• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social accounts

Sure but once people are aware social media will be added to these checks, they can modify their accounts. That's what makes this odd to me from a management perspective.
Agreed there will be problems in doing this but when most all of these mass shooters have social media accounts where they are posting their violent ideas and intentions it seems like a good thing that searches of social media accounts are part of a background check for anyone trying to purchase a firearm.
 
Sure but once people are aware social media will be added to these checks, they can modify their accounts. That's what makes this odd to me from a management perspective.
They can use a friend to see your account, law enforcement has done it more than once, and the courts ruled in the favor of the police.
 
Sure but once people are aware social media will be added to these checks, they can modify their accounts. That's what makes this odd to me from a management perspective.
People's stuff gets reposted/shared.
 
Nope, not correct. There is no right that is absolute; people can have reasonable debates...

Yeah, no. This is the basic argument that every bootlicking fascist whore uses to justify violating basic human rights-- because they're not "absolute", because "we need to do something", because "we live in a society" and because obviously the Constitution was meant to be interpreted by "common sense". Somehow, completely uncoincidentally, "common sense" always means exactly what the bootlicking fascist whore wants it to mean this year, and then next year when he thinks he can get away with a little more, and the year after that when all the stupid, shitty primates have told everyone to "stop overreacting".

Hell, you do it yourself talking about hand grenades and suitcase nukes when we're talking about the State of New York demanding your social media accounts in order to exercise their Constitutional "right" to own a handgun or a rifle. We could have a reasonable discussion about what weapons are legitimate for civilian use... but you're only using that as a smokescreen for the State of New York-- with your approval-- denying people their entire right to keep and bear arms on the basis of their illegal demand to examine a resident's private electronic correspondence without a warrant or any semblance of the due process of law.

And I don't think anyone genuinely believes this, because if you apply that same dumb**** police state logic to human rights they actually believe in, they're entirely capable of comprehending the fact that this argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt, entirely hypocritical and-- seriously, for the love of Christ why do I have to keep explaining this to snot-nosed "liberal" children?-- with today's GOP insanely dangerous.

You should be ashamed of yourself. In a just world, people like you wouldn't be allowed to exercise your First Amendment rights without prior written authorization from the NYPD. After all, your rights aren't absolute. We live in a society.
 
Yeah, no. This is the basic argument that every bootlicking fascist whore

No you are!!! :rolleyes:

Hell, you do it yourself talking about hand grenades and suitcase nukes when we're talking about the State of New York demanding your social media accounts in order to exercise their Constitutional "right" to own a handgun or a rifle.

Nope, not correct - just for those who want a concealed carry permit. You can still keep it in your own home or car with or without a social media checkup even if you're an imbecile or an undiagnosed nutjob with access to daddy's AR-15 collection.

We could have a reasonable discussion about what weapons are legitimate for civilian use... but you're only using that as a smokescreen for the State of New York-- with your approval-- denying people their entire right to keep and bear arms on the basis of their illegal demand to examine a resident's private electronic correspondence without a warrant or any semblance of the due process of law.

1. Again, it's not seeking to void "the entire right to keep and bear arms"

2. They're not seeking a warrant; they're seeking permission in advance.

And I don't think anyone genuinely believes this, because if you apply that same dumb**** police state logic to human rights they actually believe in, they're entirely capable of comprehending the fact that this argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt, entirely hypocritical and-- seriously, for the love of Christ why do I have to keep explaining this to snot-nosed "liberal" children?-- with today's GOP insanely dangerous.

You should be ashamed of yourself. In a just world, people like you wouldn't be allowed to exercise your First Amendment rights without prior written authorization from the NYPD. After all, your rights aren't absolute. We live in a society.

breathelol.jpg
 
They can use a friend to see your account, law enforcement has done it more than once, and the courts ruled in the favor of the police.
Right, but my point is that once people are aware of this as a prerequisite to getting a gun, then modifying an account or deleting it outright would be the smart thing to do; and a quick way to get around it.
 
Agreed there will be problems in doing this but when most all of these mass shooters have social media accounts where they are posting their violent ideas and intentions it seems like a good thing that searches of social media accounts are part of a background check for anyone trying to purchase a firearm.
I'm still skeptical because without that kind of law people let their guard down since they might feel ok running the risk of law enforcement will only check should something happen. Having to declare your social media accounts now puts it out there and will drive those folks further underground.
 
[snip]
As missed warning signs pile up in investigations of mass killings, New York state is rolling out a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits. People seeking to carry concealed handguns will be required to hand over their social media accounts for a review of their “character and conduct.”

Frankly they should do that for all gun buyers. Introduce licenses and screen them for threats. It's what most civilized countries do.
 
[snip]
As missed warning signs pile up in investigations of mass killings, New York state is rolling out a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits. People seeking to carry concealed handguns will be required to hand over their social media accounts for a review of their “character and conduct.”

It’s an approach applauded by many Democrats and national gun control advocacy groups, but some experts have raised questions about how the law will be enforced and address free speech concerns.

Under the law, applicants have to provide local officials with a list of current and former social media accounts from the previous three years. It will be up to local sheriff’s staff, judges or country clerks to scroll through those profiles as they check whether applicants have made statements suggesting dangerous behavior.

The law also will require applicants to undergo hours of safety training, prove they’re proficient at shooting, provide four character references and sit for in-person interviews.

The new approach, however, comes amid growing debate over the policing of social media posts and a legacy of unwarranted surveillance of Black and brown communities.

“The question should be: Can we do this in an anti-racist way that does not create another set of violence, which is the state violence that happens through surveillance?” said University of Pennsylvania social policy, communications and medicine professor Desmond Upton Patton, who also founded SAFElab, a research initiative studying violence involving youths of color.
[snip]

Sorry, but this law is horrendous. You want more restrictions on guns? Fine, I'm ok with that. I'm in favor of the mandatory safety training. But you should NOT have to hand over your social media account to the state. I'm also against the character references, as there are many reasons someone might want a gun but cannot provide character references.

Try again, NY. We do NOT need to increase the surveillance state to control gun violence.
Please correct me if I am wrong

Have not the loons on the SC opend the door to no gun regulation? ESPECIALLY FASCIST THOMAS!

In NY?

So how would that change anything...
 
If people don't like that, they can move to a state that doesn't require it.

I am perfectly okay with states making their own rules for this sort of thing. My state is convenient, at the moment it takes a day or so to buy your first firearm, then an hour or so for any other firearms. Next door in CA, they're probably going to institute colonoscopy tests and asking for the criminal records of your family going back 7 generations.
Past grocery bills would be worth checking. Someone who lives on chips and coke is probably not to be trusted.

Nice try, NY, but I don't think that is a good idea. We should all be more vigilant and alert a site's staff if there is something that needs to be checked into.
 
I'm still skeptical because without that kind of law people let their guard down since they might feel ok running the risk of law enforcement will only check should something happen. Having to declare your social media accounts now puts it out there and will drive those folks further underground.
Would need the social media companies to police their services, which legally they could easily do by including all of that in their terms of use agreements.
 
Ah no it isn’t. The state had a vested interest in making sure nutcases don’t get guns. That does not make it a privilege

The state decides whether or not to grant a CCW permit. The granting makes a CCW a privilege by definition. If not a privilege, what is it?
 
Agreed there will be problems in doing this but when most all of these mass shooters have social media accounts where they are posting their violent ideas and intentions it seems like a good thing that searches of social media accounts are part of a background check for anyone trying to purchase a firearm.

You have moved the goal posts and are now addressing expanding the NICS BGC ‘rules’ for gun buying. How many mass shooters had been issued (state) CCW permits (aka the thread topic)?
 
This is stupid. 1) It's going to get tossed, and 2) There no framework for evaluating the posts, and no staff to do the surveilance.
And, in many cases, including mine, no social media accounts to monitor in the first place.
 
a gun safety class and how to use it should be before a gun is ever laid in your hands....
Exactly. Gun safety should be mandatory in school. Starting in elementary school.
Agreed?
 
Frankly they should do that for all gun buyers. Introduce licenses and screen them for threats. It's what most civilized countries do.
That's what they did in the case of the last mass shooter.
Wait......
 
You have moved the goal posts and are now addressing expanding the NICS BGC ‘rules’ for gun buying. How many mass shooters had been issued (state) CCW permits (aka the thread topic)?
Background checks apply not only for a CCW permit but for any gun purchases
 
And, in many cases, including mine, no social media accounts to monitor in the first place.

Why should the social media monitoring power end once a CCW permit has been issued? After all, doing so only when issuing/renewing someone’s CCW permit is apt to allow some very ‘icky’ posts to “slip through the cracks”. ;)
 
Background checks apply not only for a CCW permit but for any gun purchases

I understand that, but issuing a CCW permit (the thread topic) assumes that the person has already ‘qualified’ to acquire a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom