Facebook Blocks Mrgunsngear for Medal of Honor Post It Says Promotes the Sale of Firearms

Gosh, why does this sound familiar? Yesterday I posted about YouTube removing my videos for apparently “promoting the sale of firearms.” Now Facebook has done even worse to Mrgunsngear in reaction to even more clearly appropriate content. In fact, it’s disgusting to see what Facebook is objecting to . . .

Mrgunsandgear wanted to boost his post about Tech Sgt. John Chapman receiving a posthumous Medal of Honor. But he was surprised to receive a rejection notice from the antisocial media giant. Basically, Facebook would not allow him to pay to promote this post and show it to more people.

Fixing it? Like removing an image of a Medal of Honor-awarded service member holding a firearm?

Uh huh. So does the website Mrgunsngear linked to “primarily focus on the sale of weapons?” No, the Air Force Times does not. Here’s a link to the article in question.

It’s possible this denial was the work of an algorithm rather than an actual person. Except Facebook then followed up by blocking Mrgunsngear’s ability to post anything.

“Going too quickly” is not a thing on Facebook. At least, not that we’re aware of and it isn’t in their terms of service or other guidelines. And “Help Centre?” What, is British Facebook blocking him?

I can’t decide what the worst part of this is. The censorship? The anti-gun policies? The insult to our military? The fact that social media platforms are seemingly using “promotes the sale of firearms” to remove anything showing a gun that isn’t explicitly anti-gun? One thing’s for sure: this isn’t over.

comments

  1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I keep waiting for Zuckerberg to announce his election to head Antifa. He certainly fits in with them.

    1. avatar Forward Assist says:

      Skynet is real. It starts with code, then an algorithm, then makes decisions that affect humans. Last step: there’s nothing we can do about it or to stop it.

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        Sure there is. At least, Snake Plissken could stop it.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “I keep waiting for Zuckerberg to announce his election to head Antifa.”

      Rumor is ‘The Zuc’ is spending some serious money ‘exploring’ a possible run for President.

      I kinda doubt it will go anywhere, since he has been pissing off the Leftists recently with the damage his company has done with their personal data, and what he did for the 2016 election.

      I still think we are gonna get an Oprah Winfrey – Tom Hanks ticket in 2020…

  2. avatar anonymoose says:

    “Are you ready to restrict your freedom of speech?”

  3. avatar FedUp says:

    How do I become an official Facebook rules enforcer?
    I want to start rejecting everything Shannon Watts posts as ‘promoting gun sales’ and see what happens.

    1. avatar Casey says:

      Well, every time they start squawking about banning something I *DO* go out and buy a new gun just to spite them.

      So yeah, my FFL would agree that she’s driving sales.

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    Da he!! I watch Mrguns on YouTube. Is this the “most” evil FB decision? Not even close😡

    1. avatar Sgt Bill says:

      Go to full30.com to watch mrgunsngear, Hickock45, Sootch00, and many other gun reviewers!

  5. avatar Wedge259 says:

    They specifically include nunchucks in the list of prohibited items….though maybe its as a safety measure for the owners themselves, since most just end up hitting themselves in the head!

    1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      I don’t have Facebook so that was the first time I’d seen that message. Nunchucks? I mean really, how common is assault/homicide with nunchucks?

      Granted, they are badassed and the only reason I don’t have more dents in my head is because the principal violated my 4th amendment and confiscated the one I made in HS welding class. He never got the swords or knives though, lol

      I had no idea that Facebook was doing so much to keep me safe. /sarc/

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Nunchucks are on the list of prohibited weapons in California. FB is based in California.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          And unsurprisingly they are prohibited weapons in Australia.

        2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          They’re actually illegal weapons in a lot of states! Right there mentioned explicitly in the banned weapons laws. Seems absurd. I think the only people who have ever been injured by nunchucks are the owners haha

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          if you want to see something funny google “Cops TV show Pilot part 2” (available on youtube) and take a look at some of the interesting equipment they have on their belt.

          I’m sure someone got a whomping with them!

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So, now we have two large Internet platforms (YouTube and FaceBook) refusing services to people because their content allegedly “promotes the sale of firearms”. That sounds like a concerted effort to suppress legal content and legal activity. (And we have to remember the concerted effort of an accounting software company and banks to quash “promoting the sale of firearms”.)

    We need a political and content agnostic bulletin board (that is what FaceBook is) and video sharing service as soon as possible. I cannot tell you how pleased I would be to see 10s of millions of people abandon YouTube and FaceBook and watch their stock price crater.

    And while we are at it, we also need political and content agnostic accounting software and banking.

  7. avatar barnbwt says:

    If it is pro-gun, it promotes the sale of firearms

    If it is anti-gun, it is acceptable.

    JUST. LEAVE. ALREADY.

  8. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    There is no response to this that I could make to Facebook that would not involve well deserved and prolific swearing. It is irrational to such a degree that it cannot be answered with civility.

    While it is true that the First Amendment does not apply to private individuals or corporations, the entire point of it was to make sure that debate over what the truth is within the public square could not be squelched. That public square is now clearly controlled by such private corporations as Facebook and Google who are now clearly engaged in exactly the type of censorship which violates the spirit and intent of the First Amendment. They are common carries and must be regulated as such.

    1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      More gubment regulation?? No! We as firearms owners, sellers, resellers, etc., need to make a serious organized effort/statement that we are fed up with their BS! I swear, gun owners are some of the laziest whiniest people! So stop using FB! Cancel your accounts, take down your pages! JUST DO IT ALREADY! Even better, organize and pick a date/time and do it en masse. A massive exodus at the appointed date/time would send a loud message. Will it matter to f***erburg? Probably not. So what! Just stop the whining and do something!

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        The only thing that would accomplish would be to remove our voice and our arguments from the debate. That is handing them victory on a silver platter. It will not stop them from violating the principle of the marketplace of ideas, it merely strengthens their echo chamber.

        Look at the argument made in the Declaration of Independence. The entire reason that governments exist is to protect rights. And if some rights are so obviously important that they have to explicitly be listed as such, then they’re so freakin’ important that it is imperative to defend them at all levels!

        It should be obvious both from history and recent events that there is absolute intent for some people to violate and destroy these rights with vigor and malice. The only way they will stop is if they are forced to stop. If it’s not done through the method that exists for that very reason (government regulation), then that leaves only individuals using force—rightly called “vigilantism”.

        1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

          You’re right that it will not stop them, but then there’s the ‘loss of revenue’ approach, which would work faster than your approach of regulation…especially by an anti-2A government.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        No, it is not “government regulation,” it is simply subjecting these entities to the First Amendment on the basis that they are “public forums” (i.e., have the same status as public entities) and thus must allow all speech., allowing direct suits by citizens whose rights of speech have been violated.

  9. avatar Pacer says:

    “Help Centre.” You don’t believe their help center is stateside do you? Without even looking I would bet they pushed that to India. If companies were truly concerned about helping you they would assign people who can effectively communicate with you.

  10. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    When you build a brand on the platforms of your enemy, you just look stupid by acting surprised when they censor/ban you.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      It’s also just as dumb to restrict yourself to websites that only speak to the choir like full30.com. If you want to reach the masses you have to go to places like Facebook to reach the normies to be progun.

      You won’t do that on full30 or the other johnny-come-lately’s with a fraction of the audience only compounded by being blacklisted by search engines such as Google and Bing so the normies won’t find you anyway unless they find a gun forum on their own. If anything, they want you to be segregated on your own website so they don’t have to deal with you so they still win.

  11. avatar GunnyGene says:

    FB, et all, including the LSM and many Politicians, are very busy these day’s working hard to marginalize everyone, and everything that doesn’t fit the Progressive/Socialist Agenda. Firearms, and those that have them, are a big fat target they have taken aim at. They won’t stop at that. Remember what Obama said several years ago: “Fundamentally transform America”? Well guess what – it’s still in progress. And I’m pretty damn sure everyone knows by now exactly what he meant, but if anyone is still in doubt: “Destroy America so that our Socialist Utopia will rule”.

  12. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    According to the three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, this is not a violation of “free speech”. Because its not the government doing it.

    Its just a multi billion dollar company with hundreds of millions of customers who pass information to each other. And in the 21st century this is the way we communicate. Electronically not but snail mail. Which is actually dying off, and the post office knows it.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      PS.
      Historically Libertarians of always said that the US Post Office should be done away with and mail be delivered by private companies. John Stossel has done videos on this. Well the future is here and the Libertarians are getting exactly what they wanted. And the rest of us are going to suffer for it.

      I remember the ponography battles when people try to prevent Playboy another “nudie” magazines from being delivered by the post office. But the “freedom of speech” people prevailed and magazines like Penthouse and Playboy and other materials, such as sex toys, are delivered through the mail. But private companies can pick and choose what they want to deliver. And that seems okay with Libertarians. So you can get your pornography your sex toys and other things through private delivery services. I assume you can get your marijuana delivered this way as well.

      But your second amendment rights and those things associated with your second amendment rights they won’t be delivered by private companies.

      And there are people who say you have not lost your civil-rights.

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      Are you arguing that a newspaper must print anything submitted to it? Can they refuse an ad for sex toys (your example), or must they print it because they print other ads and can’t censor themselves? Many papers wouldn’t take adult movie ads. Must they? I don’t know if those even still exist. Many also wouldn’t take classified ads for guns, or “assault weapons.” Mudt they? I don’t know if newspapers still do non-real estate or help wanted classified ads. To be consistent, the answers to all examples must be the same. What then is the difference between a newspaper and a website?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        “To be consistent, the answers to all examples must be the same.”

        White Libertarians are as inconsistent as a liberals and the left that they complain about.
        Libertarians totally support racist business hiring practices in the private sector. White Libertarians proudly say they support racist hiring practices. Because that’s the private sector. That’s freedom of choice. Except when it comes to an insurance company deciding that a certain sector the population is engaging in personal activity that exposes them to disease, should be charge more for insurance.

        Because of the dangers homosexual sex (HIV AIDS) insurance companies wanted to charge more money in cities like San Francisco which had large concentrations of gay people. Libertarians demanded that the big bad government prevent insurance companies from raising rates. insurance companies who use risk assessment all the time to determine how much an individual or groups of people or even a company will pay for insurance. This private business practice has gone on forever without interference. That is until the issue of homosexual sex came up. When it comes to heterosexual sex unmarried straight men pay more money in insurance. Because honest people recognize unmarried single men are Reckless in many ways.

        And I’m still waiting for Libertarians in Mass to come out in support of a Christian Baker who seems to be harassed by homosexuals who don’t like how a court case came out against them?????
        It all depends on Whose Ox is gored. There is no proof that Libertarians believe in “Freedom of Choice”. Years ago it was Christians who were successful in getting companies to drop ads for sexual issues. But it was the Libertarians who said that was wrong.
        I thought it was all about the “private sector”?????

        Before the creation of the mass of welfare state it was private Christian charity, organized churches that provided relief to people who needed it in times of desperation. But because Libertarians are almost always atheists they hate the church. It is libertarians that help destroy this private-sector support system, that was eventually replaced with the government welfare industrial complex.

        But then it’s interesting how Libertarians seem to have no problem with a government telling straight people who they can and can’t have sex with. Which is exactly what happens when a single mother on welfare dates a man and the government finds out about it. That woman is prosecuted they call it “welfare fraud”. I call it Prosecuting somebody for having sex.

        Many people do say a father is not needed to raise children.
        ps. Its usually the father that teaches his children about guns.

        And that industrial welfare complex includes government public housing which are all gun free zones.

        I admit I am more concerned about my second amendment rights than getting a sex toy. Obviously there are people who think having a sex toy is more important than having second amendment rights.

        I said this before on TTAG: You can get a sex toy in San Francisco. But you can’t get a gun.

        BTW, Sex toys are fun. But my wife and I are more satisfied to have guns.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        “What then is the difference between a newspaper and a website?”

        Newspaper worth. one million dollars, maybe.
        Website worth. 800 million, to one billion dollars, and up

        You are one lost Libertarian if you think in the 21st century, a newspaper and a website are the same thing. Especially in scope, customer reach, reaction time, etc,etc.

  13. avatar Ing says:

    Well, I don’t usually say I told you so, but…I told you so. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Facebook has always been this way.

    Like a sociopathic friend, it pretended to care just enough to get you to overlook all the shitty, manipulative things it was doing to you. And finally, when you’re too deeply involved to break free without ripping your own life apart, you discover — mostly because this “friend” just wants to see the look on your face when you do — that you’ve been played like a marionette all along.

    You’re not a human on Facebook, you’re a subject. A target. A game. A product. A farm animal. You’re a disposable, interchangeable, data-producing widget.

  14. avatar Nanashi says:

    THIS is what got Mrgunsngear banned? Posting a news article? He literally posted gun deals to his Facebook page multiple times a day unimpeeded for at least a year. If they wanted to ban him for “promoting sale of firearms” they could have done it a LONG time ago. Damn these people are incompetent.

  15. avatar Michael says:

    The original intent of the Founding Fathers was that the central government; 1) guard the borders, 2) deliver the mail. Until they can SUCCESSFULLY do these two things, they should be PROHIBITED from doing ANYTHING else. Foxtrot-Kilo-Alpha, 30

  16. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    That the Fascist’s at Farcebook do not believe in the first amendment or for that matter the U S Constitution,shouldn’t surprise anyone.

  17. avatar Greg says:

    I don’t use Facebook and won’t watch anything on YouTube.
    Wouldn’t break my heart if silicon valley got EMP’d. It actually might be a good thing.

    1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

      I’m in. You got a plan?

  18. avatar Erik Weisz says:

    My main FB account is on it’s 24th 30-day ban. That is not a typo or hyperbole. Twenty-fourth. My current ban commenced after 4 hours back live – for posting “the price they paid”, no other text or picture or anything. I don’t even have any idea what my sentence fragment referred to. When you “like” firearms groups/manufacturers and/or Trump, all it takes is for someone to report your post or comment and you are instantly banned for 30 days – which is why you make as many accounts as it takes to get your point across. All of them banned? Make a new one. I have been saving screenshots of my ban notices for years (for posterity), I wish I could post pics here and show you guys some of the ridiculousness. My favorite is when I got banned for a 9-11 memorial post I made just last year – ON NINE-ELEVEN. Seriously. One day I hope to print them all out and hang them around the necks of random commies as they go against the wall.
    Of course, saying shit like that is what gets me banned – because humor and sarcasm are against the TOS unless you’re a bolshevik.

  19. avatar Infidel762X51 says:

    Socialist media won’t even let you show a picture of a gun. And the left won’t be happy until it is illegal to own even a picture of a gun.

  20. avatar Karl Viktori says:

    BUY, BUY, BUY Guns and Ammo. Then when CALI, ILLINOIS, MASS, JERSEY, NEW YORK AND ALL THE REST Liberal controlled states shut them down totally. GUNS, AMMO, INCINERARIES. Will sell like Drugs on Speed. The new millionaires.

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