Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So why are you constantly trying?
Why are you so paranoid? For as many years as you have been scared of someone coming to get your guns, how many times has someone actually come to your door to do that?
Gun siezures under Maryland 'Red Flag' law exceed expectations
Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man - CBS News
What’s your point ? “Red flag” laws require that someone is a danger . The guy in your link sure did seem to fall under that definition .
They never disclosed the reason for the order, so you don’t really know that, do you
They have to go to court and get a judge to order .The guy shows up at the door with gun in hand. Struggle ensues .
Just reading the story you can pick out that the old man was a danger. You imply the police just randomly showed up at his door .
Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
How do you figure? Why am I not surprised that you defend this exercise in totalitarianism?
So why are you constantly trying?
Why are you so paranoid? For as many years as you have been scared of someone coming to get your guns, how many times has someone actually come to your door to do that?
Gun siezures under Maryland 'Red Flag' law exceed expectations
Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man - CBS News
What’s your point ? “Red flag” laws require that someone is a danger . The guy in your link sure did seem to fall under that definition .
They never disclosed the reason for the order, so you don’t really know that, do you
They have to go to court and get a judge to order .The guy shows up at the door with gun in hand. Struggle ensues .
Just reading the story you can pick out that the old man was a danger. You imply the police just randomly showed up at his door .
Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
I don't know about the others, but at least on FaceBook, you can't view somebody else's account or activity unless you have their permission. You can look them up to see if they are on the service of course, but that's where it stops.
I really dont care if they call for such laws in dem cities.
That just means more dead dems.
sure i do lmao! can you show me where?Riiiight, because I'm such a terrorist, lolHAMAS, ISIS and Muslim Brotherhood are more your style.Only because we don't cost places like stormfront.Republicans will be the only ones whose applications are declined.
You support the people who support terrorism.
Sorry, turd, but your search engine history is not public information. There's also a lot of data in your social media accounts that isn't public.Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
Sorry, turd, but your search engine history is not public information. There's also a lot of data in your social media accounts that isn't public.Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
I'm sure he would be thrilled with a law that required anyone who voted to Trump to have a big 'T' tattooed on their foreheads.I take it you approve of this exercise in fascism. Next they will require that you be a snowflake in good standing. I'm sure you will endorse that as well.Oh please . You wipe your ass with the rest of the constitution. But get all holier than thou with the 2nd .
Vacuous pieces of shit like Timmy are drones. They'd be OK with democrooks passing a law forcing the wearing of armband ID.
A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
I don't know about the others, but at least on FaceBook, you can't view somebody else's account or activity unless you have their permission. You can look them up to see if they are on the service of course, but that's where it stops.
Actually, it depends on the privacy settings you put on Facebook. Me? I don't have any restrictions on my page, but then again, I just use it for something that makes it easy for family and friends to get in contact with me. And, it would be easy to get access to the account, because all the police would have to do is set up a dummy account, and do a friend request to the person in question. Once they accept you as a friend, you can view their whole page.
I take it you approve of this exercise in fascism. Next they will require that you be a snowflake in good standing. I'm sure you will endorse that as well.Oh please . You wipe your ass with the rest of the constitution. But get all holier than thou with the 2nd .
Vacuous pieces of shit like Timmy are drones. They'd be OK with democrooks passing a law forcing the wearing of armband ID.
Who said Facebook was the same as a search engine, dumbass? Was that a knee-jerk reaction producing wrong information?Sorry, turd, but your search engine history is not public information. There's also a lot of data in your social media accounts that isn't public.Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:A blatant violation of the First and Second and Sixth Amendments. These Blue State Dims are indistinguishable from Stalinists.
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." Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."
I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
Umm.................a Facebook page isn't the same as a search engine. You might want to find out the difference. And, what data exactly would your social media account have that isn't public? If a person doesn't set their privacy settings, anyone can see it. And, if a person friends another, then the person who was friended can see all the data. What exactly are you talking about?
Oh wait...................forgot..............knee jerk reactions and wrong information are in your wheelhouse.
Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:I suggest you read each of the Amendments very carefully, and if you need help find someone who can explain how the 10th Amendment impacts your comment and how privacy of We the People is not guaranteed anywhere in COTUS.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
I don't know about the others, but at least on FaceBook, you can't view somebody else's account or activity unless you have their permission. You can look them up to see if they are on the service of course, but that's where it stops.
Actually, it depends on the privacy settings you put on Facebook. Me? I don't have any restrictions on my page, but then again, I just use it for something that makes it easy for family and friends to get in contact with me. And, it would be easy to get access to the account, because all the police would have to do is set up a dummy account, and do a friend request to the person in question. Once they accept you as a friend, you can view their whole page.
Okay, so let's say the authorities looked up X to see what they wrote on social media. Then what? In this instance, they would not be allowed to buy a gun in some New York cities based on their discussions alone. I don't see that as due process.
When it comes to eliminating constitutional rights, it needs more than Twitter to remove those rights from a person. If our Constitution is so weak that we are able to deny those rights to an individual based on their discussions, then the Constitution is not a sound structure at all.
Nope. It’s about turning down an American from purchasing a gun.So why are you constantly trying?
Why are you so paranoid? For as many years as you have been scared of someone coming to get your guns, how many times has someone actually come to your door to do that?
Gun siezures under Maryland 'Red Flag' law exceed expectations
Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man - CBS News
What’s your point ? “Red flag” laws require that someone is a danger . The guy in your link sure did seem to fall under that definition .
They never disclosed the reason for the order, so you don’t really know that, do you
They have to go to court and get a judge to order .The guy shows up at the door with gun in hand. Struggle ensues .
Just reading the story you can pick out that the old man was a danger. You imply the police just randomly showed up at his door .
Can you show me where I supported terrorists?sure i do lmao! can you show me where?Riiiight, because I'm such a terrorist, lolHAMAS, ISIS and Muslim Brotherhood are more your style.Only because we don't cost places like stormfront.
You support the people who support terrorism.
You're a leftist,of course you support terrorist.
Did I mention the 10th Amendment? I don't think I did. This legislation clearly violates the two of the amendments I listed. However, the 6th Amendment isn't one of the Amendments I wanted to list. It's the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th doesn't apply to social media. Why? Because social media is a public place. Simply looking at someone's social media on a publicly accessible platform isn't "unreasonable search and seizure". That applies to your house, and also means that the police can't check your house without a warrant or just cause to enter your house.
I don't know about the others, but at least on FaceBook, you can't view somebody else's account or activity unless you have their permission. You can look them up to see if they are on the service of course, but that's where it stops.
Actually, it depends on the privacy settings you put on Facebook. Me? I don't have any restrictions on my page, but then again, I just use it for something that makes it easy for family and friends to get in contact with me. And, it would be easy to get access to the account, because all the police would have to do is set up a dummy account, and do a friend request to the person in question. Once they accept you as a friend, you can view their whole page.
Okay, so let's say the authorities looked up X to see what they wrote on social media. Then what? In this instance, they would not be allowed to buy a gun in some New York cities based on their discussions alone. I don't see that as due process.
When it comes to eliminating constitutional rights, it needs more than Twitter to remove those rights from a person. If our Constitution is so weak that we are able to deny those rights to an individual based on their discussions, then the Constitution is not a sound structure at all.
If social media was the only deciding factor for denying a gun purchase, you MIGHT have a point. But, social media is only one factor, and if a person says violent things on social media, as well as has several arrests for misdemeanor assault, I would not want that person having a gun in their possession, as they don't seem capable of controlling their impulses (assault arrests), as well as are displaying a violent streak by saying violent or subversive things on social media.
If Dylan Roof's social media page had been looked at, maybe he wouldn't have gotten the guns he used to shoot up the church.
LolI take it you approve of this exercise in fascism. Next they will require that you be a snowflake in good standing. I'm sure you will endorse that as well.How do you figure? Why am I not surprised that you defend this exercise in totalitarianism?
Oh please . You wipe your ass with the rest of the constitution. But get all holier than thou with the 2nd .
Shut your face ! You care nothing about our freedoms other than the 2nd .
And yeah this has potential. How many times do we find these psycho mass killers leaving behind obvious calling cards on social media .
