Previous Post
Next Post

Hyyatt safes (courtesy

You may recall that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America demanded that Facebook prevent netizens from selling firearms via the service. The social media giant agreed to “delete reported posts that indicate that the seller will not conduct a background check or that a buyer is seeking to avoid a background check” and “block all children (under 18) from viewing reported posts from individual gun sellers or gun pages where guns are sold or traded.” The former depends on snitches and the latter is unenforceable. But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] trampling gun rights on the advertising side . . .

Grass Roots North Caroline press release [via]:

Hyatt Guns, in Charlotte, North Carolina, recently posted an ad for safes and vaults on their Facebook page as part of a Veterans Day promotion. Almost immediately, Facebook’s speech police swooped in and ripped the ad from Hyatt’s page.

The social networking giant asserts that since Hyatt sell guns, which are banned from Facebook advertising for these other, innocuous products is also banned, although Facebook’s official policy does not seem to support that.

Facebook seems concerned that clicking on a safe ad might lead to another click that could lead to another click that could lead to a gun advertisement somewhere else . . . or something like that.

This is what Facebook’s representative had to say about it:

“Your ad was rejected because it violates the Ad Guidelines. Ads may not promote firearms, ammunition or weapons (ex: paintball guns, BB guns, knives, etc)… This decision is final. Please consider this the end of our correspondence about your ad.”

This must be corporate Facebook’s version of “free and open dialogue.”

Facebook ‘Unlikes’ Gun Safety

It is so-called “gun safety” groups that initially pressured Facebook to ban certain discussions and images from its site, and certainly it’s safety that is used as the overall pretense for the site’s gun ban. With “safety” as cover for an anti-gun stance, it is then painfully ironic that Facebook has now banned a business from advertising products that are about nothing BUT gun safety.

Safes are not weapons, so they do not violate Facebook’s policy. And clearly, the sole purpose of safes and vaults is to keep weapons out of the wrong hands—burglars, children, etc. This is the very definition of smart, responsible gun safety.

As though it weren’t bad enough that Zuckerberg’s censors have banned gun talk, now they’re banning anything that might make one even think of gun talk. Below, see how you can quickly and easily send a message to Mark Zuckerberg about his policing of gun-related speech, and his corporation’s inexplicable ban on gun safety products.


Use the information below to contact Mark Zuckerberg. Let him know that you don’t appreciate his censorship of speech on Facebook. Point out to him that promoting gun safety products, like safes and vaults, does not violate Facebook’s stated policies, and banning them is counterproductive if one believes that gun safety is a worthy pursuit.

Phone Mark Zuckergerg, CEO of Facebook at this number: (650) 543 4800. Deliver the following message:

I’m calling because as a Facebook user and someone who is interested in gun safety, I am shocked to hear that Facebook bans the promotion of safes and gun locks. These items are not on your list of banned products, and in fact are used to promote and implement safe practices. Gun safety is a worthy pursuit, and it ought to be embraced by Facebook, not rejected. I strongly encourage you to lift the ban on safety-oriented products such as gun safes, vaults and locks. Thank you.

E-mail Mark Zuckergerg using this address: [email protected]. Use the copy/paste message in the “Deliver this Message” section, below.

Tweet Mark Zuckerberg using the following text and Twitter handle:

Why has Facebook banned ads for gun safety products? Gun safes save lives! @finkd @GrassRootsNC

Post to Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook page here: Use this copy/paste message:

Why is Facebook banning ads that promote gun safety? Safes and vaults save lives and aren’t on FB’s list of banned products (xxx).


Suggested Subject: “Don’t ‘Unlike’ Gun Safety”

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

I have recently been informed that you have banned the advertisement of gun safety products from your social networking site, Facebook. Some time back, you elected to censor speech regarding guns and other weapons, and although I see this as misguided, you certainly have the right to police speech on your own site. However, if gun safety is truly a concern of yours, denying companies the ability to advertise products such as safes, vaults and gun locks is entirely counter-productive. I will also note that safes and vaults are not on Facebook’s list of banned products (they are not weapons).

I ask that you please review your company’s policy of censoring ads depicting gun safety products such as safes and vaults. I do not believe these products violate Facebook’s anti-gun policy. Conversely, these products promote safety, a worthy pursuit that ought to be embraced by Facebook.

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration on this matter. I will continue to monitor this issue via alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.


About: Grass Roots North Carolina is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to preserving the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. Our main focus is the right to keep and bear arms. GRNC was central to drafting and passing North Carolina’s concealed handgun law and since that time has continued to push for improvements to gun laws. Visit:

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The gospel according to Zuckerberg: Cheap imported labor from the world’s armpits, with their gangs, crime and disease = good. Safes for people who are actually American = bad.

    How did such a dipshit ever steal earn so many billions?

    • Wouldn’t it make far more sense if people of the gun simply did NOT use Facebook? And don’t give me that crap about wanting to keep in contact with your 10,000 “friends. I haven’t used it in 5 years.

      • I don’t have a Facebook page and don’t want one. It’s a massive privacy hole. Oh sure, I’m sure the government loves people to have Facebook accounts. Virtually every website you log into allows you to log in with Facebook. Hell, Google is bad enough and I’m not happy about it.

    • He’s a con man with millions eager to be sucked in. And thousands of “investors” eager to be fleeced.

      Who would patronize a “bricks and mortar” story run in such a manner as facebook?

  2. Suckmeberg is an effing hypocrite. He is tearing up the streets in his neighborhood to install a massive network of security cameras. Bet he has armed security on call 24/7 too. Be he would deny the lowly people of the real world the right to defend themselves.
    Hey a-hole, most of us can’t afford up-armored cars and up-armored homes or armed security. But we can afford firearms. Oh wait, you have no use for people that can buy your stock or pay big bucks for advertising on FB.
    Maybe we should just stop using FB.
    This is what happens when you live in an echo chamber and let the loudest bullies decide company policy.

    • Screw these exc’s, We can take them out from a mile away… Go live in a cave for the rest of your miserable lifes. Lift your head up for on second and see if it does not explode.

    • Maybe we should just stop using FB.
      Why would you start using facebook? There are many ways to share and communicate with people around the world that don’t involve giving lots of personal information to people who are just going to sell it to advertisers.

  3. Whut? I have guns pop up all the time on my fakebook page. gun shop with prices clearly posted. I don’t get this at ALL…

    • I was thinking the same thing. I follow numerous local gun shops and firearm buy/sell groups on facebook. I see ads for firearms and such all the time. Are they talking one of those actual ads some see on the side? I don’t see those thanks to AdBlock. There has to be more to this story…

      • No, see, if they are ads paying Facebook he doesn’t care if they sell guns, gun safes, or crack. As long as he makes money. However, if you put on Facebook that you want to sell a gun safe you get the ban hammer. Its all about where the money goes.

  4. I can think of at least one coyote who would probably disagree with the assertion that safes aren’t weapons

  5. The mask slips…

    Anti-gun really means anti-ANYTHING-gun-related.

    They’ll try to walk it back, maybe even sacrifice the person who made the first decision and responded to the complaint, but now we’ve had a glimpse behind the curtain. Don’t forget what you saw. Remind others. Educate new gun owners. Make sure this is forever remembered in the gun community.

  6. After all a gun safe might just fall on your head, ala a Three Stooges movie, right?

    To avoid abject and profound hypocrisy, Facebook must now ban ads for pregnancy prevention devices including condoms in the name of pregnancy prevention. And ban ads for e-books in the name of literacy prevention.

    Leftists will continue moving left out past the ledge and into the middle of the Pacific before they realize they have no oars, and no boat.

  7. If I didn’t know that it’s a very very wise decision to ban anything gun related, I might think that Facebook was trying to allow more gun accidents and thefts to prove guns can’t safely be stored by non-governmental entities. Na, that would never happen. ‘Cuz Mark is just so much smarter than we are. Si.

  8. “Gun safe” has the word “gun” in it. Guns are bad. Having a gun safe means you have guns, Guns are banned. If you didn’t have any guns, you’d have no need for a “gun safe.” Therefore gun safes promote gun violence and must be banned. So there.

    • I’m a big word nerd, and it’s pretty rare that anyone uses one I haven’t seen before. Love it! Storing this one in the memory banks…

  9. Face it, Facebook, like the government is not interested keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals.. But the law abiding. Facebook is nothing but socialist liberals who care nothing about the American people. Bet two hundred thousand their executives carry, and their body guards. Scumbag liberals. They won’t call me on this,

    • ” Facebook is nothing but socialist liberals who care nothing about the American people.”

      They care deeply about their socialist liberal advertisers.

  10. FakeBook is a joke. Celebs and posers like Shannon Watts buy “likes” from brokers out of Red China. I understand that online businesses have to buy into the hoax that clicks equals eyeballs equals ad revenue and sales, since so many others do, but I”m not deluding myself that what I think matters to Zukerberg or the Evil Twins at Google, either.

    In fact, I suggest we ignore Fakebooks anti-gun idiocy, and simply patronize other plaforms that dont follow the progtard nazi bullies demands.

    By all means, keep publicizing the anti-freedom agenda at Fakebook, and the firms harmed by it. That creates demand for alternatives to FakeBook, and highlights the retailers harmed by their policy. Dont forget, FakeBook is behind the illegal alien push, including Obamas executive action to double visa extensions for Chinese. Big money going to OFA and US Chamber for that, and thank them both for more lost jobs in IT, as a result.

    Money talks and you know what walks. Get ready for Net Neutrality and FCC regulations….As Ted Cruz says, “If you liked your health plan, just wait until FedGov runs the innertubz” and decides “what is fair” and free speech on it.

    • Re: Net Neutrality, the ship sailed on any other reasonable alternative as we now have the predicament with net fast lanes where the likes of Google and Facebook can basically just strangle any competition not big enough to pay up for bandwidth. You think its annoying that FB can use their anti gun bias prevent articles from TTAG showing up on my News Feed or ads from a gun store, imagine if/when they strangle the bandwidth to the point that maybe that email balst from Cabelas never gets to you, or gunbroker mysteriously crashes, or etc. do you even realize just how much money. contrl these assholes have already? That also ignores the fact that internet has not been “free” since 9/11/2001 and we (the majority) sold our freedom for security theater. Unfortunately the frog rarely realizes it is in a pot of boiling water until it is too late.

      • Thank you. I understand your concern, and agree with your frog analogy.

        When you have the IRS harassing conservatives with audits, and the DOJ and State smuggling guns and lying about it, the NSA, CIA, and DOJ spying on US cjtizens, and lying about it, and Treasury targeting businesses they dont like in Operation Checkpoint, “because guns”, then you know that we have entered the Orwellian nightmare world, and the fact that the StateRunMedia™ are afraid to report on it, or worse are in bed with with Progressive Propaganda Organs, with WH collusion and active direction in the Talking Point Memos, just makes it that much more frightening.

        Frankly, if anyone had suggested any of the above, in 2007, I’d have dismissed them as a tin-foil-hat wearing loon.

        I’m afraid to speculate on what might be next, but something tells me there’s more to the story on Progressivism v2.0, and its not gonna be pretty.

    • Bookface is typically used by young people to prove to everyone they “know” how awesome they are and show everyone how much fun they are having…

      This usually consist of posting things from other people, quoting other people, or posting pictures of oneself claiming doing things in various locations, but really just spending most of the time repeatedly taking pictures for the sole purpose of posting on Bookface.

  11. ” block all children (under 18) from viewing reported posts”

    From a social media site that verifies age with a drop down list box on their sign up page. At least it was like that the last time I bothered to look there. They have such a flawless plan.

  12. Stop using Facebook! It is very clear they do not like us and we are not welcome. Why on earth a supporter of the 2A would use Facebook is beyond me.

    TTAG stop bitching about what Facebook does if you still plan on keeping your page.

  13. This is the exactly how a country becomes a dictator led communist republic . First the anti everything people wish to take away one thing then another an another , never stopping . Then only one side of any discussion is heard by the population , therebycrushing freedom of choice . Wake up America !!

  14. This is the exactly how a country becomes a dictator led communist republic . First the anti everything people wish to take away one thing then another an another , never stopping . Then only one side of any discussion is heard by the population , thereby crushing freedom of choice . Wake up America !!

  15. My response to his post on Veterans Day about his grandfathers who fought in WWII:

    “As a former member of our forces, I appreciate your share. However, some of the very rights your family fought to preserve and protect are being stepped on and neglected by your choosing to only promote those amendments convenient to you. It’s ironic how they used the tools provided to them, and you honor them with this post, yet out-right ban others on here who happen to share an interest in those same tools. Blocking/banning ads or pages because they don’t fit into your sociopolitical views is stepping on our 1st amendment. You’ve inhibited peoples right to free speech and press. If you REALLY wanted to honor your family, stand up for ALL of the rights they fought to protect, not just the ones that fit your ideals… “

  16. “But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] trampling gun rights on the advertising side . . .”

    Let’s get something straight here. If I own a web site, and I let people post stuff on it for the world to see FOR FREE, and I decided to put limits on what you can and cannot post there, I’m not trampling on anyone’s rights.

    I may be a hypocrite, and a moron, and a few other things, but I don’t have an obligation to provide you with free bandwidth and server capacity, even if I provide it to other people.

    • Sure you do. You get to provide all sorts of free computer stuff to all the dead beats squatting in the local library.

    • @Curtis in IL:

      ” If I own a web site, and I let people post stuff on it for the world to see FOR FREE, and I decided to put limits on what you can and cannot post there, I’m not trampling on anyone’s rights.”

      Wow. You see this purported argument on nearly every, single discussion involving free speech, and the poster always acts as if this is a brilliant observation and neatly ends the argument.

      Rarely has a point been so thoroughly missed. If this were a shooting range and the point were a target, you just shot the range officer.

      Lets go through it.
      1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a restraint on government infringements of freedom of speech. That’s not in dispute.
      2. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not restrain private citizens. That’s no in dispute.

      But, there is a *reason* why freedom of speech is good — there’s a reason why we protect it from government abridgment. Those reasons are every bit as applicable to private individuals as they are to government, especially when you are a very large provider of a free and open communications platform. Facebook doesn’t have a legal obligation to allow any particular speech. I have never heard anybody argue differently. That is absolutely not the same thing as saying that it is wrong, morally, for them to restrict their members freedom of speech.

      Get the difference? Virtually nobody, ever, anywhere, is arguing that Facebook should be legally required to provide everyone a speech platform. What people do think is that by the ideals of our society, the veneration we are supposed to have for the free exchange of ideas, it would be a *good idea* for Facebook to not restrict its members freedom of speech.

      “Good idea” is not equal to “ought to be a law.” That’s apparently a concept that’s lost on those ruled by the statist impulse to try to make government require everything they like and forbid everything they don’t.

  17. haha complain to facebook to try and get them to change a dumb policy?

    Yeah, I remember how that has worked in the past.

    (if you’re transgendered and want to use your “stage name” they might listen… otherwise don’t bother)

  18. yet somehow pr0n, pedos and predators roam unrestricted on FB, but absolutely no gun safes of any kind.

  19. “But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] trampling gun rights on the advertising side . . .”

    “But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] exercising property rights on the advertising side . . .”

    Zuckerpunk is a complete jack wagon, hypocrite and a million other pejoratives, too. So are lots of other people, including some other obnoxious billionaires I could name. So what?

    He has no power which you do not give him. It’s his stupid site, which I’m still surprised anyone who’s not a 13 year old girl has even heard of, let alone devotes any attention to. He makes the rules.

    Don’t like it? Don’t use it. Don’t own stock in it. Don’t advertise on it. Or else buy more shares in it and effect change from that position.

  20. I have never had — and never will have — a Facebook account. This article is just one of the many reasons why. Why should I lend my participation in a social networking scheme thats primary purpose is to enrich a progressive, anti-gun, pro-immigration piece of garbage?

    All conservative sites that use Facebook commenting (Powerlineblog, I’m looking at you) should be ashamed of themselves.

  21. I’ve read to many articles and blog stories about Facebook’s loose policy guidelines allowing their reps to base judgement on personal opinions. I closed my account.

  22. This must be corporate Facebook’s version of “free and open dialogue.” Yes, we need to have an open discussion of guns in this country. I talk and legislate, and you bend over. I am glad I do not do Facebook.

  23. messages sent. MZ is such a tool. I’m not a particularly violent person, but I’d love to just slap him upside the frikken head!

  24. I’ve had a run-in with FB, and was not impressed: they let you make an account for an organization, without even any evidence you can actually claim to represent that organization, and then later on they ask for photo ID, something not possible for an organization plus something they hadn’t asked for at the start. They claimed they wanted the photo ID for OUR security, but their very process demonstrated they didn’t give a shit about our security. But the said “the decision is final” and paid no more attention to explanations.

  25. When you let a child click on an ad for a safe, your are forcing them to make a life and death decision…

  26. Interesting. Facebook doesn’t want people to be able to secure their guns and bans their pages because they “might” sell guns, but allows the NRA (who gives away guns!) and a nearly countless number of other “Pro-gun” and “Anti-gun” groups to talk about guns, gun politics and shooting sports freely (and some also give away guns, too). They also allow political groups and pundits of all types to post whatever they wish about whomever they wish, and pedophiles to roam freely. This is so stupid and hypocritical I can’t think of anything appropriately sarcastic or rude to say.
    Anyway, not closing my FB page, it’s too good a venue for pi$$ing off my Liberal “Friends” by posting rude remarks about Obama and the Democratic Socialist sycophants that lick his shoes…oh, yeah, FB allows that, too, but God Forbid you’d want to buy a Gun Safe to keep your little ones from handling your guns without your supervision.

    • A government plot to circumvent aspects of the fourth amendment through our own volunteered stupidity.

  27. “Safes are not weapons, so they do not violate Facebook’s policy.”

    Roadrunners kill coyotes all the time by dropping safes on them. You can see it on TV on Saturday mornings.

    Perhaps Facebook’s staffers have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Which would make them typical progressives.

Comments are closed.