New York Times: Monitor All Credit Cards for Gun Rights

By Larry Keane published on in News

The New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin figured it out! Criminal misuse of firearms is the fault of none other than credit card companies. This idea would be laughable if it weren’t for the absurd assumptions Sorkin makes to achieve this radical agenda. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)  wasn’t the only one who thought so. Several news organizations and think tanks quickly jumped in and called it an effort “to kill the Bill of Rights.”

Credit card with two bullet holes and revolver

Sorkin Actually believes that if credit card companies would just ban sales with their cards or at least commit to tracking gun purchases, it could mean the end of horrific murders that shake us all.

Sorkin ran the column in the Old Gray Lady on Christmas Eve, which raises its’ own suspicions of how much faith the newspaper had in this column. After all, it’s Sorkin’s second attempt to force financial institutions to do the work of law enforcement and lawmakers. He wrote a similar column nearly a year ago. Since he didn’t get the attention he wanted then, he made a second attempt—on a holiday, when people should rightly be paying more attention to their faith and family, instead of championing progressive ideals.

Problematic Reasoning

Sorkin believes that if credit card companies would just ban sales with their cards or at least commit to tracking gun purchases, it could mean the end of horrific murders that shake us all. Here’s the problem. The credit card companies have no interest in doing this. Daily Caller pointed out that Visa and MasterCard both held that monitoring and arbitrating the private purchases of their customers “sets a dangerous precedent.” Wells Fargo, according to Sorkin’s own reporting, stated gun regulation is the responsibility of the government, not corporations.

All of this might be a bridge too far, even for progressive government proponents. The oft-praised ACLU, which doesn’t come close to a gun-rights proponent organization, said the prospect of monitoring is an “enormously intrusive role in American life.”

Even Single Purchases Suspect

Sorkin’s not just talking multiple gun purchases to create a blip on the monitoring radar. Breitbart reporter AWR Hawkins picked up on that one too. He pointed out that one murderer highlighted by Sorkin purchased a single handgun with a credit card. That, he argues, should raise a red flag.

FrontPage’s Daniel Greenfield, an investigative journalist and Shillman Journalism Fellow at the think tank Freedom Center, points out that if Sorkin’s idea has merit, what’s to stop corporations from monitoring alcohol purchases to fight drunk driving or soda to tamp down obesity? Don’t worry, Greenfield doesn’t support it. In fact, he labels the entire scheme “a Bloombergian dystopian dream.”

National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson points out that under Sorkin’s strategy, which would call for the monitoring of the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights, even political speech could be monitored. “There is a sneaky totalitarian tendency among progressives, who look for vulnerable pressure points to exploit for political ends,” he wrote. He added that disagreements, even with corporate entities, are treated as “fraud” and if the rights can’t be eradicated, then the means by which those rights are achieved must be regulated away.

If Not Banks, Then Who?

What Sorkin ignores is that in many of these instances of these tragic crimes, there were family members who were pleading with law enforcement and government agencies to intervene. The murderer in Parkland, Fla., was reported to federal, county, and school authorities multiple times through tipsters. The Air Force failed on several instances to enforce the law that would have prevented the Sutherland Springs murderer from purchasing firearms. The murderer at the Pulse nightclub was monitored by the FBI under the terror watchlist, but maybe Sorkin missed that report published by his own newspaper.

Here’s what Sorkin wants. He’d rather institute progressive policies that subvert the actual rule of law by delegating accountability and the functions of those policies to nameless and faceless corporate entities. These corporations, of course, are unaccountable to voters or the American public. Additionally, it can’t be done legislatively because of the pesky Bill of Rights and lawmakers who respect the rule of law. Therefore, Sorkin wants it done through corporate advocacy—privacy be damned.

What shouldn’t be lost in all of this is that Sorkin likens the purchase of firearms to fraud or any other criminal activity. You are automatically suspect and must be reported and monitored if you dare to exercise your right to firearm ownership. The real goal isn’t to bar or regulate gun purchases by credit cards. It’s to ban gun sales—period.

What do you think of Sorkins assertion that monitoring credit card purchases is going to prevent future horrific murders? Share your answer in the comment section.

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (24)

  • Rodney Steward

    |

    We continue to be pushed into a corner by tyranny in our gov., their lust for power has gotten out of hand, and they know the only way to keep and grow it is to make us like all of Europe, unarmed and over run and no way to protect yourself from any of it, especially the gov.! The FBI (KGB) has been a total failure, and some say on purpose for gun control, and the staged shooting in Las Vegas does make it look that way. The NWO freaks in our gov. know to control the masses you must have gun control, but Nostradamus did predict that the New World (USA) would see 2 Bloody Civil Wars, we’ve had 1 !!!!!!

    Reply

  • Deplorable 1

    |

    Funny, they want banks to work with Law Enforcement, to report American citizens, but LEO cant work with Feds to report illegal immigrants. Duh, Sounds about right? (coming from the socialist left anyway).

    Reply

  • Gray Jedi

    |

    This is an ever increasing tactic that has been suggested and implemented in too many other areas of businesses and professions…the “quasi nationalization” of private industry to act as a bureaucratic organ who serves solely as an appendage of the State. An example that I’m all to familiar with is the profession of Pharmacist. Holy Crap. It seems that half of our workday somedays is all about performance of compliance related duties and being on the lookout for any number of activities that we are mandated to report or face any number of civil, criminal and/or administrative law actions that could bankrupt, incarcerate or cost us the ability to practice the source of our livelihood. I have just one question for the proponents of this latest attempt to further chip away at our 2nd Amendment Rights guarantees. What past of “shall not infringe” is not at least apprehendable by the political progressive special little snowflakes who engage in stumping for. encouraging and codifying such infringements in any number of local state and Federal laws, regulations, rules and arbitrary policy positions?

    Reply

    • Donald tubman

      |

      Agree totally..Unless it is a practice related issue to insure the safety of the patients in a Pharmacy…there should be no necessity to burden the pharmacists with keeping ridiculous records..Every state has a form used to track narcotics that is used with the doctor, pharmacy and the state…Narcotic inventories are something that should be maintained because they can mean profit and loss for the pharmacy. Safeguard for theft or loss….The Pharmacist should not be a cop as well as Pharmacist…

      Reply

  • Dale

    |

    When was the last time, or should I say the first time, a criminal or prohibited person used a credit card to purchase a firearm?

    Reply

  • threequarterton

    |

    Sorry Joefoam, these people are not dumb. They are evil , they know just what they are doing. they are turning public opinion against law abiding gun owners with their PROPAGANDA ! And the public has been endoctrinated for so long ,they believe this B.S. Check out what people are saying on “Social media” !

    Reply

  • karl

    |

    The NY Times[and NY Post]have always been leftist,elitist rags.Best uses for either=wrapping fish,lining cat or bird litter pans,burning as feul,shredding and using in lieu of straw in livestock barns,mulch in garden.
    Neither is worth reading or buying.

    Reply

  • Ludite

    |

    The only part of this plan that ISN’T scary is that it is so far-fetched, anyone with any sense would dismiss it, and the corporations in question are unlikely to have anything to do with it. I will point out however, that there is already at least one major financial institution that favors such radical and intrusive thinking -I won’t mention the name, but they process millions of electronic funds transfers, and are widely used world-wide. While safe and secure, they opt to restrict their participation in many firearms-related transactions. So, think this can’t happen? Think again. It is just highly unlikely.
    The notion that murderous criminals will be halted in their tracks by the dreaded phrase ‘Declined’ at the local gun-store is laughable, even by ‘Progressive’ standards. Most people bent on committing horrific crimes are not so easily deterred -they will hit-up an ATM with their card, find another way to come up with the cash, or simply steal what they want to further their own ends.
    The real issue here is that individuals, companies, and even lawmakers want to push their own agendas and ideals into what is already established as Constitutional RIGHTS. These Rights are above other law, and should set the restrictions against binding laws.

    Reply

  • Alan Carnell

    |

    Strange individual that Sorkin, but then again look who employed him.

    This once Democratic thinking individual is appalled at the way the left has gone which in turn has given birth to PC clowns, violent protesters and a complete ignorance of basic government economics.

    MAGA has become the norm with sensible American folks of all political ilks.

    As much as the president is obnoxious in certain areas (aren’t we all?) he does what he promises albeit when not blocked by the piglosis and her gang of clowns.

    Reply

  • OldGringo

    |

    It sounds laughable, except, these people are actually serious. I once was involved in a case where attorneys used credit cards receipts over many months to show what a lady bought and where she traveled. They then used her telephone calls from her cell phone to show she made calls to Kansas days before travel, then credit card receipts to show the days she bought food, booze, and hotels in Kansas. Then they use her little toll receipts to show exact dates and places of travel. They even tracked her to South Padre Island 800 miles away. With those 3 items, they can track you everywhere you go. Today, they can do more. They can take your credit card receipt and find every item you have bought on the card. If you buy booze the day you have a car wreck, attorneys can get that data for suing you in an auto accident case. And the list goes on and on. The problem/risk is very large and in my view should be strictly prohibited by act of congress, because of the potential for abuse. While it may be fine to track drug dealers from place to place via their credit card use, and if they buy the items to make bombs or drugs, that is fine by me, but do we want to allow card companies to track Bibles and guns? Maybe we should have them track purchases of the Koran, so we know where all the muslims are?

    Reply

  • joefoam

    |

    Yep, every black market sale of guns was done with an A**x platinum card, and went through an FFL. How dumb are these people and how smart was George Orwell when he predicted ‘Big Brother’ watching over us 70 years ago.

    Reply

    • Anon E Mous

      |

      “Progressives” are warped enough to think that “1984” was a game plan and not the warning it was intended as.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: