Printable View
Hello,
Being pay pal is anti 2nd amendment, why doesn't the NRA start there own "NRA PAY", that would be an friendly alternitive ?
I would think all of the sportsman type stores would accept this, Cabela's, Bass Pro, Midway, ect ect.
Heck, they could even have the NRA Round up, as "the Fee" ?
Just sayin, I would think the vast majority of sportsmen/women would join up for it ?
Thanks foe letting me vent.
Any NRA officials who read this, feel free to use "NRA PAY", free of charge !!
There have been a few PalPal alternative start-ups over the years that were gun friendly but they never went anywhere. Not to many years ago McMillan announced they were going to launch a new credit card processing company or bank or something that was going to be pro-gun industry since Bank of America and other major banks were starting to discriminate against companies in the industry. If that ever launched or went anywhere I really don't know.
I like the sound of the NRA or any pro second amendment sponsoring a credit or money transfer service. There are easy solutions but no one puts their foot forward. I think McMillan is using and promoting these guys. http://merchantservicesltd.com/
I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so here's my take on what's happening.
I think the reason you don't see any new players to compete agains PP is the uncertainty of the liability issue. There's a moment afoot to try to hold manufactures liable for the end USE of their products. It's an effort to end-run the second amendment that I think will ultimately fail, but it'll take some time to work it's way to SCOTUS, if it ever gets that far. PP has taken a safe route to shield itself in case liability is seen to transfer beyond the seller to those who facilitate selling by providing financial transactions.
If such a law were to be upheld, all manufacturing in the US will come to a stop, at least until the insurance industry can catch up with liability issues, and prices will raise accordingly. This scenario has actually occurred previously here in the US in the aircraft manufacturing industry, where all manufacturing of small aircraft stopped in 1986 after two longtime manufactures were sued out of business, and did not restart until congress pass new laws in 1999 shielding liability to a reasonable degree. The issue there was that juries were holding manufactures to liability standards of today, but applied to aircraft made to standards that existed in the 30's and 40's and when the "pain and suffering" theory of compensation didn't exist.
I have seen first hand what the liability insurance premium can do to the price of a manufactured good. A simple switch you can buy in an automotive store for $19.95 will cost $189.00 for an aircraft. Same switch, same box it comes in, same part number, same manufacturer.
Another switch, this one typical on many aircraft built since the 40's, i could buy new or NOS for less than $50.00. Current price is $2300.00 last I checked. Every bit of that price increase is for liability insurance, cause the switch hasn't change a bit. The switch is used to indicate a stalled condition on the wing. When it goes off in flight, the sky and ground trade places and start spinning around. Death follows shorty afterward unless proper steps are taken immediately, and even then it may be too late if your too close to the ground. BTW: Stall spin accidents are the most common and are easily recognized when the aircraft wreckage is in a heap in one place, and not scattered about a large area.
To any reasonably intelligent person, the theory of transferring liability to include how a product is ultimately used is a no-brainer. It's a stupid idea, and the damage such a law would do to manufacturing and the economy in the US would be immediate, drastic and permanent to some degree. The entire economy would collapse literally overnight as manufacturing ceased. But because we have a nation full of over-educated, under employed people with law degrees, this argument provides an opportunity for some to be gainfully employed, with the promises of much more work in the future.
Then there's the political capital to be gained by the nefarious evil doers in Congress, most of whom fall into that category, i'm afraid.
Just MHOP.
And that people, is why you see clauses in trade deals that state that any lawsuits against a foreign corporation(many US owned) will result in legal action against the United States taxpayer.
I have been told by PayPal their biggest issue is liability. Most are scared of the same. After Remington was held liable, that changed the industry.Quote:
I think the reason you don't see any new players to compete agains PP is the uncertainty of the liability issue.
Dennis
Remington manufactured firearms. They did not get sued for acting as an internet electronic money transfer. I have had several conversations with supervisors at PP and on more than one occasion it was homeland security having the ability to demand information on transactions. This federal intrusion has DHS sitting in their lap looking over everything they do. If they refuse certain types of purchases then DHS is not consuming their resources. It amounts to typical government harassment to impact business they want to have a negative impact on.