Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Thought police in NY want social media, search histories checked for people seeking gun licenses

Published

on

Thought police in NY want social media search histories checked for people seeking gun licenses

If you intend to become a gun owner in New York, you may want to watch what you say on social media as well as what you search for on Google. If a pair of Brooklyn politicians get their way, your posts and searches may be used t deny your application for a gun license.

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Senator Kevin Parker pointed to Pittsburgh synagogue shooter Robert Bowers as an example of someone who could have been prevented from owning a gun had authorities taken a look at his social media posts. In those posts, he called immigrants “invaders” and went after Jewish organizations he claimed were funding the migrant caravans heading towards our southern border.

“The shooter in Pennsylvania had no criminal flags. You would have thought this person was a model citizen until you examined his social media profile,” Adams said. “He was a broken citizen. He was a time bomb waiting to explode, and that is why it’s important to do this type of review.”

One part of their pitch is that law enforcement often turns to social media when investigating suspects and prosecutors often check search histories to help them build their cases.

My Take

There are so many problems with this proposal, it’ll be hard to be concise. Here are some of the main points against it:

  • Wasted manpower. It’s hard enough to do the background checks currently in play. Adding a review of three years of social media posts is ludicrous unless it can be automated, in which case we’re putting the fate of our 2nd Amendment rights in the hands of a robot.
  • Who judges? Should someone be denied a gun license if they call illegal immigrants “invaders” as these politicians implied? Is being opposed to illegal immigration grounds to deny a license? What if someone says Jews are termites? Should a person who says that be allowed to own a firearm? What are the criteria for denial? Who judges posts against these criteria? If the answer is “law enforcement” which is already spread too thin, then they’re barking up the wrong tree.
  • Search history is private. Using a person’s search history to help build a case after a crime has been committed is in a privacy gray area, but as long as a warrant is properly issued, it should be fair game. Using a search history to see if a law-abiding citizen might commit a gun crime in the future isn’t a gray area. It’s clearly a violation of our right to privacy.
  • Rage versus worldview. Here’s a scenario. A Chinese immigrant gets mugged by a white man. He goes on Twitter and says, “I just got mugged by some white dude in an alley. Crime is rampant. This needs to be stopped. I’m not going to wait around and be a victim anymore.” Shortly after posting this, the man applies for a gun license. He’s doing so to protect himself following a mugging, but his rage made him go to Twitter, invoke race, and declare he’s fed up with it. Should this person be given a gun license? His rage may be temporarily threatening but his worldview revolves around self-protection.

There are dozens of reasons why this is a very bad idea, but the thought police will never take privacy or logic into account. They want to limit what we say by punishing us for saying it. This is the intersection of the 1st and 2nd Amendment under attack.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
14 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Pingback: Ukraine activist Kateryna Handzyuk dies after acid attack – Quey RSS

  2. Pingback: Ukraine activist Kateryna Handzyuk dies after acid attack – Susan Heasley

  3. Pingback: Ukraine activist Kateryna Handzyuk dies after acid attack

  4. Pingback: Hundreds rally in Kiev after activist’s acid attack death – Quey RSS

  5. Pingback: Hundreds rally in Kiev after activist’s acid attack death – Susan Heasley

  6. Pingback: Hundreds rally in Kiev after activist’s acid attack death

  7. Pingback: Hundreds rally in Kiev after activist’s acid attack death | Jack Brown

  8. Pingback: Thought police in NY want social media, search histories checked for people seeking gun licenses – Quey RSS

  9. Pingback: Thought police in NY want social media, search histories checked for people seeking gun licenses – Susan Heasley

  10. Public Citizen

    November 4, 2018 at 6:54 pm

    Stay off of Google as much as possible.
    Their far leftist agenda has been exposed, as has their willingness to use every tool they can develop to inflict their extremist views on the rest of us.
    You can do your Web Searches through other Search Engines that don’t track you and don’t use search algorithms that employ social engineering to determine search rankings. My preferred search engine is Duck Duck Go, funny name but an effective tool.

  11. Pingback: Ukrainian activist dies three months after acid attack | Jack Brown

  12. Pingback: Ukrainian activist dies three months after acid attack – OPINIO ABSURDUM

  13. Pingback: Ukrainian Activist Kateryna Handzyuk Succumbs to Injuries After Being Doused With Sulfuric Acid | Jack Brown

  14. Pingback: Ukrainian Activist Kateryna Handzyuk Succumbs to Injuries After Being Doused With Sulfuric Acid – Quey RSS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don’t believe them

Published

on

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don't believe them

It’s a lie. Every time, it’s a lie. Most leftist gungrabbers will add a note at the end of their gungrabbing rhetoric by pretending to respect the 2nd Amendment. They want you to think they’re pushing “common sense” gun control, because who doesn’t like common sense?

There isn’t a lick of common sense in any gun control measure. Anything that could have been considered common sense gun control, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 that kept regulated interstate commerce to hamper mail-order gun purchases, have already been put in place. Anything going forward that appeals to common sense is unnecessary and damaging to the 2nd Amendment.

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) once said he respects the 2nd Amendment.

“I support gun safety measures, and I’ll tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country.”

His statements on Twitter yesterday said all we need to know.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Gun rights activists: Stop acting like we don’t hold every high ground

Published

on

Gun rights activists Stop acting like we don't hold every high ground

Forgive me if I offend any of my fellow gun rights activists. It’s my intention to educate, not irritate. But I’ve become increasingly annoyed by arguments that play into the leftist agenda. We have the high ground. When you have the high ground, you don’t go down to the enemy’s level. We hold the high ground.

We hold the moral high ground. For every mass shooting incident that takes lives, there are dozens of stories that don’t get nearly the same attention but demonstrate how gun owners prevent crimes. They’re out there defending themselves and others from people who would do them harm.

We hold the intellectual high ground. Where do most gun crimes occur? Where gun laws are obtuse. Chicago is the shining example of how obtuse gun laws prevent citizens from defending themselves. How often do we see gun violence in gun free zones?

We hold the historical high ground. The first thing a government does before turning against its people is take away the people’s ability to defend their rights. One of the most common leftist arguments is that Americans have no reason to fear oppression from the government. This is a backwards argument as it has been shown on multiple occasions that the government was hampered from oppressing American citizens because of the presence of weapons. It’s naive to think the government would never try to oppress us. History shows they already have at times and certainly will again in the future.

We hold the constitutional high ground. This needs no explanation.

We hold the emotional high ground. This is hard for most to understand since it’s emotional responses to mass shooting that usually prompt calls for gun control. That’s exactly why we hold the emotional high ground. As long as we remain consistent and stop operating in the leftists’ emotional echo chambers, we can maintain control of the emotional argument. It’s easy for people to be affected by senseless violence, but that’s no reason to ignore common sense or logical discipline.

What gets to me is when gun rights activists start making arguments such as logistics. I cringe every time I see stats about how many AR rifles are owned. The argument that there are so many out there it would be impractical to take them away is ludicrous. It’s like saying, “You may be right to want to take away guns but it would be too hard.”

The push for gun control is gaining momentum. We cannot give the gungrabbers an inch. We don’t need to. Our arguments are righteous. The only way they’ll win is if we let them distract us and bring us down to fighting on their level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report