Bank of America Looks to Possibly Boycott Rifle Manufacturers

2

The Bank of America is re-examining their relationship with the manufacturers of rifles, alleged “assault” rifles like the AR-15. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It’s a semi-automatic rifle. Make no mistake, the movement is a hard-left movement led by Think Progress, a Soros-Clinton vehicle for socialist change. They want to ban all semi-automatics for starters.

Look who else is behind it HERE.

The leftists are using children to further their far-left cause just as dictators did in the mid-1900s.

Their goal is to eliminate the 2nd Amendment which will be the beginning of the end of the Constitution, that “old piece of parchment”, as Obama likes to say.

This is unAmerican. The NRA had nothing to do with the MSD shootings. The police, school, and FBI are the reason it happened more than any gun.

This is a dangerous movement. Join the NRA.

The Bank of America Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Rifle Statement

“We are joining other companies in our industry to examine what we can do to help end the tragedy of mass shootings,” Bank of America said in a statement. “And an immediate step we’re taking is to engage the limited number of clients we have that manufacture assault weapons for non-military use to understand what they can contribute to this shared responsibility.”

The Hill reported: The statement comes after 17 people were killed when a gunman, who used a legally purchased AR-15, opened fire earlier this month at a high school in Florida. 

Students who survived the shooting have become vocal advocates for gun control in recent weeks, demanding that lawmakers take action to prevent future school shootings.Students have also been calling out lawmakers who have received funding from the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Since the shooting, a host of companies have terminated their business agreements with the NRA under heightened public pressure. Multiple car rental companies and United Airlines have announced recently they would eliminate discount programs for NRA members.”

The NRA’s Strong Response

FAIRFAX, VA – The more than five million law-abiding members of the National Rifle Association have enjoyed discounts and cost-saving programs from many American corporations that have partnered with the NRA to expand member benefits.

Since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida, a number of companies have decided to sever their relationship with the NRA, in an effort to punish our members who are doctors, farmers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, shop owners and school teachers that live in every American community.  We are men and women who represent every American ethnic group, every one of the world’s religions and every form of political commitment.

The law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school’s security preparedness, the failure of America’s mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement.

Despite that, some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice.  In time, these brands will be replaced by others who recognize that patriotism and determined commitment to Constitutional freedoms are characteristics of a marketplace they very much want to serve.

Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.

2 COMMENTS

  1. That’s what I did a number of years ago, so I cannot respond to BoA in a boycott. The only other listed company is Best Western and I sent a lengthy email to their customer service. This is a small part of what I wrote them.

    What is of concern is a “Constitutional” principle. If we travel down the road of implementing the
    Australian type remedy, or go even further in restrictions , it IS a precedent that endangers every
    other Constitutional principle. Many will say that “media”, entertainment and others, have for a
    long time “promoted” violence. Should we, in the public, STAND for this. Should we not now
    have restrictions on the First Amendment to curb the wanton violence in our society. It WOULD
    be a method to REDUCE violence. Any opposition would mean a support for violence.

Comments are closed.