Online users
???: Message   

Breathtaking hubris:
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ģ

11/06/2018, 12:44:40

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Here's What NY Lawmakers Want Checks On Before Someone Can Get A Gun

Tom Knighton
3-4 minutes

It will never be enough for gun control advocates.

No matter how much they take, they will always want more. So long as one person can buy a gun legally in this country, they will continue to try and make it more and more difficult to purchase one. Contrary to what they may claim, theyíre not remotely interested in the Second Amendment. They donít care about your rights or your needs to protect your family. They just want to disarm ordinary Americans.

New York seems to be one of a handful of states at the forefront of trying to disarm folks. Their gun control laws are among the most draconian in the nation as it is, but now it seems a couple of lawmakers†want to up their game a bit.

Two New York lawmakers are working to draft a bill that would propose a social media check before a gun purchase.

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmerís 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.

ďA three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a fire arm,Ē Adams explains.

The two are hoping to identify any hate speech on social media profiles, which are often revealed only after someone is arrested in a mass shooting.


Absolutely not.

Thereís no way in hell Iím allowing anyone to search my internet history, look at my social media posts, or anything of the sort. Itís not freaking happening.

To the brainiacs who came up with this, let me spell it out for you. You. Have. No. Right. To. Do. This.

Of course, itís not like either of these two care about rights. After all, not only is this proposal a violation of the Second Amendment, I see it as also a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Thereís no probable cause to justify looking, and if you require my consent prior to allowing me to exercise a right like buying a gun, itís not really consent, now is it?

None of this touches on the reality that ďhate speechĒ is still protected speech, thus you canít be punished for saying hateful things. Much as I despise racists and neo-Nazis, the truth is that their hateful bile is protected speech and they can spew it all they want, especially in the privacy of their own homes.

What Adams and Palmer are looking to do undermines so many fundamental rights itís not even fathomable that they canít recognize this as anything†but†an abridgment of our rights.

But it also takes the sheepís clothing off the wolf, so to speak.

Thus far, I donít hear a lot of backlash from the Left on this. Theyíre so focused on ridding us of guns that they canít understand that this violates more than just the Second Amendment. Either that or the even more likely possibility that they just donít care about rights in the first place.†Tom Knighton is a Navy veteran, a former newspaperman, a novelist, and a blogger and lifetime shooter. He lives with his family in Southwest Georgia.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message