It is time to add social media to background checks for gun purchases. nt

[flamin lib]

[MineralMan]

1. How would you do that?

I can't see a path that would allow such a search. There are dozens of people with my name on Facebook, for example, and thousands in any Google search. How do you propose that such a thing could be accomplished, even if it were a good idea?

[-none]

17. If they can find their on-line stuff so quickly after the fact, why not before the fact?

Between the pictures they post and the source computers they use, it should be just as easy during the background check.

[flamin lib]

18. Employers do it daily.nt

[MineralMan]

20. With the permission of the applicant.

The thing is, without knowing which Facebook page for example, of person with a particular name is actually the right one. We've all seen people make mistakes with names in the news. It's almost automatic that someone posts some Facebook page that isn't actually the page of the person in question.

You apparently have no idea how many people share names with others. Look up your own name on Google. If it's like most names, you'll find many listings with the same name.

[flamin lib]

22. With permission? Really? nt.

[MineralMan]

23. Actually, yes. Applicants are asked for information

about their facebook pages. Companies know that many people share the same name. They ask for the information and use it. An applicant who refuses to provide the information will not be considered. That's how it works.

[flamin lib]

24. OK. I can live with that. Refuse and you don't get a gun. n

[MineralMan]

25. This is not happening.

Seriously. Would you give your DU screen name in such an application? How about other places where you thing you are anonymous. You're not anonymous, you know. Any competent researcher can find the identity of almost any Internet poster. It takes a bit of time, but I guarantee that your anonymity is a myth.

[flamin lib]

26. Hey, you don't fill out the the NICS form you don't get a gun. Don't give up

social media you don't get a gun.

I've been background checked by everybody from DOJ to the local animal control officer. Not a hardship.

May issue should be the law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. I'm in favor of May Issue...

...but only during May.

[Duckhunter935]

64. May would be busy month

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. May be

[Duckhunter935]

68. Got me there!

[Skittles]

33. what about those of us who refuse to fall for Facebook garbage?

I would never consider being on that piece of SHIT site

[Art_from_Ark]

71. I once had a Facebook page

But it became a dumping ground where 99.99% of the content had absolutely nothing to do with me.

[Skittles]

73. heh

well at least you were not the usual "I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY WITHOUT IT!!!!" bullshit meme

[Art_from_Ark]

74. If I need to keep up with friends and family,

I either intereact with them in person, or contact them personally through e-mail or even postal mail.

[Skittles]

77. which is no problem if the person is worth it

yes indeed

[Art_from_Ark]

78. It's kind of funny

A lot of the younger Japanese I meet ask me if I have a Facebook page, and when I say I've given up on it, they quickly lose interest in me. I guess I've become just an old fuddle-duddy

[Skittles]

79. my opinion of people who resist the Facebook borg is GREATLY enhanced

oh yes

eh, not sure if enhanced is the right word.......I just admire people who resist being part of the herd

[HassleCat]

53. Should be easy

I believe law enforcement agencies, particularly n the federal level, have the ability to backtrack on almost any electronic trail. Making a specific threat is a crime, and constitutes probable cause to gather information on the person making the threat. When someone posts on Facebook, "I'm gonna put my Glock in your ear and pull the trigger," or even, "I'm gonna take a baseball bat to your kneecaps," that's enough to warrant an investigation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. "How would you do that?"

[Brickbat]

2. Yeah, no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Question 32) "do you have a facebook account and what is your password?"

answer) "No. May I please have my permit now?"

[MineralMan]

4. More like:

Question 32) List all of the websites where you post messages and supply your password for each.

That would certainly work out just fine, I'm sure...

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. "The internet? What's that?" n/t

[MineralMan]

6. "By signing this form, you agree that all information supplied is accurate and truthful.

False statements may result in prosecution."

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Good point. That would effectively give guns to only those with ill intent.

And besides, it takes the collective resources of 300 million googlers to find dirt on people after the fact. Imagine if that degree of due diligence was required during a background check.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. How would Democratic Underground posters rate? n/t

[1939]

12. Is talk of "torches and pitchforks" seditious? NT

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Lol

you've been reading my posts!

[sarisataka]

16. Some wouldn't do so well

"we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots. he should have broken his damn arms."

"I've often been glad I don't own a gun as I think I'd have killed somebody."

"I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners. Nothing but good could come of this."

[flamin lib]

21. Some of the usual suspects would fare pretty poorly. nt

[aikoaiko]

8. So the FBI would keep files on every US resident's internet posts?

I think that's the only way it would work.

[Orrex]

10. Fortunately, they're way ahead of you in this regard.

Alas.

[Recursion]

9. Well, it's a better idea than an AWB

It's problematic but at least it goes in a sensible direction.

[Duckhunter935]

14. I am sure you have a plan

on how to work it, right?

[flamin lib]

19. Ask any employer. nt

[ileus]

15. Excellent idea, how would it work???

Gun owners that posted pictures would be disqualified?

Gun owners living in the South would be denied?

????

[X_Digger]

27. Who decides? You? What legal standard would you apply?

Perhaps you're unaware, but 'gun licenses' were used by Jim Crow southern states to deny guns to AA's.

You cool with putting that power into the hands of the same police you decry in other threads?

[flamin lib]

28. Damn, I thought I had you on ignore.

Who decided that FFLs had to do a NICS check?

Now, back to ignore . . .

[X_Digger]

34. Lol, sure you did. I'll be sure to remind you of the power you'd grant police the next time you..

.. pop up in a thread decrying violence by out-of-control cops.

(And I'm sure you will actually see it.)

[U4ikLefty]

29. I organized for Occupy L.A. & it's on Facebook. Do I get a gun...your highness?

I am very pro-gun regulation (see my 12 year history on DU) but this is bullshit.

[flamin lib]

30. Do you advocate the death of anyone? If so, no gun. nt

[U4ikLefty]

31. Not letting you off the hook. The gov't thinks I'm a "threat" (Occupy L.A.), shoud they disallow my

gun purchase because they found me to be a "threat" on Facebook?

BTW, I like how you moved the goalpost to "advocate the death of anyone".

[flamin lib]

35. Are you a threat or can anything you posted to facebook be interpreted as

a threat of violence? If not you can have a gun.

If someone threatens POTUS on facebook can they expect a visit from the Secret Service?

It's simple really. Act like an asshole get treated like an asshole. Look or act dangerous no gun. Is that so hard to understand?

[U4ikLefty]

38. You moved the goalposts & now you're just rambling nonsense.

Should anybody be able to own guns?

[flamin lib]

39. What?????

The goal posts are exactly where they have been and I'm being coherent and consistent regardless of what you think.

Should anyone be able to own guns? As a FFL holder and shooting hobbyist I think so. Just not everyone who wants one without qualification and at this point the qualifications are way too low.

[melm00se]

52. you (probably inadvertently) pointed out the issue

with using things like social media to qualify (or disqualify) someone:

"Are you a threat?"

You need to clearly define "threat". 2 people can come up with 2 different definitions of a "threat".

"interpreted as a threat of violence?"

who does the interpretation? Is there a purely objective measurement?
Current factors used to determine are clear yes/no answers. For example:

Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? either you are or you are not.

This is the same issue about requiring a "mental health" exam (as one DU member posts as his "stock" response) to own a firearm. Look at the claim of "not guilty by reason of mental instability or defect" in a criminal trial, both sides can and do parade multiple experts who say that the patient is, or is not, mentally ill. It is not like there is a simple blood test that provides a positive or negative result.

[Duckhunter935]

54. that looks like a ATF form 4473 question

11 b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for
more than one year? (See Instructions for Question 11.b.)

I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions,
and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punish able as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law
(See Instructions for Question 16)

Sounds like he may have lied on his ATF from 4473. As the OP has an FFL, they should know that the sale should not have been completed under existing law and the buyer should be up and prosecuted for a federal offense.

[Panich52]

32. Welcome to the world of Minority Report.

Denying a constitutional right because of what you think instead of what you've done in the past. Let's have cops troll f/ those who talk about robbing a bank. Never mind they just might be venting about those thieving behemoths.

Supreme Court just ruled that serious intent is needed before one can be arrested for what they post. Denying a firearm on same grounds defies that decision.

[flamin lib]

36. Yeah you're right. Guns for everyone. No qualifications, no checks. Post on social media your

intent to wreak havoc and let it go at that. I mean, shit, you haven't actually killed anyone yet, right? Not guilty yet, just announcing to the world what you plan to do with your new gun.

Hell, just issue one to every limp dick that wants one. It's a God given right, right?

[Panich52]

37. Obvious fanatacism cuts both ways. Firearms will not be eliminated. Background checks are law.

Ranting about them as in your post does not serve your purpose well. It's as counter to constructive debate and agreeable solutions as 'pry from my cold dead hands' is for the gun nuts.

I have no problem with background checks (except for family bequeaths). But when people are already screaming about privacy and gov't intrusion into their digital lives, I will not condone such social media invasions without just cause. Owning a firearm does not meet that requirement.

[Duckhunter935]

40. Funny, have to go run to the safe haven

And complain that this is not getting the support you want. Newsflash for your safe haven post, it is just not firearms owners that do not agree with you on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629141

[beevul]

41. Off comes the mask.

Responses to this thread being characterized as "It is entertaining to see what extremes gunners will go to in defense of Roof's second amendment right to a gun", at the linked thread you posted...

We are all gun extremists now.

Hopefully this will open a LOT of eyes around here.

[Duckhunter935]

42. Kind of eye opening

I bet some with civil liberties issues are happy about being called gun extremists.

Think that poster will show back up here?

[beevul]

43. You never know. Double down tendencies run deep.

Particular where overly authoritarian nonsense is concerned.

[Duckhunter935]

48. Very true, I love seeing pretzels

[flamin lib]

44. Not running anywhere.

It is extremely entertaining to see the depth to which gunners will sink to defend the right of a homicidal racist to buy a gun.

Besides, if it weren't for my posts you'd have nothing to say . . .

[Lizzie Poppet]

46. Personally, I DON'T think Roof had that right.

Roof was, apparently, under felony indictment. If so, he had no right to purchase or possess a firearm, by federal law.

[Duckhunter935]

50. Seems to be the case

sounds like we need to enforce and ensure the EXISTING background checks work before adding a zillion times more work on the system. The existing background check should have flagged and stopped the sale.

[Duckhunter935]

47. seems to me

calling people in DU that like civil liberties and have nothing to do with guns, gunners and insulting them will get you a long way.

So why did you have to go run back to the safe haven to complain about them? Are you ashamed you might actually get challenged on your ideas. To me it does not seem to be going to well for you here and you just like not being challenged.

Why did you not say this here in this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629141

flamin lib
It is entertaining to see what extremes gunners will go to
in defense of Roof's second amendment right to a gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026876017

Hint, it has nothing to do with him and more about big government snooping on people. I am sure you are just fine with all of the data collection and the PATRIOT act provisions too, right?

[flamin lib]

49. I did say it. nt

[Duckhunter935]

51. link? nt

[flamin lib]

57. Don't read well?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6881837

[Duckhunter935]

60. Just as I thought

only posted after I posted a link to your insulting post over in the safe haven group for the people in this thread to see how insulting you really are to people who disagree with your OP. You would have never said that over here where you could be challenged but instead had to go run to a safe haven group to insult DU members so it would likely not be challenged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6881535
Funny, have to go run to the safe haven
And complain that this is not getting the support you want. Newsflash for your safe haven post, it is just not firearms owners that do not agree with you on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629141
Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:42 AM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6881837
It is extremely entertaining to see the depth to which gunners will sink to defend the right of a homicidal racist to buy a gun.

Besides, if it weren't for my posts you'd have nothing to say . . .
Mon Jun 22, 2015, 12:25 PM

Thanks for proving my point completely, have a great day!

[ileus]

55. I suppose as long as I can still get out in 10 minutes it's not that bad.

I mean I can purge anything that may offend a regressive 2Aer before going in to buy my next PSD.

[Freelancer]

56. So, if you wanted to scuttle somebody's life, how hard would making a fake page in their name be?

Problem 1: The idea violates the unreasonable search and seizure clause.

Problem 2: The idea violates the right to free speech.

Problem 3: It is still possible to create a page with a targeted person's name all over it, and then populate it with horrors -- making them, essentially, unemployable and un-licensable for certain things. States would have to give legal notification, and provide for recourse, which would allow the NRA to clog the lower courts with petitions.

Problem 4: A program to track people's web history would take time and billions to implement, while evil-doers could stop being visible to such a system for free once they became aware of it-- making it only useful in tracking people with good intentions, which is pointless.

[flamin lib]

58. No on all 4 points.

It's called 'may issue' and until the NRA went balls to the wall batshit crazy was the law of the land in most states.

[Freelancer]

59. Respectfully disagree completely nt

[Duckhunter935]

61. "may issue"

is so abused it has been changed in most areas. Yep, if you are rich and pay the sheriff, he MAY issue, lol

I see you had no answer to a false social media account or posting that would be used to deny an issue.

[flamin lib]

70. proof please or link as you are so prone to say.

prove beyond a reasonable doubt or stop spouting NRA dogma.

Go on, show me.

[Duckhunter935]

75. OK, I will play

In some parts of the United States, concealed handgun permit statutes were passed for frankly racist reasons, as a method of prohibiting Blacks from carrying arms. "The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied," in the words of a Florida Supreme Court Justice. [3]

While the motivations behind California's concealed handgun statute are not as clearly understood, the effect has been similar. California's legislative research body studied the issue in 1986 and concluded: "The overwhelming majority of permit holders are white males." [4] Because so many victims of violent crime are female or non-white, the discrimination in granting of carry permits is especially hard to justify. [5]

Despite the City's agreement to the settlement, only five permits were issued in the ensuing nine months. Three of those permits went to government employees, and two to private attorneys. On the basis of the absence of a "compelling" need, a permit was denied to a jeweler who routinely carried large amounts of jewelry and valuables, who had been burgled, who had received police-documented death threats from a criminal he had helped a deputy apprehend, and who had passed a defensive handgun class. [14]

Licensing in the rest of California is similarly haphazard, and local officials enforce their own criteria for who is "qualified" to exercise the "privilege" of protecting her life with a firearm. For example, one town's police department requires, among other things, applicants to pass a written exam with questions such as:

Read for more of the same if you care to.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/shall-issue.html

"In my opinion, the police failed her," said friend Colette Marino-Quinones, noting that the suspect, a boyfriend from whom Bowne was estranged, had not been effectively pursued after he violated a restraining order a month before Wednesday's attack. "Other people had spotted him but the police never did, and I find that interesting," she said.

Bowne had also applied for a handgun license, a process that can be cumbersome in New Jersey, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Marino-Quinones said her friend used her as a reference months ago in applying for the document.

Bowne, she said, had completed the application and was waiting for police to process her fingerprints.

http://articles.philly.com/2015-06-07/news/63120334_1_berlin-twp-gun-pistol-clubs

NJ is a "may issue" state and impedes and stalls hoping the person gives up. This person died waiting for the states "blessing"
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newjersey.pdf
I am curious how many lower income people in NYC are issued pemits compared to the wall street wonder-kids and politicians.

[flamin lib]

80. Really? That's all ya got?

I was expecting hundreds or thousands of poor innocent people being denied a precious.

Naaaaaa ya gotta do better than a couple of pro gun articles.

And besides,it's too soon to use Browne as a political pawn for gun rights.

[Duckhunter935]

82. Tip of the iceberg

There is no way anything that I post will please you and anything I say is from a right wing source or the NRA. Have a great day

At least I answer questions unlike most on the pro-controller side.

[Duckhunter935]

76. So are you going to apologize now?

Since you posted an insult here in this group and in the "safe haven" group to all of the non firearms owners that posted in this thread that just do not agree with your "plan" to fix everything.

It is extremely entertaining to see the depth to which gunners will sink to defend the right of a homicidal racist to buy a gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6881837

It is entertaining to see what extremes gunners will go to
in defense of Roof's second amendment right to a gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026876017

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629141

[flamin lib]

81. No,and it is still entertaining to see the depth to which gunners will go

to defend a homicidal racist's right to buy a gun. It makes you guys look sooooooopo reasonable.

Keep it up. Please keep it up.

[Duckhunter935]

83. Typical, and again with the dishonesty

No where in your OP was this about the individual that murdered 9 people. It was a general question that most people here disagree with you. You have an issue with that and insult them and are just plain dishonest in your postings. If it is indeed true he had an indictment on him at purchase, he should have never passed the current NICS check as he was a prohibited person. It also appears he violated federal law by lying on his ATF form 4473. You should know that as you say you have an FFL. Look at section 11.

[closeupready]

63. Telling an untruth (i.e., lying) online on social media is not perjury. Thus,

the veracity of EVERYTHING posted on social media sites is unreliable.

How can this suggestion be considered constructive by anyone?

[Duckhunter935]

66. you bad "GUNNER" you

At least from the OP

It is extremely entertaining to see the depth to which gunners will sink to defend the right of a homicidal racist to buy a gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629141

[Freelancer]

67. Well said! nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. I remember this scene --

Jasper Sitwell: Zola's algorithm is a program...for choosing Insight's targets!

Steve Rogers: What targets?

Jasper Sitwell: You! A TV anchor in Cairo, the Undersecretary of Defense, a high school valedictorian in Iowa city. Bruce Banner, Stephen Strange, anyone who's a threat to HYDRA! Now, or in the future.

Steve Rogers: The Future? How could it know?

{Sitwell laughs}

Jasper Sitwell: How could it not? The 21st century is a digital book. Zola taught HYDRA how to read it.

{Steve and Natasha look at him in confusion}

Jasper Sitwell: Your bank records, medical histories, voting patterns, e-mails, phone calls, your damn SAT scores. Zola's algorithm evaluates peoples' past to predict their future.

Steve Rogers: And what then?