4 ms·

What do you mean by take social media activity into account? Should people who have unfashionable or unpopular opinions be not allowed to purchase a firearm? O

What do you mean by take social media activity into account? Should people who have unfashionable or unpopular opinions be not allowed to purchase a firearm? Or is it that they made a threat of violence at some point?

KerrAvon 4y ago
I think the latter should be somewhat disqualifying! Obviously, a standard would need to be created, but it's not impossible to draw that line.
bifrost 4y ago
It'd have to be threat of violence.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Nope. When doing a background check for a clearance they do it just fine. I worked with all sorts of nutjobs in defense. They just weren't violent nutjobs.
- vel0city 4y ago
  You don't have a constitutional right to work in the defense industry.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    The 2nd Amendment has limits. Why do I need stricter background checks for machine guns and short barreled rifles?
    - whatthesmack 4y ago
      That's not the Second Amendment. That's the NFA. The Second Amendment is very clear with its intent ("shall not be infringed"). It's the opinion of some folks that we have laws, like the NFA, that violate the Second Amendment.
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        Does the constitution define "the people" as something that necessarily belongs to and devolves to individuals? Or for instance, does it mean that the federal government can't ban state organized militias?
        GauntletWizard 4y ago
        Yes, actually, it does very clearly mean individuals. To quote the relevant amendments that cite "The People": 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. What meaning would the 4th have, if "The People" were state assemblies? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons"... Would that mean it was up to individual states to decide if you are secure in... What, exactly? Or consider the 1st, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"... Why would a state need to petition "The Government", as it is "The Government". There is no reasonable reading of the constitution that reads the second amendment as anything but an individual right.
jstream67 4y ago
only rich democrats would be allowed to own guns - for evidence see how concealed carry permits are handed out in blue areas. The government is incapable of wielding that level of power without massive corruption.
- snerbles 4y ago
  A modest $90,000 in donations to a very specific charity in Santa Clara county, though in years before I've heard it can be had for a bit less if you're not in a rush. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa-clara-county-concealed-gun-bribery-case-pleads-guilty/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa...

KerrAvon 4y ago

I think the latter should be somewhat disqualifying! Obviously, a standard would need to be created, but it's not impossible to draw that line.

bifrost 4y ago

It'd have to be threat of violence.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Nope. When doing a background check for a clearance they do it just fine. I worked with all sorts of nutjobs in defense. They just weren't violent nutjobs.

vel0city 4y ago
You don't have a constitutional right to work in the defense industry.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  The 2nd Amendment has limits. Why do I need stricter background checks for machine guns and short barreled rifles?
  - whatthesmack 4y ago
    That's not the Second Amendment. That's the NFA. The Second Amendment is very clear with its intent ("shall not be infringed"). It's the opinion of some folks that we have laws, like the NFA, that violate the Second Amendment.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      Does the constitution define "the people" as something that necessarily belongs to and devolves to individuals? Or for instance, does it mean that the federal government can't ban state organized militias?
      - GauntletWizard 4y ago
        Yes, actually, it does very clearly mean individuals. To quote the relevant amendments that cite "The People": 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. What meaning would the 4th have, if "The People" were state assemblies? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons"... Would that mean it was up to individual states to decide if you are secure in... What, exactly? Or consider the 1st, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"... Why would a state need to petition "The Government", as it is "The Government". There is no reasonable reading of the constitution that reads the second amendment as anything but an individual right.

jstream67 4y ago

only rich democrats would be allowed to own guns - for evidence see how concealed carry permits are handed out in blue areas. The government is incapable of wielding that level of power without massive corruption.

snerbles 4y ago
A modest $90,000 in donations to a very specific charity in Santa Clara county, though in years before I've heard it can be had for a bit less if you're not in a rush. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa-clara-county-concealed-gun-bribery-case-pleads-guilty/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa...