Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history

[tmttactical]

Every time i think proposed gun laws can't get any crazier, up jumps another liberal idiot with another stupid law. Of course they don't mention how, or who or how much it will cost. They don't mention the delay for performing these 'Social Media" searches and under exactly what criteria could a citizen be refused the right to arm themselves. The other issue, what if you don't have any social media account? Who watches the watchers?

"Those looking to buy a gun in New York may need to submit their social media profiles and search history prior to purchase if new firearm legislation in the state becomes law.

Under the legislation drafted by Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and State Senator Kevin Parker, both Democrats, up to three years’ worth of search history on social media would be able to be reviewed, ABC Action News reported.

Senate Bill 9191, according to WHAM, mandates "social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-purc...a-history-under-proposed-new-york-legislation

 

[grayghost668]

it's always something and being New York they will most likely get it passed,,,,,,just one more reason to kick the left to the curb

 

[brandx]

Whittling away. Sign of the times.

 

[Maverick]

Hmm, wonder if preppers forum constitute social media in the eyes of New York given the definition of 'social media' is "websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking"

 

[Proud Prepper]

So now one has to give up one or two other constitutional rights in order to utilize a third constitutional right? When have we the people had enough?

 

[jontte]

not yet, Rellgar,not yet, they sure like to dry hump you in the Big Apple...

 

[grayghost668]

I

So now one has to give up one or two other constitutional rights in order to utilize a third constitutional right? When have we the people had enough?

had enough a long time ago,,,way back with the first ban that took away the AK 47

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

Pass that law, and another that requires all social media posts and search engine historys of potential political officials be made public as soon as they announce they are running for office.

If it's important to know the internet history of a prospective gun buyer, how much more important to know the history of someone who could potentially craft legislation affecting the lives of thousands, maybe millions?

 

[tmttactical]

Pass that law, and another that requires all social media posts and search engine historys of potential political officials be made public as soon as they announce they are running for office.

If it's important to know the internet history of a prospective gun buyer, how much more important to know the history of someone who could potentially craft legislation affecting the lives of thousands, maybe millions?

Stopping gun violence is just a huge fake. They want us disarmed, just that simple. If they really wanted to stop gun violence, pass a law mandating (mandatory death sentence -- no plea bargains) the death penalty for the use of a gun in the commission of any felony. That will stop or reduce the gun crimes, without effecting the honest citizens. That law would not disarm the general public but would put criminals at a disadvantage. Tough to mug a citizen armed with a gun, when all you have is a baseball bat.

Now I do like the Social media history of all public (or those running for public office) officials be made available to all.

 

[Kevin L]

This is horrifying.

I often search controversial things, as I'm a writer. I've had my science fiction, murder mysteries, and fantasy published.

If I'm writing a spy novel and I research explosives and spy gadgets, does that disqualify me from owning a gun?

 

[tmttactical]

This is horrifying.

I often search controversial things, as I'm a writer. I've had my science fiction, murder mysteries, and fantasy published.

If I'm writing a spy novel and I research explosives and spy gadgets, does that disqualify me from owning a gun?

Atlas Shrugged, When the government is deciding who can do what, who watches the censors. Maybe your published murder mystery, crossed some Snowflake opinion (remember -- Charlie Brown Thanksgiving, just got condemned for being Racist) and you are deemed unfit for a firearm. Of course the next step after being denied the firearm, you will be reported as a possible danger to yourself and the community at large. You will then be required to report for mandatory mental evaluations. Then you can guess how that all turns out.

Yeah, scary as hell.

 

[KateMTx]

This is horrifying.

I often search controversial things, as I'm a writer. I've had my science fiction, murder mysteries, and fantasy published.

If I'm writing a spy novel and I research explosives and spy gadgets, does that disqualify me from owning a gun?

I write too and do a lot of research that could appear rather suspicious. That's actually part of why I started using Tor (also, just, privacy). So they would be quite disappointed if they reviewed my saved search history - it's mostly just normal stuff and amazon prime. And they would be very disappointed with my "social media" profiles for sure - I am probably the only person under 30 who posts less than once a year on any kind of social media, and I don't have an instagram or Twitter at all. But I really don't think the people who write bills know a lot about how search engines and social media work, if I remember the ridiculous questions that various Senators asked Mark Zuckerberg during that whole Facebook/Cambridge Analytica investigation.

 

[Brent S]

I write too and do a lot of research that could appear rather suspicious. That's actually part of why I started using Tor (also, just, privacy). So they would be quite disappointed if they reviewed my saved search history - it's mostly just normal stuff and amazon prime. And they would be very disappointed with my "social media" profiles for sure - I am probably the only person under 30 who posts less than once a year on any kind of social media, and I don't have an instagram or Twitter at all. But I really don't think the people who write bills know a lot about how search engines and social media work, if I remember the ridiculous questions that various Senators asked Mark Zuckerberg during that whole Facebook/Cambridge Analytica investigation.

I’m one of about five people I know that have never been on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. This is the only social media I’ve ever done and it has an avatar vs my real info. I’m sure the FBI could easily find me but my presence on social media is comparable to the military’s Raptors radar presence.
As far as the gun thing, yes, I’m in the minority but don’t feel having more restrictions on guns is a bad thing. Ever since Sandy hook happened and we still have not changed anything is just insane to me. I am a gun owner, and am glad to be able to defend myself, but there are way too many unbalanced people that have access to them. I have no problem with more scrutiny for those that want them. I really like the mandatory death sentence idea presented by Urbanprep. Having much harsher punishment along with greater scrutiny on new purchases might stop some of the senseless murders.

 

[KateMTx]

I’m one of about five people I know that have never been on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. This is the only social media I’ve ever done and it has an avatar vs my real info. I’m sure the FBI could easily find me but my presence on social media is comparable to the military’s Raptors radar presence.
As far as the gun thing, yes, I’m in the minority but don’t feel having more restrictions on guns is a bad thing. Ever since Sandy hook happened and we still have not changed anything is just insane to me. I am a gun owner, and am glad to be able to defend myself, but there are way too many unbalanced people that have access to them. I have no problem with more scrutiny for those that want them. I really like the mandatory death sentence idea presented by Urbanprep. Having much harsher punishment along with greater scrutiny on new purchases might stop some of the senseless murders.

I don't own guns and don't really like them (that may change after learning more about them from people here, but for now is the truth). But I do believe people should be free. My problem is not necessarily with scrutiny in and of itself, but with who is doing the scrutinizing. One day they may agree with you, but the next they may not, and it will by you who is prohibited from owning guns.

 

[Brent S]

I don't own guns and don't really like them (that may change after learning more about them from people here, but for now is the truth). But I do believe people should be free. My problem is not necessarily with scrutiny in and of itself, but with who is doing the scrutinizing. One day they may agree with you, but the next they may not, and it will by you who is prohibited from owning guns.

I agree somewhat with the slippery slope of government regulation. I also know that the senseless mass shootings will continue if something dosent change. Debate is good, inaction isn’t.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

Senseless murders happen in countries with zero gun ownership.

Senseless murders happen in countries with unregulated gun ownership.

Some people are senseless murderers.

I'm not. I don't want to pay for the crimes those people have committed, let alone the possible future crimes someone may or may not commit.

You may be willing to give up some rights (or priveledges, whatever), but include me out.

Again, medical malpractice is responsible for many deaths, every year. I'm not looking to restrict your access to surgical procedures.

If that's a straw man argument (it is), and you would argue that the difference is intent, that would be a good argument.
I would argue that a senseless murderer's intent to do harm is offset by my intent not to.

My provable good intentions with firearms should garner me MORE rights, no?

 

[KateMTx]

I agree somewhat with the slippery slope of government regulation. I also know that the senseless mass shootings will continue if something dosent change. Debate is good, inaction isn’t.

I'm also pretty sure that more murders are committed by "governments" of one form or another (which includes the time-honored historic form of government, known in the modern day as a "warlord") than by all others combined. Mass shootings are tragic and horrific, but restricting individuals ability to defend themselves against them will not prevent or reduce them. Teaching people (starting as children) about the value of human life and a moral code that prohibits its destruction might help.

 

[Brent S]

All good points stated above, but it still doesn’t address the issue of doing nothing. If we do nothing, nothing will change. So far the only real thing I’ve heard to be an option is more severe punishment for criminals using guns. If you want to get down to it, cars probably kill more than all the other ways to die in this country. In cars they mandate seatbelts and airbags. Yes they increase the cost of owning a car, but I believe it was a fair trade off. Same thing with guns. If you can do something to make them less available to the mentally ill, why wouldn’t you? There is no magic cure to stop mass shootings, but if we can stop some of them, espechially those involving children, then I think talking about possible ideas is just smart.

 

[tmttactical]

All good points stated above, but it still doesn’t address the issue of doing nothing. If we do nothing, nothing will change. So far the only real thing I’ve heard to be an option is more severe punishment for criminals using guns. If you want to get down to it, cars probably kill more than all the other ways to die in this country. In cars they mandate seatbelts and airbags. Yes they increase the cost of owning a car, but I believe it was a fair trade off. Same thing with guns. If you can do something to make them less available to the mentally ill, why wouldn’t you? There is no magic cure to stop mass shootings, but if we can stop some of them, espechially those involving children, then I think talking about possible ideas is just smart.

Ah, here is the catch, the gun laws have not done the one thing that would make guns unavailable to the mentally ill. HIPPA still stops the medical profession from releasing mental health records without a court order. Now, with no reasonable doubt and no warrants and no records. No records and a background check is worthless to stop gun sales to mental mass murders. There has not be a single law passed that has or would have stopped any of the mass shootings. Now if you can figure out a law that will stop mass shooting and NOT infringe on my legal gun rights, you will get my vote. You are supposed to punish the guilty, not the innocent.

The seat belt issue is a not starter. First the the installation was mandated on the auto industry, not the end user. Then it was mandated on the vehicle driver and the then onto all in the vehicle. Again the government deciding we were too stupid to protect ourselves. For me, I figured those that did not use seat belts were just natures way of cleaning out the gene pool. The same with motorcycle helmets. I don't want them mandated (I always wore mine and wrecked two motorcycles), let the dumb die off.

Banning high capacity mags, pure B.S. I can drop a mag and load a new ten round mag before you can take five steps. That law is crap. Assault Rifle bans, again more B.S. . First they do not exist outside the military (full auto rifles are Assault Rifles). Semi-auto rifles do not constitute Assault Rifles, they are simply semi-automatic rifles. It does not make a tinkers darn weather it holds 10 rounds, 20, rounds or 30 rounds, you cannot disarm a mass shooter during a reload, been proven too many times.

The only laws that will help stop or slow down mass shooters === Mandatory death penalties and mental health record releases. Want to purchase a fire arm, then you authorize YOUR doctor to release YOUR Mental (not all your health records) records. That law I could live with and then they have to remove all the other stupid gun laws. Now that is a true gun law compromise.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

My car only has lapbelts. No airbags. I'm glad I'm still allowed to drive it?

It's not just guns, I don't want more legislation. You take away freedoms, people can't have fulfilling lives, people get mental health issues from the lack of fulfillment, you get crime, you get more laws.

No nanny state. I know how long it takes my car to stop, I won't fully penetrate the Honda Civic ahead of me by pressing the brakes too late.

You can't legislate away bad people, or insanity. You just can't.

You can legislate a bit more shittiness into my life though.