New York Lawmakers Want Social Media History To Be Included In Gun Background Checks
from the get-you-a-constitutional-violation-that-can-do-both dept
Legislation arising from tragedies is almost uniformly bad. One need only look at the domestic surveillance growth industry kick started by the Patriot Act to see that fear-based legislation works out very badly for constituents.
A few New York lawmakers are reacting to the horrific Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a gun control bill that makes zero sense. Expanding on criminal background checks, these legislators are hoping to give law enforcement the opportunity to dig through gun buyers' online history.
Eric Adams, the president of Brooklyn Borough, and state Senator Kevin Palmer are currently writing the proposed legislation, which would give law enforcement authorities the power to check up to three years of an individual’s social media accounts and internet search history before they are allowed to buy a gun, WCBS Newsradio 880 reported. One of the main aims is to identify any hate speech shared by the users, as the politicians noted that such offensive comments are generally only discovered after mass shootings occur.
The facile explanation for this ridiculous piece of legislation is this: somehow the Pittsburgh shooter might have been prevented from buying a gun because he posted anti-Semitic content to a social media platform.
This premise will only make sense to those incapable of giving it more than a superficial examination. First off, gun ownership is Constitutionally-protected, whether these legislators like it or not. It doesn't make sense to abridge someone's rights over social media posts, even if the posts contain bigoted speech. That speech is also protected by the Constitution, so combining the two simply doubles the chance the law will be struck down as unconstitutional. Plenty of people engage in ignorant bigotry. Not all of them are would-be criminals.
This law would treat every gun buyer as a suspected criminal who may only take advantage of their guaranteed rights by engaging in government-approved speech. That's completely the wrong way around. This Brooklyn lawmaker doesn't seem to understand this inversion even when he directly, if inadvertently, addresses it.
“If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation,” the borough president pointed out.
Yes. But in these cases, a criminal act has occurred and an investigation is warranted. This legislative proposal treats gun buying as a crime and people's social media history as some weird form of evidence. That's fucked up, no matter how you might feel about the Second Amendment. Lots of shitposting and venting can look dangerous if viewed solely in the context of finding a reason to deny someone a gun.
Then there's the still unaddressed question of what law enforcement is supposed to do if it decides someone's social media posts are worrying enough they should be denied gun ownership. Are officers supposed to head out and arrest this person for being aggressively racist? Is that where this is headed? Are these legislators actually going to enable literal policing of speech?
And how is this supposed to be accomplished? Would potential gun buyers be forced to relinquish account info and passwords to ensure law enforcement is able to see everything purchasers have posted?
These are all worrying questions, none of which anyone involved with this bill seems to have answers for. Sure, it's still early the legislative process, but these lawmakers are speaking about it publicly using specious reasoning and inapt comparisons. This suggests they like the idea they've had, but haven't really thought about it past the point of "the Pittsburgh shooter posted racist memes, therefore this would definitely work."
This quote, given to the New York Post, adds more words but no more clarity. And it certainly doesn't do what Eric Adams claims it does:
Adams said the bills take the First Amendment right to free speech and the Second Amendment right to bear arms into the equation.
“We’re not talking about a person advertising ‘I hate a particular elected official. I hate a policy that’s passed,’” Adams said. “If there’s something that a law enforcement officer of a reasonable mind reviewed that shows this person does not hold the mental capacity to own a gun, then he should not be able to get a permit. We should use the same standard that determines whether a police officer can carry a gun.”
It doesn't take either of those rights into account. It simply says police will now be allowed to view three years of social media history (along with search history from Google, Yahoo, and Bing) to determine gun ownership eligibility. All Adams says is it won't be used to punish certain protected speech. (And it will be used to punish this specific protected speech because any law that can be abused by the government will be abused by it.)
To add to surreality of the proposal, Twitter For Bigots Gab won't be included in the social media monitoring despite this being the site where the Pittsburgh shooter posted the comments these legislators point to as the impetus for this terrible legislation.
No matter how it's pitched, it all comes down to this: no Second Amendment rights for New Yorkers if they don't use their First Amendment rights in a way their government approves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, background checks, eric adams, first amendment, kevin palmer, new york, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
“If there’s something that a law enforcement officer of a reasonable mind reviewed that shows this person does not hold the mental capacity to own a gun, then he should not be able to get a permit. We should use the same standard that determines whether a police officer can carry a gun.”
If you're going to set the standard the same as what police are held to, then who isn't allowed to have a gun would likely be a much shorter list than who is, by a significant margin.
The bar isn't exactly very high after all.
To add to surreality of the proposal, Twitter For Bigots Gab won't be included in the social media monitoring despite this being the site where the Pittsburgh shooter posted the comments these legislators point to as the impetus for this terrible legislation.
Which, if you want to be very generous, leaves the ones writing the bill looking extremely incompetent in that they wrote a bill to allow trawling through social media history, but forgot to include the very one that (theoretically) would have mattered.
More likely it just highlights this as nothing more than a cheap PR stunt, a 'Look at us, we're Doing Something!'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sure we need better control over gun ownership but this is just focusing at the symptoms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, a twofer!
What's next, housing troops in the homes of anyone who owns a gun?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another failing
If a social media account is found through independent searches, and was not otherwise disclosed by the would-be purchaser, is there or should there be any sanction? What if the purchaser did not disclose the account because he isn't actually the account holder (see name confusion, above)? How can he prove that he isn't the account holder? This is especially nasty in the case that someone else has deliberately created these accounts with the intent of misrepresenting them as being owned by the would-be purchaser. (I once dealt with a man who warned me that his name was, through no fault of his own, associated with some very NSFW sites in Google. Since he didn't cause the association, he couldn't get rid of it either. What if instead of being NSFW, those associations had been Not-Safe-For-New-York-Gun-Purchasing?) For purposes of potential sanctions, does it matter if the account thus found is completely innocuous, and would not have been disqualifying if it were disclosed on the application?
Overall, this is a mess even if it somehow managed to be lawful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Equations
Our inalienable rights are not parts of an equation to be traded back and forth, bandied against each other, weighted like the blind scales of justice, or bartered.
Our first amendment rights to not have the government impinge our rights to free expression mean exactly that. If the government punishes me for something I said on social media that violates my rights. It doesn't matter if "gun" or if "driver's license" or if "right to ride a train in China." It's a violation of my first amendment rights.
The second amendment has some guarantees (yes, I see some posters up above have already done the usual trope of "guns moare guns" and sadly these are part of the problem) and those guarantees are not predicated on WHAT I SAY or WHERE I'M FROM or WHO I VOTE FOR. Making my "right to bear arms" dependent on what I said (or didn't say) on social media violates that right as well.
Remember. TODAY it might be about all the bad things you said on social media, and why you shouldn't buy a firearm (oh, sorry "gun").
TOMORROW it might be how you DIDN'T speak up in support of the [choose class of people here] and therefore you're a complete a-hole... and shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Or post on facebook, or instagram,
or techd...
[disconnected]
[no longer allowed to drive]
[or own a "guhn"]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow, a twofer!
Yes, infringing on the Third would be a nice next step from a numerology perspective. We could say that the quartered soldier is responsible for the custody of the weapon when it's not in active use. Quartered soldiers make awfully expensive gun safes.
Infringing the Fourth is much more likely though, probably through some sort of "Implied consent to search the house for unlawful contraband" to make sure the gun isn't being stored near illegal objects.
Infringing the Fifth in this context takes a little more imagination, but luckily the Fifth covers several distinct areas. The most straightforward infringement would be a due-process-free way to be denied, like declaring that people on the TSA's No Fly list automatically fail a background check. Since getting on that list is ridiculously easy and getting off it is ridiculously difficult, we can say that there's no due process in that list, so any decision stemming from it likewise lacks due process.
The Sixth deals with criminal trials, and the would-be buyer hasn't been charged at this stage, so it's hard to see how to infringe the Sixth here. Most of the ideas I had fall more into "no due process" than they do in the Sixth. Perhaps the community can help with this one.
For the Seventh - if you have to sue the government to seek redress when they incorrectly deny you, we might be able to work in a Seventh infringement if the suit is before an administrative officer instead of an impartial judge and impaneled jury.
The Eighth is easy. We set a ridiculously punitive fine for even the most irrelevant of mistakes in filling out the application.
The Ninth is easy. Declare that no one has a right to defend third parties. It's not explicitly in the Constitution, so infringing on it can be said to infringe on the Ninth's acknowledgment that the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list.
The Tenth is not too hard. Any Federal gun control that isn't strongly grounded in the Constitution is an infringement of the Tenth because the Tenth can be read as saying that such controls ought to be done by the states, if done at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
like the old "two sets of books" rule
This could well be the least intrusive "gun control" law ever devised, and the easiest one to evade.
It's been an old tradition among both tax-cheating and money-laundering business owners to maintain two sets of books: a fake one for government eyes and the other for private personal use. Internet Social media "loose cannons" could just as easily adjust to living a double life, secretly spewing hatred at night while publicly putting on an exemplary life during the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(victim posts support for "cops should stop murdering so many people in cold blood" movement)
Well obviously that means they're an anti-law-enforcement terrorist that must be stopped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That would never happen. Dead people post no opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dead people post only facts
I, on the other hand, have surveyed many dead people, and asked them about the opinions they posted. Well, to be scientifically precise I said "If you posted an opinion and not a proven fact please let me know."
100% of dead people post facts.
E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow, a twofer!
Infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of The People by infringing on their 1st Amendment rights.
Maybe they think it works like a double negative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What do you mean you have no Facebook page or Twitter?
Not that I really care as I do not live in New York (anymore) and have no intention of buying a gun, but I bet there is someone who might want to buy a gun and has similar Internet and computer security (or even more restrictive) habits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dead people post only facts
Oh wait, those might be construed as opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
We should use the same standard that determines whether a police officer can carry a gun.
I just thought he meant that gun ownership should be allowed if you promise to only shoot unarmed black men, the mentally ill, and the poor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
> account info and passwords to ensure law enforcement is
> able to see everything purchasers have posted?
And what if you don't use social media? Not everyone does. Is the government going to believe you when you put N/A on the form under "List all your social media accounts"?
Or is not participating in social going to be automatically deemed a red flag? Almost everyone does participate, so if you don't there must either be something mentally or socially wrong with you, or you're avoiding using social media (or closed your accounts) in anticipation of buying a gun, so you're trying to hide something from the authorities.
> One of the main aims is to identify any hate speech
> shared by the users
Just wanted to reiterate that what is commonly referred to as 'hate speech' is in reality constitutionally protected speech, and there's no f'n way any court will allow the government to justify denying 2nd Amendment rights to someone for exercising his 1st Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ironically, many places with strict gun control and low gun ownership have some of the worst gun violence in the world, particularly in Latin America. Brazil's new president seems to think that increased gun ownership will be a solution to the country's worsening epidemic of violent crime.
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2018-3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another failing
Does that mean the cops can come confiscate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What do you mean you have no Facebook page or Twitter?
I will... you are using an account to post this right now. So you do in fact have a social media account.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another failing
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-illinois-gun-violence-laws-o rders-of-protection-20180713-story.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prior Ownership....
If you have a Medical Permit for Marijuana, you're barred from purchasing a firearm, as it's still Criminal Federally, regardless of what your State claims.
As soon as they figure out how to get around the ban on Ex Post Facto laws, expect that to mean you have to surrender any legal firearms if you have cancer or any other disease that allows you the surcease of THC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does this even exist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
What about shooting people holding cell phones and Xbox controllers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow, a twofer!
Not really.
Contrary to public opinion due to multiple generations of political propaganda, the second amendment DOES NOT apply to individuals, it ONLY applies to militias. Don't believe me? Read the 2nd amendment:
An individual American who isn't a part of a state militia is NOT a 'militia', and therefore is not protected under the 2nd amendment.
Besides, the whole idea of banning gun ownership in the founding father's times would have been as absurd as the idea of the government banning automobiles today. If we were rewriting the constitution would anyone seriously suggest "We need a constitutional right to own automobiles?", and would anyone take it seriously enough to put in the constitution? People depended on guns for their livelihoods at the time of the Founding Fathers. Many had to hunt for food with guns out in the frontiers, and other areas lived under the very real threat of Native Americans attacking their homes.
Oh and to those saying that the SCOTUS recognizes it as an individual right to own a gun, guess when they did that? It wasn't in the founding father's days, nope. It was in the 'ancient' days of 2008 after decades of propaganda by gun rights advocates on the subject.
The SCOTUS gets stuff about the constitution wrong from time to time. Just look at Plessy v Ferguson which said Separate but Equal was perfectly constitutional despite the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS eventually recognized the 14th amendment exists and overturned that in Brown vs Board of Education.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
No discussion about the harms of guns can go on very long without somebody trying to conflate guns with cars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The problem are not the guns
So yes, the problem is the guns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any reason...
But that isnt going to work.
It didnt work with a military person released from military for mental problems, BECAUSE there wasnt any place to Tell.
No one knew where to send the info.
Medical records are PRIVATE..
The person was not sent to a doctor, to be responsible and get things recorded..
Making Everything Public only means people will go private..
How many games can you goto and Hide in chat??
Social net is nothing..its public(mostly)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
Like me. I've never had a Facebook or Twitter account and I don't often do Google searches while logged into Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
It is not about what I think, I just enforce the law, as I understand it.
Not sorry.
They should get PlayStations, just sayin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is like when they didn't want to ban smoking so they just raised the tax on cigs so ridiculously high that they might as well have, while many mentally ill who are truly addicted now pay $14 a pack in New York.
I do think talking about owning a weapon should be the legal equivalent of brandishing that weapon. Some places already deny permits to people with histories for disorderly conduct etc.
The problem with censorship (which this is) is the same as with locking up the mentally ill (which we used to do on less than what they're trying to do here), in that the cure is worse than the disease. No one can be trusted with that type of power in either case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: like the old "two sets of books" rule
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
>>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.
See, while historical records do suggest this was intended to provide a collection of pre-armed people to be drafted (a curious reason and method to grant this right), the construction leads to argument that the introductory phrase should not be factored in when reading the text of the right being granted, that because of the construction the sentence grammatically should stand on it's own. Therefore it was the right of the people, not the militia, to bear arms. Combined with the history of the British denying the right of gun ownership, its not a hard sell that this language was intended to provide for individual ownership, because otherwise the militia should bear them, not the people. The deadly character count game hurting the authors intent even 200 years ago.
As well, the arguments you make against SCOTUS also serve to note the idea that the SCOTUS has, for a long time, expanded understandings from their constitutional roots. Free speech has gone back and forth, but the general trend has been expansion for instance.
Not saying you are wrong, but your rhetoric could be worked on. Insulting people for not reading the letters of a founding father or understanding grammatical shifts over 200 years doesn't generally make for a good read.
PS, Plessy v Ferguson was not decided in spite of the 14th amendment. The point of the "Equal" part was to line up with the 14th amendment. SCOTUS overturned it when the court was convinced not that the 14th amendment exists, but that separate facilities even if equal were discriminatory, and that in practice they never were.
Then we just used housing and lending laws to implement it anyway, because now its 'fair'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem are not the guns
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LEARN NOTHING, WASTE RESOURCES, AND BE ABLE TO WRITE A REPORT WELL AFTER THE FACT HOW YOUR SYSTEM MISSED THEM BUT BEARS NO FAULT BECAUSE WE NEED MOOOOOOOOOAR DATA!!!!!!!
Remember when DHS wanted people entering the country to provide all of their social media accounts??
Remember how the gay guy with the trendy avatar pointed out this was stupid because someone determined to enter the country & do harm would set up alternate accounts?
This is invasive & stupid.
If you don't present an image we like we're gonna screw with your right to have a gun, so what if we waste millions in court fighting the stupid fight we got awesome soundbites to cover up all the subway fires.
Perhaps a better use would be reforming the laws we have that don't work. A protection order is just a piece of paper, yet somehow we still have abusers shooting & harming those the order is to protect. How do they miss the fact there are guns involved & maybe should be taken if there was violence enough that a court issued a protective order.
Perhaps we should punish the military for not bothering to get around to turning over names like they are required to by law. (Church Shooting)
Perhaps the system should report how many weapons someone accused or convicted of abuse own so they can be held until the case is adjudicated?
Perhaps we should stop allowing states to make an insane patchwork of laws, most of which are just to make people feel safer but accomplish nothing but more screaming on both sides about how unfair & wrong it is, while we ignore the teen with known issues in a home with weapons.
Perhaps we need to stop treating mental illness as a giant scary monolith, not everyone under the big umbrella is likely to take a weapon and murder people. Perhaps allowing things to not be reported to avoid 'ruining' someones life so there is no known history that should flag them.
There is the lovely refrain that women lie about DV to screw men, but then there is the woman who shows up at the jail after the ER visit with 2 black eyes to bail her abuser out because she LOVES him. They refuse to testify because we have a shitty social safety net for them, so there is no case to try to block him from getting a weapon, even after he has proven he can't control his temper & is willing to inflict pain & harm.
Instead we have boiled it all down to OMG AK-47 bullets go 120x the speed of light & the bullets shatter into 3000 pieces at the end of the barrel so they can kill more people!!!!!!
We have problems we all should agree upon, but we need to stop claiming the only solution is more guns or more gun laws/restrictions.
Teens shooting up schools.
Perhaps we need to admit that we pay teachers poorly & understaff the schools with assistance for kids having problems.
That our current system only offers 1 option - of trying to ruin the kids life. Teachers hold back on reporting somethings b/c the resource officer is the only option, and cops aren't Andy Taylor who dispense wisdom & help in under 30 minutes. Their solution is lock them up, which manages to make issues worse.
Time & time again we've seen school shootings, the deep dive after the fact sometimes shows that somehow sportsball players breaking policies & bullying is overlooked because they are 'good kids', ignoring the message sent to their victims that no one is going to help them or end the abuse. Hell I've seen stories where sportsball players have sodomized other players repeatedly over years & coaches look away b/c it builds the team... until someone says it isn't right & OMG its been going on for a very long time & many of these players end up abusing other students b/c if you can shove a mop handle into a kids ass and skate does knocking another kids books out of their hands even rate notice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: isn't allowed in Brazil and it is quite violent over there
Don’t pick and choose from the evidence just to back up your particular faith/ideology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So as far as the “rights” In said document. Its a piece of paper that’s becoming horribly irrelevant as human want and need takes over.these days. Sad to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
No discussion here can mention guns without Lawrence D'Oliviero spewing moronic bullshit all over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem are not the guns
It's already bad with over 65 thousand killed per year but with weapons allowed it's gonna be a massacre of Biblical proportions. Syria boasts saner levels of deaths.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contrary to public opinion
This is the Godwin's Law applied to Second Amendment discussions. Invariably as a discussion of the Second Amendment and right to bear arms occurs, someone will cry out that it's all about militias and nobody has any rights granted by the law.
It's not. It wasn't. It's just a poorly constructed statement... like your entire epic tome attempting to defend your misinterpretation.
If only you "aunti-gunz peeps" would just say "militia" and halt discussions in the beginning, nobody would ever need to discuss it. Oh wait, but we still have the rights.
E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem are not the guns
>>health issues, yet they don’t have the same level of
>> gun violence.
This is a common rationalization to skew the scales. Fewer guns might translate to less *gun* violence, but fewer guns does not translate to less violence. I would worry about being stabbed in some countries, while I feel comfortable in the US.
>>So yes, the problem is the guns.
No, it is not. Look up international crime statistics, particularly with respect to homicides, and you'll see that access to firearms does not correlate with homicides per capita.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SCOTUS and appeals courts say it isn't so.
That’s the wrong way round: it should be morality that is the basis of the law, morality does not come from the law. And unregulated gun ownership is so obviously harmful that all civilized nations have put in place laws to tightly restrict it, because that is, morally, the right thing to do.
Except in the US, where it seems the law is so revered that it must take precedence over reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: isn't allowed in Brazil and it is quite violent over there
Also, your assertion is ridiculously false. Just because they hide it from you doesn't mean it's not there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just because they hide it from you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What makes anyone think this ridiculous proposal will change anything?
I suppose that in order to properly implement such a system of spying upon the public, said public would have to get some new shiny Identification, perhaps an implanted chip that causes cancer or a bar code tattooed upon ones forehead.
The proposal certainly seems to be driven out of fear rather than logic, therefore it should be filed in the circular file cabinet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: SCOTUS and appeals courts say it isn't so.
Only allowing governments ownership of anything is immoral to me. Refusing to let anyone have something because they MIGHT do something bad with it is equally immoral to me. That's a stupid reason to restrict freedom.
And where exactly is your "obvious harm" evidence from? Gun ownership literally represents a tiny blip in cause of deaths compared to so many other things. The fact that you don't like guns doesn't make them harmful to own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because obviously when you're trying to find a needle in a haystack, the solution is to bring in more hay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: like the old "two sets of books" rule
I remember it was dancing like Elvis did on TV. The school principals and churches went ballistic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dead people post only facts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This would include everyone living or even passing through California, Oregon, Washington or New York. They are all crazy without exception.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Only allowing governments ownership of anything is immoral t
If that’s your main argument, then you’re already screwed. The weaponry you’re allowed to own is mere pea-shooters compared to what your Government has. And you’re never going to be able to change that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Behavior is no longer judged in temporal context, but by historical standards. Those who are not on the right side of history are being retroactively punished for conduct which, at the time, was legal, or normal for the era. In Kavanaugh's case, where were the parents? That's who should have been blamed for all of this but also in many other cases we are judging people by 2018 standards for what they did twenty or thirty years ago.
People who think it's okay to bully others ('say mean things") are going to be similarly judged as time marches on.
Since projection is a legitimate psychiatric concern, the first people denied guns should be anyone who has ever told another to "get therapy" or used perjoratives like "crazy," "nutjob," "whatcko," or the like. Of course we're not going to hold women and minorities to the same standard, since calls to kill all men or whites never seem to run afoul of anything.
Regardless of what the future brings, if what you do now is fronwed upon in 2040, you're screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just because they hide it from you
Thanks for that. Those statistics might help explain President Trump's stated preference for immigrants coming from Norway (many guns, few murders) and his extreme distaste for immigrants from shit-hole countries (many murders, few guns)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Just because they hide it from you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: isn't allowed in Brazil and it is quite violent over there
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just because they hide it from you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Only allowing governments ownership of anything is immoral t
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and many other conflicts have illustrated the stupidity of your statement.
I suppose you are unaware that the US Military has no responsibility to protect the US Government? The oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the government nor any members of the government.
Apparently you have such an overriding hatred of inanimate objects (guns), that you are incapable of rational thought.
If you would ignore the rantings of Sharon Watts and her mugs with jugs crew you would be a lot better off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The obvious solution, of course, is to activate religious police to round up, put on trial, and stone to death these evil women who scheme to entice, seduce, and corrupt the morals of good honorable Allah-serving men.
No joke, that's about how they think in their culture. It's always the woman's fault (in stark contrast to the West, where it's always the man's fault).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Only allowing governments ownership of anything is immoral t
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
Sure. If that guy in Vegas hadn't shot 480 people, he would have just stabbed them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Equations
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: like the old "two sets of books" rule
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Place a button in ALL Social nets..
If someone pisses you off..or says something strange/stupid..
SEND it tot he gov for analysis..
They would be Besieged in 1 day..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fewer guns does not translate to less violence
Actually, yes it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
Police are required to take a test once a year to prove they can use a gun properly, but the difficulty level is set so low that it's not unusual for cops to hit with only one bullet out of TWENTY when actually using their guns outside of a target range. And they're allowed to keep trying the test over and over at taxpayer expense until they pass.
Police are exempted from almost every state gun control law, from assault weapon bans to magazine limits to being allowed to carry guns in places any non-cop is prohibited from doing so.
Convicted felons are prohibited from being police, yet some police departments have been ordered to reinstate officers who were fired after being convicted of felonies.
When a police officer fires 200+ rounds in the very vaguely general direction of their target and only hits their target with 1 out of every 20 (the other 19 out of 20 hitting random buildings, trees, people and animals) the officer is not liable for any civil penalties. A non-cop who did that would be 100% liable for every shot, including the ones that hit their target -- even if the shooting was fully justified, the person you shoot can still sue you and win, while cops cannot be sued in most cases.
Hmm. That sounds like something worth doing. I wonder if we could convince those legislators to pass a law that imposes the same restrictions on non-cops that cops have to follow with regard to gun ownership?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because they hide it from you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: do we see a drop in countries that had guns to when they ban
Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
THis wasn't evemn about #metoo, as much as how we're now judging people's behavior through the eyes of history instead of through the present. That means it's not enough to do what seems okay now, but one must figure out what will be considered right fifty years from now.
Look at what we did to the confederacy and its legacy, even though half the country, at the time, did not believe it was doing the wrong thing. We have new rules and this is just a symptom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The question is how will online behavior change once people are aware it is being used that way, and STASI/KGB give us a good idea of where we're already heading with people losing careers over a single tweet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because they hide it from you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Only allowing governments ownership of anything is immoral t
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Speech policing is here, and not a moment too soon. People who aren't cyberbullies or hotheads will have no difficulty owning firearms.
The internet has been great at flushing out those who need to be restrained.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Second Amendment is history anyway. Australia and England are way more civilized and our young people won't tolerate this Wild West garbage we have now.
The New York bill is a good step towards checking the ridiculous cyberbullying and internet hate that permeates today's digital space.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem are not the guns
Funny how bans won't work when it comes to guns...people will just find ways to get them.
But when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, birth control, allowing people to seek asylum at the southern border, and drugs, somehow, some way - bans suddenly work.
Funny isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: SCOTUS and appeals courts say it isn't so.
Refusing to let anyone have something because they MIGHT do something bad with it is equally immoral to me.
So making all drugs legal is OK then, yes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In Kavanaugh's case, where were the parents?
I agree - where were Brett Kavanaugh's parents?
Where in the fuck did he get the idea that he was free to use women without their consent for his personal gratification? Did he learn it at home? Did Dad teach him? Did his mother stay silent and not teach him right from wrong?
Great question - I'd love to know where his parents were while he was becoming a woman-assaulting douche.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
At some point we'll get serious and just hook everyone up to polygraph machines and/or inject them with truth serum. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The shooting in California today shows that one bad apple with a weapon can spoil everything.
If you're so quick to believe women, and threaten vigilante violence based on what could easily be untrue, then you should not be allowed to own a weapon because there is a very real danger you could be manipulated into using that weapon on the word of a lying female (or child, elderly person,e tc.). This is what the law is looking to weed out of the gun-owning gene pool.
Were you there? Otherwise you don't know what happened. There's a reason no charges were pressed, likely because no penetration occurred, and that was more or less the law of the land back then. "Buyer beware" was also a law-enforcement norm which has not held up well, another example of judging behavior in 1983 by 2018 rules.
Setting aside the white-knighting for a second, I was talking more about how this applies to gun control, since speech which seems perfectly acceptable now could cause someone to be denied a gun license in the future. We're on a course where ALL of our behavior will nto be judged by today's standareds, but through historical 20/20 hindsight. That's a huge shift from how we used to judge people, and this proposed law is just a symptom of the larger trend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Saying mean things" to someone does little now except establish a motive if the target winds up harmed, and a red flag that the person saying the mean things should be politically neutered, as will be the case if this New York law passes.
The new world that is fast evolving has zero tolerance for bullies or aggression of the kind that was once acceptable behavior. As I said above, we are no longer judged by contemporary norms and laws, but by what history decides was correct. Those of us who cannot predict how history will view our behavior are being weeded out of the gene pool by having their resources stripped to the bone.
"Presentism" no longer works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding who you are referring to but the AC you are replying to is NOT advocating for vigilante justice. He's talking about a woman being assaulted and because of her martial arts training, being able to defend herself to the surprise of her attackers.
Defending yourself from someone who attempted to assault you is not vigilante justice, even if your attackers end up with their lights punched out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, that is some major projection you have going on there.
Are you saying women are so fragile that they can't take care of themselves? A bit sexist of you, wouldn't you say?
What. The. Hell. So are we all just imagining women all over the country screaming for men to stand up and treat women with respect and dignity then? Because it seems like according to your logic, any man who does is expecting sexual favors in return. That's twisted.
Basically ditto on my above reply. You're stating that men can never stand up for women because that just means they are insincere about it. Come on dude, get a grip. This says more about you than men in general.
First off, why shouldn't we believe women? America's history is, unfortunately, rife with men taking advantage of women. Second, he didn't threaten any kind of vigilante justice. Stop getting all bent out of shape for something no one implied, much less said.
You sexist, racist, bigot. Who should we believe then? Hm? Only if an adult male makes a claim of abuse? Oh yeah, that's a hoot. Newsflash, if someone claims they have been abused, doesn't matter who, man, woman, or child, the decent human thing to do is to at least accept the possibility they are telling the truth and verify it. If you dismiss them out of hand, you are just supporting and encouraging more abuse.
Were you? Do you know what happened? If not then you can't really talk either.
Or, you know, lack of solid evidence. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, there's just not enough evidence to prove. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, it's not.
First of all, it's government censorship of speech which is illegal, un-constitutional, a direct violation of the First Amendment, and generally a really bad idea. Don't believe me? I refer you to Hitler's Germany, Russia, China, North Korea, etc...
Second, it's also a violation of the Second Amendment. Whine and complain all you want but it is legal and a protected right for people to own guns. If you want to change the Constitution, be my guest, but since that takes an act of Congress, good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh there, there now. No need to get your little drawers in a wad. You're the one who brought up Kavanaugh and parents. Were you that short-sighted in your comments to believe that only the woman's parents should be concerned? As if there's no possible way a man could be a misguided little piece of shit?
Spare me the self-righteous indignation there. Bring up a douche and you deserve what you get. There's plenty of other people who you could've brought up, but you chose him. So deal with it.
If you're so quick to believe women, and threaten vigilante violence based on what could easily be untrue, then you should not be allowed to own a weapon because there is a very real danger you could be manipulated into using that weapon on the word of a lying female (or child, elderly person,e tc.).
Vigilante violence, huh? Nice appeal to emotion there.
Were you there? Otherwise you don't know what happened.
No. Nor were you.
There's a reason no charges were pressed, likely because no penetration occurred, and that was more or less the law of the land back then.
I see. A misdemeanor assault that could have lead to felony charges of sexual assault with attempt to rape (both, according to the law at the time) are all just bullshit because no penetration occurred. Got a citation for that?
Setting aside the white-knighting for a second,
You should've set aside bringing up such a pathetic example of a moral figure if you wanted to be taken more seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Take your government censorship and be gone. Nobody wants you here.
People say mean things all the time to others, the vast majority of them don't go on to violent crimes. If they did the human race would have wiped itself out a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You think it's a bad idea. Those in power disagree with you and will win out Whether you're right, or they're right, it's obvious where we're heading.
Your side is losing, badly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get that you don't like Kavanaugh. I missed your reply to my question about whether or not you believe Juanita Broaddick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I missed your reply to my question about whether or not you believe Juanita Broaddick.
I'm wondering where the parents were.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. No it does not. Go take a Constitutional law class. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing overrides it.
ROFL!!! Have you seen France? Or Ukraine? Also, Europe has less freedoms than we do. By how much we can debate but they are less. Their free speech rights are certainly not as expansive as ours.
That isn't the point. The minute you start restricting speech is the minute you put the country on the road to dictatorship and government oppression of the people.
I can marginally agree with this. You can own guns and not live to own guns, and there are some basic checks that we should have (background checks, don't sell guns to people with mental handicaps, etc...). But guns are NOT speech, the two are completely different.
Actually, that's wrong. A right is something that can not be taken away or revoked. You're thinking of a privilege. But guess what, the Constitution defines both free speech and the right to own a gun as a right, which is irrevocable. So you're literally wrong.
And it's quite obvious you are delusional. And even if you're right about those in power heading us in that direction, then that's even more reason to push back against it.
Are you sure you're not being paid in rubles to write this crap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Broaddick and Clinton were legal adults. Kavanaugh and Ford were not.
Sorry you hate censorship so much because you're gonna be aseeing a lot of it, to the point where one day even minor insults can get people arrested.
Neanderthals ruled the planet at one time as well. Humanity evolves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you think this is a good thing? You just got done complaining about how #metoo changed the rules to this and how people were screwed because of it. So which is it? Do you want government oppression of the people based on what they say or do you want free speech and a free society?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My how flippant.
I thought so as well.
Broaddick and Clinton were legal adults.
Were you there? Otherwise you don't know what happened. There's a reason no charges were pressed, likely because no penetration occurred, and that was more or less the law of the land back then. "Buyer beware" was also a law-enforcement norm which has not held up well, another example of judging behavior in 1983 by 2018 rules.
Sorry you hate censorship so much because you're gonna be aseeing a lot of it, to the point where one day even minor insults can get people arrested.
So censorship (hiding something) is going to result in more people being arrested for minor insults? Cool story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
THis wasn't evemn about #metoo, as much as how we're now judging people's behavior through the eyes of history instead of through the present.
Exactly!
How could anyone possibly think that current actions might somehow have consequences later on?
Live in the now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Speech policing is only agreeable while you agree with those doing the policing. What about when those police decide you speech is unacceptable because it follow the wrong politics?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
> they can use a gun properly
I'm required to qualify four times a year.
> but the difficulty level is set so low that it's not
> unusual for cops to hit with only one bullet out of
> TWENTY when actually using their guns outside of a target
> range.
Our minimum passing score is 290 out of 300. It's a 60-round course of fire out to 25 yards, so that means 50 of them have to hit the 10-ring.
> And they're allowed to keep trying the test over and over
> at taxpayer expense until they pass.
The taxpayer expense is hardly significant here. What's the going rate for 60 bullets? And no, we don't get to keep trying over and over. We get two tries. If you don't qualify on the second try, you're administratively benched until you complete remedial training.
> Police are exempted from almost every state gun control
> law, from assault weapon bans to magazine limits to being
> allowed to carry guns in places any non-cop is prohibited
> from doing so.
Makes sense. It would be kinda stupid, for example, to keep the Secret Service from carrying their weapons in the White House just because non-cops are prohibited from doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: do we see a drop in countries that had guns to when they ban
That statistic doesn't show general violent crime though and only gun related crime and deaths. You are also linking to a country that doesn't border other countries and is harder to smuggle things in. Look at another statistic and you will see the opposite effect. Several contrie's homicide rate when up after gun ban. My point still stands in that violence will be expressed in some other method if guns are not available. Fix the violence issue and you fix the gun deaths issue. Maybe if you ban guns worldwide, there will eventually be a drop in gun related crime but there still will be violent crime. Also, it is getting to the point that someone can even print off their own gun. So even if you ban all guns, people can make them at home. Crude at the moment but in 10-20 years, that technology will have improved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: do we see a drop in countries that had guns to when they ban
Maybe if you ban guns worldwide, there will eventually be a drop in gun related crime but there still will be violent crime.
Ahhh, if only the gun nuts had the same attitude towards bans when it comes to abortion, gay rights, birth control, and drugs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: every citizen would have to be treated as potentially armed
Your police do that already.
You were saying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not the reason that someone goes insane
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Making them illegal will mean only the criminals will have t
After Port Arthur, Australia banned private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. And it worked.
Why did it work? Because in conjunction with the ban they also instituted a massive program to take all those weapons out of circulation.
So while gun laws are an essential part of the process, they are not the only part. Passing laws and then just crossing your fingers is a recipe for failure. But passing laws, and taking well-organized and well-supported Government action in concert with those laws, can be a recipe for success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: a country that doesn't border other countries, harder to smu
But the US itself would not have such a problem, since it is precisely the place where all this weaponry comes from. So it cannot be used as an objection to bringing in tighter gun control in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does Anybody Still Believe Such Checks Are Irrelevant?
Given yet another mass shooter who telegraphed his intentions well in advance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Does Anybody Still Believe Such Checks Are Irrelevant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Like it or not, as a us citizen, you are the militia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pick one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]