Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the time-to-mistakenly-invoke-the-constitution dept.

Facebook 310

Nerval's Lobster writes "Most of the time, Facebook allows its users to hawk goods or solicit donations on Pages or Timeline postings, comparing such activity to placing a physical note on a bulletin board at a supermarket. Now it plans on regulating users who rely on this method to sell what it calls 'regulated' items, which includes firearms. 'Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18,' Facebook announced as part of the new rules. The social network will also prevent users from posting any sort of items 'that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law,' which means no offers to sell firearms across state lines or without a background check. Presumably, Facebook will have filters in place that allow it to scan for such content. Facebook is a private network, of course, and not (despite its ubiquity) a public utility — meaning it can do whatever it wants with regard to Terms of Use. But that likely won't stop some people from complaining about what they perceive as the company overstepping its boundaries."

cancel ×

310 comments

..or without a background check? (5, Informative)

Pizza (87623) | about 5 months ago | (#46413557)

It's expressly legal for private inviduals to sell to other private individuals (without crossing state lines) without a background check; indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.

Now you may have some sort of state/local law that requires checks between inviduals, but sheesh.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413619)

I would have phrased that as:

"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".

Just to be clear that..you know...it's not necessarily legal...it's just not a violation of federal law, but a violation of state law. It might end up being a violation of federal law though -- in that you are then a felon under state law, and just so happen to be in posession of a firearm.

The law is a bitch that way....

I live in a state where I can buy or sell from another private seller no problem (provided vaguely reasonable assumptions). I have lived in a state and may unfortunately end up moving to a state where it would be wholly unlawful to do so.

But yeah... there is no "illegal private sale" or "gun show loophole". That is what we like to call: "Fuck off with your gun registry."

Simply put... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 5 months ago | (#46413691)

Facebook should just post an alert that reads "It is against Federal law to sell a firearm to a prohibited person. This includes felons, those dishonorably discharged, etc."

Re:..or without a background check? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413817)

"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".

It is? Even though the Second Amendment forbids the federal government this sort of power?

This is why people hate Liberals. Liberals merely pretend that somehow gun rights were exercised illegally for over 200 years, and now the beloved Liberals have finally showed up to "save us" from the hell of private liberties, like the right to defend yourself, using legal weapons, and to buy and sell these weapons to other people.

It is wholly improper for ANY place like Facebook to assert what you said. It's not correct.

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414163)

And this why people hate anti-liberals. Anti-liberals pretend that their smug condescension and grandiose proclamations of superiority will somehow "save us" from the hell of liberals.

Re:..or without a background check? (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46414327)

They are not Liberal. Even though you capitalized it, I feel it is disingenuous to use that term to describe anyone who constantly works to restrict rights and freedoms.

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414815)

"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".

It is? Even though the Second Amendment forbids the federal government this sort of power?

This is why people hate Liberals. Blah blah blah...

This is why nobody takes Neocons seriously: you don't fucking bother to actually comprehend an argument before assuming a contrary position, once you've decided that you're opposed to a person and his/her ideals. Read the damned comment: "It is federally legal for private individuals..." GPP, and every post above it, is making the "right to bear arms" argument in favor of the personal right interpretation.

You're either blind or stupid; pick one.

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413909)

I think in order to keep everybody safe we should prohibit gun sales, so only the people who currently have guns can have guns. then we make a DB of the people who currently have the guns and we'll be all set.

Also pointing out, it may be legal on the federal level for individuals to buy/trade guns, but that doesn't mean that FB has to be the medium. Put another way, it's not illegal for FB to block that.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46414015)

Well yes, Captain Obvious. Facebook would be within its rights to block firearm discussions, included in that would be sales.

Do you think they want to open that can of worms?

They have to do a little math. Will they lose more users by keeping the current policy or by imposing a new one?

This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.

LK

Re:..or without a background check? (3, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46414339)

How does a database keep someone from shooting up a school?

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about 5 months ago | (#46414997)

I think in order to keep everybody safe we should prohibit gun sales, so only the people who currently have guns can have guns. then we make a DB of the people who currently have the guns and we'll be all set.

If it's so dangerous for people to have guns why stop at just those who already have them. I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#46414131)

True, but it's definitely NOT legal to sell a gun to somebody you know, or can reasonably be expected to know, can't legally buy one. So, if your buyer says "I'm a convicted felon," definitely not legal. If your buyer says "you're not going to require a background check, are you?" you're on very shaky ground, since that's very close to an admission that, were there to BE a background check, the buyer wouldn't pass. Remember, willful blindness isn't a defense.

Re:..or without a background check? (3, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46414197)

That's not necessarily true.

I can pass a background check. I have passed a lot of them.

I still understand how someone could like the idea of the government not having a record that they own a gun.

BTW, that's what opposition to "Universe Background Checks" is about. It would create a backdoor registry.

LK

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 5 months ago | (#46414223)

As I said, the fact that someone is trying to avoid a background check isn't per se an indication that the sale would be illegal, but it does raise the risk for the seller.

Re:..or without a background check? (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46414283)

Another question that works just as well is

"No sales tax, right?" private sellers don't charge sales tax either so there's pretty much a one to one relationship between background checks and sales tax.

Solves your dilemma, right?

LK

Re:..or without a background check? (2, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46414353)

I think we need a federal database of everyone that has had an abortion. How would you like that?

Re:..or without a background check? (2)

hondo77 (324058) | about 5 months ago | (#46414417)

We might like it better if you gave an actual reason for wanting such a thing.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46414485)

So when the Christian Fundamentalists take control, they can round up all the babykillers and send then to work camps. Or maybe just publicly ostracize and shame them. Or maybe even so the database can be leaked to a newspaper, and the names and addresses will be published.

Re:..or without a background check? (2)

hondo77 (324058) | about 5 months ago | (#46414539)

Ah, so you don't have a good reason. Thanks for playing. You can go now.

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414783)

"We need a database of all medical procedures performed in this country so we can lower the cost of medicine." They have the reason, and this is happening now. Of course there is no privacy of our medical records, just like any other business record. The only question really is, how will this be abused... My guess is that the abuse will happen soon, and frequently, and there will be little outrage or reaction.

FWIW - The government knows how to justify lots of horrible things like killing Americans without a trial, and you don't think they can come up with some plausible reason to gather medical records? Are you even paying attention?

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46414345)

It's always illegal to purchase a firearm if you are a convicted felon. There is no judgement call or ambiguities involved.

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46415051)

yes, true, it is also illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm

Re:..or without a background check? (3, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 5 months ago | (#46414461)

Your assumption is that any expression of distaste for a background check is an indication the buyer would not pass one. It's an errant assumption.

No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required.

You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46414545)

... because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up.

It's not even that. You say it later:

that information is no one's business.

There is/was quite a brouhaha (at least in our area) over the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was. Some of the local sheriffs went on record as saying they were not going to treat them as public records, and then modified the process so current ones are not.

It is not impossible that anti-gun zealots may try to get background check data covered under public record laws and what used to be a "secret" between a gun buyer and his government would be public knowledge. It's nobody's business, and let's keep it that way.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

felrom (2923513) | about 5 months ago | (#46414697)

You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.

What state do you live in where that is the law?

In Texas, your only responsibility when conducting a private firearm sale is that you must not have any reason to believe that the buyer is a prohibited person. You don't need to know their name, record anything, get a signature, or any of this.

I've sold in this manner the one time I was seeking to get rid of two handguns I no longer wanted. I took them to the gun show, and before I even got into the convention center a guy approached me and asked what I had in the cases. He looked them over. We haggled on a price for about 2 minutes. I asked if he was a prohibited person, to which he responded no. We exchanged goods and parted ways. The whole transaction took less than 5 minutes. 100% legal.

Heck, even assuming he was the head of a drug cartel, what *I* did was still 100% legal.

As far as what happens if those guns are ever used in a crime: I was the original retail purchaser of them, so the ATF will trace the guns back to me, and probably look and see that I live in a normal middle class neighbor hood in a low crime area, have a nice paying job, no debt, and haven't even had a traffic ticket in 13 years. If they even bother to contact me, I'll give them whatever details I remember about the guy I sold the guns to, and that'll be it.

There's no requirement that I have a record of who I sold to.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 5 months ago | (#46414331)

... indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.

There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.

Re:..or without a background check? (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#46414409)

There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.

Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414863)

Let's redefine it to include Facebook stalking them for a couple weeks.

Re:..or without a background check? (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 5 months ago | (#46414947)

Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.

A background check is defined that way only for FFL's. IOW, the only way a FFL can legally sell a firearm is by clearing the buyer through the NICS. Private citizens may perform a background check on a potential gun buyer (through the usual private channels) if it suits them. There is absolutely no federal law against doing so. The post I originally replied to suggested otherwise.

But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm is through the NICS", I'll be happy to change my mind. : )

Re:..or without a background check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414981)

Sigh...
1) Have purchaser fill out form
2) Take to local police or court that have access to NICS
3) Receive form back

Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413573)

Now Facebook can be sued for failing to prevent the sale!
Lawyers everywhere, rejoice!

Encryption... (3, Insightful)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 5 months ago | (#46413599)

So if I were to try to promote the use of encryption in private communications, would that be "a willingness to evade or help others evade the law?"
Nothing to hide, and all that...

Re:Encryption... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414275)

Only if you sent said encryption algorithms over the Internet to another country. Then you would be prosecuted for dealing in munitions. Enjoy your stay at SuperMax!

Selling assult weapons (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46413623)

I can sell assault weapons for cash all day long in my state to private people without even getting their name. and "GASP" most of my "DANGEROUS ASSULT WEAPONS" are unregistered as well..

Oh the horror....

That said, the last place I would sell them is to twits on Facebook. Cripes even ebay twits are not worth dealing with. There are plenty of great private gun selling sites that have people that understand the values and have clues...

Re:Selling assult weapons (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413709)

Presumably that is one of the ways that "legal" firearms become "illegal" firearms. Congratulations on being a link in the chain that supplies criminals with an ample supply of weapons. Hope you feel good about those "rights" of yours.

Re:Selling assult weapons (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46413839)

Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles, you see them all over the place with these guns in the street. They paint Converse logos on them, and get them gold plated to match their spinner rims YO! The Gangers love big guns that attract attention and are expensive as hell!

Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun while you walk the streets looking for targets. I now offer to sellers getting them engraved with "thug life" and gold plating the Uppers.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46413931)

Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun ...

I don't think even the worst gangbanger is so physically deformed that he has a 6 foot long gun. Or am I the only one who remembers drill sergeants correcting their "pupils" when they refer to their M16 incorrectly by having them recite "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting, the other's for fun", with the associated crotch-grab?

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 5 months ago | (#46414027)

Aren't you going to tell him to check your ID and then get off your lawn?

Re:Selling assult weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414127)

Nahh, I point and laugh at their 1999 Impala with 32" double spinner dubs.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#46414401)

Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles,

Not in my neck of the woods. Here it's mainly muzzle loading flintlocks. They're cheap, deadly, double as a club, and provide an excellent excuse to have large containers full of mysterious powders. They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46414491)

They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.

Doesn't it scare the horse and make it pull the buggy into the ditch?

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 5 months ago | (#46413853)

By the same logic, any firearm manufacturer is "a link in the chain" for the sheer /legal/ manufacturing of the firearm in question...

Re:Selling assult weapons (5, Insightful)

harrkev (623093) | about 5 months ago | (#46413849)

First, how do you even define an "assault weapon." An "assault rifle," as defined by Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is capable of select-fire (AKA machine gun). Those are 100% not OK to just sell, as you need a $200 federal permit, and the approval of a local law-enforcement agency.

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

What I absolutely love is how the definition (to borrow from Wikipedia again) includes:

In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.

Seriously, all of this talk about assault weapons gets tiresome. If somebody was shooting at me, the color of the rifle and the presence or absence of a pistol grip would be the last thing on my mind.

Re:Selling assult weapons (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46413855)

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

Re:Selling assult weapons (4, Insightful)

harrkev (623093) | about 5 months ago | (#46413907)

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

That definition did not work out so well when applied to people. Nothing makes me think that it will work much better here.

After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.

Re:Selling assult weapons (3, Interesting)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46413949)

Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.

LK (A big black guy)

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#46414261)

You may find this [pjmedia.com] interesting, both the C-SPAN program and books, if you aren't familiar with them.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

hondo77 (324058) | about 5 months ago | (#46414481)

Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.

That would be so funny if it wasn't so moronic.

h77 (A big liberal guy)

Re:Selling assult weapons (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46414605)

Pride, when poked becomes petty.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 5 months ago | (#46414245)

It's scary and black.

Racist!

I guess this means that my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers isn't an assault weapon... wheew!

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#46414311)

my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers

You need to document things like that [kittyhell.com] otherwise people will think you're kidding.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 5 months ago | (#46414659)

I believed him without pictures. They'll slap Hello Kitty on EVERYTHING.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#46414695)

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

Well, the conservatives in Canada have just banned [www.cbc.ca] a green one, so it looks like we'll need to broaden it a little bit.

Re:Selling assult weapons (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 5 months ago | (#46413957)

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.

"Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.

Re:Selling assult weapons (4, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#46414497)

What's really pathetic about the definition of "assault weapon" is the "exception list" that the assault weapon ban(s) included.

For instance, an AR-15 clone is an evil assault weapon.

A Mini-14 is on the exempt list, so it's not. Even if you modify the Mini-14 to have a pistol grip, a large capacity magazine, a flash suppressor, a tac-rail, it is STILL EXEMPT!

So even if it looks just like the AR-15 clone from more than five feet, the AR-15 is an EVIL ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!1, and the Mini-14 is a prefectly legal varmint rifle....

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#46414039)

A quick review [imageshack.us] is in order.

Re:Selling assult weapons (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 5 months ago | (#46414301)

The simple definition:
An assault rifle is an automatic (including select-fire and burst-fire) rifle in a small caliber (either a short 7mm-class round like the AK47/M14, or 5mm-class round like the AK74/M16, although really anything below 12.7mm is an assault rifle). They are similar, but distinct, from the light machine gun (a squad-level weapon designed for sustained fire, using rifle-type ammunition usually from a drum or belt), the sub-machine gun (fires pistol rounds, usually smaller than an assault rifle), and the personal defense weapon (an overpriced SMG with proprietary ammunition, developed mainly for lucrative defense contracts).

An assault weapon is any gun that looks scary to uninformed people, generally defined based on some "points" system involving forward pistol grips, folding stocks, and the like. I'm pretty sure one could modify a Lee-Enfield No. 4 to be an "assault weapon", despite it's maximum rate of fire being under 40 rounds per minute.

To put is simpler:
An assault rifle is a military weapon. An assault weapon is a gun that looks like a military weapon.

Re:Selling assult weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414509)

This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.

No, that'd be an assault car. To qualify as a race car, you have to plaster corporate logos on it, not just red paint.

Re:Selling assult weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413891)

ASSULT WEAPON: "An armament used to insult someone so painfully it's comparable to an actual physical ASSAULT"

FB is lying, yet again (5, Interesting)

Cammi (1956130) | about 5 months ago | (#46413653)

FB is lying, yet again. They are currently deleting ALL firearms for sale/buy posts.

... And Nary a Thing Will Change (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46413667)

So, Facebook will start harassing people who sell guns... and people will just go somewhere else to buy and sell guns.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number [armslist.com] of sites [slashdot.org] cropped up for just that purpose - the legal transfer of a firearm from one private citizen to another.

You can't stop the signal.

Gunbroker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413697)

Like Gunbroker.com?

Been here for a while.

Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 5 months ago | (#46413799)

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number [armslist.com] of sites [slashdot.org] cropped up for just that purpose

Forgive my stupidity, but why did you link to the very article to which you responded? Was it to get me to click endlessly in a loop, never to actually post? Because it almost worked.

Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414003)

Forgive my stupidity, but why did you link to the very article to which you responded? Was it to get me to click endlessly in a loop, never to actually post? Because it almost worked.

It appears that it was probably a typo. If you look at the linked URL, you'll see that he probably meant to link here [nationalguntrader.com] instead. If you forget both the "http://" and the "www" in your href, that's what happens.

Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change (3, Funny)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 5 months ago | (#46413917)

my favorite was on Craig's List: shotgun choke: $400 with a FREE gift.

5.56 golf club (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414773)

5.56 golf club!

Nonsense. (1)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | about 5 months ago | (#46413673)

Since Facebook does not verify addresses and has no way of knowing where the sale is actually being transacted, this is just total nonsense.

Re:Nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413751)

Isn't that really just an argument for them banning all firearms posts, since allowing any makes it easy to use FB to facilitate the commission of a crime?

Re:Nonsense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413863)

Isn't that really just an argument for them banning all firearms posts, since allowing any makes it easy to use FB to facilitate the commission of a crime?

Absolutely, just as much as it is an argument that they should ban all posts entirely, since allowing any makes it easy to use FB to facilitate the planning of terrorist attacks.

Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 5 months ago | (#46413805)

Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".

This is not news, because it's not new.

What's the big deal? (1, Insightful)

loony (37622) | about 5 months ago | (#46413813)

They are a private company and can (or should be) allowed to impose whatever rules they want... Its only the federal government that is required to adhere to the bill of rights. So until the Constitution gets amended, we can argue about how illegal background checks, waiting periods, and registration by the federal government are - but there is absolutely nothing you can say about FB doing whatever they feel is right.

Peter.

Re:What's the big deal? (4, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 5 months ago | (#46413867)

And we, gun owners, are free to criticize FB to do so.

Re:What's the big deal? (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 5 months ago | (#46414313)

And we other gun owners are free to mock you for being idiots.

Re:What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414001)

You are a sheep. there is a whole fucking lot we can say and do. Facebook is a company, some of us still believe companies exist at the mercy of society, to support us living here. Socieity should make sure the companies know that when they fuck over people for profit or push any narrowminded belief on us, they are no longer wanted and we do not want to support them. They have no inate right to exist.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#46414235)

I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American would sell out to a sleazebag liberal corporate-whore advertising goat-raper* like Facebook. In fact, I'm not even sure why this is on slashdot, since - based on most FB stories - almost nobody here is even signed up for the service.

*not my words, just repeating what I've read about FB on /.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 5 months ago | (#46414975)

I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American

Likewise. It would be interesting to actually analyze the "ads" that Facebook has actually removed. My bet is they fall into three categories; thug life types passing around $50 zinc belly guns, the fabulously stupid, and all of the above. Competent gun owners don't resell guns on fucking Facebook.

Anyhow, precious few of us will be the least bit upset about Facebook's little manufactured controversy. Corporate anti-gun grandstanding is about as novel as Guardian stories on Israeli "crimes."

Re:What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414459)

Actually, you can say anything you like about it. Not only that, you can protest it loudly, promote and sign petitions, pay for ads publicly denouncing it, hold a placard and protest outside the company HQ...

Seriously, if you really disagree with it, go to town. Just don't sit around whining about the bill of rights, because that's just plain irrelevant.

Why? (1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 5 months ago | (#46413843)

Now Why would anyone sell arms on facebook? . aint it supposed to be clandestine business? .. it's like selling arms on times square ..

Re:Why? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 5 months ago | (#46413961)

Actually selling firearms is mostly legal. Some States have certain regulations you have to comply with but generally compliance isn't that difficult. I don't know why they'd use Facebook though as there are much better places to advertise their wares that are known to people interested in buying and selling firearms. This is just a lot of hysteria as people who like to bitch are looking for an excuse to be offended. Facebook is privately owned and can ban pretty much anything they want.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414431)

i dunno, perhaps they would prefer to sell to someone they know?

madness!

Re:Why? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#46413971)

If it were illicit, yes that would be stupid.

These sales are usually some guy selling his SKS to get enough money to buy a new-to-him Mauser or something like that.

LK

Re:Why? (1)

Arker (91948) | about 5 months ago | (#46414359)

No, it's not supposed to be a clandestine business, why would it be?

Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat." (3, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | about 5 months ago | (#46413883)

FORTUNE [cnn.com] : When he's not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new "personal challenge," as he calls it. "The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the Facebook founder and CEO...Zuckerberg's new goal came to light, not surprisingly, on Facebook. On May 4, Zuckerberg posted a note to the 847 friends on his private page: "I just killed a pig and a goat."

Re:Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414595)

What does that have to do with this, at all?

tYuo Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413945)

I would like a "bunny" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46413979)

[Inside a pet store that's being used as a front for the mob]
Mobster: I would like a "bunny".
Sales Mobster: What kind of "bunny"? A semi-automatic "bunny" [making a gesture like he's holding rifle] or a hand held "bunny" [making a gesture like he's holding pistol]?
Mobster: Whichever "bunny" you think is better for shooting a guy in the head.

Terrible Summary (1)

krakass (935403) | about 5 months ago | (#46413983)

I hate to be the one to defend Facebook but they're doing nothing of the sort. If your post is flagged/reported by someone that reads it as selling a regulated product, not just a firearm, then the poster gets a notification reminding them to comply with applicable laws. The only thing they're really doing is interpreting statements like "no background check required" as a sign that the poster might be willing to help evade the law. They're not requiring the poster to perform a background check, they're just don't want the lack there of to be a selling point. This story is making a mountain out of an anthill.

Why bother with Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414031)

You can always buy or steal an illegal gun from a local gun control advocate. Handguns, assault weapons, you name it, they've got it. For example, Barbara Ann Lipscomb helped organize the first Million Mom March. She was arrested after she used an illegal gun to shoot a construction worker named Kikko Smith. (She was mad at another guy with a similar-sounding name.) Police confiscated four illegal guns from her home, including a TEC-9 assault weapon. Lipscomb, who also uses the names Barbara Graham and Barbara Martin, was convicted of breaking 6 different laws, including three different gun control laws. Nobody needs Facebook to obtain guns illegally as long as there are gun control advocates around. Support local businesses!

Re:Why bother with Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414315)

Um a TEC-9 isn't a assault weapon. Its a really crappy 9 mm handgun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] Although it is called an assault weapon in a few states stupid bans.

Facebook Wants To Block Legal Gun Sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414081)

FTFY

gunbroker.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414083)

The eBay of guns

Won't work (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 5 months ago | (#46414125)

This amounts to the sort of censorship that online forums and chatrooms/services have been attempting to do for a long time now. Problem is wordfilters don't work, there's always a way around them, and faster than they can add terms to the wordfilter, someone comes up with another euphemism or substitute for the word or phrase being blocked. Same thing will happen here, they'll just come up with different words to say "gun for sale", and Failbook will never be able to keep up with the evolution of the language being used. In other news: Failbook is now planning on censoring what you post. Haven't you people had enough of Failbook and it's bullshit yet?

Re:Won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46415089)

that's why there is an option to flag items, comparable to what Craigslist has

Facebook shows it's age/lawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414159)

"With grey hairs starting to show, Facebook now offers users a way to brandish their shotguns and chaise those damn under-eighteens off their lawn, I mean wall"

Selling across state lines is not illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414185)

A private individual can sell a firearm across state lines, he just has to ship it to a federally licensed dealer (FFL) who then performs the NICS check before transfer.

Hillarity to eventually ensue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414299)

With his creation of a fake conservative group to try to trick conservative voters into supporting unlimited immigration and H1B visas, and now stunts like this, Zuck is going so deep into the tank for the DNC that he's going to lose lots of products (who think of themselves as "users") to the "next big thing" in social networks when it comes along. This was something that was likely to happen anyway given the number of Facebook "users" who are young (and therefore, as young people always are, into fads) but the effect will likeley be worse if he needlessly antagonizes half of the political spectrum. This is what NBC and CNN did. CEOs who play politics do so at their shareholders' peril. Oh, and the reason I say people think of themselves as users and I call them products is simple: Facebook's product is "user" information, and "user" eyeball time... THAT is what they sell. Their customers are the people who buy the product. The product is the idiot who, thinking he's getting something for "free", freely hoists himself onto Zuck's store shelf and allows Zuck to sell his time and privacy. If you are not the person paying, you are NOT the customer.

The problem is that once he starts down this path of using his service to suppress things one political party wants suppressed, he has no good excuse not to follow-up with suppression of other things they want suppressed. Once Facebook shows that it is capable of suppressing all instances of something it CHOOSES to suppress, it will have lost any ability to go into a court and claim it is incapable of suppressing any thing the government wants to suppress...

Without regard to your views on guns, and private gun sales, this should be troubling; This has much wider implications for lots of non-gun issues and for everybody else who tries to innovate on the web (any future congressional panel will be able to grill any future CEO with questions like "why can't you block {insert thing here}? Facebook can block it! We will shut you down if you do not add blocking capability..."). It also should trouble you if you hold Facebook stock as anything more than a short-term investment.

Headlines shape discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46414533)

If you read the summary (no, I didn't touch TFA), you'll notice that it's all about regulated items (instead of just firearms). Which makes sense, really. Imagine facebook allowing people to post about selling and buying drugs (legal to consume by prescription or just plain illegal). Or any other regulated item, really.

This discussion isn't and shouldn't be about firearms. It needs to be about regulated items. Most comments fell for the obvious controversial headline and thus shaped their perception of the issue.

Wrong way of looking at it... (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 5 months ago | (#46414589)

Facebook does not want to be hounded by the anti-gun/do-it-for-the-children/omfg-i'm-scared lobby.

Re:Wrong way of looking at it... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#46414891)

I think they would prefer to be hounded by those, as opposed to the NRA. If the recent events have shown anything, it's that anti-gun petitions and demonstrations are significantly less numerous than pro-gun ones - simply because most people who are vaguely for stricter gun control don't care all that much about it (not enough to get their ass off the chair and do something, basically), while a significant proportion of gun owners will treat gun control as a very serious issue and are willing to invest a considerable amount of time and money fighting against it.

Heck, it's a very simple number game even on Facebook itself. The biggest pro-gun lobby/propaganda org is, doubtlessly, the NRA. The two most prominent anti-gun lobby/propaganda orgs are Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action. So, looking at their Facebook pages:

MAIG [facebook.com] - 20,000 likes
MDA [facebook.com] - 150,000 likes
NRA [facebook.com] - 3,000,000 likes

Who would Facebook rather piss off?

Illegal gun sales? (2)

jcr (53032) | about 5 months ago | (#46414717)

What are they going to do, delete Eric Holder's account?

-jcr

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...