Previous Post
Next Post

Jerad Miller Facebook rifle request (courtesy

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence statement on Las Vegas cop and CCW killer Jerad Miller’s Facebook request for a rifle:

“In March, we said Facebook’s new gun policy didn’t go far enough, and we are sickened to learn that the Las Vegas shooter attempted to obtain a rifle through Facebook. The post has remained live on Facebook for one month, demonstrating the inadequacy of Facebook’s gun policy. As we said then, Facebook continues to make it too easy for dangerous people to find guns, and it should prohibit gun sales outright. Gun sales have no place on a social network that makes it simple to evade background checks. We warned that it was a matter of time before something like this would happen. We demand that Facebook learn from this terrible tragedy — one that it may have helped to enable — before more lives are lost because of its ridiculously weak policies, which could easily be fixed.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. He said he was broke; how do they think he was going to get a rifle through FB (or any other method) without money?


    • These Facebook posts can’t be real can they? I have a hard time believing anyone is that stupid. Can someone be that stupid and still be able to breathe in and out?

      • It’s the same problem we have with the ineffectiveness of gun laws; saying/doing something stupid or obvious is not a problem if your ultimate plan is suicide-by-cop, or just suicide.

        The dense folks on the other side just can’t/won’t make the obvious connection, or they would be forced to admit the uselessness of their proposed actions/laws. Can’t have that, now, can we?

      • Well in Clark County Nevada long guns don’t have to be registered so private party sales aren’t illegal per se. I know he was prevented from owning guns legally but according to the reports I read his girlfriend wasn’t.

      • They shot two cops eating lunch, then ran to a walmart to commit suicide.
        Yeah…they were that stupid, and the world is a better place without them. I just wish they would have reversed the order of their shootings.

  2. So, he “attempted” to get a gun from Facebook? I don’t see any exchange of information to meet, or prices being discussed, or anything. How exactly was he “getting a gun” from Facebook. Would somebody saying, “Sure, have mine,” make it automatically materialize in front of him?
    Hey, Dan Gross, Al Gore called, and he says he’s super duper cereal and he’s glad he’s not the butt of everyone’s jokes anymore.

    • Yes, how shocking – he unsuccessfully tried to obtain a weapon of a type he didn’t use when committing a series of heinous crimes. Obviously Facebook should take draconian steps to avoid this sort of unsuccessful attempt by an unhinged person they have no control over in the future…

      Idiocy. Exactly what we expect from the Brady Campaign.

      • Idiocy only if they are doing what they are doing for the stated purpose. There are many other places to arrange a private sale, keeping people from doing it on facebook isn’t going to make a difference, and the Brady Bunch know it. They want to keep any mention of guns off major social media, unless that mention is in a bad light. It’s about controlling the flow of information and ideas. You probably know this already.

        • Exactly. I joined the MDA facebook page so I could better keep tabs on what the grabbers were saying. Lo and behold I am not allowed to reply to any of their posts whatsoever. I haven’t made a single post in their general direction but I’m not allowed to speak up and rebut some of the comments?

          They are controlling the flow of information.

  3. So what? He tried, and failed. And assuming that this request for a rifle is directly related to his sh*t plan to “start a revolution” is a bit of a leap, isn’t it? Knowing now that he was a lunatic I am relieved that nobody obliged him, but I’m not sure what the fuss is about.

    • Maybe some “mysterious person” should have scanned their firearm and [nut job name redacted] should have printed out said firearm on a 3D printer. Oh wait, they were broke.


    • Not surprisingly, not a lot of people were jumping at the chance to risk a felony conviction to sell a rifle to a known felon who wanted to “reach out and touch evil tyrant bastards” and was, by his own admission, flat broke.

    • You have no First Amendment Rights on Facebook. Facebook is not the Government (yet) and does not have to allow anything it doesn’t like on its network. You do not have a right to a Facebook account, much less the the right to post whatever you want on Facebook.

      I get so tired of people complaining about their Constitutional Rights being violated when it isn’t the government that is committing the so-called violation. It is not a violation of your rights for a company to restrict your usage of their property, whether that be carrying a gun into their store or regulating what you post on their webpage. It is their property and you do not have an inherent or prescribed right to be there.

      • You are correct that Facebook can make its own rules. However, If Facebook is prohibited by law from having certain words like “rifle,” which may be what the Brady campaign wants, how is that not a violation of free speech?

        • Because the 1st amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” Facebook is not Congress. Free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be censored on a website, in a private establishment or anywhere else. It means the government can’t outlaw any form of speech. It could, however, (presumably and theoretically) outlaw the sale of rifles on Facebook without violating the 1st amendment. That would likely be covered under the commerce clause.

          Either way, that’s not what we, or the Brady Bunch, are talking about. They specifically want guns off the second biggest website on Earth via policy, not law. Congress has checks and balances. Publicly traded companies are much easier to guilt into ‘doing something.’

        • His question was “if it is prohibited BY LAW from using the word ‘rifle’ “. So yes, that would be a 1st Am issue.

      • As waif states, the Brady Campaign and others want to restrict companies like Facebook from making their own rules. They want to enact laws that prohibit certain words, ideas and phrases. That is violating the First Amendment, which states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. One can even argue that since Facebook is a social media site where people can assemble in a virtual sense that by prohibiting the free discourse of ideas on social media that is violating the fifth part of the First Amendment.

        • I agree that the government telling Facebook what they can and cannot allow to be posted on their network is a Constitutional violation, of both Free Speech and the right to assemble. While I understand that the Brady Campaign would like nothing more than to see that happen, the above press release makes not statement to that effect. It is a demand that Facebook yield to the Brady Campaign’s wishes of their own volition. If Facebook did, then no Free Speech violation.

        • Again, that’s not what they’re trying to do. They want Facebook to change their policies to prohibit guns/gun sales. This is an important distinction, because while legislative action has proven difficult for gun control groups, this kind of approach has paid off massively. They’ve essentially removed firearms sales from the largest website on earth and now they’re pushing for the second largest.

          You know, for the children.

  4. This is asinine.

    If someone makes a call to a friend to borrow a gun, does the telephone company not have a strict enough firearms policy?

    As long as Facebook, or any other organization, is not actively facilitating or promoting illegal behavior there is nothing for them to do.

    I’m pretty sure Facebook’s Terms of Use spell out you cannot use their service for facilitating or promoting illegal behavior.

    These guys are unhinged.

  5. Since when do private companies need to track, manage, and “authorize” common and legal business transactions?

    • (sarc on)….Bbbbbbut private sales evade unconstitutional background checks! (sarc off).

  6. Blah blah blah too many guns blah blah blah gun violence blah blah blah too easy to get guns blah blah.

    Jebus, I wish they’d just get a clue.

  7. I think we can all agree on one thing. Facebook needs to accelerate it’s descent into irrelevancy.

    • Not done yet. They and Google are still harvesting the “smart money” laying around on Wall Street (then cycling much of it to the demtards.)

  8. QUESTION: If the Media sensationalized every accident/death caused by drunk driving like they do with every shooting event/gun-related death – would the liberals be blaming alcohol like they blame guns, and be pushing a renewal of prohibition (as they essentially are with firearms)? Or would they be blaming the criminal behavior, and looking at the true causes of the issue, rather than blaming the ‘tool’ that is used to commit the crime?

    • Villainizing alcohol is pretty much off the table for two reasons: Prohibition already failed and Ted Kennedy.

    • Remember a couple decades ago, when MADD was pushing to get all the states to raise the drinking age to 21 because drunk driving? The media was all over it like white on rice.

      • Yep, and that also led to some cities and states to legally allow the police to confiscate private property because of a single DUI violation. It’s all about governmental control.

      • Yes, unfortunately this is one thing the media does well. Anyone remember the the practically daily body count reported from Iraq/Afghanistan in the years leading up to 2008? You would think from the constant exposure that US servicement were literally being mowed down. Never mind that the total dead and wounded is fewer than those killed in any one year of WWII.

        Like they say, lie big, and lie often.

        • So can we not use this then as the core of a unified counter-argument to illustrate the complete fallacy and hypocrisy of their entire position to the brainwashable masses? We would all have to rinse and repeat before it was actually heard… “Why then aren’t you Anti’s pushing for the same restrictions on alcohol as you are with firearms? It would save many more lives, including children. By your logic, you should be pushing for the same level of restrictions on alcohol use: Only one drink at a bar, only purchase one bottle of alcohol a month, need a license to purchase/consume alcohol, hard alcohol should be banned, etc, etc.” That’s not even to mention all of the other deaths and horrible effects of alcohol; disease, plaguing our health care system, spousal abuse and violence caused by alcohol, etc. We need one easily-understandable counter-message that illustrates the selectiveness, fallacy and hypocrisy of their argument that we can rinse and repeat over and over – and I don’t see any counter to this. This would put them on the defensive to explain why they are so obsessed with gun violence and only focused on the tool, not the criminal behavior. This also illustrates to the masses how the media is sensationalizing this entire issue.

  9. You know, if you don’t give a place where the crazies can be readily seen to be crazy — and thus the merely loopy can be distinguished from the truly dangerous — then no one will have ANY way to know about them and do something about it before they ever become a present danger to others.

    If people openly transact business on Facebook — IT IS SEEN… that cannot be anything but a good thing in this context.

    Driving things underground (choose your topic) does not solve any problem. it merely removes everything but the ultimate consequences from your immediate notice. Which is just Stupid, cubed.

  10. Is it just me? Anytime a group of any kind says “We demand….” doesn’t it just make them seem childish and petty? As if such a demand will illicit the response “Yes sir, right away sir.”

  11. Did anyone sell this turd a rifle via Facebook? If not, why are the anti-gunners getting their panties in such a twist about?

  12. What? The attackers asked for a rifle on FaceBook and didn’t get one. Should we demand that newspapers censor their adds if someone listed an add asking for a free rifle?

    I have a much simpler answer. Instead of wasting monumental amounts of effort trying to stop every possible way that a violent criminal could manufacture, steal, smuggle, or purchase a firearm, just be armed yourself and ready to deal with anyone who tries to harm you or your family.

    Does a firearm guarantee that no one will ever harm you or your family? Of course not. What it does is give you much better options to deal with a violent attacker. And that is a good thing.

  13. “First they came for starbucks, next they came for fakebook, then they came for me…”
    – Al Nocera, NYT

    • I think Brady and CSGV are in a race to the bottom for relevance, now that Shannon is getting all the MSNBC love from the hysterical progtard segment. Where is WAPO when you need them for a circular firing squad? Bloomie vs Zuckerberg. vs Bezos. Bring it on!

  14. +1 Valley Forge…now the lame stream media is keeping an Odumbo count…74 school shootings in the 77weeks since Newtown(oh my!) WTF does FB have to do with a failed attempt to get a RIFLE?!?

    • Yeah, and even to get those numbers they have to lie/stretch-the-truth-to-the-breaking-point. Some of those so-called “school shootings” were categorized as such because they were simply near a school (within a block or two), in a school parking lot (at 2 AM), or had some other very loose connection (OMG! One of those guys once went to school!!!). Just kidding on that last one, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was used…

      No, I don’t have links; if a person cares about the truth, they can look it up, and then I won’t have to argue about the details.

  15. So pathetic. They’ll really lash out at anything, find any outlet for their insanity, so long as it completely ignores logic and truth.

  16. I was sure that when I turned on the TV this morning, I was fully expecting to see Josh Sugarmann, or Shannon, or maybe even Bloomberg on the tube, press-conferencing, rallying the troops, coming after us full force, even if to no avail…
    Nope. House Committee on Bergdahl. And that’s THE news of the day. I think they yammered about it on the Today show for a second, but nobody really cares. Swing and a miss, Admin.

    • You must be missing all the stories of the president “outrage” over the shooting in Portland and how he’s saying he will use executive privilege again, and abusively, to enact a change.

      • You mean the President who is hurtling down the “irrelevance” track himself? So far all of his vaunted “executive orders” have been positively Shakespearean: full of sound and fury, signifying next to nothing. I mean, seriously–telling ATF to choose a permanent director? Banning the re-importation of Springfield 1903s from Korea?

        • Obumer left the track and went into the pits long ago. Pulled onto the transporter, out the gate and on the way to the museum of obsolescence and failed. Still good for photo op though.

      • I saw a little over that, and then Al “I pooped my pants” Roker said something about being scared to go to the mall, and then they started talking about that 16yr old who banged his friends’ mom. Or whatever.
        The Prez NEEDS this diversion. The only problem is, he is so in love with being on TV, nobody puts any importance to him being on there anymore. So, your average Morning Joe viewer probably won’t remember if he was mad at the Republicans, or the NRA, or climate change this time.

  17. Really? Nobody thought it might be a good idea to say something about this guy? Forget Facebook, that’s rubbish and we know it, but good grief, talk about red flags. Pay attention people.

  18. The Brady campaign is obviously wrong. Shannon has already single-handedly forced Facebook to clean up their nefarious gun-running act, and changed the world in the process. I know because People magazine said so.

  19. I’m part of several groups on Fb for selling/trading guns/ammo/vehicles. We always get a bill of sale with drivers license and/or carry permit info. And ban people who look underage or Dont want to give their info.

  20. when are people going to get it????????????????????????????????????? Guns or gun laws are not the problems. We have had guns in this country since its conception. Until just a few years ago,you could own auto weapons. Soceity is what the problem is. I own many guns,all secured in safe. Not a single gun I own has ever hurt anyone.I taught my children how to handle firearms, now I’m teaching my grandchildren. When children are allowed to view things on TV, And movies gross millions,along with game systems. We have a problem. If you don’t know and don’t care to research. There are more than 350 million guns in America. And current adminastration has been the biggest gun sales force ever in this country. Fear has cause many to become first time gun owners.So keep it up with stuff like the Brady bill and watch gun sales continue to soar!!!!!! FB tries to follow laws in all 50 states. Some state shave different laws concerning private sales of guns.Grow up and understand NO ONE can disarm America!!!!!That is just a fact. Raise children correctly and Media stop giving idots 15 minutes of fame and it will fall. Funny under current adminastration there has been more school shootings than in all our history,but still the largest anti-gun movement in history.

  21. so what are they saying? it’s not enough that someone told him to stop trolling on FB for guns??

    what exactly do they want? all posts with the word “gun” to be auto-deleted? or the words:

    ad infinitum…

  22. So once again the Brady Bunch climbs over the still-warm bodies in a vain attempt to gain relevance. How pitiable.

  23. So let me get this straight – they are upset that people can ask for guns in Facebook statuses? And in response…they want Facebook to now police what people post on their statuses? Because apparently it’s okay for private companies to remove your free speech at will…

    Are we sure this isn’t a false flag by a mole of ours that we’ve inserted into their organization to make the most idiotic statements possible – I’ve said too much haven’t I.

    • Actually, yes, private companies can restrict speech in their own domain. Not a “free speech” issue at all.

  24. From what I’ve seen….nobody offered any help allocating any weapons… how , exactly, is Facebook making it easy to get weapons?

  25. Oh, well I guess that settles it. One person tried to gain access to an item by nefarious means using a piece of media. We should stop anyone from using said media even if no ill intentions are in mind.
    You know, I have heard a lot of criminals tend to vote Democrat, we should outlaw voting Democrat as that appears to have a root in criminal behavior as well.

  26. Clearly we need to ban Facebook so people won’t get guns on line. I for one will not miss FB at all

  27. Good post however , I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this subject?
    I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little
    bit further. Thanks!

  28. You actually make it appear really easy together with your presentation however I to find this matter to
    be really something which I believe I’d never understand.
    It sort of feels too complicated and very extensive for me.
    I’m looking forward in your next publish, I’ll attempt to get the cling of it!

Comments are closed.