Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-gun bank teller encounter and the $1000 bet (NV)
OpenCarry.org ^ | 16 November, 2010 | Greengum

Posted on 11/20/2010 7:12:25 AM PST by marktwain

Kind of a long read but I like to be as accurate as I can be. I hope you enjoy.

I have been going to the same branch of US bank here in Henderson for about a year now. I know all the tellers there pretty well. I have a business account with them along with a personal account. One of the tellers there (lets call her Jane) has made some comments in the past about me open carrying. Things along the lines of "I didn't know you could go into a bank with a gun". I'm old school when it comes to banking, especially with the business account and I go to the bank about twice a week (yes I know I should do it online but I like a paper trail). She is the only one who has ever come off somewhat negative about be OC'ing.

A few days ago I showed up with some checks to deposit and got Jane as my teller. She informed me that they would be having some big wigs in next week for a bank wide audit and that I will be asked to not OC in there because I am breaking federal law since all banks are considered federal land since they are FDIC insured.I asked if she was certain about that to which she replied "yes I know for a fact that it is against the law"..um it took me about 30 seconds to wrap my head around what she had just said.

I try very hard to be polite and mellow when I OC but what she said really hit a nerve for some reason. So this is how I responded. I asked her to pull up my account to take out $1000.00 and for her to take $1000.00 from her account. I then said that we would go to the DA's office or to the police station the next day and if she or any government agency or worker could point to a law on the books stating that OC'ing in a private bank was in and of itself illegal I would give her the $1000.00 if not I would get her $1000.00.

She paused for a second clearly flustered at my offer and said she declined. She then stated that well maybe it wasn't against any law but it was without a doubt corporate policy. I then asked her if she had a copy of the corporate policy in the bank. She said she didn't.

The next day when i got to work I did some searching trying to get in writing where US bank stands on the issue. After a few phone calls I had a customer service rep tell me that it was against the law in the state of Nevada to enter a bank with a gun.. /facepalm. I then asked if he could confirm corporate policy on the issue. After a few minutes on hold he returned to say that i could not OC because of security issues. I asked if he could fax or email this to me along with him name and signature. He declined but promised to have someone call me in the next couple days.

My father went to the bank tonight to transfer my sister some cash for college and Jane was working. He informed her I was trying to get a hold of corporate to confirm her statements. He was kinda making a scene about it laughing with the other tellers asking them if they knew what their policy was. She backed down again telling him that it was not their policy but her personal opinion because she had seen a customer in line shoot another customer before and it was such a traumatic experience for her that she believes nobody should ever go into a bank with a firearm.

Maybe I should have handled it a little nicer but like I said before, when someone tells you that you cannot exercise your fundamental inalienable Rights, I tend to get a little pissed off. I mean, what if she had said I could not wear a cross around my neck, or a t-shirt with a political statement on it? Anyways just another random OC encounter for you guys to read.

Update

I got a call from Russ yesterday. He has worked their for 30 years and is in charge of security here in Vegas. I told him what had happened and he was cringing on the phone when I told him about her law skills. He said the official corporate position is to "prefer" customers not openly carry. A teller should NEVER mention the firearm especially in a negative light and to also refrain from passing off any opinions as fact or law, or to engage in politically hot topics while other customers are in line. If a teller has any concerns she should call security AFTER the customer has finished his business, to discuss any legal matters. Russ was very helpful. He stated he was pro gun and apologized for the tellers actions.

After work I went to the store to grab some food and walked by the bank and figured I would engage her in conversation again. I told her I had spoken with Russ but did not mention any names. She said she knew Russ and he was a cool guy. She said she would not have cared if I said her name because she KNEW she did nothing wrong! Christ on a stick, this chick "KNOWS" a lot of things! Anyways I started reading from their handbook about not engaging in political talk or matters of law to customers. She started getting a little pissed off and defensive at this point. She then said "well I know it is corporate policy to help customers even if they have a gun, but I have the right to refuse service if I am uncomfortable and make you wait for another teller!" /facepalm

I come along these types of people all the time. The God complex mentality of "I AM NEVER WRONG!" I could push the issue even more and maybe get her fired or at least written up. I won't do that for a couple reasons. I think she has learned her lesson and won't be saying anything to an OC'er in the future and the other reason is now she has to see me OC every time I get groceries and do some banking!!


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: banglist; bank; nv; opencarry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
I had a somewhat similar encounter a few years ago, but the bank person took the time to look up the law and their corporate policy, then apologised to me. I sent a letter to the credit union praising her for her customer service.
1 posted on 11/20/2010 7:12:33 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Excellent story. I suppose these same people would tell you that Women or Blacks can't vote in Vegas? You are not entitled to a trial by jury? Cruel and unusual punishment is allowed? Cops can enter your house and search it any time without a warrant?

Oh, yeah, it's just the 2nd Amendment RIGHT that people like to trample on and/or ignore.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2 posted on 11/20/2010 7:21:53 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Great story! Your persistence paid off very well.


3 posted on 11/20/2010 7:22:08 AM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

you are making no sense what so ever. clearly she has learned nothing. all you have taught her is that she can get away with lying to you, and you(the putz) won’t do a thing about it. Neither will the bank. Not only that, you keep bringing them your business. The bitch needs to be written up or in the very least scolded by her superior while in your presence.


4 posted on 11/20/2010 7:24:11 AM PST by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

What can be added to a great story that’s more about a guy with a spine than the bully with curls. Good for you. Albeit, drop the blasphemy next time in an otherwise awesome account.


5 posted on 11/20/2010 7:28:22 AM PST by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–==“
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


6 posted on 11/20/2010 7:30:58 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I got a call from Russ yesterday. He has worked their for 30 years and is in charge of security here in Vegas. I told him what had happened and he was cringing on the phone when I told him about her law skills. He said the official corporate position is to "prefer" customers not openly carry.

For Miss Jane's further edification, the relevant federal statutes are as follows:

Title 18, United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code
PART I, CHAPTER 13, §ection 242:
Deprivation of rights under color of law

§ 241. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Jane and Russ may both wish to discuss the following applicable federal law as well:

Title 18, United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code
PART I, CHAPTER 13, §ection 241:
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It appears Miss Jane may be purchasing a really nice Christmas present this year. Or alternately, you can just bring a lawsuit against the bank under Title 41, Section 1983

7 posted on 11/20/2010 7:35:11 AM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

“I suppose these same people would tell you that Women or Blacks can’t vote in Vegas?”

It’s corporate policy. Didn’t you know that? LOL


8 posted on 11/20/2010 7:37:17 AM PST by rickb308 (Nothing good ever came from someone yelling Allah Snackbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My disagreement with you is only on emphasis:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Accordingly, such infringements are treasonous.

9 posted on 11/20/2010 7:37:22 AM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I really enjoyed this read. What an inept know-nothing. She ought to run for office.


10 posted on 11/20/2010 7:37:47 AM PST by LadyShires
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

You got me. Abstract of Homer Simpson’s head?


11 posted on 11/20/2010 7:44:12 AM PST by Rebelbase (Palin/Christie 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
my bank has a no guns logo on the door, what they don't know about never bothers them...
12 posted on 11/20/2010 7:50:26 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Uhhhh...just an observation.....but if she was a “rocket scientist” she wouldn’t be a bank teller.....

Remember, stupid people do not know they are stupid, they pass off arrogance as fact.....

All in all I think you handled this well....


13 posted on 11/20/2010 7:51:52 AM PST by nevergore ("It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

Picard(sp?) face/palm.


14 posted on 11/20/2010 7:53:06 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The author has a LOT more patience with human stupidity than I do. Kudos!


15 posted on 11/20/2010 8:03:37 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

America is engaged in, as Newt put it, “A battle for the soul of the Republic.”

OC is a significant issue, and when an enemy is identified, neutralize/destroy that enemy.

I suggest a full report of her behavior being sent to the branch president, to the director of corporate headquarters department of human resources and to the CEO of the bank. Ask for a written response as to how the offending employee was dealt with.

Let the nasty thing learn to flip burgers.


16 posted on 11/20/2010 8:07:59 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If a bank teller tried that with me, I’d go out of my way to have her fired. No one capable of that sort of stupidity, dishonesty and general lack of courtesy should be handling financial transactions for other people.


17 posted on 11/20/2010 8:13:11 AM PST by Mountain Troll (My investment plan - Canned food and shotguns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LadyShires
I really enjoyed this read. What an inept know-nothing. She ought to run for office.

Probably worked the GOTV effort for Reid.

18 posted on 11/20/2010 8:14:08 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

Rita, your post #5 is far from OK.

Calling a reference to a “God complex” a “blasphemy” only labels you as some sort of religious nut case, and an overly rigid one at that.

Might I suggest a google search of “God complex” which might convince you of the accepted terminology in the society in which you live.

Other than that, welcome to FR.

Happy posting.

PS Have you considered that God may well be better able to understand humans than we can understand God. If so, then there is the possibility that whatever form of God you believe in might be able to understand context? If so, then to use a standard diagnostic term in a context which is not religious just might not be “blasphemy”.

Just a suggestion.


19 posted on 11/20/2010 8:17:45 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Damn. Why walk into a bank in the first place? Use online banking. If you feel the need to physically be there for whatever reason, use the ‘drive-thru’. By doing so, you could have an AR15 in your car, and wouldn’t have to take any shit from a teller about it.

The writer of the article is probably one of those people I have to wait in line behind for a small eternity while they are standing there writing a PAPER check! Infuriating.


20 posted on 11/20/2010 8:25:30 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Thanks for your comment. Perhaps you could just use another line?

I do not like to wait for people to write checks either. Similarly, I do not like to wait for people to use credit cards. I like cash, but it seems that a large number of people in society have been indoctrinated into not carrying cash.

21 posted on 11/20/2010 8:28:45 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

It didn’t offend me, but perhaps it was the “Christ on a Stick” comment that upset Rita?


22 posted on 11/20/2010 8:29:39 AM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation ("This is our moment, this is our movement, this is our morning in America!" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

“Might I suggest a google search of “God complex” which might convince you of the accepted terminology in the society in which you live.”....

If so, then to use a standard diagnostic term in a context which is not religious just might not be “blasphemy”.


May I suggest that “accepted terminology” that mocks the reality of the sacred has quite well diminished the society in which you live, and that “standard diagnostic term(s)” have done very little to advance the state of society which now gives you cause to strap on your pistol.


23 posted on 11/20/2010 8:40:45 AM PST by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LadyShires

>>I really enjoyed this read. What an inept know-nothing. She ought to run for office.<<

If Zero had heard about this gal, she would have a senior position in his administration before the day was out.


24 posted on 11/20/2010 8:41:15 AM PST by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; KoRn

May I suggest that you view waiting from a different angle.

Use the time to examine the clothing styles of the people around you and perhaps make changes to your own.

Take note of the architecture if you are considering making changes to your own surroundings.

Or you could just be thankful that when the sun came up this morning you were on top of the grass and not below it. A rapid glance up and a silent ‘thank you’ will be heard by the One responsible for that.


25 posted on 11/20/2010 8:52:03 AM PST by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Writing a check doesn’t take any longer than swiping your card, entering your PIN, waiting for the remote bank to approve it, etc., etc. If it takes any longer, it’s because of the merchant’s process for check acceptance. If you don’t like the wait blame them, not the customer. (And no, I’m not one who writes checks at the grocery store)


26 posted on 11/20/2010 8:52:37 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I have a problem with this, for the simple reason that it is not the best way to teach. Teach? Yes, absolutely.

For decades now there has been a loss in public knowledge about guns, gun laws, the 2nd Amendment, and importantly, gun culture.

This means that when you assert your rights, you are not in a sea of hostility, but a sea of ignorance. And while hostility is one thing, it’s very important to *assume* that they are just ignorant, because in the vast majority of cases, this will be the situation.

1) There’s a good chance that whoever it is has never even fired a gun, much less owned one.
2) Their entire family is likely totally unfamiliar with guns, except for the bizarre, distorted image they seen in the movies and on TV.
3) A large number of people translate this ignorance into fear. Not knowing, they assume the worst.

Of course, none of this excuses abusive behavior based on the *color of authority*.


27 posted on 11/20/2010 9:10:39 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: archy
These statutes bring up an interesting dichotomy in which right trumps another. I think that we can all agree that the Constitution is supposed to protect the individual from the government. However, these statutes pretty much state that not only is the government prohibited from denying constitutionally guaranteed rights, but individuals can't do it either. However, which is the trumping right? The G-d given right to private property, which is a requirement to be free and independent, or the 2nd Amendment? Does a private property owner have the right to discriminate based on behavior? Can a private business legally say you can't carry a gun on his property, and that if you wish to carry, don't go there.

I am torn by this. But deep down, I believe that the right to personal property should trump an individual's right to carry a weapon, when that person who wants to carry is on that property owner's property.

Mark

28 posted on 11/20/2010 9:17:15 AM PST by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; Rebelbase
Yep, ASCII-art adaptation of this:



And quite appropriate, methinks.
29 posted on 11/20/2010 9:22:08 AM PST by Mike-o-Matic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

I missed the “Christ on a stick”, but having found it, it seems tad lame. No pun intended, but there is, now that I think of it, a “Christ on a crutch” saying I heard somewhere, once.


30 posted on 11/20/2010 9:22:31 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK
Well, you do have the highest “Sanctimony Index” I have encountered recently, I must give you that.

Please, go read the definitions and try to understand what the term describes. The term is used to describe those with delusions of grandeur, particularly those who think they are the latest visitation to Earth by God.

Psychosis exists, I am sorry to have to tell you. So long as patients consider themselves to be God, you must expect those who have to describe them to use well known nouns and adjectives to describe said patients.

Additionally, if the person doing the describing does not intend blasphemy, them minus “criminal intent” has a crime occurred?

Also, I am beginning to detect a rigidity in your parameters for discussion of anything even tangentially related to the word “God” which some may well find reminiscent of “DO not insult the Koran”.

31 posted on 11/20/2010 9:33:06 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LadyShires

I really enjoyed the post. Very entertaining but I don’t think I would waste all that time and emotional energy on a bottom of the rung employee who makes about $10 an hour and has absolutely no authority at the bank.


32 posted on 11/20/2010 9:37:18 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

When ones runs a business, it is ALWAYS bewst to have WRITTEN records of your financial transactions.

As a life-long bookkeeper, I can tell you that trying to find record of payment for something when all you have is a transaction number & a crazy-to-decipher abbreviation, it can be a nightmare. One of my clients used his debit card alot. I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to ID some of his purchases. IF & WHEN the 1099 crap starts—I truly don’t know how I can keep track of every gas station & Home Depot he goes into.

I won’t bank on-line, nor will I work for anyone who does, particularly deposits.

I cannot tell you how many times in the past 45 years that I had to prove something was paid to a vendor by showing a COPY of the FRONT & BACK sides of the check in question.

One event was triggered around an embezzlement. Our payment to the vendor of over $3000 wasn’t shown in their records-—but our check had been deposited.

I am very uncomfortable not getting my cancelled checks back, only a copy of the front of the check. That does not give me the clear picture of the endorsement.

Banks will provide such back of the check endorsement-—at $50 per hour, only within 90 days. Sometimes an embezzlement takes a long time to discover. Getting those check copies after 90 days could be a nightmare, also.

That is just not fair.


33 posted on 11/20/2010 9:47:49 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"but her personal opinion because she had seen a customer in line shoot another customer before and it was such a traumatic experience for her"

What is the rest of the story? Did a customer put a stop to a bank robbery? Can she prove this story of hers?

Did she make this up too?

34 posted on 11/20/2010 9:58:21 AM PST by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode
. . . what they don't know about never bothers them...

That's my approach to any "No Guns Here" sign. Later on, when I told someone I had carried at that place (non Federal) she got all upset. I asked her to explain her concept of "Concealed".

35 posted on 11/20/2010 10:52:05 AM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Liberals don’t like push back from Conservatives..


36 posted on 11/20/2010 11:27:51 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; RitaOK
Please, go read the definitions and try to understand what the term describes. The term is used to describe those with delusions of grandeur, particularly those who think they are the latest visitation to Earth by God.

Even the Bible says that there are "gods many and lords many". There is only one Almighty God, but even using his title ("God" is a title, not a name. In English we say "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" for His name. Other languages transliterate it differently.) to describe someone with an overblown view of themselves hardly seems blasphemous.

37 posted on 11/20/2010 11:43:33 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
I am very uncomfortable not getting my cancelled checks back, only a copy of the front of the check. That does not give me the clear picture of the endorsement.

I agree. I hate that, and I hate that they did it without getting the customers' permission first. At least the check images come in the statement now. When they started it, you could only get the images by doing something proactively -- downloading each and every check image online, or requesting them from the bank. Who's going to assume those new costs? Plus, now your fate is in someone else's hands. What if their servers crash and lose the images and you need it later? What if it's the bank you're having a dispute with? How sure are you that they'll be honest in the use of their equipment and data to protect you from THEMSELVES? We've all seen how police car videos always seem to malfunction in exactly the cases where the civilian is alleging police misconduct. The means to protect you should be in YOUR hands and no others.

38 posted on 11/20/2010 11:49:23 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith

Yes, I like how each time one of her statements is challenged, her response basically amounts to “Yes, I was full of crap with that statement, but it doesn’t matter because what I REALLY meant was ‘Blah, blah, blah’”, and expect everyone to be OK with that. She’s probably full of crap this time too.


39 posted on 11/20/2010 11:51:47 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Oatka
yup...
40 posted on 11/20/2010 1:48:16 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

“Or you could just be thankful that when the sun came up this morning you were on top of the grass and not below it. A rapid glance up and a silent ‘thank you’ will be heard by the One responsible for that.”

It is good advice. I was being a little sarcastic, which I try to avoid. Thanks for the sanity check.


41 posted on 11/21/2010 4:44:01 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
She backed down again telling him that it was not their policy but her personal opinion because she had seen a customer in line shoot another customer before and it was such a traumatic experience for her that she believes nobody should ever go into a bank with a firearm.

This should be easily verifiable if true...did you determine whether this was just another lie?

42 posted on 11/21/2010 4:56:27 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

“This should be easily verifiable if true...did you determine whether this was just another lie?”

It might not be too hard to verify if I knew the identity of the clerk. However, as I simply posted the article written by another, I do not have that information.


43 posted on 11/21/2010 5:19:49 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
I am very uncomfortable not getting my cancelled checks back, only a copy of the front of the check. That does not give me the clear picture of the endorsement.

On my bank's online system, I can click on a check and get an image of both the front and back. Perhaps you should check out other banks?

44 posted on 11/21/2010 5:33:42 AM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sorry - I misread and thought it was a first person account...


45 posted on 11/21/2010 6:21:05 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

You are correct. It is a first person account. It is just not my first person account. ;-)


46 posted on 11/21/2010 11:44:02 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
I am torn by this. But deep down, I believe that the right to personal property should trump an individual's right to carry a weapon, when that person who wants to carry is on that property owner's property.

Or, for that matter, to allow Jews or Negroes into that same place of business.

47 posted on 11/22/2010 10:51:32 AM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: archy
Or, for that matter, to allow Jews or Negroes into that same place of business.

Actually, I'm torn about that as well. I believe that property rights are inviolate, as long as the actions of the property owner doesn't hurt others: For instance, if a property owner wants to bury toxic waste on his property, if there's a chance that the waste will leech into the soil hurting others, or damaging the property of others, then they should not be allowed to do it.

On the other hand, if a business wants to exclude people based on race, ethnicity, etc, they should be able to do so. Of course, it's well within the rights of those who have been excluded to protest, and "make a stink" about it, effectively putting the moron business owner a "former business owner."

Oh, btw, I'm Jewish, and there have been a number of situations where it was made very clear that I was not welcome when it was learned I was Jewish.

Mark

48 posted on 11/22/2010 5:35:09 PM PST by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Good evening.

Oh, btw, I'm Jewish, and there have been a number of situations where it was made very clear that I was not welcome when it was learned I was Jewish.

You would be welcomed in the Kehoe household.

5.56mm

49 posted on 11/22/2010 5:37:56 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith; marktwain
What is the rest of the story? Did a customer put a stop to a bank robbery? Can she prove this story of hers?

If shooting random fellow customers because you're feeling bored while standing in line is wrong, then I don't wanna be right!

50 posted on 11/22/2010 6:06:35 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson