Lawmakers Drafting Bill Would Allow Social Media Checks Before Gun Purchase 3yrs SM &1yr search

Who agree's with this ? If passed what would be the key words, sentences, WEBSITES, over all content, interpretations of the content ? its a dangerous and slippery slope we heading down now with everything you do going back to even High School for judges lol

Any one can't say anything anymore if passed there's a chink in the armor of free speech, privacy, just the invasiveness and interpretation alone is a can of worms. not to mention the back lash for websites.....seeing how being de platformed is now a tool to be used....

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.

1984 anyone??


wcbs880.radio.com...

a reply to: TheJesuit


Link?

That a real bad idea. Anyone can open a social media account as anyone else. The investigator would never know who really posted a rant.

originally posted by: Nickn3
That a real bad idea. Anyone can open a social media account as anyone else. The investigator would never know who really posted a rant.

Not only that but I have a few friends that actually hate social media, so they actually created fake names for their social media accounts that they were more or less "forced" to have by their families to keep in touch. So will this bill make it so these people can't have guns because they don't properly have a social media presence??

Also, are they going to search for peoples internet monikers, such as mine here?? The only social media account I have with my real name is FB, everything else uses other names. How will they know who is who, and whether or not it's even the right person??

What if someone belongs to a role-playing website where they roleplay a villain, and are damned good at it?? Will they take that into consideration in regards to whether or not that person should own a gun??

What if they don't smoke pot, but are fully supportive of full out legalization?? Could that also be used against them??

I guess what I'm getting at is this sort of bill just opens up too many questions without, imo, any good answers. I hope it doesn't pass, but then again the anti-gun crowd will drool all over this because then anything can be used to prevent a legal firearm sale.........not going to do anything to the actual criminals.

a reply to: TheJesuit

Oh f**k no!!!

Trying to use free speech against people... and we all know the "guidelines" of what is acceptable and not would be a gray area at best.

I don't have SM accounts and wouldn't be affected on that front, but I know a terrible idea pertaining individual rights when I see one!

As bad and corrupt as things are, I do not see this happening. This is just too ridiculous.

a reply to: six67seven

I don't have SM accounts and wouldn't be affected, but I know a terrible idea pertaining individual rights when I see one!

.....he said, posting on an internet conspiracy website.

Did you miss the part about them getting to look at your internet history for the last year, too?

It's amazing that they bring up how police investigate something when a crime has been committed as if it somehow bolsters their argument for what amounts to thought-policing the ability to exercise one's rights.

Nothing like Dems acting like the ChiComs

When asked why people need AR-15s. The answer is for laws like this.

I take it Thomas Jefferson wouldn't get rejected for this letter

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787


www.businessinsider.com...

Whoa! I didn't know you could even buy a gun in New York, Period!

Sarcasm Aside, I don't know....... The only two places I could see this ever passing, are in NY and Cal..... And thank god I don't live in either state.

If this is being drawn up on a federal level, then No. Just No.

It states towards the bottom that they would be able to review any potential "hate speech" when researching a potential buyer - the problem is that nowadays, pretty much anything that isn't politically correct or liberal friendly is automatically deemed "Hate Speech"........ Hate Speech which, regardless of how much it offends someone, is covered by the 1st Amendment.

What this is essentially saying, is that the government wants to use your constitutionally protected free speech AGAINST YOU, and violate the Constitution by using that speech to deny you of other constitutional rights.

Hmmmm............... I think I just thought up a good Constitutional test against this proposed law within my rambling, and good grounds to challenge, should this ever pass.

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
As bad and corrupt as things are, I do not see this happening. This is just too ridiculous.

We're talking about lawmakers here... 75% of what they think and do is ridiculous

Don't put it past them.

a reply to: TheJesuit

Drafting legislation is a long ways from putting it up for a vote. A Burough President ? Isn't that lower that than a City Council Member ? A State Representative may be up to it but a Borough President I wouldn't think would even have the authority to author not sponsor a State bill. A years worth of Internet search history ? That job would suck.

Perhaps we should require the same from anyone currently in office or for anyone elected for future service in an elected position. This I don't believe will get off the ground, just another move to pander to a small group. We are in exciting times of a changing Nation

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
As bad and corrupt as things are, I do not see this happening. This is just too ridiculous.

We're talking about lawmakers here... 75% of what they think and do is ridiculous

Don't put it past them.

I'm talking about Trump and Q here! Nothing like this will fly on their watch. What's everyone worried about?

a reply to: TheJesuit


"Lawmakers Drafting Bill Would Allow Social Media Checks Before Voting."

Yeah, sounds a little different now, doesn't it?

The title might as well read, Lawmakers draft bill to allow the Democrats to determine who can purchase a gun!

Incredibly stupid, and using the 1st to stifle the 2nd.

social media is a place where people use hyperbole and ridiculousness for LULZ. What a stupid idea this is.

...and people wonder why we need conservatives on the SCOTUS!

BTW, I personally think this is just some low level schmuck politician trying to move up in the liberal ranks so he can add his name to the dozens od democratic party members apparently running for 2020 POTUS.

This would be a great idea....

If most of gun related crimes were committed by people who legally bought them.

Edit: even then we shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of the stupid and deranged.

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
As bad and corrupt as things are, I do not see this happening. This is just too ridiculous.

We're talking about lawmakers here... 75% of what they think and do is ridiculous

Don't put it past them.

I'm talking about Trump and Q here! Nothing like this will fly on their watch. What's everyone worried about?

Why would this never fly on Trumps watch?

Trump hasn't exactly expressed a hard line pro second amendment stance in the past.

Mr Trump spoke approvingly of expanding background checks for gun buyers and raising the legal age to buy rifles to 21 from 18, saying he would give serious consideration to an idea rejected by the NRA.

"You have to be very, very powerful on background checks. Don't be shy. Very strong on mentally ill," he told the Congress members.

"And don't worry about bump stocks, we're getting rid of it. It'll be out."

The President rejected the way Republican leaders in Congress have framed the gun debate, saying the House-backed bill linking a background check measure with a bill to expand gun rights by allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines was not the right approach.

"You'll never get it passed," he told them, reminding that Democratic senators, including some in the room, strongly oppose it.

Instead, he suggested Republicans should focus on the background check bill, then load it up with other gun control and safety measures.

"It would be nice if we could add everything on to it," Mr Trump said.

Source

Yeah, Trumps backed off his anti-second amendment stance in the last few months... But that's just to hoodwink his blind hardcore supporters into a false sense of security.

Just wait till his second term, when his got nothing to lose. He'll go all in attacking your second amendment rights... you reap what you sow.

To hell with this, already good paying jobs and top positions need a social media scrub, now weapons???

originally posted by: Arnie123
To hell with this, already good paying jobs and top positions need a social media scrub, now weapons???

While Obama weaponized the IRS, DOJ, FBI against any and all political opponents, the proxy government clones running social media have also become weaponized to further promote the leftist agenda.

Just look at the jobs lost, lives ruined simply because people were exercising their rights to free expression.


And before anyone gets on here to start bleating about consequences of free speech, there USED to be a time when the ideal was not only freedom of speech, but freedom after speech as well.