Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Advertising support anti second amendment?

  1. #1
    Regular Member moonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    High Point NC
    Posts
    253

    Advertising support anti second amendment?

    I was recently made aware that the forum gets financial support from google ads. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Google very anti second amendment, and the rules governing sites that use google ads prevented from having sale or trade of firearms and ammunition?

    This seems rather duplicitous to me.

  2. #2
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    *the opinions expressed are those of EMNofSeattle alone and not of the site or its administrators

    Personally there comes a point at which business is business. I can think of a handful of non-OC friendly businesses I still do business with although I try to avoid it as much as possible. simple truth is, you choose which businesses you work with over their adherence to your political views, you'll quickly find there are few businesses you can do business with. I'm an opponent of abortion, there's a business who's propreitor wears various pro-choice pins and sells that stuff at her shop, and yet I do business with her anyway. Business is Business, and one shouldn't take business personally.

    IMHO
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    197
    Just out of curiosity, why is Google anti-2a? I hope not simply because they removed firearms and ammunition from their shopping results, in order to comply with various rigid and ridiculous state laws, not to mention international trade guidelines over which they have absolutely no control. If you use regular google search it's not too hard to find better results then their shopping engine would have returned anyway.

  4. #4
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mwaterous View Post
    Just out of curiosity, why is Google anti-2a? I hope not simply because they removed firearms and ammunition from their shopping results, in order to comply with various rigid and ridiculous state laws, not to mention international trade guidelines over which they have absolutely no control. If you use regular google search it's not too hard to find better results then their shopping engine would have returned anyway.
    could you please site these laws forcing google to be anti-2A?
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    could you please site these laws forcing google to be anti-2A?
    I almost didn't respond to this because it's sooooo redundant. "Please, do my research for me."

    If Google was supposedly trying to make a political statement, don't you think they'd remove "guns", "firearms", and other variations from being used as keywords in their primary search, image search, Google+, and oh about a million other services they run? It's not always a conspiracy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    There are legal regulations governing the sale of firearms, in every state of this country, and every country of the world. If you'd like to try and comply with all of them while making your advertisers happy (who pay your bills) then by all means, you should be CEO of Google. Kind of a put up or shut up situation.
    Last edited by mwaterous; 08-24-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mwaterous View Post
    I almost didn't respond...
    And yet you did, but still didn't back your statement. You said " they removed firearms and ammunition from their shopping results, in order to comply with various rigid and ridiculous state laws"

    Since other search engines such as Yahoo and Ask apparently don't have to comply with these law I didn't think it inappropriate to ask you to cite the laws.

    In fact it's rule #5 (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    And yet you did, but still didn't back your statement. You said " they removed firearms and ammunition from their shopping results, in order to comply with various rigid and ridiculous state laws"

    Since other search engines such as Yahoo and Ask apparently don't have to comply with these law I didn't think it inappropriate to ask you to cite the laws.

    In fact it's rule #5 (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    I suppose California's safe handgun roster is an extreme example. Not to mention AWBs in NJ, NY, CA, Denver, etc however these law shouldn't affect google becuase compliance with state law is based on the buyer the seller and any FFLs involved.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    197
    I think I may have put my foot in my mouth on this one, given that the few articles I read on the subject at the time of it being originally implemented all cited legal regulations and I cannot seem to uncover any reference to what legal regulations. In fairness, it would take a little time to do such research given the sheer number of rabblers who have posted their own up in arms blogs about this without themselves citing anything more than the actual absence of such search results. Also in my own defense, it's not that much of a push to believe that there are legal obligations on this front, given the sheer number of varying, restrictive, and downright stupid laws in each and every state governing firearms.

    Nevertheless I'm willing to eat my own words on this given that I called you out on not doing research that I was myself lacking in. I may have been wrong, but the more you get involved in constitutional based forums and other such, you start to see the tin foil hat people everywhere, constantly crying that every little action and reaction is somehow an "out to get us" motion. In this case, despite not having the ability to cite, I still think it is (without clumping anyone in this thread in to the tin foil hat category). I don't think it was a political statement, I think they had some reason to believe it was in their best interests. That also doesn't mean I believe everything I read, that just means that in this case I think it was blown out of proportion.

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mwaterous View Post
    I think I may have put my foot in my mouth on this one, given that the few articles I read on the subject at the time of it being originally implemented all cited legal regulations and I cannot seem to uncover any reference to what legal regulations. In fairness, it would take a little time to do such research given the sheer number of rabblers who have posted their own up in arms blogs about this without themselves citing anything more than the actual absence of such search results. Also in my own defense, it's not that much of a push to believe that there are legal obligations on this front, given the sheer number of varying, restrictive, and downright stupid laws in each and every state governing firearms.

    Nevertheless I'm willing to eat my own words on this given that I called you out on not doing research that I was myself lacking in. I may have been wrong, but the more you get involved in constitutional based forums and other such, you start to see the tin foil hat people everywhere, constantly crying that every little action and reaction is somehow an "out to get us" motion. In this case, despite not having the ability to cite, I still think it is (without clumping anyone in this thread in to the tin foil hat category). I don't think it was a political statement, I think they had some reason to believe it was in their best interests. That also doesn't mean I believe everything I read, that just means that in this case I think it was blown out of proportion.
    I haven't seen Google give any explination as too why they did it. So it's PURE speculation one way or the other. Like I said the other search engines with shopping functions haven't done it. I think it is just socially, progressively "in" right now to be anti gun. A lot of the prime time TV shows I've seen, seem to be on that same ban wagon. If your educated and sophisticated then your pro-earth saving, anti-big corporation, and definitely anti-gun.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I haven't seen Google give any explination as too why they did it. So it's PURE speculation one way or the other. Like I said the other search engines with shopping functions haven't done it. I think it is just socially, progressively "in" right now to be anti gun. A lot of the prime time TV shows I've seen, seem to be on that same ban wagon. If your educated and sophisticated then your pro-earth saving, anti-big corporation, and definitely anti-gun.
    It states in most of the earlier articles, and actually on their policy page that it is due to "legal regulations". No explanation of what legal regulations can be found anywhere else on Google, believe me, I tried. I'm speculating but it goes without saying that Google has market share that makes Bing look like a corner store, so as far as targets go for anybody with a desire to litigate, Google is always going to come up first. Nobody would waste their time with Yahoo, unless they had a penchant for giving their money away. This wouldn't be the first time somebody sidestepped, regardless of the PR, in order to save themselves a wad of cash.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    google does not sell guns ... they were advertising (or allowing advertisements) but there are no regs on that.

    google is anti-gun .. face it and move on (take whatever action/no action you wish)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    google is anti-gun .. face it and move on (take whatever action/no action you wish)
    Ah I'll keep playing for a bit even though there's no proof either way.

    If they were anti-gun, wouldn't it make sense to have it as policy on their primary search engine, maybe a notice on Google+ that people posting pictures of their collection may be banned... something to that effect? Why only remove it from one very small and less used section of their empire?

  13. #13
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mwaterous View Post
    Ah I'll keep playing for a bit even though there's no proof either way.

    If they were anti-gun, wouldn't it make sense to have it as policy on their primary search engine, maybe a notice on Google+ that people posting pictures of their collection may be banned... something to that effect? Why only remove it from one very small and less used section of their empire?
    Baby step my friend. Look to your own government for the best example. Move slowly and in the shadows as much as possible. They'd love to just take everyone's guns but that would probably induce a revolt. Much safer to implement years worth of propaganda to put doubts and fears into people's minds as they grown up. And also implement lots of BATF regulations no one has to vote for. After years of propaganda to teach people that the 2A doesn't mean what you think it means, and that guns really are birthed from Satan's hot box, you can make moves that most people will agree is not unreasonable, like restricting FA, restricting sound reducers, restricting lengths of rifles and shotguns, restricting mag sizes. Restricting imports. blah blah blah.

    There are a large portion of people who support 2A that don't necessarily buy guns and ammo very often that might be quite apposed to too much radicalism.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    fairfax
    Posts
    75
    what are you guys talking about google removing guns from their "shopping" search engine? i literally just googled "remington 870 12ga" and got the little "shopping" thing to the right of the screen and even more resulsts when i clicked on "shopping".........



    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=remington+870+12ga

  15. #15
    Regular Member osmanobma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    *the opinions expressed are those of EMNofSeattle alone and not of the site or its administrators

    Personally there comes a point at which business is business. I can think of a handful of non-OC friendly businesses I still do business with although I try to avoid it as much as possible. simple truth is, you choose which businesses you work with over their adherence to your political views, you'll quickly find there are few businesses you can do business with. I'm an opponent of abortion, there's a business who's propreitor wears various pro-choice pins and sells that stuff at her shop, and yet I do business with her anyway. Business is Business, and one shouldn't take business personally.

    IMHO
    being anti 2nd amendment is one thing, being anti human life is another entirely. i dont think i could possibly knowingly patronize a business that promotes murder.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119
    I would surmise that the reasoning behind Google's firearm rules is due to their physical headquarters location. Googe is based out of California, IIRC. Craigslist is also based out of California, and in their posting rules they state very clearly why firearms (and other mundane objects) may not be posted in ANY state or substate classified.

    From Craigslist's prohibited items page:

    "Many laws, regulations and policies, in a variety of jurisdictions, regulate the goods and services that may be bought and sold. For your convenience, we have prepared a list of some of the types of prohibited and restricted items the advertisement for sale, offer, or exchange of which is not permitted on craigslist.

    craigslist users remain responsible for complying with all applicable laws, regulations or restrictions on items, services, or manner of sale, payment or exchange, that may apply to transactions in which they participate -- including but not limited to those imposed by the state of California, where craigslist physically resides. We encourage you to research the applicable laws and regulations that may apply to your usage of and activities on and relating to craigslist."


    I imagine that if Craigslist, being headquartered in California, must limit their classifieds across ALL states, then Google must be subject to much of the same restrictions. And I believe, if I remember right, a long time ago I either heard or read something from Craigslist's founder stating that he would like to be able for people to sell firearms and the like through Craigslist, providing that the state in which they are listed permits it. He was simply bound by California's idiotic rules.

    I could be completely wrong, but it makes logical sense to me.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    29
    Perhaps I should start a new thread, since this isn't precisely what this thread was about, but I find it slightly irksome to see actual Anti-gun political advertising. In particular I am seeing a series of adchoices ads at the top of the Kentucky forum from a group supporting the Assault Weapons Ban. Perhaps it's just me, but that doesn't really seem appropriate on a gun forum.
    Last edited by jaegan; 02-09-2013 at 06:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •