires on his car. It alls comes
out in the latter audits.

I went to settle a Travel Voucher, with the Cashier one day. She
starting telling me I "have to have a government" credit card --
DOJ/FBOP.

Me: "No I don't."

She: "Yes you do!"

Me: "How can you make me use it? I'm not management!"

Got my cash from the window and walked away.

She wanted to say that because I traveled twice a year, a credit card
was mandatory. Wrong -- on both her counts.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

Also yup, that's how it works. But keep in mind Citi is concerned about
profits, not morality, so your plea only works if Citi is convinced you are
in the majority.

Or a sizable enough minority.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The constitution only discusses what governments can do.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:06:05 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

I'm endowed with certain unalienable Rights in Declaration of
Independence.

"...unalienable rights or privileges cannot be transferred or taken
away by any man."

(More ammo Drill Sergeant!)

On 10/8/2010 7:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:31:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 10/8/2010 5:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for
Home Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money,
City is free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Absolutely. Be sure to explain why you think their policy is a good one.
Note that the article says Citi's policy is not to support any entity that
is a purveyor to the U.S. military.

I take this as an extension of the more basic underpinning that Citi wants
our warrior class to die.



Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked in
my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in there
says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held by people
that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a good chunk of
change off the military.

Government employees should not be issued a US Govt credit card. I've
seen/heard abuses of them.

A guy gets cash from the machine in Boulder, while at a titty bar.
Another buys four tires and has fresh tires on his car. It alls comes
out in the latter audits.

I went to settle a Travel Voucher, with the Cashier one day. She
starting telling me I "have to have a government" credit card --
DOJ/FBOP.

Me: "No I don't."

She: "Yes you do!"

Me: "How can you make me use it? I'm not management!"

Got my cash from the window and walked away.

She wanted to say that because I traveled twice a year, a credit card
was mandatory. Wrong -- on both her counts.

At my agency, the cutoff was 3x per year, which I used to just barely
meet. I haven't traveled for work in over 2 years, but they didn't take
it back. I suppose I would have to call an 800 number, or one of our
bean counters would, if they ever do send me on the road again.

As part of the now-mandatory annual training to have one, they do
emphasize that using it at titty bars and for personal expenses, can
easily become a firing offense. Hell, using a motor pool car more than
100 yards off the route between hotel and work location can get you 30
days off. That is why everyone refuses them now.

I always made money on road trips. I don't go to fancy restaurants every
night at home- why should I when traveling? I always tried for a hotel
with a kitchenette, and/or breakfast bar. I also never used the gummint
card for anything but rental car and hotel. Possible BS paperwork for
excessive cash advances and retail purchases was simply not worth the
risk. I didn't get an 'official' card till they made it mandatory. IMHO,
'official' cards should not have our names on them, or be billed to our
home addresses. Hand it out with the orders, collect on return, and put
it at the bottom of the pile in the safe. Don't hand it out again till
the voucher is settled.

I miss the old days when I would just go down to the cashier and get a
fistful of $100 bills, and then go down to the actual travel office and
pick up an actual printed-on-cardboard airline ticket. We don't even
HAVE a cash office any more, and I have to use those damn e-tickets.

--
aem sends...

On 10/08/10 05:06 pm, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The Constitution as amended no more compels any person or business to
sell firearms or the materials/tools/equipment to enable the making of
firearms than the Constitution as currently interpreted compels a doctor
to perform an abortion -- or compels me to sell sound amplification
equipment to a Nazi, a Communist, or a street preacher to enhance his
exercise of his right of freedom of speech.

BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but "the
people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment specified
the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear arms: for the
establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged that the USA would
have a standing army.)

Perce

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The constitution only discusses what governments can do.

And what they can't.

aemeijers wrote:

Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked
in my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in
there says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held
by people that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a
good chunk of change off the military.

The article quoted a toady at Citi Bank.

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but "the
people."

Only someone grossly unfamiliar with the Constitution would find that
"strange":

"... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ..." [Amendment I]
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms ..." [Amendment II]
"... the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and
seizures ..." [Amendment IV]
"... rights...retained by the people." [Amendment IX]
"...powers... reserved to... the people." [Amendment X]

In article ,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
...snipped...
BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but "the
people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment specified
the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear arms: for the
establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged that the USA would
have a standing army.)

Perce

That is not correct. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."

In the context of the time it was written, after the succesful revolution
against the British, standing armies were considered a necessary evil;
needed for the security of a state, but dangerous because under the
command of a less than benign goverment, they could be used to oppress
the people. The 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of the people to keep
arms, so that if necessary, the people could RESIST the standing army.
In other words, because a militia was necessary for the security of
the state, it was also necessary for the people to be allowed to arm
themselves, if the militia, under an oppressive regime should be used
against them.



--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On 10/8/2010 9:54 PM, HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:

Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked
in my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in
there says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held
by people that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a
good chunk of change off the military.

The article quoted a toady at Citi Bank.



Well, either CITI lies, or the toady was pulling explanations out of
their ass. Perhaps for PR purposes, they distance themselves from the
manufacturers or lethal hardware, or related sub-components. But they
sure have no qualms about taking money from DoD for the more mundane
housekeeping things. So their ethics are less than consistent.

--
aem sends...

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
...snipped...
BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)

Perce

That is not correct. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."

In the context of the time it was written, after the succesful
revolution against the British, standing armies were considered a
necessary evil; needed for the security of a state, but dangerous
because under the command of a less than benign goverment, they could
be used to oppress the people. The 2nd amendment guarantees the
rights of the people to keep arms, so that if necessary, the people
could RESIST the standing army. In other words, because a militia was
necessary for the security of
the state, it was also necessary for the people to be allowed to arm
themselves, if the militia, under an oppressive regime should be used
against them.

It's wise, as you point out, to look to the original meaning of the
Constitution. In addition to your observation that fear of oppressive
government was the main motivation, it's also worthwhile to look at the
original meaning of a couple of words:

"Militia" - In the late 18th century, "militia" meant all able-bodied
freemen in the community. It did NOT mean an organized military body -
active or reserve. "Militia" was a subset of "people" and meant to not
include some.

People = everybody
Citizen = People minus slaves
Militia = Citizens minus women, children, and the elderly (i.e., able-bodied
men)

"Regulate" - In the same time period, "regulated" did not mean "subject to
discipline and organization" as it does today. At the time, there were
acutally NO regulations to follow! Anyway, "regulated," in the day, meant
having a functional weapon. There are vestiges of that definition in today's
language as in "well-regulated" timepiece or "The Well-Tempered (regulated)
Clavier."*

--------
* The Well-Tempered Clavier: A collection of keyboard music by Johann
Sebastian Bach, completed just 30 years before the American Revolution.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Kurt Ullman
wrote:
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The constitution only discusses what governments can do.

And what they can't.

Good point.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 2010-10-09, aemeijers wrote:

housekeeping things. So their ethics are less than consistent.

Knowing how much weight Citibank has in the credit card industry and
having personally dealt with them, I can assure you they have no
ethics, whatsoever.

nb

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:33:22 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:54:25 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their
policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Sure if your family and friends all think the same way.

I commend this bank in Texas.

Motto: “Modern Banking with Old Fashioned Courtesy.”

http://www.chappellhillbank.com/

Sign at entrance front of the bank:

http://sleepless.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...7d6851e970c-pi

Amazing! I'll have to forward that to my wife (she's a teller where guns are
most emphatically *not* permitted - dumb).

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:30:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

Also yup, that's how it works. But keep in mind Citi is concerned about
profits, not morality, so your plea only works if Citi is convinced you are
in the majority.

Or a sizable enough minority.

s/sizable/vocal/

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:54:21 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:06:05 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution is (almost exclusively) a "negative" document, in that it
describes what the government cannot do. Everything not enumerated in the
Constitution as a government power is a right; a human right, protected *from*
government.

I'm endowed with certain unalienable Rights in Declaration of
Independence.

"...unalienable rights or privileges cannot be transferred or taken
away by any man."

(More ammo Drill Sergeant!)

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:37:34 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/08/10 05:06 pm, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The Constitution as amended no more compels any person or business to
sell firearms or the materials/tools/equipment to enable the making of
firearms than the Constitution as currently interpreted compels a doctor
to perform an abortion -- or compels me to sell sound amplification
equipment to a Nazi, a Communist, or a street preacher to enhance his
exercise of his right of freedom of speech.

BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but "the
people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment specified
the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear arms: for the
establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged that the USA would
have a standing army.)

Article 1 Section 8:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"


Article 2 Section 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:28:33 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 10/8/2010 7:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:31:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 10/8/2010 5:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for
Home Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money,
City is free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Absolutely. Be sure to explain why you think their policy is a good one.
Note that the article says Citi's policy is not to support any entity that
is a purveyor to the U.S. military.

I take this as an extension of the more basic underpinning that Citi wants
our warrior class to die.



Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked in
my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in there
says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held by people
that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a good chunk of
change off the military.

Government employees should not be issued a US Govt credit card. I've
seen/heard abuses of them.

A guy gets cash from the machine in Boulder, while at a titty bar.
Another buys four tires and has fresh tires on his car. It alls comes
out in the latter audits.

I went to settle a Travel Voucher, with the Cashier one day. She
starting telling me I "have to have a government" credit card --
DOJ/FBOP.

Me: "No I don't."

She: "Yes you do!"

Me: "How can you make me use it? I'm not management!"

Got my cash from the window and walked away.

She wanted to say that because I traveled twice a year, a credit card
was mandatory. Wrong -- on both her counts.

At my agency, the cutoff was 3x per year, which I used to just barely
meet. I haven't traveled for work in over 2 years, but they didn't take
it back. I suppose I would have to call an 800 number, or one of our
bean counters would, if they ever do send me on the road again.

As part of the now-mandatory annual training to have one, they do
emphasize that using it at titty bars and for personal expenses, can
easily become a firing offense. Hell, using a motor pool car more than
100 yards off the route between hotel and work location can get you 30
days off. That is why everyone refuses them now.

I always made money on road trips. I don't go to fancy restaurants every
night at home- why should I when traveling? I always tried for a hotel
with a kitchenette, and/or breakfast bar. I also never used the gummint
card for anything but rental car and hotel. Possible BS paperwork for
excessive cash advances and retail purchases was simply not worth the
risk. I didn't get an 'official' card till they made it mandatory. IMHO,
'official' cards should not have our names on them, or be billed to our
home addresses. Hand it out with the orders, collect on return, and put
it at the bottom of the pile in the safe. Don't hand it out again till
the voucher is settled.

I miss the old days when I would just go down to the cashier and get a
fistful of $100 bills, and then go down to the actual travel office and
pick up an actual printed-on-cardboard airline ticket. We don't even
HAVE a cash office any more, and I have to use those damn e-tickets.

When I spend money on a business trip I pay out of my pocket and they may
decide to pay it back in a few weeks, with a damned check. So far it's only
been small change, but it's still a PITA. My PPoE had credit cards for
frequent travelers. Somehow I still have a $800 credit on the stupid thing (I
retired from that job four years ago). It's not my money so it just sits
there.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:53:58 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
"DA" wrote in message
roups.com...

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for Home
Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money, City is
free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing
their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate their policy.

"Money can't breathe and money can't see,
But when I pull out a fiver people listen to me.
Money can't run and money can't walk,
But when I write out a cheque I swear to God I hear money talk."

R. Davies

Justice may be blind, but she can sure smell money.

Justice? Citi? In the same thread?

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:37:34 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/08/10 05:06 pm, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The Constitution as amended no more compels any person or business to
sell firearms or the materials/tools/equipment to enable the making of
firearms than the Constitution as currently interpreted compels a doctor
to perform an abortion -- or compels me to sell sound amplification
equipment to a Nazi, a Communist, or a street preacher to enhance his
exercise of his right of freedom of speech.

The Right is to keep and bear arms -in public- for lawful purposes,not to
make any person or business sell,supply,etc firearms or their
parts/materials.

IMO,any place that is -open to the public- should not be able to prohibit
lawflly armed citizens. They are not truly "private".


BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but "the
people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment specified
the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear arms: for the
establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged that the USA would
have a standing army.)

the purpose mentioned was not the SOLE reaon for the People's RKBA.
They could not list all reasons.
the "militia clause" makes NO restrictions on the People's RKBA,nor limits
it to only militias.


Article 1 Section 8:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"


Article 2 Section 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."


the People of the Second Amendment are the same people as the People in the
First,Fourth,Ninth,or Tenth Amendments.
SCOTUS has already ruled they are the same;individuals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 10/9/2010 9:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry W wrote:
In ,
Percival P. wrote:
...snipped...
BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)

Perce

That is not correct. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."

In the context of the time it was written, after the succesful
revolution against the British, standing armies were considered a
necessary evil; needed for the security of a state, but dangerous
because under the command of a less than benign goverment, they could
be used to oppress the people. The 2nd amendment guarantees the
rights of the people to keep arms, so that if necessary, the people
could RESIST the standing army. In other words, because a militia was
necessary for the security of
the state, it was also necessary for the people to be allowed to arm
themselves, if the militia, under an oppressive regime should be used
against them.

It's wise, as you point out, to look to the original meaning of the
Constitution. In addition to your observation that fear of oppressive
government was the main motivation, it's also worthwhile to look at the
original meaning of a couple of words:

"Militia" - In the late 18th century, "militia" meant all able-bodied
freemen in the community. It did NOT mean an organized military body -
active or reserve. "Militia" was a subset of "people" and meant to not
include some.

People = everybody
Citizen = People minus slaves
Militia = Citizens minus women, children, and the elderly (i.e., able-bodied
men)

"Regulate" - In the same time period, "regulated" did not mean "subject to
discipline and organization" as it does today. At the time, there were
acutally NO regulations to follow! Anyway, "regulated," in the day, meant
having a functional weapon. There are vestiges of that definition in today's
language as in "well-regulated" timepiece or "The Well-Tempered (regulated)
Clavier."*

--------
* The Well-Tempered Clavier: A collection of keyboard music by Johann
Sebastian Bach, completed just 30 years before the American Revolution.



Last time I bothered to look it up in US Code, the legal definition of
'militia' was STILL all able-bodied males between X and Y ages. I
remember some other act in recent years said that all such US Code
sections, other than the ones about combat assignments and the draft,
also applied to women.

And with that, I, at least, plan to back slowly away from this
discussion. 'Guns' is one of the Usenet topics where pretty much
everyone already has a viewpoint, and the postings pretty much never
change those viewpoints, which puts in the 'life is too short' category.

--
aem sends...

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the history
of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three decisions that even
reference the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth and Ninth have about as much effect as the Third.

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
...snipped...
BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)

Perce

That is not correct. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."

In the context of the time it was written, after the succesful
revolution against the British, standing armies were considered a
necessary evil; needed for the security of a state, but dangerous
because under the command of a less than benign goverment, they could
be used to oppress the people.

Actually, standing armies were considered dangerous, and not to be maintained.
The militia was needed to be able to quickly build an army if needed.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0612d.asp