Image courtesy Wikipedia

Gun control is losing steam. After doing their best to use the tragedy in Newtown to limit the constitutional rights of American citizens when it comes to owning and using guns, the millions of dollars and countless hours of campaigning led to exactly nothing happening on the national level and very little on the state level. Even those changes that did squeak through are being fought tooth and nail in the judicial system, and gun control advocates are quickly losing ground there as well. The reason is obvious: gun owners are well organized, engaged, and motivated. So naturally the next step for gun control advocates is to pressure Facebook into banning gun related pages — which they’re doing.

From VentureBeat:

Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned.

The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.

Sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat, “Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments.”

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns group and their wholly-owned subsidiary Moms Demand Action are using a handful of examples where prohibited persons have purchased firearms through Facebook as their “think of the children” rallying cry to force Facebook to ban all gun related activity on the website. The groups have been pushing their agenda through a Change.org petition as well as a Twitter annoyment campaign. Ostensibly, they want Facebook to ban gun trading to “end gun violence,” despite the fact that it won’t actually stop any criminals from buying guns and will instead be another closed avenue to the 100% legal trade in civilian firearms in the United States.

That’s the party line — but the concern is that Facebook’s changes would cut much deeper than just banning sales.

From what we know about the way gun control advocates work, their entire strategy is based around suppressing the actual facts and repeating their own propaganda until it becomes “common sense.” It’s the reason why you’ll never see a pro gun control video with the comments enabled or a Moms Demand Action Facebook page with a single positive comment about gun ownership — their arguments simply cannot stand up to any scrutiny and they know it. Their brand of extremism can only survive in a vacuum, and any exposure to actual facts brings their whole world view crashing to the ground.

It only makes sense that Michael Bloomberg and his employees would want to silence the gun rights pages on Facebook. Removing gun owners’ ability to communicate and coordinate effectively would be a massive blow, and allow the gun control advocates to “divide and conquer” the various cliques of gun owners one at a time like they did with the Brady bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

But of course, while banning pro-gun pages is on their agenda, I bet no one is talking about banning the flip side of the coin and removing the Moms Demand Action Facebook page. Because Michael Bloomberg and the rest of his gun control advocate cronies believe that the laws don’t apply to them, for some reason.

We’ll keep an eye on the situation as it develops.

188 Responses to BREAKING: Facebook Considering Banning Gun Related Pages

    • +1 I never understood why someone would allow themselves, family, and friends to become products for a company to sell without any real compensation. If someone needs to be connected with everyone then they could always use a phone, email or even go old school and visit them.

      • That is true, and I also barely use it for anything personal for the same reasons.

        But also seems to work well for online organization (use them instead of the other way around) and disseminating information.

      • “I never understood why someone would allow themselves, family, and friends to become products for a company to sell without any real compensation.”

        Do you use anything that is run by Google? If so, you are allowing it for yourself.

        • Or buy ammo from internet stores? Or post on firearms forums/blogs with ads? Or use Amazon? We could do this all day.

          It’s 2014. You can avoid Facebook all you like, but you’re naive if you think that’s keeping you from being info product. For that matter, we’re naive if we think that wasn’t happening before social media existed. Old school phone sales, junk mail, and those free car contests in the malls that were really just dead-pulp phishing scams for time-share companies beat Zuckerburg by decades.

      • And you still use dial-up internet and churn your own butter…? It’s ok to use modern conveniences and join the other 1 billion people using modern technology. Some people simply enjoy the ease that Facebook provides to stay in touch with many people in a quick easy way. If you don’t like Facebook, no problem, no one is twisting your arm. Now go make me some butter!

      • Facebook is the most antisocial contraption to plague humanity. For someone to sit next to someone else and mssge them or txt or like them on FB???? What is up with that? Is the art of conversation dead? All parents need to regulate your childrens computer usage and no cell phones until they can afford their own! Then we might be able to find people to hold a conversation with verbally, not on a stupid keyboard!

        • After trying Facebook for 3 months and dumping it, friends and family were “Facebooking” my sister asking why I’m no longer on Facebook. I told her to tell everyone that if they can’t call me or stop by then they can go “F” themselves. All of them are LOCAL to me for Christ’s(tm) sakes!
          I UNDERSTAND if people have family and friends FAR away. I get that but it’s a lame ass way to communicate.

    • Banning is a good idea…. not really… Why would Moms Demand Action want to ban gun pages off of the internet? Do they realize that these pages are public?!?! If a criminal is dumb enough to use Facebook to “organize a meeting” (note: not sell) for acquiring a gun when they have no legal right to have one, then this is a good thing. Facebook, like anything else on the internet, is a repository. It will lead to a collection of incriminating evidence against anyone who 1. should not own or possess a firearm 2. Uses a gun in an illegal manner. Why would you want to force criminals away from incriminating themselves??? Why are you so stupid Shannon Watts?!?!

      • You shouldn’t be calling her ‘stupid’ if you buy the line that they’re trying to stop criminals from getting guns… they’re trying to neuter the gun-rights movement.

        • Gun rights are not a movement, they are a right. These idiots and their gun control are the movement, and one that needs to be halted.

    • OK, but the problem is, they (the anti-gun nuts) will now have a HUGE forum without anyone inside to fight.

      My first instinct was to delete, but I will stand up to them with their own game.

    • I don’t do social media, period. No tweets, no facebook, on linked-in, nothing. I have better things to do with my time and largely get all of the information that I need through other means.

    • 3 or 4 years ago I tried Facebook. Bored me to tears. deleted my account after 3 months. More of a PITA than anything.

    • Same. Theres a study out there showing something like 60% of all accounts are Fake. When you can buy “likes” and celebrities do, for something like $.02 a pop, churned out by people in 3rd world countries in cubicles working for $1/hr, why would ANYONE believe this matters?

      Low Info Voters and those who prey upon them at the top, the new-rich with stock options, and the hedge funds that pump and dump the stocks. Its the classical worker exploitation that the Prog-tards would be furious about, if they only knew- but of course- they are the “useful idiots” “selling the rope to the hangman, for their own hanging” for those investing in this kind of faux growth in their 401ks, who will be the first to cry to Uncle Sugar when it all falls apart.

      • I forgot the demographics. Isn’t FB about 70% women? Not that that’s wrong; it’s just an interesting fact.
        Troll away, Totenglocke. You’ll be gone within 3 months. Which is also interesting.

  1. Does The Facebook ban anything else that is legal? Just wondering if firearms are their first “ban”..

    • Oh the humanity if you post a gun for sale, but offer to barter food stamps for tats or weed and then all of a sudden it’s free speech.

        • I’ve noticed this too, and considered the cause. To my mind, the reason why the forums are under-utilized is the amount of vibrant discourse that occurs in the article comments. People don’t feel the need to use the forums because their desire for intelligent discussion and answers to their questions seems to be met in the commentary.

      • A couple things about the forum:

        1) still no good mobile option, making it hard to use on a phone,

        2) the last couple times I was there, it tried to force my phone to install some porn app or something.

        • Maybe I’m just different, but if there’s going to be a porn app on my phone, I’m going to be the one installing it, not Robert, Dan, Nick, or any of these other guys 🙂

        • They could install Tapatalk and make the phone usage issue go away. It’s free for TTAG and cheap for you. I have it on my own forums…it’s just a free plug-in.

    • Social networks will be right up there with flower power, bell bottoms, Members Only jackets, torn grunge jeans…
      The good news is its a living record of how much of a douche most of the people were.

      • Except the only remaining “evidence” of the early stupidity of the babyboomers is a photo album and their warped damaged brains. If you’re silly enough to put anything on a “social disease” site it will exist forever. I suppose the same could be said for this venue

    • If you have a social media site for Second Amendment advocates, then that is your audience. Using a site like Facebook, items posted may reach beyond that group and spread the word to people who are not aware of all the facts. Thereby making more pro-2A advocates.

      • Hence, why MAIG/MDA are trying to shut it down. They don’t want people knowing the truth, so they’re leaning on FB (BTW–the creator of Facebook is also quite liberal) to wipe them off the map.

        And he’ll do it, too. They’d go after Google+ next but..nobody uses that.

    • Except I don’t use Facebook to keep in touch with other “gun nuts”. I use it to kep in contact with family and friends scattered all over the world.

    • Except I don’t use Facebook to keep in touch with other “gun nuts”. I use it to keep in contact with family and friends scattered all over the world.

      • Only problem right now is that they are really only hearing one side of the conversation. I wonder if talks progress, we make liberal use of the “ABUSE” feature on the Moms-demand-action facebook pages and and help contact info to get facebooks attention.

        • MAC uses Facebook quite a bit to communicate. I doubt he would let his go without a fight. You can bet he will say something.
          As will GRAA (yawn) and and all the other pro gun pages.

        • @Benny I doubt MAC would be too hurt by a FB ban. He uses Google+, which ties directly into youtube, his home forum.

        • They’re humoring that side. They will do exactly nothing to appease their demands other than just nodding their heads. Ultimately FB is not in the business of censorship or making political statements. And, FB doesn’t want to ostracize any particular segment of their users.

        • Yeah, FB stated getting too expensive for “small” page owners so he switched most of his posts over to g+. Although Google has always had a policy of no firearm sales, so it’s probably not the place to go if anyone is leaving FB for their expected change.

        • Google+ Terms of Service state they prohibit marketing of any ‘regulated’ products, so they are also not a good alternative:
          “Our [Google +] service is not ready to support the marketing of any regulated products at this time. Do not facilitate the promotion or sale of pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, fireworks, weapons, or health/medical devices. “

    • Facebook is very used to dealing with fallout. People whine, make a group ‘protesting’ the change and then go back to business as usual.

    • Sure would. Take both sides off Facebook, see which one can survive without it’s “followers” hur hur hur….

  2. If banning “gun-related pages” means the kids won’t be able to post photos of their target-shooting trip to a range, that would be rather unfortunate.

    • If banning “gun-related” pages also surprised MDA and MAIG and the other anti-gun groups with getting banned, I’d find it a bit funny. All of the sudden they would cry 1st A infringement and make a huge stink. They’re just as gun-related as any pro-2A group!!! In fact, they are 100% completely and totally gun-related and they post nothing that isn’t gun related. Boom. Banned.

      • Yes, this would be irony at its finest. The truth is fair play doesn’t really happen in the world we live in.

  3. Well that sucks, I’ve found a lot of the sites to be really helpful and informative. And the fact that I’ve gotten good deals makes them even better. Honestly I’m surprised we’ve made it this far without any serious opposition from Anti-gunners.

  4. So not only are many 2nd Amendment advocates banned from talking on MAIGs and MDA Facebook pages, but now those groups want to completely erase every gun related page on the site? What’s next, YouTube? Considering the gigantic amount of ad revenue channels like Hickock45 and Iriqiverteran8888 and others pull in that would be a stupid move. And if they do go that far, does that mean that channels of game reviewers and developers will get banned because many of their subject matters are First Person Shooters? Do they want to erase guns from the internet?

    • They want to erase every positive sign of guns from the culture entirely.

      They want the word “gun” to be equivalent to “evil” in every way, but they’re not there yet. They want to only talk about guns in negative news stories and not allow people to show others in their community that normal, law-abiding citizens enjoy using firearms every day. Their message right now: Guns = crime, hence the phony term “gun-crime”, so if you see anyone with a gun they are a criminal or a psychopath, and if they seem nice they’re just in hiding because they’re a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

  5. So how do we pressure Facebook to not give in to the gun control extremists? 5 million NRA members and 150 million gun owners want to know!

  6. Keeping us up-to-date is one thing…. What about how to get in contact with facebook and letting all us 2A supporters get some input in!

    What do we have to do, rent a billboard truck and roll it out in front of facebook headquarters?

  7. I’m going to go the opposite way and submit that the folks at Facebook are smarter than that. They won’t ban squat related to gun ownership. My prediction is that exactly nothing will happen.

  8. Nick, Robert, you’re computer guys. Someone who knows more about this stuff than I should see the commercial possibility of a gun-culture social network of our own.

    • The problem with that is we would basically be going away into a corner where none of the fence sitters on Facebook could see us. That is exactly what the antis want. I am not particularly attached to Facebook, I think it’s a time waster, but I have posted key articles that have made my fence sitter friends say, “you know what, that makes sense.” It’s a war that must be fought on all fronts, gents. We can’t just take our ball and go home.

  9. I went to their petition page and the comments are hilarious. “Gun violence is at an all time high. Facebook and Instagram don’t need to be pushing it along.” Only problem is gun violence is the lowest it has been in what, 70 years? I also love the picture they use as proof was from the ad put on Facebook that is clearly fake.

  10. This makes sense because all MAIG and MDA really do is sit on Facebook or Twitter all day long. Whenever they try to rally, lobby, or get someone elected they fail miserably. This way they can focus on the things they actually know something about, spending time on Facebook and Twitter that is.

    • Oh dear lord, twitter is MERCILESS to those guys.
      They can’t post a damn thing without 500000000 pro gun tweets showing them the error of their ways, with only a handful of people to defend them.
      If it wasn’t so sad, it’d be hilarious….
      Nah, it’s still funny.

  11. I will support Facebook’s decision in banning firearm related pages, if, and ONLY IF they ban all non-related pages as well.

  12. If Facebook is smart, they won’t… they’d lose too much business in advertising as well as customer good will.

    Of course, not every company nowadays does the “smart thing”… they’d rather react to hysterical liars like MDA / MAIG.

  13. G+ has a growing gun community. I actually like the format better. The problem is most of my friends and family are one facebook. If they do decide to ban firearms related pages I am pulling the plug on facebook.

    • Was just thinking the same thing. If google+ is smart, they could gain 100,000 new “customers” a day for the next few months, while depleting facebook of the same.

      • It would be nice, although the Moms demand Illegal actions against legal guns will follow us there. We will need to fight the facebook BS tooth and nail. Some people may not understand why, but facebook is a place where I post gun stuff to put info out to my anti friends. I know they read it.

      • I thought that Google banned gun advertising some time ago on their commercial site. Google hates guns, Amazon hates guns, EBAy hates guns. [The former CEO of EBay ran for California governor against Brown, claiming (a) to be a republican, and (b) pro-2A. No one believed her.]

        On top of that. personally, it pissed me off that Google demanded that I join Google+ just to watch some YouTube vids, so it immediately made it to my boycott list. I don’t want a Google+ page nor a facebook page, never have never will. I don’t care if my kids are there, I ain’t gonna go there.

      • Running to google from facebook is a losing proposition. They’ll screw you in a different position, but that’s about it.

    • I’ll have to look into the report abuse feature….

      “Re: Mom’s demand action: overtly spreading misinformation. “

  14. Geez, Facebook, I only avoided you because I don’t care for social networking in general; I wasn’t necessarily asking for you to completely vindicate my personal choice.

  15. This won’t go anywhere, just like the Staples incident they are making up positive “results” when they probably haven’t even received an official response. The problem to consider is the hundreds of firearm-related businesses that have Facebook pages, an entire industry that has the capital to faceoff with Facebook if needed. A few whiny moms won’t sway Facebook in the face of the giant advertising loss they would produce.

  16. Friggin ninny moms and simpleton mayors. They’re just going after low hanging fruit, now. Soon, they’ll just be picking rotten crap off the ground and eating it. That’s a metaphor or something.
    I’m betting, like others, that this goes nowhere. The people of Facebook seem pretty damn savvy and I can’t imagine they’ll want to alienate a couple hundred million people in one stroke. Plus, how do we know Zuckerberg isn’t one of us. Why, he could be in this room right now…

  17. Facebook? I had very limited information on it from my business and that’s it. After retiring from it at the beginning of 2014, I deleted the page. Screw having Facebook, screw having a smart phone…..screw it!

    • I understand where you are coming from, but this is an arena that is extremely vital to gun rights. If we lose social media we lose possible contact with hundreds of millions of people. They are looking to suppress gun rights groups right where we are gaining the most momentum. We have no help in the conventional media so this is our biggest rallying point for fighting back. It can not be taken away from us.

  18. So can we start a change.org petition for fb to remove incendiary, emotional appealing gun control groups interested in limiting our constitutional rights ?

  19. Zuckerberg is moving into a house just up the street from me. Well as soon as he finishes a massive rebuilding of it. Perhaps I will stick a “gun-free zone” sign on it some dark night.

      • And here I thought he’d given up his US citizenship and moved abroad in order to avoid paying taxes on his billions in profits when Facebook went public. Is there any reason we should allow him to move back?

        • I wouldn’t blame him for doing that. I wish I could avoid paying taxes(I pay my taxes; just in case the IRS is reading this).

        • That wasn’t Zuckerberg, that was one of his underlings I believe. Renounced his US citizenship and moved to Singapore (an absolute-control police state with zero freedoms, but lower taxes than the US)

      • From what I understand he went up to the property owner and said here’s 10 million, move out. There’s a rumour in the hood that his sister just bought a place kitty-corner from me using the same method. Can’t confirm it though.

  20. Well Ladies and Gentlemen … what Facebook absolutely ‘dislikes’ is for you to call them in person. I tend to disagree with the rest of the comments about ‘go find somewhere else’. Part of the Mad MOMs strategy is to put gun owners in the ‘gun closet’. Similar thing Eric Holder said to do to them in 1995.

    As big of a crap heap as Facebook can be, it’s a good place for gun owners to be seen doing normal things – and that’s exactly why Bloomberg and the Mad Maggies are forcing their hand.

    No, the best thing to do here is call them. Unfortunately, they’ve gone through great lengths to make their number unknown.

    Still: Phone Number: Facebook Support and Suggestions: 650-543-4800

    😉

  21. Sent a nice note saying essentially this to billionaire Ron Conway, who hijacked many of the Sandy Hook parents into a standard gun control scheme.

    Having met a few of those parents, they did not want that. Regrettably, they were played by some pretty amoral and repulsive people.

  22. Fight MAIG and MDA over this, or let them deny POTG their freedom of speech forever on FB. It looks to me like there are far more pro gun groups on FB than anti gun, and POTG use this Social Media resource to share all kinds of worthwhile news and information and just plain fun.

    If we cannot win this fight, we might as well beat our guns into pruning hooks.

  23. What tragedy in Newtown? Oh you mean how tragic it is that the whole town is a movie prop and many Americans think some kids were massacred there?

      • The town is real – but the shooting event is surrounded by suspicious facts.

        Did you know they had rows of porta-potties delivered within an hour or two of the “shooting”?
        Did you see the large electronic signs outside the school telling people to “check-in”? – Those arrived almost instantly too.
        Overhead news video shows about 100 or so people walking through the building, around the block and back into the backdoor – over and over again, like marching ants.
        Recording from the police radio of the first responder on the scene said there were “multiple guns” …”we got a rifle and a shotgun”. Then a few hours later they “discover” the shotgun in the trunk of a car.

        Now they’re threatening a school safety expert from Florida who is trying to discover anything that can be learned from the event. Instead of helping him make schools safer, they’re blocking every request and sending police to his home to give thinly veiled threats.

  24. Ebay and Facebook are or have been based in Mountain View and Palo Alto California (Stupidville) (unfortunatly my old stomping grounds)Sooo what do you expect? They are both based in the middle of Liberalabilia.

  25. Well I hope not but those gun control people hate facts. Oh BTW I went to R/guncontrol and went to a post and well think I got myself banned by using logic with these people

  26. “Sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat, “Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments.””

    Sources from what side of the conversation? Because that sounds like just the kind of feel-good BS that MDA likes to use when people are being polite to them instead of actively showing them the door.

    • Yep, lot of vagueness there, huh. Typical rhetorical strategy, though…make it sound like there is more consensus and progress than there really is.

      Kinda like that MDA meeting that was touted but only had three members present. Or, those various rallies and “organized protests” that bring out 10-20 people, but are filmed to look huge.

      There’s a logical fallacy (or two) that applies…but then, we know that logic and analytical thinking is not their strong suit anyway. This rhetoric WILL convince some, however, that they are bigger than they are and have more power than they (presently) do.

      MDA may not be much now…but they do scare me (a little). MADD has gained a LOT of traction over the years, and people nowadays seem to just assume that if MADD says it, it must be “good.”

      I recall hearing a radio interview a years ago where a lady high up in MADD was bragging about the 70+ ADDITIONAL ‘drunk driving’ laws they helped get passed. My first thought was…”Hm. 50 states, over 70 laws. Why?” Wouldn’t “Drunk driving is illegal” be enough?

      Apparently not. And MDA is following in that footstep (goosestep?). The emotions of “Moms Against {insert cause}” cannot be ignored, but it is a slow burn build up of ‘acceptance.’

  27. Do you know how hard it was to get the page called sexy little girls removed from facebook a clear pedophile page with pic of girls no more than 8 in underwear and the comments were horrific. Fb fought with us refusing to remove it, i guess exploiting childern is not a top priority…we did eventually get enough people involved to get it removed

  28. That is so stupid. I understand the hurt. That being said, I understand the good that legal guns provide. One group should not have the power to ban pages on facebook. No amount of groups should have that power. We all have our opinionsand should be allowed to have pages dedicated to them.

  29. Meh, I don’t care about libtards and Facebook!
    Most of them have no clue, that Facebook runs on GNU/Linux Free
    Open Source Software!
    But, I’ll tell my neices and nephews, grand children, to fight against
    the Liberal Takeover of our society!

    They need a reminder that their freedoms are under attack,
    and those freedoms protect them from enslavement to the “ESTABLISHMENT”!!!

  30. Fuck Facebook I’ll just close my account they can kick rocks if they do that, well there goes another amendment.

  31. If they succeed than a useful tool to spread the word on the positive nature of guns would be lost.

  32. So how is this any different from Rob’s new policy? As I recall, anyone who’s commented against Rob’s new “no dissent” policy has been told “It’s Rob’s page, if you don’t like it then LEAVE!” – so why the hypocrisy here?

        • Actually, his comment makes perfect sense, and it fits your on-going attitude quite well. I for one am kind of sick of your constant whining over this “issue” that you consistently incorrectly characterize.

          The new policy is one of “no ad hominem attacks.” Nowhere has it been said that you cannot disagree with Robert or any of the other TTAG writers. So stop saying that nonsense.

          The other part is “don’t clog up the comment sections with disagreements about what we choose to publish.” That’s a far cry from “don’t disagree.” All they ask is to keep the comment sections on-point for that article, and not turn the comments into “meta discussion” about policy (which you CONSISTENTLY try to do). If you think those two statements are equivalent, you need to retake Logic 101.

          So, please, do take your juvenile whining on this subject somewhere else. The grown-ups in the room want to have a real conversation.

          Your nonsense lowers the (overall excellent) signal to noise ratio of this site. Please stop it. Your whiny view on this topic is known, and there is no need to repeat it in every thread you post in.

        • “The new policy is one of “no ad hominem attacks.” Nowhere has it been said that you cannot disagree with Robert or any of the other TTAG writers. So stop saying that nonsense.”

          False. Rob has stated several times that any comments criticizing articles or editors of TTAG will be deleted. That is what I’m upset about. I don’t give a crap about the fact that he claims your ad hominems will be deleted (which they never are if they’re insulting people Rob doesn’t like – swoops!).

          From his most recent post on the issue…

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/robert-farago/housekeeping-a-quick-reminderupdate-on-ttags-comments-policy/

          “In some posts, readers ripped TTAG a new one re: our editorial stance and style. In others, they called each other names. These interchanges are unacceptable.

          In his own words, no criticism allowed. So please, try again to deny that the rule is what it is.

        • Again, and I’ll type S-L-O-W-L-Y, “editorial stance and style” does NOT equate with “any and all disagreement” or “no criticism allowed.”

          The fact that they don’t delete any or all of your incessant whining (which is about all you post about) is proof that you are wrong.

          When you contribute something of value to the discussions here, which means thoughtful, on-topic input, I will start to take you seriously. Until then, you sound like a spoiled 2 year old.

          Take that as well intentioned advice. Or don’t.

        • Exactly, Jr. No substance from you, just childish insults because I provided an exact quote from Rob supporting my point. It’s sad that Rob would rather have your immaturity and lack of reading skills than people who can think but might possibly disagree with him.

        • Toten- just because you keep repeating your points doesnt make them correct. You seem to be either incredibly obtuse on this, or deliberately trolling. Let it go. TTAGs policy is not the debate here. You have made irrelevant and OT references to it at least three times, despite well-intentioned and respectful posters pointing out that you need to let it go.

          So, you are harming your reputation here, for what thats worth to you.

          Also, since you have already threatened to take your football and go home a couple of times, my question is- why do you keep hanging around?

          Other than mean-spirited and juvenile motive- to “get revenge” for no one agreeing with you, I cant imagine one that reflects well upon you.

          Rule one when you are in a hole = stop digging.

  33. How to fight facebook? Well, they are a publicly traded company, and the NRA and others accept donations of stock…..

    • I can see it now. The NRA becomes a majority share holder, and the Facebook logo is replaced by a picture of charlton Heston raising a Kentucky rifle above his head.

  34. I’ve never been a big fan of facebook; but a lot of people are. To a lot of people, “it is the internet”. So whether you use it or not, this would be a big move.

    Keep this in mind: pretty much every company these days HAS to have a facebook page. This would mean that your Classic Firearms, GrabAGun, Magpul, etc, facebook pages would be gone. (Much of the Boulder Airlift for Magpul was coordinated and announced through facebook.) – If you’re not “social” and you’re a business, you’re in trouble.

    The same goes for activist groups, the NRA, the sort of folks that worked for the recalls here in CO; it’s about hobbling them all.

    So, MDA and MAIG knows exactly what they’re doing here. This isn’t about some guy posting a “highly automatic machine gun clip for sale without background check”, it’s about a body blow to firearms businesses, activists, and advocacy groups in their entirety. It’s a very wise tactical move on their part. So whether or not you use facebook or not, “this matters”.

    Also: @Nick – Beware confirmation bias. Maybe this is my own bias coming from a state where new gun control laws didn’t “Squeak by” here in Colorado (and they’re working on new ones this session… I also think those in CT would agree with me) – the antis and the gun-control groups are still orders of magnitude more emboldened and motivated than they ever were pre Sandy Hook. Gun control isn’t dying, or faltering, or fading; it’s just regrouping, and now is no time at all to relax.

    We may have kicked out three legislators here in CO, but if that was to send a message, it doesn’t seem like it’s been received. The antis are as bold as ever here and everything is being voted on, on party lines. I’m waiting to see what the legislature here introduces this spring.

    I’m hoping none of them end up on here with the header “BREAKING:” – but I wouldn’t be incredibly surprised if they do.

    If MDA and MAIG wins this one, it’ll be pretty major. Do we have any groups who could be ‘in talks with facebook’ working to stop them?

  35. I haven’t been on FB for years. Providing personal information over the internet for anyone to see is a bad idea. One of my agency’s main focus of criminal investigations is identity fraud. There are people whose job it is to prowl FB and the internet and gather Personally Identifiable Information (PII) about whomever they can, and then try to get credit cards, mortgage loans, access to bank info, etc. FB is a veritable gold mine for those criminals. So I don’t do it. I’ve actually been more successful at getting people to quit FB than I have been converting fence sitters to 2A thinking.

    Personally, I think FB is in decline. Membership is tapering off and people are losing interest. Identity theft is quickly becoming a common crime. It’s not a matter of if anymore, just when. I’ve had my credit card number stolen twice, and I write “ask for ID” on the back of all my cards. I consider myself to be extremely careful. But business like Target and even my own mortgage company aren’t. They are sloppy and got hacked.

    Businesses can do what they want. If FB decides to be anti-gun, so be it. Sure it will hurt our cause, but not by much. Millions of gun owners and gun related business will take their BILLIONS elsewhere and FB will begin it’s slow decline into obscurity. If it hasn’t already.

  36. The way to pressure Facebook is not to send feedback 9dont think that will work); The way to pressure Facebook is to write your Senator/Delegate at both the state/national and tell them Facebook is anti-gun anti-freedom and does not respect the 1st amendment. Nothing will get their attention like some Facebook-centric legislation, and people campaigning against Facebook (they routinely censor political speech in other countries). Plus, Zuckerberg has some pet projects and has been running ads for conservatives as cover. Hard for me to see them going too far on this, but then the squeaky wheel gets the oil. And, Mothers against guns is surely a tiny little mouse.

    • They are a private company, petitioning thugs at the state and national level is not a good idea. I would hate it if Facebook did this, but I despise politicians more.

    • You should know that Facebook is not obligated to respect your 1st Amendment Rights. The same is true for any other private sector company.

      • Dammit,
        This refers to your use of the word “respect” above.
        Exercising ones rights is NEVER a disrespect of someone elses rights.
        You have absolutly NO claim or right to tell FB what to do.
        Thus if FB exercises their right of exclusion, no right of yours has been direspected because you have none!
        Since the word “rights” as in the gun type, is used so often in this blog I would hope that we recognise in equal measure that ones rights end where another’s begins. When you log into FB, you enter their house and your rights end at the door. As it should be, correct?

  37. Honestly, there are so many other outlets for this (local forums, armslist, etc) that i’m all for whatever makes the stock prices go up. This is a service provided by them (facebook) and they are free to change their user policies to prohibit whatever they want. If the majority aren’t happy, it will show in users leaving the site. This is a public for profit company, and they can choose to prohibit whatever they want.

    As a FB investor, i want them to take whatever steps necessary to maximize our investment. That may rub you the wrong way, but honestly, if you are not happy, then close your account. I don’t hear as big an outcry because craigslist bans gun sales..

    • Political risk and controversy lowers stock prices. Especially if pro-2A people people pressure legislatures for anti-facebook legislation. That’s a good way to increase costs- have 50 different state legislatures telling you how to run your business. Large underserved markets are how competitors get built, too. The best way not to get bitten is not to poke the bear.

  38. I will close my FB account if they ban gun related pages…. I barely like looking at FB anyways. I just go there to look at the guns and the beautiful women….

  39. Nick, I think that this statement of yours is a little bit hyperbolic, don’t you?

    “It only makes sense that Michael Bloomberg and his employees would want to silence the gun rights pages on Facebook. Removing gun owners’ ability to communicate and coordinate effectively would be a massive blow, and allow the gun control advocates to “divide and conquer” the various cliques of gun owners one at a time like they did with the Brady bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.”

    It would not be a massive blow at all. Gun rights advocates could well be the most well connected political demographic in the country today. I think that our successes are a testimony to that fact, not to mention that we have truth, rationality, facts, data and history on our side. Facebook, Twitter and all of the rest could pull the plug tomorrow and it would be hardly a speed bump. We’ll adapt and adapt well.

    MAIG and MDA, for all of their hysterics and rantings, will be made to look even more petty and small by these kind of shenanigans than they already do. By their suppression of First amendment rights they make it far more clear that they are actually more about totalitarianism than they are about public safety. This kind of BS doesn’t sit at all well with the majority of Americans and it will likely backfire on them.

  40. BOYCOTT FACEBOOK.

    Are they taking down pot-related pages? Marijuana is still an illicit substance under federal law so anyone who condones Facebook pages dedicated to pot, pot dispensaries, etc. are promoting the breaking of federal law.

    The pressure being applied to FB is fascist and should not be tolerated in a civilized society. Silencing on side of a legal two-sided conversation about Constitutionally provided rights is something worthy of Putin’s Russia.

    Zuckerberg should be embarrassed by this but then again, he was once a renegade and is now part of the ruling elite. Another example of the corrupting influence of power….

  41. Go to as many pro 2A Facebook pages and message them about this. Social media can indeed be a powerful tool.

  42. If this ban encompasses brand and store-related pages, FB will lose a revenue stream. A small one, but they would still lose it. Typically a business that uses Facebook buys advertising. The way it works nowadays: For example if you run the official HK page on Facebook, and post a photo of a firearm or a link to the HK web store, you are only reaching ten percent or less of your audience. HK’s official page on FB has close to 200,000 fans. So when the guy at HK responsible for the page posts something, he’s only reaching 20,000 of those people. If he wants to reach more, he has to boost the post, i.e. pay for it. To reach all 200,000 people can run north of $100 per post. It’s a cheap way to reach people if you think about it. $100 post and someone comes to your webshop and buys a 416 upper, that’s $100 very well spent.

    Facebook may be a lot of bad things, but I think this is a lot of noise and hype. They won’t ban something that earns them money. Collectively the firearms industry spends millions advertising on Facebook and the fans of that industry provide Facebook with mountains of marketing data.

  43. I was suspended four times from that useless site. I didn’t even know I had a f***book page, because they tricked me into signing up when I wanted to view the TTAG page. I finally deleted them because they’re useless.

  44. its a good thing i don’t use FB. it looks like ttag will now be my only site that i socialize on. I’m ok with that.

  45. Has anyone else seen the MDA video on FB about gun-related FB pages? I saw it pop up on my news feed from a “friend’s” page the other day. Her reaction was “Scary!”. I had to comment on it and let her know that a background check is still run anytime someone buys a new gun. If they’re used, then there’s nothing different than placing an ad on Craigslist, or the newspaper, or….

    It was an embedded FB video, so I couldn’t grab a link to send to RF/Nick.

  46. Actually, the backlash may come in the form of Facebook’s game revenue. There are plenty of gun-related games that I’m sure bring in a mess of money for Facebook. Think Mafia Wars. Though not the top game anymore, there are plenty that have followed in its footsteps. That was an outright emulaton of the crime culture. And players spend money to have the little gimmicks which includes buying guns for their avatars.

    If Facebook’s policy is too stringent, wouldn’t these moneymakers be put on the spot? And if there are leniencies, does that not lead to loopholes and a weak position?

    I also like the irony of the antis getting banned because they are all about guns, too.

  47. I have just been going through Facebook from a search or any sight or community that has “guns” in it and posting the following wherever they will allow a Visitor to post, including TTAG’s page

    “Be advised that Facebook is negotiating with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action to BAN all gun sales and gun-related Community or Group SIghts from Facebook, This is clearly an attempt to deny freedom of speech while persecuting American Arms Owners and Enthusiasts. Better fight this folks. It cannot be allowed to happen.”

    Unfortunately, I just realized there’s a small typo in the message…DOH!

    I’ll probably get flak from FB, or banned, or deluged on my page with replies. comments and suchsh*t, but…so it goes.

    Anyway, I plan to keep posting this (corrected) as long as I can. Anyone else who cares to copy and post, as well on FB, or anywhere else…please feel free. [NB: DERRY M HAS RECONSIDERED HIS OFFER TO COPY HIS POSTING. SEE BELOW. FEEL FREE TO COMPOSE YOUR OWN USING HIS AS A GUIDELINE. -ED.] The typos is in line 2 “Communities or Group SIghts”.. Should read Group Sites…oh well… fixing before I continue to post.

    I DID NOT reference TTAG or Venturebeat in consideration of not “bombing” those sites without prior permission or warning. A simple web search brings up the VentureBeat article, so I am referring anyone who asks to that search.

    • “an attempt to deny freedom of speech while persecuting American Arms Owners and Enthusiasts”
      Problem is that you are wrong.
      There have been so many poster here that have pointed out that the builder of a soap box has an absolute right to say who can stand on it.
      When I lock my door at night, am I persecuting a thief or restricting his freedom by denying him access to my home?
      FB will do what it will, and maybe loose the trust of its users, and the world keeps turning.

        • BTW- KCK, don’t infer I agree with you. Facebook is not exactly a “soapbox” as you describe it. BLOG pages are soapboxes. Facebook is Social Media. There’s a difference.
          We only know what VentureBeat reported, leading off with

          “Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned.

          The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.”

          Then they go on to focus on gun sales resulting from interactions on their sites. It is not clear what MAIG and MDA are actually talking to FB about. There are far more “gun-themed fan pages” than anti-gun-themed pages, but a fair amount of sites patently having to do with selling guns, as well.

          IF “gun-themed fan pages” are part of the discussion, then FB is, in my view, considering denying freedom of speech to arms owners and enthusiasts because Social Media is about freedom of speech (barring patently illegal activities like treason, sedition and pedophilia). Also if arms owners and enthusiasts are denied FB access and MAIG and MDA are allowed to keep their pages, the discussion is no longer fair and balanced.

          Your example of locking your door to bar thieves access to your home is kind of silly. If you tell your daughter not to have underage sex with her boyfriends, are you persecuting the boys? I don’t think so. The anti-gun rights movement thinks nothing of lying, exaggerating and misrepresenting arms owners and enthusiasts, deletes comments that disagree with their lies and exaggerations and bans anyone who posts such comments from their pages, but it’s okay with you if FB closes all “gun-themed fan pages” and allows MAIG and MDA to continue to vilify and lie about arms owners and enthusiasts? That’s bogus and you know it.

          I have to agree FB has the right to ban patent gun sales, if they wish, although I do not disapprove of FB being used by individuals for that purpose. The actual sale and its legality is the responsibility of the private parties involved in the sale, not FB.

    • On second thought, if you want to post on FB, please compose your own message. I own this one, and you may prefer to express yourself differently. Not being stingy, but we each have to “own” what we say and are comfortable with.

    • The Firearms Policy Coalition has also generated a petition to FB in support of arms owners’ right to be on FACEBOOK:

      http://www.change.org/petitions/facebook-stay-fair-don-t-cave-in-to-anti-gun-demands

      Also, they are reporting the following submission by FACEBOOK regarding a Court Case, as follows:

      “In Bland v. Roberts, Facebook submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Facebook speech, even a page “like,” is Constitutionally-protected speech. The brief said that “Facebook strives to create an online environment that facilitates communication, social connection, and the sharing of ideas, and in which Users can engage in debate and advocate for the political ideas, parties, and candidates of their choice….Facebook, for itself and its Users, has a vital interest in ensuring that speech on Facebook and in other online communities is afforded the same constitutional protection as speech in newspapers, on television, and in the town square.”

      PLEASE sign one or both of these petitions and help the POTG hand MAIG and MDA a resounding defeat in this matter!

      There is no substantive difference in being able to post a photo of your 10 year old daughter riding the new bicycle you gave her for her Birthday than in posting a photo of your 10 year old daughter shooting the new .22LR rifle you gave her for her Birthday. If MAIG and MDA get their way you can post the former, but not the latter. Think about it. Act against it. Urge your friends to do the same.

  48. Money speaks. One of, if not THE biggest challenge we face is Herr Bloomberg’s financial clout and the influence leverage it brings to the antis’ efforts. It makes him king of the antis.

    No doubt Facebook will be subject to that influence, coerced and threatened to heed Mikey’s will.

  49. Tell us something useful like WHO (and HOW) do we contact at Facebook to protest this POLITICAL discrimination?

    Name, e-mail, phone. Please

  50. Free flow of information is the essence of the internet. The first crack in that principle is the death knell of any entity that violates.
    If someone else is censored, you realize that it is no longer yours but you are there by permission only.
    Then the erosion of that platform begins and is soon irrelevant.

  51. While I have never used facebook as it is a gov and private info gathering site but I mostly just refuse to join in on “popular” culture, it is a great site to get store info and almost every range and gunshop I frequent has a facebook page and while again I think FB is a info gathering site first social site second I think facebook possibly banning gun pages is typical behavior of gov and big business in this anti-gun propaganda era which is dictated by false fear and info via big media and politicians. But in the end I think facebook will allow gun pages because the gov and private industry get so much info from fb on individuals and business that banning gun pages would be counter-productive to the main goal of fb, which is info gathering.

  52. If MAIG and MDA used some common sense, and really wanted to reduce “gun violence”, they would realize that facebook/google+ is an ideal place for buyers to meet up.

    Both facebook/google+ are data mining/tracking sites. A felon tries to buy/sell a gun? Instant bread-crumb trail that the police can use to track the felon AND generate a list of associates/sites that they might not otherwise know about, or spend a great deal of time tracking down. But as we all know, reducing gun violence really isn’t their goal.

    • As I recall Facebook has aided in arrests in regard to illegal arms trade, especially when it comes to gangs that focus on “street cred”.

  53. IMHO we’re shooting ourselves in the foot here by taking this venturabeat article at face value. The article states “The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.” As near as I can tell, there is nothing in the article to substantiate the notion that FB is going to do that.

    It IS true that MAIG and MDA are pushing to further prohibit the sale of firearms on their website (something already prohibited). That is clearly defined in MDA’s letter and Facebook’s response. However, no where is stated by FB that they’re going to ban firearms pages altogether, that’s just conjecture (at this point).

    By overshooting their stated goals, we’re the ones that come off looking paranoid and unreasonable. Flooding Facebook (corporate) with a bunch of angry comments based on little (or no) factual information is going to do nothing more than make them side with MDA and MAIG. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be pushing back against these groups or remain silent, but we should be accurate and respectful. This is quickly turning into Starbucks all over again and we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves. Only this time, the gloating on the anti’s side will be much more pronounced.

    • Wherever they apply pressure we must apply pressure. Every battlefield is important. We may never know the effectiveness of our pressure but we should not just sit around and hope it resolves itself.

      • Agreed

        “I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be pushing back against these groups or remain silent, but we should be accurate and respectful.”

  54. If Facebook does this ban, their competition will reap the rewards of subscribers. Be in mind Facebook now in days is starting to look like Myspace.

  55. They wipe their butts with The Constitution. They try to pretend The Second Amendment doesn’t exist. And now because they are fighting a losing battle, they try to take away our First Amendment rights. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. That’s your right.

  56. Folks, so far this story is racking up plenty of response. Good!

    Who has asked Facebook if there is any truth to the story? Who has expressed their concern to Facebook? If you do have a Facebook page, have you shared the story and asked for others to do the same? When you do write FB, make sure that you point out the large number of LGSs, gun clubs, ranges and organizations that use their social media for legit and legal use. They don’t agitate or promote social disorder they way some sites like MDA or MAIG does. (ooo… I like that. Remember it… it’s the anti-2A’s that create unrest. Use it.)

    A unified loud voice can achieve a lot.

    And if the do establish such a policy, we need to make sure we all file violation complaints for MDA and MAIG.

  57. I hope Facebook stops and thinks about the huge portion of people that will exodus from their stupidity!!

  58. What else is new, liberal BS as usual, what about all the kids who have taken their own lives over something another kid posted on facebook, are they gonna shut down facebook altogether, i mean facebook kills right????

      • There was a guy grom Ohio that wad selling a handgun on one of the Facebook groups and he ended up selling it to a minor. There was also a felon who tried getting a firearm from a group. But that ended with the felon getting arrested cause the guy he tried getting it from was a undercover cop. Which you would think would only be a positive thing.

        • Thanks. Seems like a positive thing to me.

          That kind of thing can happen anywhere.

  59. All I can tell face book is that if they start restricting anything about “GUNS” on facebook, they can plan on loosing 50+.% of the people on there. I don’t think they want that.

  60. Why would ban talk about our second amendment? If you don’t like block the sender… I have seen a lot worse things on Facebook!!!

    • They delete any comments that disagree with their propaganda and ban the commenter from being able to post further. So, people try, but they reject any opposition to their postings they don’t like.

  61. The really problems is that kids are making Facebook accounts before they are allowed by Facebook with a fake date of birth!

  62. I did Facebook for a year. The novelty wore off and I deleted my account. No tweeting for me either.

  63. Insane if they think it will do one bit of good keeping guns from kids or crimanals.. The web is 10 steps ahead of all of it. And I would say there are some groups that will make things difficult for Facebook… ANONYMOUS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *