ANTIS and Credit Cards

[papa bear]

found this on the net. i have been to this shop a couple of times. not sure what to do about it

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-indust...of-nations-biggest-gun-store-without-warning/

 

[OC for ME]

Being the biggest store does not mean that they are the biggest firearms "retailer." Walmart, Cabelas, BassPro, Dick's,...ect...

Good for them on securing a vendor to process their transactions. Ya think that the number of gun sales almost everywhere is going to change these anti-gun companies? Nope.

 

[HPmatt]

Would think the gun merchant would have grounds to file a civil suit for damages against the credit card processing company. Don't know the exact terms of their processing agreement, but would expect it would require a 30 day notice provision to cancel. Visa processor probably doesn't have a problem processing liquor, cigarette, abortion clinic and Starbucks payment transactions - all legal but prone to moral hazards.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

found this on the net. i have been to this shop a couple of times. not sure what to do about it

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-indust...of-nations-biggest-gun-store-without-warning/

This really surprised me, thanks for bringing it to my attention...

Would think the gun merchant would have grounds to file a civil suit for damages against the credit card processing company. Don't know the exact terms of their processing agreement, but would expect it would require a 30 day notice provision to cancel. Visa processor probably doesn't have a problem processing liquor, cigarette, abortion clinic and Starbucks payment transactions - all legal but prone to moral hazards.

Hmm. Now that you mention it, I would think so as well.

 

[papa bear]

i don't think there would be grounds for a law suit, if the contracts were honored. if breach of contract then yes, there would be grounds for suit

that was one of the things that bothered me about the gay wedding and the Photographer. i my opinion;
if the photographer just turned them down, i could not see them suing then phtgrphr.

but if the phtgrphr said yes, and then backed out when the plans were made, maybe

 

[mikeyb]

Can't wait until McMillan gets theirs up and running.

 

[Gil223]

Would think the gun merchant would have grounds to file a civil suit for damages against the credit card processing company. Don't know the exact terms of their processing agreement, but would expect it would require a 30 day notice provision to cancel. Visa processor probably doesn't have a problem processing liquor, cigarette, abortion clinic and Starbucks payment transactions - all legal but prone to moral hazards.

"Moral hazards?" Are you a member of the Taliban? I know of no other organization that has Morality Police. The first two are considered to be "vices" that people with free will opt into. The third may be considered a moral issue by some, but it is not my call to make inasmuch as I have no dog in that fight. Never needed one myself, and never advised anybody one way or the other. Processing Starbucks transactions is a business/political decision, not a moral decision. If Starbucks doesn't need my gun money, I certainly won't demand that they take it - but, every dollar they take from a gun owner is that much less the gun owner would have to spend on guns and all the trimmings. It could be called their contribution to the left-wing effort for stricter gun control! Pax...

 

[eye95]

Everyone has Liberty, or no one has it.

Companies are free to base their business decisions based on morality. If you don't like their morality, don't do business with them. But there ain't a damned thing wrong about having morals and living (or doing business) based upon them.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Morality isn't subjective, it's absolute. One's understanding of morality may not be absolute, and that is where the variation exists. In the understanding of it, not in morality itself. If morality is anything but absolute, it isn't really morality that you're talking about. It's just a personal code of ethics that a person has decided to adopt.

 

[Gil223]

Morality isn't subjective, it's absolute. One's understanding of morality may not be absolute, and that is where the variation exists. In the understanding of it, not in morality itself. If morality is anything but absolute, it isn't really morality that you're talking about. It's just a personal code of ethics that a person has decided to adopt.

Morality is highly subjective. One's moral compass is influenced by a myriad of external factors, among which are cultural values, religious dogma, personal associations, revered "authority figures" (parents, teachers, clergy, etc.), and other influences. That "sense of morality" that one carries around within oneself is not a purely independent construct - it is an amalgamation of personal belief influenced by the external factors. There is nothing about morality which is absolute, except that which each individual perceives as absolute. And exactly where was the logical tie-in between morality and OC? I seem to have missed that segue. I have never attempted to inflict my personal sense of that which is "moral" upon anybody other than my children - and only then because it is a parent's responsibility. Pax...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Morality is highly subjective. One's moral compass is influenced by a myriad of external factors, among which are cultural values, religious dogma, personal associations, revered "authority figures" (parents, teachers, clergy, etc.), and other influences. That "sense of morality" that one carries around within oneself is not a purely independent construct - it is an amalgamation of personal belief influenced by the external factors. There is nothing about morality which is absolute, except that which each individual perceives as absolute. And exactly where was the logical tie-in between morality and OC? I seem to have missed that segue. I have never attempted to inflict my personal sense of that which is "moral" upon anybody other than my children - and only then because it is a parent's responsibility. Pax...

You're talking about "sense of morality", "One's moral compass", "individual perception", "personal sense", not morality itself. I covered this in my earlier post. Morality is absolute - if what is, is not absolute, then it isn't morality.


"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)." What is wrong with me, quoting wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality


Morality is the alignment of your actions with what God has created as good. It is absolute. Some things are good, some things are wrong. God does not change, neither does what is good and what is wrong. This belief is subjective - and I fully understand that. Morality, on the other hand, is not subjective, it is simply existent or not. If I am wrong about what I am saying, then morality is not what is - what is, is something else.

Morality is, if it exists, what God has decided it to be. God does not change, therefore, neither does morality. This makes it absolute. If I am wrong, it means that morality does not exist, it doesn't simply make it subjective.

 

[eye95]

For clarification: Are you saying that there is one and only one absolute morality? Or that one's compass must be absolute to be considered a morality?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'm saying that I believe that morality itself is absolute, even though no person, including myself, is perfect or will ever have a perfect, complete understanding of morality. I believe that morality is instituted by God, and does not change, and is not subjective. It isn't a person's understanding of right and wrong, it's God's institution of what's right and wrong. At least, that's what I mean when I say morality. Individuals, but especially society working together, can work to discover more about morality and understand it better, and then work together to implement protections for each other based on those discoveries and understandings.

One's moral compass will change and shift as they strive to become a better person, and as they learn more about right and wrong. Sometimes small changes, sometimes bigger ones.

Looking back, I may have been too nit-picky about your usage of the word morality. Maybe you didn't even mean it the way that I took it to mean.

 

[eye95]

I'm saying that I believe that morality itself is absolute, even though no person, including myself, is perfect or will ever have a perfect, complete understanding of morality. I believe that morality is instituted by God, and does not change, and is not subjective. It isn't a person's understanding of right and wrong, it's God's institution of what's right and wrong. At least, that's what I mean when I say morality. Individuals, but especially society working together, can work to discover more about morality and understand it better, and then work together to implement protections for each other based on those discoveries and understandings.

One's moral compass will change and shift as they strive to become a better person, and as they learn more about right and wrong. Sometimes small changes, sometimes bigger ones.

Looking back, I may have been too nit-picky about your usage of the word morality. Maybe you didn't even mean it the way that I took it to mean.

In that case, I will rephrase my point to match your definition:

Everyone has Liberty, or no one has it.

Companies are free to base their business decisions based on what they believe is the correct morality. If you believe that they are in error as to what is moral, don't do business with them. But we should not judge others for living and doing business by a moral code, even if we are certain it is in error, as none of us live up to the perfect morality of God.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

In that case, I will rephrase my point to match your definition:

Everyone has Liberty, or no one has it.

Companies are free to base their business decisions based on what they believe is the correct morality. If you believe that they are in error as to what is moral, don't do business with them. But we should not judge others for living and doing business by a moral code, even if we are certain it is in error, as none of us live up to the perfect morality of God.

Lol, thank you for humoring me.

 

[Gil223]

You're talking about "sense of morality", "One's moral compass", "individual perception", "personal sense", not morality itself. I covered this in my earlier post. Morality is absolute - if what is, is not absolute, then it isn't morality.


"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)." What is wrong with me, quoting wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality


Morality is the alignment of your actions with what God has created as good. It is absolute. Some things are good, some things are wrong. God does not change, neither does what is good and what is wrong. This belief is subjective - and I fully understand that. Morality, on the other hand, is not subjective, it is simply existent or not. If I am wrong about what I am saying, then morality is not what is - what is, is something else.

Morality is, if it exists, what God has decided it to be. God does not change, therefore, neither does morality. This makes it absolute. If I am wrong, it means that morality does not exist, it doesn't simply make it subjective.

And whose God is it that you refer to? The Christian God, the God of the Jews (whose name shall not be spoken), or one o the several gods of India Hindus or Vikings? I'm guessing you are referring to the God of Christians. Regardless, none of them ever concerned themselves with Open Carry of firearms, nor have they participated in this forum. Morality has nothing to do with the expressed purpose of OCDO. OC is not a moral issue. Pax...

 

[eye95]

Some people just hate having the idea of morality brought up.

Eating is not a moral issue. Driving is not a moral issue. Conducting business is not a moral issue, etc. However, how each one of these activities (as well as carry) is done will bring up moral issues. That someone refuses to acknowledge those issues does not make them go away.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And whose God is it that you refer to? The Christian God, the God of the Jews (whose name shall not be spoken), or one o the several gods of India Hindus or Vikings? I'm guessing you are referring to the God of Christians. Regardless, none of them ever concerned themselves with Open Carry of firearms, nor have they participated in this forum. Morality has nothing to do with the expressed purpose of OCDO. OC is not a moral issue. Pax...

Why are you trying to mod?

 

[Gil223]

Why are you trying to mod?

Although somebody needs to mod, I'm doing no such thing. I'm just wondering how we managed to drift so far off the thread topic, and why there is so much resistance to staying on topic. This is not the proper venue for anything other than OC, as so many others here have pointed out in the past. There are forums that deal with issues of morality, religion, abortion, and a myriad of social issues - this forum is not designed to be one of them. :banghead:

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Although somebody needs to mod, I'm doing no such thing. I'm just wondering how we managed to drift so far off the thread topic, and why there is so much resistance to staying on topic. This is not the proper venue for anything other than OC, as so many others here have pointed out in the past. There are forums that deal with issues of morality, religion, abortion, and a myriad of social issues - this forum is not designed to be one of them. :banghead:

If you can't see the association between morality and liberty, including the liberty to open carry a properly holstered firearm, then you're closing your eyes.