Giffords Demands Hosting Companies Censor “Ghost Gun” Providers

Giffords sues the ATF

courtesy washingtonexaminer.com and AP

The First Amendment protects all speech, especially speech we don’t like. While the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. Government from taking down publications like the neo-Nazi Stormfront website, it doesn’t stop the hosting providers from pulling the plug themselves. The Giffords gun control group reckons that might work for guns. From The AP:

A gun control group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords asked two web hosting companies on Friday to shut down websites selling parts and machines that help make untraceable homemade firearms known as “ghost guns.”

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence asked the providers that host GhostGunner.net and GhostGuns.com to disable the websites for violating the hosting companies’ terms of service.

Again, Constitutional protections only dictate what the government can or cannot do; private citizens are free to provide or deny their services to whomever they choose. In theory. Unless it’s a gay couple asking for a wedding cake, apparently.

But the cut ’em off at the server tactic has worked in the past to take down “hate speech” websites, making “progress” where the government has been unable or unwilling to venture.

Giffords’ argument: the sites providing materials and instructions for people to manufacture their own firearms at home violate the terms of service of the hosting providers.

After reading both the Terms of Service and the Acceptable Use Policy for DreamHost, there’s nothing prohibiting these sites from conducting business. The only clause in the ToS that is applicable is a statement that customers can be terminated at any time for any reason.

Giffords thinks that “the sort of products that have already caused scores of senseless deaths — and are likely to cause many more, unless taken off the market.” Forcibly in this case.

But the same argument could be made of Home Depot selling hammers on their website, which have killed far more people this year than all the Ghost Gun related murders.

The fact remains that these sites are legal and comply with all applicable terms and agreements. Giffords is hoping that liberal lobbying will create enough public pressure to have them taken down anyway, due process be damned.

comments

  1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So they go back to print ads…orders by phone or mail…darkweb…
    The genie is out…no putting it back.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Anyone could host a server from their home on their old sony PS3. Trying to boycott the server is a waste of time.

  2. avatar Rabbi says:

    Are the morons “demanding” hosts shut down sites that sell booze, cars, hammers, fertizer, pressure cookers, hammers, knives, etc.?

    1. avatar Chris says:

      “Replicants are like any other machine – they’re either a benefit or a hazard. If they’re a benefit, it’s not my problem.” ~ Deckard

  3. avatar martin says:

    Funny you almost cant see the strings on the gun control pupprt.

  4. avatar 2Asux says:

    Apropos to earlier emails, it is not necessary to use SWAT teams to disarm the public. One by one, curtailing scurrilous websites (and online selling) doesn’t require government. Gabby has it right. First, we stop the supply chain, then we strangle the inventory. It needn’t be that way, but noting else seems to reduce the deadly, unnecessary, and unconscionable episodes such as Las Vegas. You may notice here that a tipping point has been reached.

    Some news organizations are already posing Bernie v. Trump for 2020. He will embrace Giffords’ efforts. Fortunately, gun owners keep fighting the last war. Well, unfortunate for those who refused to even consider reasonable means to prevent certifiable “good guys with guns” from opening fire on innocents, without warning. Confiscation is the last resort to make the nation safer, and now it has come to that. It is the ever-warming water that will be the end of you.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      I don’t think Bernie will be a threat, he’s pretty old and his last campaign had him looking pretty ragged. I knew, and said,Paddock opened a can of worms “We’d” regret. As much fun for some as the Bumpfire stock was , I had been against them. I know the 2a says ” we” can have them, ratatatatatatah doesn’t sound good , you’ve just licensed everyone to own full auto. Everyone, not responsible gun owners, everyone. I know, I know, two a rights and all that.. . FUCK YOU BIG TIME YOU PADDOCK BASTARD.

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      Bernie is not a threat for several reasons, not the least of which being that he’s an economic illiterate (as are all socialists — yes all of them) and knows literally nothing other than to regurgitate Marxist talking points that were torn asunder by the fall of the Soviet Union. Also, Gabby has it exactly wrong. As per usual. These businesses are not violating and ToS agreements with any of their hosts. These businesses are also a non-factor in terms of supplying the arms that criminals use. What would actually reduce the deadly, unnecessary, and unconscionable episodes such as Las Vegas is to improve upon psychiatric care. So no, no “tipping point” has been reached, either. People are already putting gun control in the rear-view, as they damn well should. It solves nothing, they know it solves nothing, and gun-grabbers (not “gun safety advocates” or “gun control advocates” — gun-grabbers) are often forced to admit that it solves nothing.

      Fortunately for gun owners, it’s actually those who refused to even consider the fact that their “reasonable laws” would have done less than absolutely nothing to prevent mass-casualty incidents that are fighting the last war. This is why they’ve lost, at least at the federal level, since 1994. May they continue to eat crow and see their hopes dashed against the Altar of Reality. And no, confiscation is not an option even by the open admission of gun-grabbers, and they also admit that they won’t make the nation safer, either. It is the ever-warming water that will be the end of the gun control movement. i.e. You. No, you, and not us. All of these proposals, perhaps save for the new NICS reporting requirements, will go absolutely nowhere for that reason.

      1. avatar Think about leaving your "I hate socialism" screeds at home. says:

        As a gun lover, I have to say: you’re a moron. Nothing about your economic beliefs approaches knowledge. And more importantly it clouds the issue. Stop dragging guns into your losing political war.

        It is crucial that we reach the growing population of democrats and progressives and teach the values of gun ownership. If we don’t recruit, we are going to be outnumbered until we are politically surrounded.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          You’re actually a troll, and I have to say that you’re simply projecting your own economic illiteracy onto me. Stop dragging your long-defunct economic dystopia into your losing culture war against us.

          It is actually crucial that we teach the growing population of Dempublicans and regressive leftists the values of individual liberty, which can easily start with gun ownership; something they tend to be against, even if unwittingly, because they more-often-than-not support gun control. Gun control itself, as we all know by now, being a policy that is often deliberately applied disproportionately to the poor and minorities — groups that they like to claim some affinity for and a want to help. We can’t recruit so long as we’re not able to disabuse the undecided or apathetic of categorically failed, unworkable ideas.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          “…we are going to be outnumbered until we are politically surrounded.”

          There. Now you’re onto it.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      PLEASE!

      Please…please…please! Run Bernie in 2020!

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Please…please…please! Run Bernie in 2020!”

        Happily.

        Bernie is old, now question. Yet, he managed to light-up the youth in the Democrat party. Once we get rid of the days gone by crowd, the energy will be even more motivating. Trump ended business as usual for Republicans, Bernie can do it for us.

        1. avatar AgingDisgracefully says:

          If he does get the Democratic nomination in 2020, the morning after election day is going to be about the worst hangover you Bernie Bros have ever had.

          You win by growing your electoral map, not shrinking it. Going all in on gun control will only increase your victory margin in California, at the expense of everywhere you actually need to win.

          But hey, you’ll have the sheer joy of re litigating 2020 for years on Reddit.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… I’m not worried about the old commie. He’s going to keel over dead long before he even has another chance to run. After all, the Clinton crime family has had people killed before for standing in their way.

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          Hey! 2ASux is alive!!! We all thought you shot yourself in a Las Vegas hotel room a few months ago!

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          How ghastly. Ghastly, but so in character.

        5. avatar El Bearsidente says:

          The truly funny thing would be, should Bernie be POTUS, how long until your little “revolution” would tear itself to shreds. It would take a few days, at most.

          Bernie “energized” nobody. Just dumb children fell for his neo-communist rubbish talk. Children who have no clue what socialism really is.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Children who have no clue what socialism really is.”

          Oh, what a wonderful opening you deliver. Would some of those children who do not understand socialism include, say, the people of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Israel ? Socialism seems to work rather well, don’t you think?

        7. avatar Michael Clark says:

          Socialism works? Do you remember the size of the USSR or how about China? But please do not mention Canada where it takes just a little over two years to get a PCP. Also in Canada if one needs something like a blood test they need a PCP to fill out the paperwork. Or you can pay out of Pocket. And you are using Denmark, a country with a smaller population than New Jersey as your successful implementation of socialism, seriously?

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Choosing nations where socialism works because you side claims it never works, even though it does. Highlighting only failures means you must accept highlighting successes.

        9. avatar Baruch Shein says:

          Neither Bernie Sandersky or any other jew a”h has a foreskin’s chance in Haifa of ever becoming POTUS. It simply won’t happen, folks!

        10. avatar Excedrine says:

          @2Asux — If you want to see what socialism becomes, go to the failed socialist state of Somalia, which collapsed right along with the Soviet Union — itself another socialist paradise. Or how about the civil rights black hole that is China? Why you don’t you go try to eek out a living in Venezuela? THAT is the end-result of socialism.

          No, no it doesn’t work. It never, ever has and it never, ever will. It’s not even arguable at this point, and whether you think so or not is irrelevant and inconsequential.

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          “No, no it doesn’t work. It never, ever has and it never, ever will.”

          So….the successful socialistic nations of northern Europe do not exist? On which planet?

        12. avatar Excedrine says:

          Except that they’re not actually all that socialistic after all.

          Their governments don’t totally control the means of production or distribution, which is absolutely necessary to meet even the most basic definition of socialist anything. They are still very much market economies, wholly unlike any faithfully-implemented socialist state.

        13. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Which is precisely how that piece of scum Bernie Sanders hypnotizes the millenials. His “democratic socialism” is just socialism light. It’s the first step in getting socialism’s footnin the door. Of course, it’ll never be enough and more socialism, without the democratic part, would necessarily be the next step. They seek equality of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity. That has never worked and will never work. “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them, too”

        14. avatar 2Asux says:

          “They seek equality of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity.”

          Fortunately, you continue to wallow in that mistake; the better for us. We want equality of both. That is not to say everyone should have the exact same thing at every moment, but that everyone should have circumstances that ensure they can capture opportunities that will result in everyone having the most, with no one left in the dustbin.

          I seem to recall an ancient admonition that “For those to whom much is given, much is expected.” One can construct a society wherein the successful dedicate part of themselves to programs to raise up the less capable to live a life lacking none of the necessities, or even a few of the “luxuries”. Or one can construct a society where the population delegates that responsibility to government, but with the commitment to fund the results. What America has become is a land where too many successful people smugly thumb their noses at public responsibility in the race to gather more unto themselves. If you look at your own taxation propaganda, you make much of the fact that 45% of earners pay zero income tax (and receive subsidies instead). That 45% is the percentage of your people who you collectively consider too poor to have any taxes taken from their income. 45% is nearly half the income earners, and and even greater portion of the populace because so many more no longer even attempt to work.

          Your conservatives agree that you are a nation of “haves” and “have not”, yet the very people successfully providing for themselves and their families haven’t a care for those less successful. Who can be proud of a nation where half the population lives just above subsistence level, has no hope of the next generation being more successful? Yes, a nation as rich as the US should not have a “poverty” level at all.

        15. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          So your solution is to force redistribution through force from the barrel of a gun? Here’s a question, why should we allow those who contribute nothing and take perpetually, to vote? Why should someone with no skin in the game get a say in policy, instead of sitting quiet in the corner and remaining grateful to receive anything that they haven’t earned? Only a true civil war can be started by those that the have the overwhelming majority of guns. Democrats can become a nuisance. The right can start a genocidal war. And there are only 3 primary things that can instigate a Restorative War…1) gun control (AWB/confiscation/magazine ban) and 2) unfettered immigration of useless parasites and unearned amnesty, and finally 3) onerous theft in the way of taxation for the benifit of parasites. Unlike others here, I’m ready, willing, able and anxious to get to killin’ domestic enemies, as the US Constitution demands of me.

        16. avatar 2Asux says:

          Ah well, and here I was, eager and ready to debate the “redistribution” question, then your final sentence made it all completely unnecessary:
          ” Unlike others here, I’m ready, willing, able and anxious to get to killin’ domestic enemies, as the US Constitution demands of me.”

          And here you sit, still. Demonstrating a lack of conviction in your statement. Complaining, simpering, whining, awaiting someone else to start the “restoration”. Not that I am unhappy with that, but your words are more empty bluster common with gun owners. The best you can hope for is stasis regarding gun rights, while watching your dreams falter under the cool and reasonable decisions of appellate courts (such as was the impetus for this current blog posting).

          All the talk of revolution is nothing more than the purring of a cat while it is dying. Making itself feel better while unable to alter the inevitable.

    4. avatar neiowa says:

      Forget Bernie. Be concerned about nomination of Michelle Obumer the only First “Lady” in history with a bulge. Way left of her useless downlow beard “husband”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        M. Obama hasn’t the baggage of many others, but she has no real support. Running another woman, one without portfolio, doesn’t seem sensible. Name recognition can carry only so far.

      2. avatar El Bearsidente says:

        She can check off two boxes. Black and female.

        Other than that? She’s a classic twat preaching water while drinking wine herself. She’d be even more embarrassing international than her husband. I would expect her to be on the level of competence as Austrian president van der Bellen. He’s stumbling from one incident to another, constantly proving that he’s really a blithering idiot.

      3. avatar EPoch270 says:

        Kamela Harris will be the 2020 Dem nominee, mark my words. She checks every conceivable loony lib box.

    5. avatar Hank says:

      You democrats are going to have to deal with Hillary again in 2020. Let that sink in for a minuet. No seriously. I’m not trying to just be a jerk. She really is going to run again. Just wait and see.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Maybe Hilary will just run herself out of town. She can’t swindle us again. No matter the money.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Too bad she knows where the bodies are buried. If she didn’t she’d be in prison right now waiting for her firing squad.

        2. avatar Hank says:

          She can’t swindle *you* again. As in the Bernie bros. The wider Democratic Party? She sure as hell can. The clintons are to the DNC as the New England patriots are to the AFC. They are a perennial machine that will reappear in every election, destroying your energized far left hopefuls like the evil empire. Something tells me if we met on the street and I offered you an honest bet on this, you wouldn’t take it. She will be back, with all the vigor of a new campaign slogan that resembles, “Lets try this again.”

        3. avatar El Bearsidente says:

          That’s what you say now. In 3 years you’ll happily goose step along chanting either Heil Hillary or Heil Bernie.The difference is trivial.

          Both are enemies of freedom.

          You have to be absolutely mental to vote Democrat. Look at Europe. You do not want Democrats in charge, or else you will turn into that.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Look at Europe. You do not want Democrats in charge, or else you will turn into that.”

          Indeed, I am aware that you lot (real Americans) would find it frightfully difficult, if not intolerable, to live in a society where a devastating medical situation could not bankrupt you, ruin your savings, leave you in penury. A society where one does not have to work 100 hour weeks in order to “get ahead”, as you have it. Nations where one is granted a month’s “vacation” each year (and the ability to spend it in any of the neighboring “states”, so as to be a bit more tolerant of other cultures and customs. A “world” where you are more appreciated for who you are, rather than how much you can capture at others’ expense.

          Yes, avoiding the heart attack inducing stress and drama of life in America, the uncertainty of a job, the possibility to lose everything on a turn of the stock market, would be absolute torture for Americans.

        5. avatar Excedrine says:

          @2Asux — Indeed, you are actually willfully unaware of what people capable of critical thinking find frightfully difficult, if not intolerable, to live in a society where a devastating medical situation cannot be resolved except to leave to another country because an unelected bureaucrat on a government board said you couldn’t have a life-saving treatment — and this after waiting weeks or months just to see a specialist. A society where one does have to work 100 hours a week in order to have more than one child because 75% or more of your paycheck is stolen from you by your increasingly feckless and ineffective government. A world so “tolerant” that it allows predatory economic migrants deliberately mislabeled as “refugees” to establish “no-go” zones so thoroughly entrenched that the local constabulary is practically begging the military to come in and sort it out for them — and this after suffering mass assaults in broad daylight at the hands on these “people.” A world where you are actually only appreciated for how much the government can exploit you to benefit its preferred (and purposefully created) underclass, rather than actually allow you to unleash your full potential and keep what you earn.

          Yes, avoiding the heart-attack inducing stress and drama of life in Europe, the uncertainty of any future at all for yourself and yours, the possibility to lose everything on a turn of phrase in a tabloid accusing you of bigotry, would be absolute torture for Europeans.

      2. avatar Think about leaving your "I hate socialism" screeds at home. says:

        Seriously. Obvious republicans shouldn’t comment on how the Democratic party works. You’re clueless.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Seriously. Oblivious Dempublicans shouldn’t comment on how anything works. You’re every bit as clueless as you oh-so-desperately want to pretend anyone else is.

      3. avatar What About Bob says:

        I’d take that bet Hank, while hoping I’d lose all the way.

    6. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      You are some kind of extra special clueless if you think any of us are going to let our weapons be confiscated.
      I would agree that a tipping point is being reached but the way in which this country becomes safer is gonna be a real shock to folks like you.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Do you not see that all that is required is a single Supreme Court ruling that the right to arms is limited to possession in the home, or perhaps licensed hunters (who also register their firearms with the authorities). It didn’t need to go this direction, but if guns are restricted to the home and forests, with any other use a violation of law, the nation will be that much less dangerous for normal people. There will be universal laws requiring strict storage of guns at home, separated from ammunition. These laws will not be considered a great burden, as you will be able to have your guns, all you like. But the rest of us will be less likely to gunned down by the irresponsible and the disturbed. Zero? No, but much, much more sensible.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          “the nation will be that much less dangerous for normal people”. Actually- before that happens our country will be embroiled in the most violent, kinetic Civil/Restorative War known to man, that sees the literal genocide of all 20-25 million Liberal Terrorists™ like you that pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. If you don’t think that a healthy percentage of the 100 million gun owners won’t resist the elimination of our God given rights, you’re delusional.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          To date, have there not been more than a few episodes of what you should be revolution for? Your forefathers revolted over tea and a stamp. There is nothing for society to fear, regarding armed rebellion over sensible gun restrictions. Not confiscation mind you, but restricting where people can possess guns if not hunting or mustering for militia drills. Surely you cannot really believe more than a dozen gun owners nation-wide would attack neighbors and authorities simply because private gun possession and use is limited to home defense, secure storage and, perhaps, hunting (is there really a need to hunt anything?).

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          Nothing to fear but a slippery slope into civil and financial servitude to the state, which has in fact cost the lives of over a quarter-of-a-billion people just in the last century. Gun control is simply a starting point. And, no, none of the yet-proposed gun-grabbing schemes are anything akin to “reasonable” or “sensible,” no matter how you or anyone else alive wants to define those terms, neither have you or any other gun-grabber alive been able to prove that they’re “reasonable” or “sensible” or even remotely effective.

          P.S.: The founding fathers went to war over a good deal more than just a tax stamp on tea. Not that you would know that, naturally.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          The founders went to war because they were rebellious, self-serving subjects of the Crown who didn’t like their rightful place in empire. Your side loves “sovereignty”, so suck on this egg….the King was the Sovereign, the absolute Monarch. As such, he could treat his subjects as he saw fit. Parliament were there to represent the people of the empire, whether or not the subjects agreed with whatever was policy of the day. Your founders rejected the idea that any government had superior right to individuals. They even made the claim that governments were established to protect the rights of the populace. That claim was not universally accepted among any of the empires of the day.

          The American colonists simply did not want to play nice with the rest of the commonwealth. As proven by the lack of revolutionary fervor today, government indeed has a rightful place ordering the interactions of society for the benefit of the greatest number of people. Your revolutionaries went to war over inconvenience, and the requirement to subsidize the benefits of government, including common defense against local indigenous peoples. The lack of revolution today “proves” that the most good for the most people is quite nicely provided by government, so much so that you cannot even get a quartet together to actually begin overthrowing what your ancestors would consider oppression by government. You are fond of proclamations of armed rebellion, but severely lacking in commitment to what you call “first principles”.

        5. avatar Excedrine says:

          The founders actually went to war because American colonists were treated as less than British subjects. Your side hates “sovereignty,” so you can suck on this egg: we are each sovereign, to a point, in our own right. That was the principle idea behind the whole thing. King Charles was a bafoon that tired to bilk his little overseas fiefdoms for wars he knew he couldn’t pay for in the first place, and tried to quash any and all dissent even to the point of trying (and failing) to disarm them which sparked the revolution. In so doing, he violated the Magna Carta and all established English Common Law. Whatever views were shared by the other empires of the day were irrelevant, too, by the way.

          The American colonists were actually simply tired of being treated like shit by a tyrant 3,000 miles away. As proven by the increasing distrust in and increasing disgust with the government today, the government indeed has no rightful place micromanaging the interactions of society as it does now. Our revolutionaries went to war over far and away much, much more than mere inconvenience and were not keen to subsidize a “king” that was too big for his breeches. The increasing distrust in and disgust with government today “proves” that the most good for the most people is actually not provided by the government, so much so that you cannot even get a quartet together to actually begin arguing in defense of the government today. You are fond of proclamations of the status quo being the best there is, but severely lacking in commitment to what you call “substance” in your (non)arguments.

        6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Our Founders unquestionably would’ve went to war for the many, many transgressions against the people committed by our govt. undoubtedly the GCA Of 1934 would’ve been considered a much more heinous disarmament of the people than what happened in 1775. Every single firearms infringement since then would’ve been seen as salt in the wounds. And the obamacare tax is no different than the tax on tea, as theoretically it effects everyone, although the Obamacare tax is mandatory. Now, to be clear- the problem isn’t with our “government”. It is the best government the world has ever seen. The problem is those that govern, principally the filthy, feral Liberal Terrorists™ that wish to fundamentally transform our nation. Those are the “people” who must be extirpated, en masse, by the millions. I hope I live long enough to help lead the charge.

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Our Founders unquestionably would’ve went to war for the many, many transgressions against the people committed by our govt. undoubtedly the GCA Of 1934 would’ve been considered a much more heinous disarmament of the people than what happened in 1775”.

          Yet here you, all of you, sit. Complacent, compliant, sniveling, complaining, accepting of more of what you consider egregious oppression of the people than would your ancestors. What does that say about the lot of you? What you see, are experiencing is a mature and measured move toward what we have in Europe. Even your “conservatives” are enamored of large government expenditures on social programs. BTW, only in America can one behold a liberal political party with “conservative” members, or a conservative party with liberal members. Your so-called “big tent” ideas seem to, in the final analysis, only be admission that your major parties do not really have much difference between them.

        8. avatar Think about leaving your "I hate socialism" screeds at home. says:

          You are a Russian troll. No thinking Democrat fails to understand how the supreme court or stare decisis works in such a profound and ignorant manner as pretend to.

          Note to republicans, seriously: this guy is trolling you.

        9. avatar Excedrine says:

          The trouble is, thinking Demopublicans are few and far between. Same goes for Republicrats, unfortunately.

          I mean, really. Shillary and Drumpf? Give us a break already.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          “No thinking Democrat fails to understand how the supreme court or stare decisis works.”

          First, I must note that your side enjoys pointing out how Democrats are mindless drones; don’t think. Now, you must explain how mindless drones can ponder Stare Decisis.

          Second, Stare Decisis isn’t set concrete. It merely holds that lacking a compelling reason to overturn an earlier principle, earlier decisions in the same category should be respected. Even two of your noted favorite conservative justices view the Court as treating second amendment rights as “second class”. Do you suppose there is a trend setting up?

          In addition, restricting the possession (carry of firearms) for “good reasons” was highlighted by your own Justice Scalia. Further refining the meaning of “good reasons” is not violating Stare Decisis, merely elaborating on established jurisprudence.

        11. avatar American Idiot says:

          And all the gang bangers in the inner cities will magically comply right? You’re that special kind of child that rode the short bus to school 2Asux. Oh, I got it- we should ban murder next? Or maybe just keep it in homes and forests? Every time I read the stuff you come up with it reminds me why I’m happy to be able to think for myself.

          I heard that they were letting anyone into college these days. Is that where you learned your awesome problem solving skills? Nah, you’re probably one of those types that majored in transgender philosophy with a minor in self loathing. Lots of great jobs out there with those degrees at your side!

          It’s alright and don’t be sad, the aliens (that I’m sure you believe in) will one day come to earth and show you the love you so richly deserve.

        12. avatar 2Asux says:

          I have always noted that removing guns from the criminal element will be terrifically difficult. However, when do Americans shirk their responsibility simply because maintaining is difficult? Eh?

          There is a two-dimensional problem with firearms amok in private hands: criminals, and law-abiding who, once law is established, will comply with sensible controls. I have noticed that you lot insist every objection must be satisfied before you will allow that some improvement is better than no improvement.

          I heartily endorse a severe campaign against politicians who, once the craziness of non-terrorist mass shootings is reduced to the rarity of a snipe, refuse take strong measures against the and inner city thugs who are killings hundreds each week. Or, dare I say it, perhaps it is the pro-gun cabal who wishes the high criminal death count continue so as to justify claims that “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun”?

        13. avatar El Bearsidente says:

          Sensible, like in the UK? Almost a full ban on firearms. Semi-autos are gone.

          And yet they now have more shooting deaths than any EU country with laxer gun laws.

          Meanwhile Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, they have laws that allow those “scary black rifles”(TM). Truly high capacity magazines are also 100% legal. You can buy a 100 round drum and nobody will bat an eye.

          And yet, those countries are safer than the gun control heavens like the UK or even France.

          How odd is that.

          So stop with the “sensible” BS.

          And that SCOTUS verdict you want? Good luck with that. Because the moment the 2A falls like that, 1A will follow, and then your ilk will go to jail for words.

          That will be fun.

        14. avatar 2Asux says:

          Oh yes, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Hungary have liberal firearms laws to rival the US.

          How silly of me to not recognize that.

        15. avatar Excedrine says:

          @2Asux — You have actually always noted a lie: removing guns from the criminal element will actually be impossible. Americans can at least understand that it is only a waste of time, effort, and resources to even attempt the outright impossible. Especially when it would involve doing things that are downright immoral, like the stripping away of people’s basic civil rights and property acquired previously and in good faith — which is exactly all that gun control is, ever was, and ever will be.

          There is actually a two-dimensional problem with gun-grabbers like you: your vehement and absolute refusal to see that your proposals don’t and can’t work even if you turned the U.S. into a police state, and that your proposals are not “sensible” or “reasonable” in the first place which is why people generally do not comply with them — and cannot be and will not be forced to, either. We have noticed that you lot insist that there be no objection in the first place, and do your damnedest to shut down every single one with everything from simply disabling comments on your YouTube propaganda videos to shouting knowingly baseless accusations of racism and hating children.

          You also wouldn’t heartily endorse any severe consequences of any kind against any politician who refuses to take a harder tac against inner-city gangs because you’re actually too busy trying to punish us for everything they do. Or, dare I say it, it is actually the anti-civil rights cabal — which includes you, by the way — who wishes the high death count to continue so as to justify the claim that, “Only the police (who we regularly condemn as vicious racists and thugs literally no matter what they do or say) are trustworthy enough to have guns”?

    7. avatar Mark N. says:

      Except that DiFi and all the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus have admitted that there is not one single proposed “common sense” reform that would or could have stopped the Vegas massacre. What’s-his-face passed multiple background checks, had no criminal record, no psychiatric detentions, nothing. Nothing that the gun control crowd has proposed to date, other than total bans, even suggests at a solution to the Vegas shooter. And for all your ranting and raving, you haven’t proposed anything either; you only mouth the idiotic and nonsensical mantra that the NRA/Republicans have “stood in the way of common sense gun reform.”

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Doing something, even symbolic, has its own power. The public, faced with earnest and honest attempts to oppose evil, or hands-in-the-pocket, tip of the shoe in the sand nothingness makes the contrast stark. And in our favor.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Not really, especially in America in this day and age. Wether you’re a lefty or righty, people now pourposely do things to oppose the other side. You will not see mass compliance… you will see mass death not seen since the 1860s… the result of which will break liberal resolve to win. You’ll be protesting your own side in the war before it’s all over.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Revolution will not come. You have gone down the civilized path far beyond what your founders considered intolerable (so-called “Intolerable Acts”, anyone?). To imagine legions of uniformed police or military rolling through Baghdad in MRAPs, dragging people into the streets whilst searching for firearms is simply childhood fantasy. None of that is necessary. “Gun control” is about laws and courts, not death squads. Even the government you hold is such low regard for intelligence knows better.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          @2Asux — You don’t know that, just like you don’t know anything about anything else, either. You don’t have even the faintest clue as to the long litany of injustices the founders endured before finally casting off the yoke of the British crown. What you don’t seem to realize, or more accurately simply refuse to accept, is that it is absolutely necessary for legions of uniformed police and/or national guardsman to enact what you oh-so-desperately want to pretend are “reasonable” and “sensible” gun control laws, in full. Especially given the American penchant for mass non-compliance as has been seen in The People’s RepubliKKKs of ZOO York, KKKommiefornia, and DIS-connected-cut, where well over 85% of people directly affected by these gun-grabbing schemes simply didn’t do what they were told. All that should be needed to disabuse you of your childish fantasies — the only childish fantasies to be seen here in the first place — is to point to the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Further add the virulent abuse of “No-Knock” warrants and other law enforcement tools mixed with blanket immunity should things go sideways against innocent people. The government you so wrongly hold in such high regard for intelligence thanks you for your willful pig ignorance.

    8. avatar El Bearsidente says:

      Yeah, because the UK has become so much safer with their lack of firearms, right?

      European champion in violent crime, several years running. London now less safe than New York. The UK has more shooting deaths than EU countries with lax gun laws.

      Criminals will still get firearms. They’ll just build them at home. All you need is hardware stores, metal piping. Plus, the black market.

      You want to truly ban guns? You have to ban knowledge, all metal and even polymers. Which is 100% impossible.

      Gabby is a moron, and so are you, because you really know nothing.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Two clues one has reached their intellectual limit: the frequent use of “moron”, and “troll”.

        Some of you hit the intellectual wall rather quickly.

        And it shows.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          We only need one clue to determine who has actually hit their intellectual limits.

          The pressing need to somehow, by some miracle, convince those around them that clearly know better than them that gun control is inevitable or is even a good idea to start with. The correction on both of these notions, whether you like it or even think so or not, is a completely insurmountable “no.”

          You hit that intellectual wall before you even posted here. That is what really shows through.

    9. Bernie Sanders is a Vermonter, from one of the most pro-gun states in the U.S., a state that has always had “Constitutional carry” (no permit required to carry). I think if he won a Presidential election, Democrats would be very disappointed to find out that Bernie is pro-gun, not anti-gun.
      In fact, he’s probably more pro-gun than Donald Trump is.
      Sure, during the 2016 campaign Bernie was forced to give some lip service to gun control, just as Donald Trump gave lip service to the pro-gun side, but Bernie is pro-gun, like most Vermonters are.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Nope. Don’t buy that about Bernie. His position is quite clear- that gun control should be dictated by geography. He believes that gun ownership should be conditional based solely on population density. Rural areas- ok. Cities- no bueno.

      2. avatar 2Asux says:

        Bernie is “pro hunting”. He supports gun ownership where there are no large congregations of people (cities). He is also no fan of weapons of war in anyone’s hands.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          He only gives lip service to gun ownership, period, much less hunting. Furthermore, he wouldn’t even know what any so-called “weapon of war” is in the first place. Neither would the overwhelming and vast majority of people that would actually vote for him, for that matter.

    10. avatar LarryinTX says:

      2Asux-Who is this “we” you speak of? You got a mouse in your pocket?

  5. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Evidently Giffords not only going at the 2a, she’s after the first one also. Some people need drug through the streets. Ironic how she uses Freedom of speech to take away Freedom of speech, er not really.that’s coming from someone who’s going to pay someone with guns to take away my guns.It would be nice to say ” it just doesn’t make any sense” , however it’s starting to make a whole lot of sense to me. THEY WANT TO CHANGE AMERICA,

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Try again. First, at the article states, the First Amendment only applies to governmental interference, not private interference. Second, commercial speech is entitled to only limited First Amendment protection–just go ask the tobacco industry.

  6. avatar CharlieKing1 says:

    Ms. Giffords will never know the true amount of ‘ghost guns’ that are already out there just waiting for the cutting tool to drill out the fire control box. Besides, there are more and more 3D printers being purchased and squirreled away for those dystopian times some are predicting. CNC machines will have to be confiscated to prevent those industrious tinkerers from turning blocks of raw aluminum into, OH MY!, ‘ghost gun’ lower receivers! Hang it up Giffords, your beating a dead horse…

    1. avatar notguiltfree says:

      She is the dead above the ears Nag that was beaten. Just doesn’t know it.

      1. avatar MLee says:

        She’s trying to stay pertinent, useful and important, all of which she no longer is. At one time however, she was all of those things. A woman with power and influence.

        Now she’s the face of manipulation, a puppet on a string, an unpopular paid mouth. If James Brady wasn’t effectively juiced, he would have preceded Gabby in that unpopular quest. Fortunately his brains were rearranged just enough to render him a wheelchair drool monster.

        We are brave and bold Gabby. We are brave and bold because we stand in the way of your goal. We will ignore you and your idealistic one-sided nonsensical talking points .

        Gabby, you’re nothing but a flashing button on a control panel. Someone pushes that flashing button and you begins your tiresome rhetoric. Perhaps in your mind, that’s better than being forgotten with little else to do than scrubbing toilets and cleaning Captain Kelley’s space cadet Underoos.

    2. avatar El Bearsidente says:

      Forget 3D printers. You can build a working SMG with a hacksaw and metal you buy in a hardware store.

  7. avatar pieslapper says:

    So now the left hates Home Depot, Lowe’s and Harbor Freight? The tools needed to make a ghost gun can be purchased at all of them.

  8. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Stormfronts still got a web page up. I went there just to see. Who’s lying to who?

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Not to mention far more hardcore sites like Iron march.

  9. avatar robby says:

    Was Giffords born a delusional psychotic?
    Or did she become this way, as a result of,
    getting a bullet through the brain??
    I guess it’s 6 one way, and a half a dozen the other.
    Crazy is as crazy does.

  10. avatar Michael says:

    Poor Gabby, prostituted out by her husband…I would feel sorry for her, but she was a douchebag before the shooting

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Giffords Demands Hosting Companies Censor “Ghost Gun” Providers”

    Sorry, it doesn’t work that way…

  12. avatar Wanderingninja says:

    My response to Giffords: …”oh, I’m afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational by the time your friends arrive…” -insert ugly grin here-

  13. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I keep telling ya’ll, concentration camps are the ONLY viable remedy for America’s most dangerous enemies that’s she’s ever faced; Liberal Terrorists™, as they pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. There is nothing more insidiously dangerous than those that seek to usurp our Constitution. We wouldn’t hesitate to eliminate any outside nation or extremist terror group who actively pursued the destruction of our country. These anti-American, filthy democrat leftists are no different are are not immune. Inherent in being American is the duty to protect our sovereign land and it’s citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Well, here we are. Why risk the lives of good, wholesome, patriotic Americans in a kinetic Civil War, when a nationwide round up of these subversive animals would be much less risky? Step 1 is seizing the membership registration information for online sewers that these terrorists visit, like The Daily Kos, (as an example.). Once we can identify and arrest (see the Patriot Act) the few million of their most hardened militants, the rest will be easy. It’s time to restore America to what our Founders intended. They never intended for enemies like Gabby Giffords and her master Michael Bloomberg to destroy our God given rights.
    Rant over.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Tell that to the Saudi funded terror mosques going up all around the country.

    2. avatar Baruch Shein says:

      Gabby Giffords is a jew, Blumberg is a jew. The jews *always* try to undermine their host countries. You people should expel the lot of them before they do any REAL harm.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        We should actually expel anti-Semites like you before anybody else.

        1. avatar Baruch Shein says:

          Would you like to grow a pair and TRY, jewboi?

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Would you like to grow a pair and try to STOP me, skinhead?

        3. avatar Baruch Shein says:

          You got a big mouth, jewboi…matched only by your lack of cojones. It’s the subhuman semites in your host country who are most anti-gun: subpeople such as Diane Feensteen and Chaim ‘Chuck’ Schumer.

        4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Why are you busy on an American website, discussing freedom and the 2A- both of which as a British subject (not citizen), that you don’t have? Don’t you have bigger fish to fry getting rid of your national suicidal agenda and the Islanimals you’ve voluntarily allowed in to take over your country? Instead you focus your hatred on a minuscule minority of historically marginalized, yet peaceful people? Doesn’t make sense to me. Any of it. Perhaps your just fantasizing about what guns you would own if you were actually a free person instead of property of the Crown? Keep dreaming, Adolph.

      2. Baruch Shein,
        Take your anti-Semitism and GFY, you damned British Nazi.
        My dad fought Nazis like you in WWII in the famed 10th Mountain Division to save your British ass from being overrun by German Nazis led by your hero Hitler. You might’ve heard of the 10th Mountain Division if you were an American and not a sniveling British traitor Nazi whose parents probably fought on the side of Adolf Hitler. Guess what, your pal Adolf Hitler and his Nazis lost the war, otherwise you’d be speaking German there in England, you ungrateful treasonous British Nazi. We Americans kicked your Nazi asses in WWII, and we’ll do it again.
        Geez, the NY Times writes one article normalizing Nazis, and it makes them feel free to go on TTAG and spout their hateful anti-Semitism here on TTAG.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Well said. We saved them not once, but twice, from the German hordes. The United Kingdom only exists because America allows them to exist. Even today.

        2. avatar Baruch Shein says:

          Up yours, you jewloving cunt. Geez, both world wars were half over before you people decided which side you were on and joined in. Let’s also not forget that YOU refused to take in jew refugees, you hypocritical asshole.

  14. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    They say the second amendment is a bell weather for the rest of them. I’m inclined to agree, and take it a step further. Each amendment is like a leg in a stool. Sure you may be able to balance for a short period of time with one limping along or missing, but eventually it will topple over. All rights are ultimately dependent on one another. That’s why they are having legal battles over having a sign for a gun shop in California.

  15. avatar FedUp says:

    It’s not Gabby’s fault she’s brain damaged.

    It is our fault if we’re gullible enough to treat the tyrannical fantasies of a brain damaged woman as meaningful insights.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      Ehh, that’s BS. I had an orange sized brain tumor and it didn’t make me that stupid. She’s just a basic gun grabbing POS using her injury for her own personal gain. If she hadn’t been shot she probably would have ended up being a mouthpiece against gun rights away.

  16. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…to disable the websites for violating the hosting companies’ terms of service.”

    Interesting. What is the violation, specifically?

    Two things come to mind immediatly….

    First, she can’t win using logic or reason so she will instead use the color of regulations to enforce her will. Maybe we should suggest her website get yanked for promoting violence and hate speech.

    Second, I see a possible business opportunity in getting server space and hosting firearm related websites. Work out colocation deals around the nation to minimize the attempts to blacklist the ip’s of the machines.

  17. avatar Noishkel says:

    I’ve got a real question about about a thought. Unless I’m mistaken those Paladin Press books about making your own SMG are still legal. Is there anything that prevents the sale of those again? If they’re using arms control treaties to keep the digital files from being just given away what about the sale of instruction manuals? Digitally or otherwise?

  18. avatar Lee says:

    Here it is. First the daily stormer, next anyone they disagree with.

    There is no freedom of speech on the internet, as long as ISPs are in control. Truth is that the biggest threat to american freedom is the tech companies who control the modern methods of communication. Going to have to break up google, facebook, comcast, time warner, apple and declare the internet a public utility. All over “community guidlines”.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Any government big enough to do that is also big enough to hand power right back over to said tech giants. Two words: regulatory capture.

  19. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Citizen Giffords is free to peaceably advocate for any peaceable policy. Congresscritter Giffords is constrained in what she, in her critterly capacity, can advocate for, and how. So, what’s going on here?

    “Is this private action?” I quote Frank Zappa in testimony in hearings before the US senate commerce committee, while it considered proposed legislation to require content labeling on retail music. This legislation was proposed and agitated for by Tipper Gore, wife of then Senator Al Gore, on that same committee.

    (Also testifying, Dee Snyder, and John Denver. Worth finding on TwitYouFace, or wherever. FWIW, Zappa used sampled, public audio, from that public hearings in a subsequent single, prompting a copyright lawsuit from Tippy, and AlGore. Apparently Tippy didn’t like hearing what she had said. I have mixed feelings. Censorship, bad, but Sugar Walls?)

    So, “Is this private action?” when congresscritter Giffords says to some ISP: “Mighty nice hosting you have there. Would be a shame if somebody had to investigate it. Not that you’re being accused of anything, or indeed penalized. That Would Be Wrong.” Is this no penalty, just asking questions, when The Process Is The Punishment? When she has made her ability to “move against” guns, gun owners, users, sellers, and the like, central to her political offer, and legislative initiatives?

  20. avatar Zeke says:

    Two-line summary of any Giffords speech:

    https://postimg.org/image/j4jhnyjfl/

  21. avatar Michael Clark says:

    It’s funny how a dumb liberal senator incorrectly used the term Ghost Gun (a gun used for crimes and has not been uploaded into a ballistic database) these could be stolen guns (either from a store) or from a law abiding citizen’s home. The gun control nuts have taken their ignorance too far. If you want to stop such Ghost Guns, then go after the gun control nuts who create high demand in a given area due to ignorant gun control laws and go after groups such as the bull dogs that make a “killing” selling such guns.

  22. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Gabby Giffords is nothing more than a political opportunist and huckster selling the snake oil of disarmament.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Giffords is nothing more than an air head.

  23. avatar Sian says:

    They say they just want “a conversation”, but they ban any dissenting opinion on their pages, disable comments on their propaganda videos, and try to silence and shut down pro-gun websites.

    HMM.

  24. avatar Excedrine says:

    @2Asux — If you want real socialism, go to the failed socialist state of Somalia, which collapsed right along with the Soviet Union — another socialist paradise. Or how about the civil rights black hole that is China? Why you don’t you go try to eek out a living in Venezuela? THAT is the end-result of socialism.

    No, no it doesn’t work. It never, ever has and it never, ever will. It’s not even arguable at this point.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Why is Somalia “real socialism”, but the happy nations of northern Europe not so? Somalia is not a “real” country, how can you make the an example of “real” socialism?

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Because Somalia was, in fact, a failed socialist satellite of the Soviet Union. Several leaders of Scandinavian countries, as well as the denizens therein that elected them, have rebuked economic illiterates like Bernout after he called them socialist. They are still very much market economies, wholly unlike any faithfully-implemented socialist state which absolutely necessitates absolute government control of the means of production to meet even the most basic definition of the same.

        But, according to you, overwhelmingly brown countries can’t even be “real” countries, let alone socialist, apparently.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          Please read what I wrote.

          My statement: “Somalia is not a real country”. Note the verb tense. Somalia is a collection of criminal gangs, if you please.

          When it comes to socialism, the definitions I see active here are what one person calls northern European countries “socialism lite”. But another insists that high taxes, universal healthcare, low crime and elaborate government benefits to the citizens is the epitome of socialism. That is the starting point for my comparing “socialist” countries of Europe with the wild west show that is America. You border on absolute chaos.

          While officially you call yourselves a “representative democracy”, and a “democratic republic”, or “representative republic”, half of the nation (your half) act as if you welcome a complete democracy. While governments in most of Europe do not own the means of production and distribution, they are what Americans would point to as “socialist”. However, you do have a queer habit of believing that the only possible state of government is near-anarchy, or de facto communism. I am here to say that what you see in Europe is a desirable state that is neither rampant and unrestrained self-interest, nor communism. You seem to fear that every move toward a more rational society can lead only to “1984” type government. You claim that your government wants to control your every move, choice and thought. Yet, a shining example of what enlightened government can be lies only across an ocean. Call those nations what you will, life is saner and more relaxed than your own “dog eat dog” blighted communities. There is a reason the arts are more distinguished and developed in Europe than America. Europe shares its wealth, America is selfishness raised to a degree seen nowhere else in the world.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          I actually did read what you wrote, and whether you think so or not is irrelevant and inconsequential. Somalia was, in fact, a socialist state that has since collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union. Nothing in your rant changes this.

          When it comes to socialism, the only definitions that are active are civil rights black holes like China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Like I’ve said elsewhere, faithfully-implemented socialist states wherein the government has effective control of the means of production all goods and services, if not also distribution of the same and in a purely top-down fashion. That is the starting point for comparing socialism and (what’s left of) capitalism in America — which is itself actually quite far and away from some “wild west” show, as you put it.

          We actually officially call ourselves a constitutional republic — and yes, there is a huge difference and it would behoove you to actually learn it. However, half of the nation (which is actually your half and not mine) act as if we already are a complete democracy. Better known as 50+1 mob rule. You also have a queer habit of confusing anarchy and communism, which couldn’t possibly be further apart on any imaginable political spectrum. No, communism does not have an end-state where there is no state. In all examples of communism past and present, and yes they were and are in fact real communism, the communist party becomes a dictatorial regime before murdering tens of millions of its own subjects. There’s even a term for that now: democide. Literally death by government. Communist regimes by themselves are responsible for over 150 million of the 262 million killed by their own governments, and that’s just in the last century. I am here to say that what you see in Europe is not such a desirable state that very well cold, eventually, lead back to communism. I am actually rightly apprehensive about every move towards a less rational society as it can lead to a “1984”-style government — that was supposed to be a warning and not an instruction manual for you. My government is actively taking steps to monitor and control us in every which way it can, and if the Snowden revelations didn’t make that abundantly clear to you (and that’s just a good starting point mind you), then you are willfully pig ignorant. The governments across the pond are actually a little further down the road to that end than mine, as well. Life is actually in many ways saner here than in the “no-go-zone” blighted communities there. There is a reason people are knocking down our doors to get into America more than Europe, even given the recent migrant crisis spilling over into it. Europe actually shares only its self-induced misery, America is generosity raised to a degree seen nowhere else in the world.

  25. avatar Dave says:

    If I were an ffl wanting to attract attention to my advertising I would run a gabby giffords and a shannon twats special every day…..front page.

    “Todays gabby giffords special…….hi cap mags on sale”
    “Todays gabby giffords special…..9 mm ammo on sale”

    You get the idea

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email