Only 1 night (tonight) to submit comments to speak out against financial deplatforming

So I'm not well read on this particular issue, I only heard a snippet on the radio on my way home this evening but I was given the impression that fast action was needed to voice concerns about banks choosing not to do business with our kind. Like I said, I'm not well versed on this but I'm sure many of you are well aware, but for those who are not and have not taken the time to comment, I would suggest that you do and do it tonight because apparently that's the deadline (takes 5 mins or less). I think 2A will be taking hits on all fronts during this incoming administration so we should try to be proactive when we can.

The link to the comment page is in this Ammoland article I found.

Time Running Out for Gun Owner Comments to Stop Financial ‘Deplatforming'
https://www.ammoland.com/2021/01/ti...ner-comments-to-stop-financial-deplatforming/


This is what I wrote, I may have missed the mark or not hit the right notes but I think it's more or less picks a side, even if it's not perfect.

My Submitted comment:
Manufacturers of Firearms and related products have been discriminated against long enough. Along with law abiding citizens trying to make legal transactions. Federally backed institutions that get bailouts from the tax paying public should absolutely not be allowed to refuse services and financial opportunities to any entity in compliance with the law. This is DISCRIMINATION plain and simple. These banks enjoy the benefits of bailouts funded by taxpayer dollar's, alot of taxpayers are supporters of the 2A who will not look favorably on big banks stepping on legal businesses and squeezing them out through unfair regulation/policy that doesn't align with their leftist, anti gun direction.


Any additional comments on this from you guys who are looped in and want to remark about it, feel free.

Or somebody who is familiar with this development can jot down a quick comment that others could copy and paste to get a comment submitted would also be helpful.

browningguy said:

Supply and demand, market forces, no government interference and all the other capitalist slogans inserted here. We can't allow some groups to discriminate and not allow others to do the same, for example allowing businesses to discriminate against gays. You're either for a free market or you aren't as people tell me all the time. I'm not for by the way, I think if a business wants to operate in put society they should have to follow some rules our society sets up.

Click to expand...

Well yeah a private owned business should do as it pleases, but not if that business is looking for a bailout on the taxpayers dime.

Pat Riot said:

Thank you for posting this RustyGmt.

I submitted a comment. Here is my comment

“The discrimination of law abiding gun owning citizens in the United States of America is intolerable. Interfering with the Constitutional rights of citizens via banking institution regulations is, in my opinion, criminal. Restrictions on the use of bank and credit cards by banking entities by gun owning customers for legal trade for political reasons is very reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the subjugation of the Jews.”

Click to expand...

Excellent. Good comment. The author of the article had also expressed his disappointment with the big pro 2A organizations being pretty much silent on the issue, like I said I just caught wind of this last night. I wish I would have been better informed and had more time to share it around, every comment counts, or should. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Golfanaticshooter said:

Done. Also emailed my Congresswoman and asked her to introduce legislation. It's the very least we can do. Thanks for the reminder!

Click to expand...

Good call, I should probably write my representative as well. Didnt do me much good last time I wrote since most of my emails wouldn't send and the one rep who did write back was argumentative and dismissive and said something to the effect of "letting the pro gunners obstruct common sense gun control measures from being passed in VT for way too long and she was glad our (R) governor had the guts to stand up for safety, kids, blah blah blah".

Yep, it's gonna be all uphill from here.

browningguy said:

We can't allow some groups to discriminate and not allow others to do the same, for example allowing businesses to discriminate against gays. You're either for a free market or you aren't as people tell me all the time.

Click to expand...

I take your point. I would just look at your example about being for or against a business right to discriminate and point out that, for a random example, a privately owned christian bakery being conflicted about and refusing service to a gay couple because of religious beliefs is quite different than a government run public bank refusing service. IMO

browningguy said:

I see no difference at all Rusty. A public bank is not government run, they are usually publicly owned companies chartered by a state or the federal government, with owners like you and me. They have a few more reporting rules to follow than a bakery but that's really it. I also disagree with Christians being able to discriminate against anyone they want based on whatever their interpretation of some line in the bible says. It really sounds just like the taliban to me.

Click to expand...

I'm obviously not the guy to educate anybody on these matters, I cant really carry my own about all the lil intricacies on the subject. I just interpret it differently I guess. It seems like to me there is a big difference (just an example) between a guy refusing to bake a cake in his private establishment. I don't really see an issue with that, as an individual to practice his own religious convictions. While it may seem incongruous to what I just said, I would think it was not okay for a federal bank to refuse service to somebody based on their SO or lifestyle choice. I can't explain why I think it's different, it just is. In my view. One is kind of an individual freedom of association or religious choice, the other is, well, different.

Trust me, I get why this logic could be problematic for some people.

Sort of like, if the proprietor of a bar in Boston refused service to anybody wearing a Yankees cap. Don't really have an issue there. It's miniscule. A bank or big corporation doing the same thing. Just not the same to me.