Tucker Carlson Exposes NY State Senator’s Orwellian Plan to Deny Gun Rights Based on Social Media History

As we shared in November, two New York lawmakers are drafting a bill that would make NY residents’ gun rights contingent on a government review of three years of their social media and Internet activity. If these legislators get their way, any New Yorker wishing to own a firearm would be required to provide his or her social media passwords and browsing history so that state officials could, as Tucker Carlson aptly put it, “inspect them for unapproved thoughts.”

One of those lawmakers is NY State Senator Kevin Parker, who represents District 21 (a large swath of Brooklyn). Parker was brave/dumb enough to go on Tucker Carlson’s show to discuss this blatantly unconstitutional scheme. We’ve transcribed portions of the interview below the video. The segment featuring Parker begins at 3:00 and ends at 13:00.

TUCKER CARLSON:  Senator Parker, what other constitutional rights that we possess as Americans should be contingent on how we behave on social media?

NY STATE SENATOR KEVIN PARKER:  Well, let’s be clear… I take a oath [sic] that supports the Amendments, and the whole Constitution of both the U.S. and the state government Constitution. And so, this is really not about impinging on Constitutional rights, this is really about safety. This is really about, how do we in fact make the State of New York as safe as possible?

Now, we’ve already been very safe, we’re one of the top three safest states in the entire country, particularly when you look at mass shootings, thank God, but we can always be safer, and we can always make sure that what happened in Pittsburgh, what we saw in Parkland, what we saw in Orlando, doesn’t happen here. And so this law simply says, let’s look at what people are putting out on social media as part of a set of criteria we’re using to determine who gets handguns.

CARLSON:  I agree with your desire to make your state, and every state, as safe as we can. But why restrict it to gun owners? You are an elected official, a state senator. You wield a lot of power. You control people’s lives. Why shouldn’t I have the password to your social media accounts, so we can assess whether you should be wielding the power that you do?

PARKER:  Well, somebody should put that law in and maybe we could do that. First of all, my social media–

CARLSON:  Wait, but, no, no, no… it’s a sincere question. Would you send me your passwords?

PARKER:  Tucker, my social media is open right now. You can go on it, look at it, it’s public information.

CARLSON:  Why don’t you send me your passwords and we can find out how open it really is?

PARKER:  Look, what we should be talking about it, how do we make the state of New York safe, and right now, we’re not as safe as we can be, because people are saying things on social media and we’re not using that as we, in fact, give out a weapon that is used to kill people.

CARLSON:  But you’re saying [gun ownership] is the only category to which this applies. Why don’t we apply this to voting? Before you choose who runs the state, who controls your life, why shouldn’t you have your social media checked?

PARKER:  Because voting doesn’t necessarily lead to people killing each other.

CARLSON:  Of course it does.

PARKER:  This is about access to guns, and we know there is a direct correlation between the number of guns that are available in states and the prevalence of mass shootings.

CARLSON:  [laughing] That’s actually not true! I think Wyoming has the highest per capita gun ownership in the country, and I don’t think there are any mass shootings–

PARKER:  Yes, with the five people who live in Wyoming and the guns that they have.

[Editor’s note: About 580,000 human beings live in Wyoming, and the population of New York’s District 21, which State Senator Parker represents, is 717,000].

CARLSON:  But you’re not calling for limiting the number of guns in this bill. You’re calling for people to turn over their social media passwords so you can decide if they’ve said something that is naughty, and if they have, they don’t get to own a gun. So, my question is, what other constitutional rights are dependent on your approval? Is the right to abortion? Should we, before allowing women to have abortions, check their social media accounts? This is a sincere question. And if not, why not?

[…]

CARLSON:  [following repeated dodging from Parker] Let me ask you a human question. Don’t you think it’s a little intrusive that the government would be forcing citizens to turn over their social media passwords to the police before doing something the Constitution guarantees them the right to do? That doesn’t bother you in any way? That doesn’t seem a little bit, say, totalitarian? Something that maybe China would do? […] You’ve written this bill, and I’m just asking you, as you sat at your laptop and typed, ‘You will be required to hand over your passwords to the state police, and if they don’t like what you say, you don’t get to exercise your rights’ did part of you think, ‘Boy, that sounds a little Orwellian to me’?

PARKER:  Look, right now, you’re focusing on a part that’s actually not quite the whole bill.

CARLSON:  Right, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? That’s right, it’s not the whole bill, exactly! But it’s part of it, and you don’t see that as fascist in any way? I mean, should the state police have to sign off on your marriage? Or how many kids you can have? I mean, because, obviously, some people shouldn’t be getting married.

PARKER:  What we’re concerned about is the safety of the people in the State of New York, and we’re concerned that people are getting shot down.

CARLSON:  [laughing] I’m not going to move you from your talking points! I’m not going to get you to think critically about this, obviously.

PARKER:  What I’m doing is I’m talking about the values. And I get that some people believe that having a gun is more important than protecting the lives of strangers, but it’s my job as a state legislator, in fact, to do both.

CARLSON:  Last question. Do you think people have a right to say outrageous things, maybe even things you disagree with, in public?

PARKER:  They certainly can say whatever they want to say–

CARLSON:  Oh, but then you’ll punish them for saying that.

PARKER:  But we also have a right to deny them a gun permit if we believe that the things they are saying may lead to them endangering the people of the State of New York.

We’ll just let the horse’s ass mouth speak for itself there, folks.

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    Tucka’ is da MAN!!! Routinely makes leftards look(sound) like blithering idiot’s😄

    1. avatar L says:

      Agreed, Tucker is the modern-day hero. And leftards tend to sound like bilthering idiots because they tend to be blithering idiots.

      1. avatar Rincoln says:

        So much so, that some of them actually believe they “win” the arguments with Tucker.

    2. avatar Some Guy says:

      They do that just fine on their own, he just gives them ample platform to show it.

  2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Yeah, I watched that exchanged and this guy was clearly inspired by the Communist China social credit system. Clearly most Democrat Party political inspiration comes from the various Communist countries and has since about the time of President Wilson.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      You are right. And our country is imperiled because of it. We’ve drifted much farther toward not just leftest/progressive politics, but toward people actually beginning to advocate totalitarianism.

    2. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      There are two Americas – the Midwest that still believes in Constitutional freedoms and the coastal elites that want to drop the borders and merge the US into some kind of global monstrosity where those values no longer exist. The two cannot share a government peacefully for many more years.

      Oh no now I won’t be able to legally buy a gun in New York.

      1. avatar bontai Joe says:

        Me too, from stuff I said last week. Oh well, I didn’t want to live there anyway

  3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    States should be able to restrict who is allowed to vote based on taxes paid and bank account balance.

    1. avatar JEFF BAILEY says:

      Been saying for years you should have to be a net tax payer to be able to vote. Also should never be able to get a “REFUND” for more than you paid in. But I also believe everyone should pay some taxes so they have some skin in the game. Tax refunds have turned into another form of welfare and people keep voting for larger checks.

      1. avatar Draven says:

        sales tax, excise tax, social security tax… yeah, we DO still pay taxes even if we get an income tax refund…

      2. avatar anonymoose says:

        Taxation is theft. 🙂

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          +1. It’s ironic that so many gun owners (who claim to believe in freedom and individual liberty) resist adopting terms like “assault weapons,” but won’t call taxation theft (or, more accurately “extortion”). Instead they pride themselves on being “law-abiding” and “taxpayers,” while they celebrate “freedom.”

          No wonder liberty is dead – so few people can even define it.

  4. avatar possum says:

    Social media, Har Har Har. This crap is getting out of hand. PETA is trying to restrict free speech, g”give a bird a skone” NOW gov. Is going to deny Because see joeR went on a rant three years ago. Please oh please fill this country full of diversity, more brave and courageous Syrians whom fled their country. America needs more brave and courageous people like that, flight not fight, is what won our freedom from England.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      “No officer. The form is blank because I dont have any socual media accounts and dont post anything on the internet.” Then sit back and see how intrusive the bill allows the government to be.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        so what would i provide in place of this glaring absence?
        i could always hint at the finsta (she says it’s a “fake instagram”) account my daughter surreptitiously created of me. these days i call her “spy.”
        i do not envy any of your social media provisions. but they should be private to the extent that you intend. of course, they aren’t. but this is pants on head sofa king.

  5. avatar pg2 says:

    Sounds like an effective public health policy. There might be some minor adverse effects, but the benefits for the individual and the community will outweigh the risks.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Yeah a little robbery, rape and murder of the working class is a small price to pay for knowing who you “give” guns to.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Who do we give guns to?

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Gold star!

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          One can’t get wrong very often guessing “vaccines” on any of your posts. One trick pony…

    2. avatar Dev says:

      Sounds like your a fascist. Or a complete moron. Wait, same thing!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Sounds like your a fascist. Or a complete moron. Wait, same thing!”

        Maybe pg2 is just being snarky?

    3. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      Law enforcement is a finite resource. New York is in the midst of an opioid epidemic. Yet you want to tie our state police up reading people’s FB profiles?

      But hey, why stop at Facebook? Just go full Stasi like all you statist fanboys secretly want to, and bug the houses of gun owners, or put them under surveillance. Or maybe publish a map with their house marked by a big red dot.

      Oh, wait. That last one already happened.

      People like you aren’t worthy of the freedom our founders fought and died for.

      1. avatar Mastro says:

        The politicians love it because they will deny almost everyone gun rights.

        Many police will love it because checking Facebook is a lot easier than getting out on the street and preventing real crimes.

  6. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    The question is, do they really even need your password, or can they already get your social media info? Obviously public is there. This is the government, if they have a concern about someone they can get their private social media info. If there Russians or whoever can do it, surely the NSA can.

    Plus, seriously they already know who most of the bad guys are. They are the ones with the pages long rap sheet and slaps on the wrist for possessing stolen handguns, beating their girlfriends, drug dealing, gang activity… Or a list of social concerns and warnings from school, mental counselors, etc. Seriously the Parkland authorities should be tried along with the killer for aiding and abbeting. Law of parties, that might work…

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      They don’t even bother to publish any rules, standards or guidelines. That means it’s flexible enough to deny their enemies while protecting their supporters.

      Have a page dedicated to hating the First Family and they won’t even blink. Show a picture of Moses holding the tablets and your a right wing nut.

      Or something in between. Now that they have unchecked power in these states the nicety is gone. Just do it our way. Jersey went down similar paths but not quite this bad. Look for them to follow and create a large tri state block of Conn-NY-NJ where rights go to die, to paraphrase RF.

  7. avatar Oliver says:

    ….“Right, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

    Fell over laughing on that one. Probably flew over the state senators head. No pun intended.

    1. avatar Bobski says:

      Or did it fly right through the senators head?

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Same empty space.

  8. avatar HP says:

    Wow, this Parker guy is an exceptionally low piece of excrement. This guy has to be one of the most awful politicians in the country. Hard to even know where to begin.

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    He says they have given the state police power “all the time” and then says we don’t.
    I say let him get his law passed and signed. It just means more taxpayers leaving his state for elsewhere.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Say what? Don’t send the asswipes to Texas!

  10. avatar Michael says:

    1984…”thought crime”, …war is peace, slavery is freedom, hate is love” let’s all just shut up and love BIG BROTHER. People, it’s a book and a warning, not a set of instructions. -30-

  11. avatar Jr says:

    Thank you TTAG for the transcript for a change. Please do this in the future. Much better than an article that only contains an embedded video that sometimes works.

  12. avatar Jon in CO says:

    What happens to those not on social media? Is it like credit? No history=no credit=no gun?

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      And what happens if your real name isn’t Gov. William J Le Petomane? Aren’t they going to need your hard drive and smart phone to have them forensically inspected for evidence of thought crime?

      1. avatar L says:

        Why is your picture a baby Obama chasing an underwater dollar?

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          It’s Mad magazine’s parody of the Nirvana Nevermind cover.

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        “And what happens if your real name isn’t Gov. William J Le Petomane?”

        Oh, just like the various clearance and govt service background checks: all aliases, accounts, pen names and so on. So, even if they don’t find something to “decline” you for, they can leak it — sorry, data breach it — then you’ll get run out of your job, neighborhood association, and shopping club. And the AntiFa can find you to en mass assault your wife and kids in your home — since we’re talking about Tucker Carlson. Then, when you #shootback they’ll have their pretext to restrict more.

        Statists, agents-provoceteur, graft schemes and crony oligarchs … just different looks at the same machine.

        BTW, web site comments of course count as “social media.” Anybody commenting here, short of “TTAG Sux” is prohibited by association in … 3 … 2 … 1 …

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Of course, you’re assuming I either give up my aliases or they somehow figure them out. Without my internet capable devices, that is impossible though.

    2. avatar possum says:

      Yup….I’m pretty sure this site and other gun blogs are monitored by the FBI or some other . That’s one reason I don’t discuss the perpetual nuclear fusion bomb I’m building or the demands I will make when I have it.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        You have been reported for your nefarious activity

        1. avatar LatissimusDorsi says:

          Scalliwag!

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Isn’t a perpetual nuclear fusion bomb also known as a “star”?

        1. avatar bontai Joe says:

          But it’s a little star that twinkles.

  13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘If it saves just one child…’ – Adolph Hitler (1938)

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Citation? That’s likely a fake quote.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Fake but accurate.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Yeah, because posting false shit online all day, every day is a good thing…..

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Antibodies!

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Lol, you’re the antibody to truth.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          You should re-check the old thread you fled from after getting smoked on the vaccine issue…someone else noticed and unleashed an auto-bot profile. Funny stuff.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Define ‘smoked’ (citations, please).

          Beating a dead horse is fun for a while, but eventually you realize there’s better things to do with your time.

      3. avatar Icanod says:

        Yea, Lincoln saidwe should be skeptical of quotes we find on The Internet

  14. avatar Owen says:

    I don’t think Parker knows what swearing an oath means.

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Federal courts are not hostile to regulating constitutionally protected rights (they don’t like) out of existence without constitutional amendment.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I blame the voters in this communists district who voted for him. Many of these same Liberal gun owners demand acceptence from me. I say F#CK YOU.

    Liberals, gun owners or not, support him and Nancy Polsi and others like them.

    To TTAG: keep posting Liberal gun owners comments. Just like a broken clock they can be correct twice a day. And may be, just may be, I can use those two pieces of information.

    1. avatar Gen. Gynecological says:

      Hey, rocket surgeon, in that context, it’s “maybe”.

      …and you forgot to include your standard rant about evil white people. If you’re not careful, your programmers are going to pull you in for a reflash.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I know it really hurts you, when you can’t blame your problems on white Christian conservatives, who have sex in the missionary position with the turned lights off.

        Tell me, why is it when given the chance to vote for a gay who is progun, pro liberty, Liberals don’t vote for him???

        Justin Raimondio an open homosexual, pro gun Libertarian Republican ran against Nancy Pelosi and lost. Was it because Liberals just want to continue to get “free stuff” from the government?

        And Liberals like to use the government to control the personal lives of people, correct?

        As a self hating white Liberal you would vote for this black democrat, just like you voted for Obama correct?

        1. avatar Sgt. Smegma says:

          The answer to all the questions you asked are as follows (pay attention closely):

          You’re not half as smart as you think you are, and no one respects you.

          You’re a self-important retard who is not really all that important.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          To White liberal gun owners. This is not a safe space for you. I understand you are desperate for acceptance. Liberals of any race always are. I will continue to ask questions of people who have a history of supporting racist gun control laws, and the politicians who they vote for.

          I enjoy having social intercourse with you! (smile)

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          Why do certain people use so many logins around here? I think we know the answer.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, Suzuki, if you have trouble figuring that out, revisit the title of the thread!

  17. avatar Son Of Alan says:

    I love these guys. The first thing out of their mouth is a “I believe the second amendment, but”. These are the same people that think that as along we own muskets, that meets the requirement. Or I believe in free speech, but it has to be on a soapbox, in a park, that has an area greater than 1 acre. Be 1000 ft away from a school or place of worship. This speech can only be facilitated by un-amplified voice, from a soap box.

    1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      They’ll believe in owning muskets till one of them takes a 70 caliber round ball to the forehead. After that, not so much.

  18. avatar RCC says:

    I’m sure the FBI etc can look at your social media at any time. He just wants to make it easy for local police or bureaucrats to reject your licence application, do no warrant searches etc. All the usual left wing dreams of control.

  19. avatar little horn says:

    he actually had the idiocy to say on TV “NY is a safe city”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      400 murders in a city of 8+ million is not even statistical noise.

      1. avatar Green Eggs says:

        Wait, whaaaat?! I read on daily caller that NYC is a “no go zone” that only Kurt Russell can infiltrate using a hang glider, just like the entire country of Sweden. Next thing you’ll tell me is that California isn’t really broke and that it’s a bigger contributor to GDP and tax revenue than most other states combined. Naaawwww, can’t be.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Kurt ain’t as young as he used to be. Might need a powered glider to attack NYC these days.

        2. avatar Green Eggs says:

          CGI. Have you seen Guardians of the Galaxy 2? They made him look exactly like he did in 1980 it was uncanny, truly amazing.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Probably 8-10 times the per capita rate of Austin. Certainly nothing to brag about, unless you think Chicago is mainstream.

  20. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “NY STATE SENATOR KEVIN PARKER: Well, let’s be clear… I take a oath [sic] that supports the Amendments, and the whole Constitution of both the U.S.”

    Which he has proved he is willing to violate.

    1. avatar Joseph Barbera says:

      Let’s ask Sen. Parker whether he has armed security, and what his social media has revealed with regard to social media activities. Has he ever visited questionable websites? Who determines which websites are questionable? What is the criteria for permit denial? More importantly, how does Parker think he can circumvent the Second Amendment of the Constitution, our right to privacy, our right to free speech??? This is truely Fascism. 1984 hasn’t passed, it’s just taking a little longer for our elected officials to implement its rules and regulations.
      Oh, by the way, don’t forget to get in line to have your mind control implants installed.

  21. avatar Patrick says:

    “And I get that some people believe that having a gun is more important than protecting the lives of strangers, but it’s my job as a state legislator, in fact, to do both.”

    It’s his job to protect strangers and have a gun?

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      It’s neither. But he wouldn’t know and his voters don’t care.

      Any measure that makes gun ownership harder, more expensive and ultimately rarer is good. It will lower the number of armed opposition when, not if, the final push for total civilian disarmament comes. Safety is just a pretense used to sell it.

  22. avatar Jim says:

    This is unreal, I happened to catch the show last night. And again, this is something cooked up by a Democrat to infringe not only on a New Yorker’s 2nd Amendment right, but his 1st Amendment right, as it is something that inhibits, or “chills” his right to freedom of expression, too. There is no end to what Democrats will come up with to help make us “safe” by further restricting our personal freedoms, especially regarding ownership of firearms. The best is yet to come as the next presidential campaign nears, and the Democrat Caravan of ultra-socialists begin pushing their extremist agendas regarding gun rights, global warming, and gender-neutral societal goals. God help the America we love and want to preserve.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Gender neutral societal goals are so yesterday. Now we have directives that women are the future, and I suppose the power and the glory as well. Men have been directed to “shut up” by self appointed authority.

  23. avatar Craig says:

    He actually compared firearm ownership to CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

  24. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    To anyone who cares. What they didn’t teach you in school. It was not just Japanese Americans who lost their civil rights after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese Empire, on 7 Dec 1941. Thousands of German Americans and Italian Americans were also forced to leave their homes and placed in concentration camps. Their personal firearms were confiscated by order of FDR. No state government stood up to the federal governments unconstitutional actions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_German_Americans

    Please read “Justice at War” to learn out how ACLU lawyers supported the internment of american citizens just because of their race and national origin, and nothing else.

    https://www.amazon.com/Justice-War-Story-Japanese-American-Internment/dp/0520083121

  25. avatar Chris Morton says:

    “What do you mean, I can’t have a gun because I ‘liked’ Black Lives Matter on my Facebook page?”

    1. avatar HP says:

      It would probably be more like “What do mean I can’t have a gun because I ‘liked’ the NRA on Facebook?”

      You can interchange NRA in this case with a great deal of organizations/groups/websites. The Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, Infowars, National Review, Palmetto State Armory, Arf.com, Pro-Life Action League, TTAG, etc. The list will be quite diverse – anything that NYC Democrats disagree with can be a disqualifier. Anything that isn’t progressive can be deemed hate speech.

      And remember, according to prominent Democrats like Tim Kaine and Howard Dean, hate speech is not free speech.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        What goes around, comes around.

        Like the Old Bolsheviks, Democrats can’t imagine that the weapons they use can’t be turned on them.

        It’s like they’ve never heard of Harry Reid and the “nuclear option”…

        1. It is as if laws that were advertised to the public as a tool to combat gang violence are often turned against people not even accused of hurting anyone.

    2. Correct.

      That proves you are affiliated with black gangs.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I expect his bill would have that result in your firearm purchase being approved, and your money refunded, let the rich white guys pay for it.

        1. Why would you expect this?

  26. avatar Rick says:

    This Senator Parker is also sponsoring a bill that would require a person to have a million dollar liability insurance policy in order to have a firearm. I escaped the Peoples Republic of NY a little over a year ago. The writing has been on the wall a long time. The Democrats have completely taken over the state legislature in NY and will be going all out on guns with nothing in the way to stop them.

    1. Did black people escape the South during Jim Crow?

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Given the USA Patriot act, even with the “roll back” promised by the last president, which turned out to be expansion, once somebody calls you a “terrorist”, no, they don’t need your to submit any passwords. Or anyone within “2 hops” of you.

    And BTW, if you submit all your social media, what happens if you forget to include something they already have? If only there were a gaggle of folks clipped for lying to investigations, that one could ask about that.

  28. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Actually, the Senator, there is doing constituent service: serving his constituents’ impulse to impose on distant folks who aren’t like them.

    What’s the point of control of government, really, if you can’t hijack it to abuse people you don’t much like?

  29. avatar Chiefton says:

    If anyone can read this exchange and not clearly see that the entire goal of the Democratic party is to turn this country into a socialist/communist dictatorship is either blind or flat out ignorant. The Dems want to pick and choose which constitutional rights you should have and when you can have them. The Dems want those who are working hard to get ahead to give their money to those who chose not to work. The Dems fully realize that the masses must be disarmed to fulfill their agenda and that is why they are pursuing this so hard. I hope and pray it does not happen but I can foresee another clash happening like the one in 1860.

  30. avatar Jesse says:

    He said “NYS Police would check who gets a gun permit”.

    Gun permits in NYS are issued on the county level, not the state. I don’t think he knows that. It essentially renders the state police useless in this process.

  31. avatar Sprocket says:

    I was a life long leftie/Democrat and lived in the most leftist part of a Democratic state for decades, this sort of thing surprises me not at all. The left believes they are better, smarter, pure, moral and virtuous and it is their right to rule over the lessers, whose only purpose is toiling to provide resources for the wondrous society they are building (starting to sound familiar?). That they would embrace a surveillance state simply par for the course.

    This is what the left is, this is what the left does. As for the leftie gun owners, they support this as well. The are simply either in denial or believe they will be the ones holding the guns when the dust settles.

  32. avatar Edward Covelli says:

    Putting aside the constitutionality of this proposal, he is 100% wrong about the current state laws. The NYS Police are not involved in issuing firearm permits in NYS. In NYC, it is done by the NYPD, in every other county is it done by the elected Sheriff. This bill doesn’t expand the job that the NYS Police already do, it creates a completely new power for them.

    1. I am surprised he did not mention gang violence as a justification for his proposal.

      If there is one thing a social media search can uncover that might be missed by searching court records, it is gang affiliations.

  33. One justification for the bill is that, using a social media search, the police can find gang affiliations that would not appear by searching criminal records or even police files.

    What could go wrong with this attempt to deny guns to people affiliated with gangs?

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Police don’t need a warrant or justification to search social media pages. Social media is public access, virtually the same as putting up a billboard along the highway. I’ve been in detective offices and watched them search FB pages of people the second they get flagged as a suspect, looking for any posted illegal or suspicious activity they can use to either make an arrest or get a warrant. And that’s all 100% constitutional. If you don’t want to get arrested don’t be dumb enough to broadcast your crimes in public.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        yow and boy howdy.
        i’m not exactly “off the radar” at work. ~they~ bought me breakfast once for not having any code22’s and the new level five supernintendo asked me nonchalantly if i was on fecesbook or if i had any nicknames! subtle.
        here’s hoping my smirk of awareness (which seldom crosses my face) broadcast some version of “beat it nerd.” passive insubordination was all i could muster.

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        But of course, this has NOTHING to do with criminal activity.

        It’s about disarming those who aren’t hardcore leftists.

        1. I doubt this would be the first time a law whose ostensible purpose is to stop gang violence (by using social media to identify gangbangers and deny them gun permits) would result in massive civil rights violations.

  34. avatar Anonymous says:

    And so, this is really not about impinging on Constitutional rights, this is really about safety. This is really about, how do we in fact make the State of New York as safe as possible?

    If you wanted to make them as safe as possible, then you would lock them all up in solitary confinement and provide them everything they need to survive.

    Obviously, safety shouldn’t be the top axiom.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      I wanted to say the same thing. Until everyone is locked in solitary upholstered cell we are not as safe as possible. How much are we willing to trade for more safety?
      (I recall sci-fi story about all powerfull computer tasked with managing all humanity’s needs. It was programmed to ensure maximum safety of all people. It ended up with Matrix like rows of unconscious, intravenously fed, perfectly safe bodies.)

      Freedom is necessarily dangerous. Safety is way over rated.

      Plus, the people asking for permits are not the ones we need to worry about. Mass shootings are so rare, they don’t make the murder-meter twitch.

  35. avatar Anonymous says:

    PARKER: Look, what we should be talking about it, how do we make the state of New York safe, and right now, we’re not as safe as we can be…

    Well. Lock them up in a white rubber room. Police their social media accounts, invade their privacy. Whatever it takes for the alter of safety.

  36. avatar Anonymous says:

    PARKER: Because voting doesn’t necessarily lead to people killing each other.

    Neither does owning guns.

  37. avatar Anonymous says:

    PARKER: This is about access to guns, and we know there is a direct correlation between the number of guns that are available in states and the prevalence of mass shootings.

    He let the mask slip I guess. His real intention? De-Incentivizing gun ownership. Reducing “access” to guns. Need to reduce gun ownership.

    So it’s about ushering in his utopia. It’s not even about a balance between safety and freedom and responsibility. He has concluded that the people of his district can never rise to the challenge of being moral, ethical, and responsible for that freedom. So it must be taken from them. People rising to the challenge of being strong and powerful people, but not acting on that strength because they are moral people? No. The solution is to keep them ignorant of guns and anything dangerous, because they are immoral. It’s just a recipe to keep them immoral and helpless. What a disappointment.

  38. avatar Anonymous says:

    PARKER: Yes, with the five people who live in Wyoming and the guns that they have.

    [Editor’s note: About 580,000 human beings live in Wyoming, and the population of New York’s District 21, which State Senator Parker represents, is 717,000].

    Now he is disingenuous with this little gem. There is an element of truth to it though. Wyoming is a spacious state with not very many people. In fact, the states with the lowest rate of crime are those lacking big cities. Wyoming, Maine, New Hamshire, Vermont, Idaho. This is because big crime is a city problem.

    The obvious distinction here? Guns aren’t the problem. If the 580,000 people in WY, deep in piles of guns, aren’t killing each other with guns and the people of NY are, the problem is the people, not the guns.

  39. avatar Anonymous says:

    PARKER: What we’re concerned about is the safety of the people in the State of New York, and we’re concerned that people are getting shot down.

    I’m concerned that the people of NY are more concerned about embracing ignorance (of guns or anything else) and reducing freedom instead of seeking to improve the character of the people there who can’t refrain from killing each other.

  40. avatar Anonymous says:

    PARKER: What I’m doing is I’m talking about the values. And I get that some people believe that having a gun is more important than protecting the lives of strangers, but it’s my job as a state legislator, in fact, to do both.

    Why does having a gun and protecting strangers have to be an either-or situation? They are not mutually exclusive. But for them to be mutually exclusive, you need a group of people of low moral standards, then they will be mutually exclusive. So, improve the moral standards of your people and you don’t have to take their freedoms away. This a morality problem, not a freedom problem.

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