Chip In $10

Another company weighing in on a fundamental right... 

Via Omaha Outdoors: 

Bank of America announced today that they will no longer finance companies which manufacture what they call “military-style firearms for civilian use.” This announcement comes just weeks after Citigroup announced their own firearms policy, which proscribed the sale of bump fire stocks, “high capacity” magazines, and long guns to those under 21, among other things.

The shift in language from “assault weapons” to “military-style weapons” is telling – and disturbing. While the pro-gun side has been quick to counter comments about assault weapons with information about how full auto firearms differ from semi-auto firearms, the “military-style weapons” moniker we have been seeing in recent months is far more troublesome.

The simple addition of the word “style” allows much leeway in defining a group of objects. It would be difficult to argue, for example, that AR15 builds commonly referred to as “M4gerys” or “M16A4 clones” are not “styled” after military weapons. This semantic difference, however, is not where the real problem lies. We (gun folks) have needed to provide more of an argument than the technical definition of an “assault weapon” for some time.

The real problem with the “military-style weapons” or “weapons of war” name is that it conjures up images of the laws of other countries which prohibit civilian possession of any firearm chambered in a military caliber. With the stroke of a pen, every 9mm, 45 ACP, 223 / 5.56mm, 7.62×51 / 308 Win, and other “military” caliber firearm would be banned, because no civilian needs a “military style” firearm, and military-style firearms are chambered in military calibers, right?

There are, of course, other issues with Bank of America’s stance.

Read more here.