If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent Journal Review)   Guns don't kill people. People who Google guns kill people   (ijreview.com) divider line 55
    More: Asinine, Google, AdWords, gun owners, Google Product Search  
•       •       •

2188 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Jul 2012 at 5:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 12:51:22 AM  
Um, it seems to me that each state has very convoluted and different laws concerning the transfer of gun ownership, especially accross state lines, and google does not want to have to deal with it.

As long as they were playing craigslist/ebay the feds were okay with it, but if they start taking credit card payments and putting up storefronts for people, it gets harder to argue that google is not a facilitator of the gun transfer, which puts certain legal requirements on google proper. It's far easier for google at that point to just say fark it, and ban gun sales through google wallet altogether.

It's not some grand illuminatiesque conspiracy, merely a lack of bother for google to have a full-time employee monitoring a product line that makes up 0.000002% of sales. You probably can't buy booze or cigs though google wallet, either, for similar reasons.
 
2012-07-11 01:53:56 AM  
So if a business does not allow the sale of guns on it's premises (real or virtual) that's "banning constitutionally protected firearms"?

So if my grocery store doesn't sell me a gun....

What the hell?
 
2012-07-11 02:49:39 AM  
Almost like selling guns requires a crapload of licenses, paperwork, and lawyers that cost more money than they bring in or something.

Why can't companies do things other than focus on profit? I demand access to guns and ammunition on every medium!
 
2012-07-11 05:37:58 AM  
Don't make me Bing for guns! You dicks!
 
2012-07-11 05:50:33 AM  

Doctor Jan Itor: Don't make me Bing for guns! You dicks!


You know, maybe this is the biggest argument the article could've used.

People will have to use Bing, and it will be on YOUR hands, Google!

/Posted from my Zune
 
2012-07-11 06:22:28 AM  
No knives, you dangerous cooking freaks!

Good thing, too, because they have no venison, pheasant, rabbit, nor duck.
 
2012-07-11 06:28:17 AM  
Its their "store" they can do as they like.

Just so long as it makes them feeeel better to do so, that's what's important.
 
2012-07-11 07:03:13 AM  

Nick Nostril: Its their "store" they can do as they like.

Just so long as it makes them feeeel better to do so, that's what's important.


Well, when you are a "large target" with deep pockets, you tend to get into a mindframe that whatever makes your lawyers happy makes you happy. I know that if I were a lawyer for a firm like Google, i would want that firm to have as little as possible to do with the sort of cock-a-doody whackos that trade and discuss guns on the Internets.
 
2012-07-11 07:22:39 AM  
For a bunch of manly men, gun owners seem to have some of the whiniest little b*tches representing them.

If you're so rugged and independent, why not create your own online marketplace, guys?
 
2012-07-11 07:42:25 AM  
Meh, it's googles business, all to say nothing of their need to limit their own legal exposure and liability... I think it's weird that all these people talk about freedom, but they somehow think google should be forced to partake in gun sales.
 
2012-07-11 07:45:28 AM  

Sid_6.7: For a bunch of manly men, gun owners seem to have some of the whiniest little b*tches representing them.

If you're so rugged and independent, why not create your own online marketplace, guys?


its called gunbroker.com last time i checked.

between the buy/sell forum of your local area gun community site, the local gun shows which come in to town every few months, aimsurplus, southern ohio gun, century arms, classicarms.us, jgsales.com, cheaperthandirt.com... cmon what's this guy getting worked up over? these are just the ones i could think of off the top of my head and i havent even bought any gun stuff in ages.

this guy is just whining. the gun totin' community has all sorts of message boards and forums where we deal in our vile business.

this guy's just being all hanky-clenching and silly. the NRA guys are as bad as the evangelicals about finding perceived slights against them.
 
2012-07-11 07:57:45 AM  
Insurance companies denying access to birth control: Constitutionally protected right.
Google denying gun sales on it's network.: UN AMERICAN TREASONOUS SCUM DIE!

/seems right.
 
2012-07-11 07:57:54 AM  
And furthermore....

CSB:
As someone who has a „C&R" license, this means, i can buy any firearm classified as a "Curious and Relic" through the mail. Most guns over 50 years old which are not assault weapons are on this list. For me, this means old bolt actions and 1st gen semis. Since I collect militaria and historical stuff, this is great fun... most of the rifles carried by the great powers of the 20th century's conflicts I have, and its fun to shoot these old wooden beasts and be grateful im not carrying it across Europe or the Pacific or whatever.

But many many sellers on gunbroker.com REFUSE to sell to me because I lived in California. "NO SALES TO THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KKKALIFORNIA" and all this stuff. Why? "ERMAHGERD WE DON'T WANNA SERPERT NO BLUE 'BAMA LUVIN SOSHULISMS STATE" at worst to "sorry this firearm being shipped to California may be in violation of some local CA state law we are not aware of and may put us at legal risk, and this istn worth the sale" at best.
/CSB

So if gunstores refuse to deal with the intricacies of intrastate firearm sales, its them celebrating their freedom as a merchant to business as they see fit, but when the googles does it for the same reasons, theyre oppressing the 2nd amendment.

Just so that's clear everyone.
 
2012-07-11 08:03:29 AM  

Sim Tree: Um, it seems to me that each state has very convoluted and different laws concerning the transfer of gun ownership, especially accross state lines, and google does not want to have to deal with it.

As long as they were playing craigslist/ebay the feds were okay with it, but if they start taking credit card payments and putting up storefronts for people, it gets harder to argue that google is not a facilitator of the gun transfer, which puts certain legal requirements on google proper. It's far easier for google at that point to just say fark it, and ban gun sales through google wallet altogether.

It's not some grand illuminatiesque conspiracy, merely a lack of bother for google to have a full-time employee monitoring a product line that makes up 0.000002% of sales. You probably can't buy booze or cigs though google wallet, either, for similar reasons.


Bububut unregulated gun sales! Loopholes! Unlicensed dealers! People can just walk into any store and buy a 50 caliber AK47 tank killer cop killer sniper killer killer rifle! And it looks all scary and stuff!

Actually, what you say is probably a big part of it. The numbers and types of laws and regulations placed on dealers by the feds and the states, not to mention some local towns are ridiculous. One of the largest internet dealers for ammunition is in N.J., yet they will not ship in-state due to N.J. laws. I suspect at least some of it is politics, not that Google is making a stand, they just don't want all the crap the anti-gunners will dish out. The pro-guners will biatch and moan a bit, and then most likely accept it so long as Google explains it without politics, and doesn't start preaching anti-gun stuff.

/drtfa
 
2012-07-11 08:15:26 AM  

tomWright: Actually, what you say is probably a big part of it. The numbers and types of laws and regulations placed on dealers by the feds and the states, not to mention some local towns are ridiculous. One of the largest internet dealers for ammunition is in N.J., yet they will not ship in-state due to N.J. laws. I suspect at least some of it is politics, not that Google is making a stand, they just don't want all the crap the anti-gunners will dish out. The pro-guners will biatch and moan a bit, and then most likely accept it so long as Google explains it without politics, and doesn't start preaching anti-gun stuff.


I think you've actually got that backwards, at least these days. Nobody particularly cares if they piss off the Brady Bunch anymore, because they are effectively neutered. They've got no grass roots organization.

As for the myriad of regulations, that's true, and it's unfortunate. The Heller and McDonald decisions, however, give us a bit of ammunition to fight back. I'm sure that at some point, someone is going to challenge some of the most egregious laws at some point. I can't see, for example, New Jersey's ban on hollow point ammunition surviving a Second Amendment challenge, because it is "in common use" elsewhere, and is no more dangerous than other equivalent ammunition that is legal in NJ.

The problem is finding people who aren't criminals who are willing to go to court over it. That, and the fact that we haven't been able to clone Alan Gura. Yet.
 
2012-07-11 08:17:07 AM  

tomWright: Sim Tree: Um, it seems to me that each state has very convoluted and different laws concerning the transfer of gun ownership, especially accross state lines, and google does not want to have to deal with it.

As long as they were playing craigslist/ebay the feds were okay with it, but if they start taking credit card payments and putting up storefronts for people, it gets harder to argue that google is not a facilitator of the gun transfer, which puts certain legal requirements on google proper. It's far easier for google at that point to just say fark it, and ban gun sales through google wallet altogether.

It's not some grand illuminatiesque conspiracy, merely a lack of bother for google to have a full-time employee monitoring a product line that makes up 0.000002% of sales. You probably can't buy booze or cigs though google wallet, either, for similar reasons.

Bububut unregulated gun sales! Loopholes! Unlicensed dealers! People can just walk into any store and buy a 50 caliber AK47 tank killer cop killer sniper killer killer rifle! And it looks all scary and stuff!

Actually, what you say is probably a big part of it. The numbers and types of laws and regulations placed on dealers by the feds and the states, not to mention some local towns are ridiculous. One of the largest internet dealers for ammunition is in N.J., yet they will not ship in-state due to N.J. laws. I suspect at least some of it is politics, not that Google is making a stand, they just don't want all the crap the anti-gunners will dish out. The pro-guners will biatch and moan a bit, and then most likely accept it so long as Google explains it without politics, and doesn't start preaching anti-gun stuff.

/drtfa


The article I read about this last week intimated that the so-called ban was on anything firearms related, meaning you couldn't search for a holster or Colt tee shirt or anything, even once you went through all the proper channels to purchase the a actual firearm. That could be a bunch of bs, I didn't investigate it too deep-I doubt I've ever used Google to search for anything firearms related personally.
But, I'd also suspect the remark about Google wanting to create a "safe, family environment" is irritating to many gun owners who do not see an innocuous firearms related item like a holster or tee shirt being unsafe or anti-family. Maybe if it was a tee shirt of someone shooting at a family or something.
 
2012-07-11 08:42:23 AM  

Father_Jack: its called gunbroker.com last time i checked.

between the buy/sell forum of your local area gun community site, the local gun shows which come in to town every few months, aimsurplus, southern ohio gun, century arms, classicarms.us, jgsales.com, cheaperthandirt.com... cmon what's this guy getting worked up over? these are just the ones i could think of off the top of my head and i havent even bought any gun stuff in ages.

this guy is just whining. the gun totin' community has all sorts of message boards and forums where we deal in our vile business.

this guy's just being all hanky-clenching and silly. the NRA guys are as bad as the evangelicals about finding perceived slights against them.


I often used Google to price guns. I basically hit up buds gun shop, gunbroker, and google shopping to find a baseline minimum price. Google shopping was particularly helpful for accessories.. such as if I wanted some tru-glo TFOs for a [insert specific pistol]. Now that'll be gone. I don't consider it an affront to my rights or anything silly like that. It's google's prerogative to do whatever they want. For me it's another nail in the coffin. Unless they come up with something really compelling before then I'm going to be changing my home page and primary search some time before iGoogle goes away.
 
2012-07-11 08:42:24 AM  
WHARGOOGLE!
 
2012-07-11 08:56:04 AM  

Mr.Tangent: Insurance companies denying access to offering insurance coverage that doesn't include birth control: Constitutionally protected right.
Google denying gun sales on it's network.: UN AMERICAN TREASONOUS SCUM DIE!

/seems right.


FTFY

/you were spot on with the second half, though.
 
2012-07-11 09:07:53 AM  

Ambivalence: So if a business does not allow the sale of guns on it's premises (real or virtual) that's "banning constitutionally protected firearms"?

So if my grocery store doesn't sell me a gun....


This is actually what NRA nutters believe.

The NRA spends so much time keeping members afraid of "gun grabbers" I am surprised they have time to lobby.
 
2012-07-11 09:10:30 AM  
Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere."

For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.
 
2012-07-11 09:12:30 AM  

Your_Huckleberry: But, I'd also suspect the remark about Google wanting to create a "safe, family environment" is irritating to many gun owners who do not see an innocuous firearms related item like a holster or tee shirt being unsafe or anti-family.


The family that shoots together, is in cahoots together.

/And that's not a bad thing.
 
2012-07-11 09:20:45 AM  

Sid_6.7: For a bunch of manly men, gun owners seem to have some of the whiniest little b*tches representing them.

If you're so rugged and independent, why not create your own online marketplace, guys?


They did back when ebay kicked them off a decade ago, it does pretty brisk business. Still it's not nearly as well trafficed as Google.
 
2012-07-11 09:32:42 AM  

SpectroBoy: Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere."

For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.


The NRA's problem is that they won. DC v Heller is to gun rights advocates what Roe v Wade is to Pro-Choice advocates. They're still going to stick around, like NARL does for instance, but the bottom line is that no one is going to be able to ban either guns or abortion any time soon.
 
2012-07-11 10:08:43 AM  

meanmutton: but the bottom line is that no one is going to be able to ban either guns or abortion any time soon.


They may not be able to ban abortion, but between defunding PP, restrictions on location, and shooting abortion doctors, abortions have become unobtainable in a practical sense in lots of US jurisdictions. Your analogy fails.
 
2012-07-11 10:12:48 AM  

SpectroBoy: Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere."

For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.


That's because there have been instances where gun bans have been put into effect (see: DC handgun ban, Chicago handgun ban, national Assault Weapons Ban, various state versions of the AWB that didn't sunset like the AWB).

As for G. Ray Arnett, he doesn't even have credibility with the anti-gunners:

When G. Ray Arnett was ousted from the NRA leadership in May 1986, among the reasons cited were: "Mr. Arnett has made personnel decisions on the basis of his personal interest rather than the interests of the Association." These charges stemmed from Arnett's relationship with NRA staffer Tracey Attlee. Attlee was a frequent Arnett travel and shooting companion. In 1986 Arnett promoted Attlee from the public education division to international shooting with an unauthorized salary increase of more than $13,000. This, coupled with Arnett's dismissal of the remaining public education staff, resulted in the NRA board's removal of both Arnett and Attlee. -VPC May 1995 press release.

As for his point, well, that's true of all organizations. While Arnett might be speaking from a position of sour grapes (after all, the NRA fired him and his lover because of his misconduct), it is true that organizations, like living organisms, don't like to die.

If you think about it, though, the NRA's reaction to proposed gun legislation is actually pretty rational. The NRA wasn't all that radical until the 'leadership coup' in 1977. It wasn't actually a coup, it was a vote by the membership to be more proactive in protecting what was much later vindicated by the Supreme Court as their individual right to own guns, and to remove the leadership that they felt wasn't doing enough to protect that right. The "old" NRA was accused of just caring about the rights of white guys to target shoot and deer hunt, and to a certain degree that's a fair criticism.

The memory of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was still fresh, and they still had to put up with some of the worse parts of it (this is before FOPA '86). Washington DC had just passed a complete ban on handguns (those already registered were 'grandfathered'). The only pro-gun viewpoint you'd see on TV would be from the likes of Archie Bunker. The idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right was laughed at by almost all constitutional scholars, and judges found intellectually dishonest ways of denying that it was an individual right. This was the heyday of organizations like the National Council to Control Handguns (later Handgun Control, Inc., and now the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"). There were actual calls for national bans on handguns, and they weren't necessarily pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

In other words, the NRA became radicalized because it *HAD* to, or it would have been hammered into irrelevance eventually, ending up like the shooting organizations in the United Kingdom.

Not that things immediately improved because of their stance: Yeah, we did get the FOPA in '86, but because of an illegal voice vote overseen by Charlie Rangel, machine gunners got thrown under the bus. Cop-killer bullet bans, which would have banned deer rifle ammunition had not the NRA stepped in and righted that one*. Brady law which enforced a national waiting period on handguns, AWB, etc. It took a *LONG* time and a lot of effort to just stop the progress of anti-gun legislation, and to start rolling it back. Then we had incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco, where it was perceived (rightly or wrongly) that the federal government had overstepped it's bounds to persecute gun owners, and ended up killing innocents in the process.

It was, however, an external event that tipped the balance: 9/11.

Rational or not, a large number of people felt they needed to be able to protect themselves, and they also saw that the worst terrorist attack on US soil, one that resulted in more deaths than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, was perpetrated by 19 guys carrying box cutters. It just seemed stupid to be arguing about banning guns at that point.

Quietly, behind the scenes, the legal scholarship about the Second Amendment had changed: Whereas in the 1970's it was a radical idea among constitutional law scholars that the Second Amendment might protect an individual right, enough research had been done so that by Y2K, the idea that it protected an individual right was being termed the "Standard Model". The judiciary had yet to catch up, but by the early to mid 2000's, we started seeing court cases that stated the Second Amendment protected some sort of individual right.

Then, in 2008, we got Heller which recognized it as an individual right federally, shortly followed by McDonald which incorporated that right against the states.

If you look at the NRA with just an eye for the last few years, you very might well wonder why they are seemingly paranoid about every last little perceived incursion against gun rights. But when you consider the NRA in the light of the last 40+ years, you will understand that paranoia has been come by honestly: There really *WERE* people out to get them, and to a lesser extent there still are, but the breaks have been mostly going their way for the last decade or so.


*All deer rifles can penetrate the most common "bullet proof vests" worn by the police, as those vests are designed to stop common pistol bullets which have much less energy than a deer rifle.
 
2012-07-11 10:15:55 AM  

meanmutton: FTFY

/you were spot on with the second half, though.


Being an uninformed Canadian I'll accept your revision. =P
 
2012-07-11 10:16:17 AM  

Father_Jack: And furthermore....

CSB:

But many many sellers on gunbroker.com REFUSE to sell to me because I lived in California. "NO SALES TO THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KKKALIFORNIA" and all this stuff. Why? "ERMAHGERD WE DON'T WANNA SERPERT NO BLUE 'BAMA LUVIN SOSHULISMS STATE" at worst to "sorry this firearm being shipped to California may be in violation of some local CA state law we are not aware of and may put us at legal risk, and this istn worth the sale" at best.
/CSB

Just so that's clear everyone.


Just got my C1 FFL a few weeks ago. During the interview with the ATF agent she made a specific comment that at all costs I should avoid doing interstate transfers to California, New York, or New Jersey.
 
2012-07-11 10:27:28 AM  
This is what Google bans for Google Shopping...

•Vehicles
•Guns, ammunition and knives
•Tobacco and cigarettes
•Traffic devices (Learn more)
•Products related to casino and gambling
•Products or digital goods that require additional software installation in order to be purchased.
•Products bundled with service plans. (Note: The only products that are allowed to be submitted with a service plan are mobile devices.)


What is funny, I can find books on how to smuggle cocaine. (searched for cocaine)


I can find an apron made of fabric featuring the winston cigarette logo. (searched for winston cigarettes)

But my search is empty if I look for remington, colt, sig sauer, rifle scopes, holster. In fact the category "Weapon Sights and Scopes" is entirely empty. According to their new policy, only firearm parts are not to be sold. Accessories are acceptable in the US. Not sure why nothing is popping up. I can completely understand not wanting to deal with actual hardware. You can't buy receivers and what not on Amazon either (buy you can buy hand guards and the like).


This all looks to be part of the change of Google Shopping to an Amazon like storefront.

In the end, I don't really care because Google shopping still sucks. Adwords and search results don't seem to be impacted, so you'll still be able to find where to buy a new lower receiver. In fact, "AR-15 lower receiver" still had nearly one million hits on a plain google search.
 
2012-07-11 10:46:17 AM  

Sim Tree: Um, it seems to me that each state has very convoluted and different laws concerning the transfer of gun ownership, especially accross state lines, and google does not want to have to deal with it.


They could always Google for those laws...
 
2012-07-11 11:02:39 AM  

meanmutton: SpectroBoy: Former National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Ray Arnet once said, "You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere."

For years, the NRA has warned that nationwide gun bans and confiscation were right around the corner. These threats made up in hysterical rhetoric for what they lacked in credibility.

The NRA's problem is that they won. DC v Heller is to gun rights advocates what Roe v Wade is to Pro-Choice advocates. They're still going to stick around, like NARL does for instance, but the bottom line is that no one is going to be able to ban either guns or abortion any time soon.


Well, they haven't *COMPLETELY* won. There are several problems that still need to be taken care of despite Heller and McDonald. Here are the ones I see:

1. The "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". Some states won't allow you to carry a firearm, either open or concealed, without a permit that they can deny or revoke at whim (so-called "may issue" states). Heller and McDonald only explicitly ruled on the "keep" part, taking ownership bans off the table, though they did suggest there was a right to carry for lawful purposes (like self-defense), subject to narrow restrictions.

2. So called "Assault Weapons" need to be explicitly protected, and state bans on such need to be struck down. They are in common use, with tens of millions of them in circulation, and they are suitable for core activities protected by the Second Amendment.

3. Punitive and discriminatory permitting processes and fees need to be ruled unconstitutional. If you have to pay on the order of $300 to $400 and spend hours of your time to navigate a bureaucratic process designed to discourage you just to get the "right" to purchase a $400 Ruger handgun, you don't have much of a "right", do you? It should cost no more in time, money, and effort to get a carry permit than it does to get a driver's license.

4. States need to be forced to recognize the carry permits of others, so long as they meet some minimum standard. After all, I can drive in any state on my NYS driver's license, and my marriage is valid in all states also.

5. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA needs to be overturned. That amendment banned any new machine guns from being registered with the ATF after 1986. It froze the supply of legally transferable civilian owned machine guns, and it was passed with some *SERIOUS* late night legislative shenanigans. Because legally owned machine guns have essentially never been a crime problem, I like to use this as my "compromise" position: If you propose to enact some new gun law, I propose repealing the Hughes Amendment in the spirit of getting something in addition to giving something. That separates the people who are honestly trying to help, and those who just hate guns from an ideological standpoint.

6. Weapons other than firearms need to fall under the Second Amendment. I know the NRA isn't going to argue for this one, because they are a gun rights organization, but the right to own and carry knives and other weapons (including less-lethal ones with obvious self-defense utility like Mace, pepper spray, tasers, etc.) needs to be protected. I've actually been mildly hassled for wearing a sheath knife obviously designed for hunting (the handle is the antler of a deer I shot 15 years ago) in open view, during hunting season, while in hunting clothing, obviously having just returned from, you know, hunting.

That's just off the top of my head.

I'd also like to point out that both Heller and McDonald were decided by 5 to 4 votes: Just a single switch could essentially nullify what has been done so far, by construing those decisions very narrowly. For example, a future court with a different ideological balance could decide that huge fees and registration is OK from a Second Amendment standpoint, so long as you can get the gun if you are qualified. That could effectively put gun ownership out of reach of many people, a large proportion of which would be minorities.
 
2012-07-11 11:20:55 AM  
Google deletes speech it doesn't like even when its not hate speech...this is just par for the course.


Google is a corporation....why do people give some corporations a pass....they are all evil.
 
2012-07-11 11:48:20 AM  
I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?
 
2012-07-11 11:55:11 AM  

Mr.Tangent: meanmutton: FTFY

/you were spot on with the second half, though.

Being an uninformed Canadian I'll accept your revision. =P


Oh, if you're Canadian, here's the real kicker: the vast majority of American insurance plans have co-pays for prescription medicines (a cost that you pay before your insurance picks up the tab). These range from $10 to $40 generally. There are lots of health insurance plans which "cover" birth control but the cost of the birth control usually falls under the co-pay amount. Generic birth control pills, for instance, cost about $8 a month (below the usual $10-20 generic co-pay) and name-brand birth-control pills are around $30 or so a month (which is under the $40 name-brand co-pay that lots of insurances have). So even if your insurance "covers" it, you're paying for it out of pocket.
 
2012-07-11 12:00:10 PM  
Why is this a problem?

Just go to a proper gun shop. Support your local gun-totin' businesses.
 
2012-07-11 12:00:20 PM  

MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?


Don't blame us for this one hypocrite.
 
2012-07-11 12:03:08 PM  

MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?


If you had read the article in question, nowhere does it mention government coming in and regulating businesses. It even explicitly denounces that:

Google can do whatever they please, so long as it is legal, seeing as the Constitution protects them in the very same way it protects our right to bear arms.

If anything, it's an indirect call for a boycott of Google, using the power of the pocketbook to make a company change its ways, not a legislative hammer.

Try again.
 
2012-07-11 12:04:28 PM  

meanmutton: MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?

Don't blame us for this one hypocrite.


What makes me a hypocrite?
 
2012-07-11 12:21:51 PM  

dittybopper: MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?

If you had read the article in question, nowhere does it mention government coming in and regulating businesses. It even explicitly denounces that:

Google can do whatever they please, so long as it is legal, seeing as the Constitution protects them in the very same way it protects our right to bear arms.

If anything, it's an indirect call for a boycott of Google, using the power of the pocketbook to make a company change its ways, not a legislative hammer.

Try again.


Legislative Hammer is the name of my Judas Priest cover band.
 
2012-07-11 12:28:33 PM  

MyNameIsMofuga: dittybopper: MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?

If you had read the article in question, nowhere does it mention government coming in and regulating businesses. It even explicitly denounces that:

Google can do whatever they please, so long as it is legal, seeing as the Constitution protects them in the very same way it protects our right to bear arms.

If anything, it's an indirect call for a boycott of Google, using the power of the pocketbook to make a company change its ways, not a legislative hammer.

Try again.

Legislative Hammer is the name of my Judas Priest cover band.


Mine is "Green Manalishi that takes two flushes to drown".
 
2012-07-11 01:15:11 PM  
Google has some sort of store?

Where the fark have I been?

Or does AdBlock (thankfully) hide any mention of it?
 
2012-07-11 02:56:55 PM  

MyNameIsMofuga: meanmutton: MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?

Don't blame us for this one hypocrite.

What makes me a hypocrite?


Wait, are you the guy who is whining in the article? He's the hypocrite.
 
2012-07-11 03:06:27 PM  

meanmutton: MyNameIsMofuga: meanmutton: MyNameIsMofuga: I am confused. The Government needs to stop regulating businesses unless businesses are doing something I don't like? Is that correct right wingers?

Don't blame us for this one hypocrite.

What makes me a hypocrite?

Wait, are you the guy who is whining in the article? He's the hypocrite.


No I am just a lurker who occasionally posts stupid or snarky comments on www.fark.com.
 
2012-07-11 03:10:04 PM  
Subby, you dumb bastard. It's not Googlers, it's this guy:

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-11 06:30:57 PM  

Sid_6.7: For a bunch of manly men, gun owners seem to have some of the whiniest little b*tches representing them.

If you're so rugged and independent, why not create your own online marketplace, guys?


There you go little biatch. http://www.gunsamerica.com/
 
2012-07-11 06:44:22 PM  
You can search for blow up dolls but not rifle scopes... Good one Google.
 
2012-07-11 06:47:06 PM  

Mr.Tangent: Insurance companies denying access to birth control: Constitutionally protected right.
Google denying gun sales on it's network.: UN AMERICAN TREASONOUS SCUM DIE!

/seems right.


that was actually about government forcing religious run insurance to pay for birth control, which is not medically necessary and which they believe to be immoral. im not religious and i dont think birth control is wrong but i do think that a religion should be allowed to not do things that it believes are wrong when the result is not harmful.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:27 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: Subby, you dumb bastard. It's not Googlers, it's this guy:

[i45.tinypic.com image 495x539]


Takin' that on like a man!
 
2012-07-11 10:50:44 PM  
This is really inconvenient, I used Google a lot when pricing guns and related items, it really stream lined things when comparing prices and such. I don't understand how Google could have possible had any liability for the sale of those items as they were nothing but a middle man, even if a store that was advertising on their sold guns you still had to go through a FFL dealer to buy anything.

What is insulting is their insinuation that guns and accessories are somehow less "family friendly" than dildos and other sex toys.


/Dittybopper is right the NRA is paranoid for a good reason.
 
2012-07-12 04:15:19 AM  
So, according to this dickbag's opinion, because a company doesn't want to get involved in a convoluted sales process involving something that's restricted/sold/registered differently from state to state, and whose sale across interstate lines is in some ways restricted, they should not sell anything.

Ergo, because Google doesn't sell AUTO INSURANCE, they shouldn't sell anything.

I mean, wow, what a farking moron.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report