Google Is An ANTI-2nd Amendment Company!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henry, I just did the same search again and it only came up with 1,340,000
results. I wonder if it is on account of my internet provider here at home vs. the provider at my work where I originally googled it from.

And there was only one sponsored link. Shopping.com with RIFLE Scopes

Anyway I figured if they were anti-gun there woud be no results or links to Brady type organizations.
 
Personally, I'm sick of seeing people complain of and boycott companies solely based upon their political views, whether they are true or hearsay.

Why? If you want your opposition to win why not just make direct contributions to their cause.
 
I applied for adsense for my website (see sig) based on this thread and was pleasantly surprised when they approved my application. :cool:
 
ServiceSoon said:
Thank you for the information Zak. I am not happy about Google's iffy stance on net neutrality either.
By "iffy" you mean that they don't support pseudo-"net neutrality" bills?

Google owns Youtube. They are heavily invested in making sure the internet remains content-neutral, i.e. that ISPs don't rate limit e.g. youtube traffic.

In that particular case, market forces may be effective at preventing ISPs from rate-limiting content; broadband users would scream if youtube slowed down.

However, there are a variety of internet thingies/services I like that might well be (severely) rate-limited or otherwise restricted, which most people do not use and therefore would not raise a cry from the general ISP userbase.

Relying on the "free market" is well and good... when there is a free market. However, there is not one, at least not most urban areas I'm aware of. There are local regulations enforcing monopolies in various areas. I cannot get Verizon FIOS, for instance, unless I move north a few miles. Why, you ask? Because SBC/Yahoo/AT&T/whatever-they're-calling-themselves-this-week and TimeWarner telecom have a lock on local phone/cable services.
 
My ad sense is constantly giving me gun site advertisements at my web pages. Sometimes I wish it would gimme something else sometimes.
 
Hq'ed in SF Bay area

Google is located in the heart of liberal country, the SF Bay area in Mountain View. The fact that the company is anti-gun does not surprise me at all. Companies are in business to make revenue. They do so by associating their brand with positive messages to increase their brand equity and increase their brand acceptance among the public.

In most companies, guns are a taboo subject and this makes companies automatically somewhat anti-gun. Add in the absence of publicly accepted, politically correct, gun related events. People will selflessly walk 16 kilometers over the Golden Gate Bridge to raise money to stop breast cancer, a million African-Americans will march on the National mall in DC to decry racism, but there is no gun related charitable foundation that can get up the political muscle to fund a "save your 2nd amendment rights" walk. And if the NRA did host it, there probably would not be more than a hundred people in attendance.

Either way, the NRA would probably just collect and harvest your name to sell to marketers and not give any donations to charities, anyway.

It's no secret, put one plus one and you get two!
 
By the same token, most of the time I do a gun related search through Google I end up with a link to a THR discussion.
 
Wait didn’t Google buy a small custom gun company a few years ago? I recall reading something about that on here. Plus it’s impossible because I found THR via Google.
 
Anti-Weapon?

. . . they're not specifically Anti-2A, they're anti weapon . . .

The Right to Keep and Bear ARMS might just possibly involve WEAPONS, not limited to "arms that go bang."

I think ARMS is a pretty decent synonym for WEAPONS.
 
After working in large to huge corporations for about 10 years, it's clear to me that corporations - across the board - seek to limit their liability, even when specific policies go against common sense, decency, individual rationale, etc.

This doesn't mean that part of their mission statement is spelled out "We are Anti-2A"-- it means that their army of lawyers, accountants, and actuaries have determined that the potential cost of XYZ is more than its benefit.

There is a healthy tradition in science fiction about huge organizations gone out of control, with no effective central planning, and the bizarre effects that manifest (Stanislaw Lem, Cube, etc).

Whether intentional and planned, or a side-effect of the organizational structure and perceived financial reality, I don't think they earn a "free pass." We ought to treat it in either case as if they intended it.
 
i doupt you could goto any reputable add provider and have them accept sites on guns and other weps.

as for them changing their search results based on their saposed "anti 2nd" stance. i highly doupt it.
 
JPFO alert. Might interest some.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

August 1, 2007

JPFO ALERT: Your "Representation" in Congress

JPFO has mentioned the "Fairness in Firearms Testing Act"
before. Introduced back in 2005 by Rep. Phil Gingrey of
Georgia, the act would require all firearms testing
performed by the BATFE to be videotaped, and to make
copies of the unedited recording available to owners of
the tested items and defendants in cases involving those
items. You can read more about this act, which was directly
inspired by the JPFO documentary _BATFE Fails the Test_
at www.jpfo.org/alert20050418.htm .

The bill died in the House Judiciary Committee, chaired
by that great "friend" of gun owners, Rep. James
Sensenbrenner. You can read more about Sensenbrenner
here: www.jpfo.org/alert20050519.htm and here:
www.jpfo.org/alert20050329.htm (you can also view our
latest handbill mocking Rep. Sensenbrenner at
www.jpfo.org/handbillsensenbrenner.jpg ).

Recently Rep. Gingrey attached an amendment to H.R.3093,
an Appropriations bill for the Department of Justice. The
amendment stated, "Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated
by this Act may be used by the Director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to pay the
compensation of employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives to test and examine firearms without
written and published testing standards."

In other words, if you don't test fairly, you don't get
paid. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Apparently the Appropriations Committee disagreed.

On July 25, the amendment to H.R. 3093 was "debated". You
can read the full text of both the amendment and the debate
here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H8481&
dbname=2007_record
or http://tinyurl.com/2upx3a .

The debate can be paraphrased as follows:

Rep Gingrey: Here's my amendment; let's discuss it.
Appropriations Committee: We don't want to talk about that
right now.
Rep Gingrey: Okay, I'll remove the amendment.

What do you suppose is the likelihood that the Appropriations
Committee will actually discuss this amendment further? We'd
guess it's pretty slim. Compare this to the Real ID act, which
was attached to a similar spending bill. It was passed
unanimously, with no discussion, and without even reading the
bill! (read more about that travesty here:
www.jpfo.org/alert20050511.htm ).

In his efforts to get the amendment discussed, Rep. Gingrey
pleaded with the committee,

"[W]ithout written and uniform standards, gun manufacturers
are left guessing about which agent will inspect the
firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to
ship a product out to potential customers, and whether
or not BATFE agents might even prosecute someone because
of a shipping mistake or a firearm malfunction. [W]ithout
written procedures, BATFE has literally a free rein to
mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact,
and leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and
financial disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so
inconsistent that some manufacturers have been threatened
with prosecution after receiving written approval for their
products from other BATFE personnel.

"Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers
have been forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that,
Mr. Chairman. Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm
manufacturers have been forced to close their doors.
Moreover, with the increase in number of imported firearms
purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our
Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage."

Your friends in congress did not give a damn.

- The Liberty Crew

============================================================
Visit our alert archive at www.jpfo.org/alerts.htm
============================================================

JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

============================================================

LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!
Just send a blank e-mail to [email protected].
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
[email protected]
 
alan

While that's certainly pertinent to RKBA, how did it wind up in this thread?

Were you trying to post it somewhere else?
 
The only evidence I have is what was told to me and what is posted at the site.........Go to http://www.chlgrapevine.com and read the article by my friend the site owner. NOT A POLITICAL VIEW AND NOT HEARSAY! YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK BEFORE YOU SHOOT!.AND BY THE WAY, AS LONG AS WE ARE BEING TIRED OF PEOPLE DOING THIS AND THAT, I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE MAKING ACCUSATIONS BEFORE THEY KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE SITUATION!...........


westernamerican,
What's with the "RED" ink. We agree with your position that this is a matter that should be looked at by all, but each one of us who does should make our decisions based on fact, which is presented properly.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will surley read and digest the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top