This is rather chilling...
 

From the AP:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — 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.”

Look, no one wants to see these instances of gun violence continue. But, having bureaucrats in the NY State gov't responsible for evaluating an individual's “character and conduct” sounds like starting down a path towards something like Communist China's social credit scoring system.

Looks like privacy only matters to some folks when talking about "abortion rights".

I assume you can just take the fifth. And taking the fifth can not be held against you.

Also, when I applied for a job about 6 years ago, I made my Facebook account hidden and deleted almost all my posts. After I got the jobs, the ladies there admitted they checked out my facebook account before they hired me. ;) That was also the job I retired from so this sort of thing is irrelevant to me. That's also true because I live in Kentucky. :D

But I don't do Facebook any more. In fact, I'm not on ANY social media that has my actual name attached to it. I even use "garbage" email accounts to access them. So I don't really exist on social media.

This wouldn't be occurring were it not for the SCOTUS prohibiting the appropriate regulation of firearms in NY. You reap what you sow.

Since when is a public forum exempt from part of being a background check, and why not?

Why is abortion left to each individual state to regulate but not gun ownership?

1) In fact, the SCOTUS ruling came AFTER the Buffalo NY shooting. Once again, this demonstrates that an individual intent on breaking the law and committing murder on any scale, much less what happened in Buffalo, isn't going to stop and consult local gun laws before they start shooting.
2) The SCOTUS has NOT prohibited the APPROPRIATE regulation of firearms in NY. They did peel back an overly restrictive carry law. In fact, the SCOTUS ruling in the NY case affirms appropriate legislation such as “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling, and in laws regarding the use of force.”

Where are you getting this idea? Most states have their own set of firearms regulations.

Guns are in the constitution. Abortion is not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m55zo85IvA

HAHAHA! Define "apropriate". You can regulate all you want - as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

I went through a background check to get a job with the FDIC a while back. It was incredibly intrusive. They interviewed, IN PERSON, my family and friends. But getting that job was not a constitutional right. The only thing a background check to legally own a gun can do is check your "legal" or "criminal" background, if any.

Faux "News" Host Stands by Claim About Pregnant Women in Kenya Amid Backlash
‘RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT’
Compagno claimed pregnant women aren’t allowed to leave home and thus have no right to vote, prompting Kenyans to call the claim false and demand an apology.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ne...arked-backlash

...chilling indeed that MAGAMorons get their "news" from this disgusting outlet...

Where in the constitution does it say that everyone can own an assault weapon? Where does it say one can concealed carry without a permit?

If abortion is unconstitutional, why is it legal in California?

The Catholic Court of the United States, aka. SCOTUS did rule against the NY state limiting gun ownership.

No one said that abortion is "unconstitutional". It is also not a Constitutionally-protected right.

There was no standard definition of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" at the time the Constitution or Bill of Rights were written. And there's not a standard definition today.

Yes, that specific NY law was deemed overly restrictive. SCOTUS also affirmed that other laws with provisions for background checks, fingerprinting, etc. were just fine.

The gun fanatics, the sub-group of gun owners, use the Second Amendment as a loophole for private gun ownership. They stretch the "well regulated militia" to mean anyone that wants a gun. They include under this umbrella any ol' kind of gun they want. They never question why the Gubment prohibits private ownership of machine guns and fully automatic firing guns however do they? I wonder why that is? Why do we entertain the discussion on gun ownership anyway? The group that says owning any and every gun & rifles they want is their God given U.S. constitutional right will never see things any other way. As long as they can be led to believe buy the NRA fueled Congressional members that any restrictions will lead to all their guns being taken away leaving them helpless against the marauding hoards or the tyrannical government out to get them and take away all their freedums the restrictions will be fought against tooth and nail the will of the people be damned.
Abortion, it may not not unconstitutional but the woman behind the case that led to overturning Roe V. Wade is being warmly welcomed by the Republican Party and is on a mission to make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

My super progressive hard leftist daughter has a concealed carry permit and owns 2 AR style semi-automatic rifles... go figure

There are fewer 'getting up for political violence' sorts of the left, so far, but there are some. Reaction to the big trend on the right is natural. After not being armed for years, I got armed in Dec 2020. Don't plan on joining any disorder, but might become a refugee from some, and might need to protect myself 'on the road.'

California has a faction that hates the 'Confederate descendant' culture, wants to secede from red-state America, and is arming with that idea in mind. Probably a pretty small faction, don't really know. But pretty big percentages of Californians are at least somewhat sympathetic to the secession idea in polls, and the right sort of political turmoil/violence, say a 'successful' coup, could make that a majority.

Sorry for not making my point clear. It was not about political violence. There are an equal number of wack jobs on both sides of the political spectrum. She has guns because that’s how she was raised. My point is she is very progressive with most of her political views but very conservative with some like the Second Amendment. People should not be All in for one team or the other, that’s the root of the problem.

Got the clarification. Hard progressive left daughter not up for a fight just now.

I would dispute your 'equal numbers' claim, based on number of arrests. But did you see this piece in the Wash Post, linked by Finbow in another thread? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...tic-breakdown/

Many if not most of the Lefties I know who are weapons owners. Have them for personal protection and sport. Hunting and target practice not dressup wannabes playing army.....

See the weapon as a tool not as a toy like most of the right leaners I have first hand knowledge of.

This is basically why "originalism" is nonsense, and we know what a rapid fire/high capacity interchangeable magazine tactical firearm is by definition.
Semantics is no defense of the obvious.

IMO using that logic leads us to things the 1st covers that have advanced with time. But I am a simple man with a simple point of view. :)

I'll admit I from time to time have wondered if things might work out better if we took "speech" in the 1st to mean unamplified oration only.

What's the bounty on aborting a corporation in Tex-ass?

I can say the same about the gun owners I know no matter thier political leanings. I do not know anyone "playing army", those are loud minority therefore they are front and center in the spotlight. And I am not down playing it, I do agree with the threat assessments. Also I only used leftist as a quick descriptor for my daughter.

And since I read and do rarely post, I am a middle of the road independent that thinks the extremes of both teams are equally effed up.

The problem is obvious, 2nd amendment absolutists holding that any compromise risks their perceived constitutionally protected right to armed insurrection under their interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd against a gvmt they see as antithetical to their agenda as obstacles for the goal of dominance.
Other folk's dead kids at the desks are a cheap enough price for their liberty, never mind everyman being a potential target in a public shooting gallery.

The use of "playing army" is to cover the III%'rs and other so called militias around. Have not gone to the range this year. Seeing this year our state went to a constitutional carry compared to permits. With last years crop of boys with toys at the range. Figured after two near misses last year, at being shot by "accident" passed going.

Maybe you'all don't have the openly advertising, they are for chaos, pledging resistance to the so************************t government! Infringing on their "freedoms"....

Not disagreeing that they are not there, so don't take my comments as opposition, just commenting that they are a very loud minority in the big scheme of things and not down playing the threat. I took 2 oaths to support and defend, Military and LE, and in my mind they are part of "enemies foreign and domestic"

Some of us that carry are the trained person with a gun that can make a difference.

Agree with you and could tell from the post we were on the same wave length.

Yes they are a very vocal minority and seem to enjoy being the bully. Have a neighbor who will wear a exposed sidearm on his lawn mower. I'm in the city BTW.

Intimidation, technically "menacing".

Individual examples may be equally nuts, but I continue to insist that there are more violent people on the right, and they act in more dangerous ways. Check out this study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies: Pushed to Extremes: Domestic Terrorism amid Polarization and Protest

The attached graph from this study illustrates the burgeoning frequency of far right incidents. And the paper points out, just after this graph, "Most violent far-right perpetrators were motivated by white supremacist or anti-government sentiments, and they committed most of the fatal attacks in 2021. Of the 30 fatalities in 2021, 28 resulted from far-right terrorist attacks." (emphasis added)

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachm...1&d=1657629557

Well, if you want to codify something into law and make it enforceable, you probably need a definition of the thing that you're looking to ban/enforce/penalize, etc. Such specificity is not semantics.

Which I provided in the quoted post.

Interesting graph. It supports the observation that leftist violence is rarely challenged when it occurs, and convictions for such violence are rare. For instance, it's interesting that leftist/anarchist activity, in many cases becoming violent and destructive, during 2020 was unfolding in cities across the country, and the graph shows leftist activity going down.

Assault rifles were defined by the Nazis in 1944 with the introduction of the Sturmgewehr 44 (assault rifle 44). Moreover, they were also defined for the (largely effective) law banning assault weapons in 1994.

If you really drill down on the BLM protests you will probably notice the rioting/looting was opportunist taking advantage of the situation. And I am not saying some protestors did not get sucked in.

As I have said both teams are culpable. But there is a difference between protest that turns violent and planned violence.

Almost none of the deaths linked to BLM protests were caused by the demonstrators. A review of 27 deaths linked to either BLM protests or subsequent violence indicated that those ultimately alleged to be culpable, in cases where a suspect or perpetrator were identified, were almost never actually part of the protest movement. Indeed, the most notorious of them were committed by Far Right wingnuts infiltrating the mobs.

Since right to bear arms, freedom of speech, petitioning the government and organized militia are all stated in the constitution, why isn't Trump's Insurrection Militia's march to the capitol with the stated purpose of hanging Mike Pence deemed legal? Surprised that no one is claiming this on Team Trump.

Look again. The graphed value for leftist acts goes up in 2020 over 2019, from about 20 to maybe 35. Are you gaslighting us? We can read a graph, even if you can't.

This discussion in the study may help you understand what is on the graph:

Here's the first paragraph on the CSIS from Wikipedia. Note it has been labled "centrist" by U.S News.