I find it very annoying to be presented, on visiting the news link, with a request for a donation. Further, the story title is improperly written. To say, "Google Sadly Joins..." implies -GOOGLE- is sad to have done this. Obviously, that is not the case. The title would have been better-written as, "Sadly, Google Joins...." Scrolling down to the comments posted on that page, it seems several feel Google SHOPPING, as a "private entity" has the right to restrict results as they wish. Well, they do. However, that does not make the decision justifiable. The public should expect to see an offering of products, selecting (by search terms) those types of products in which they are interested. Some commented Google was not guilty of "censorship." I disagree. When a specific line of products is intentionally hidden, there is an obvious intent to dissuade prospective buyers of those products. In effect, "what you cannot find, you cannot purchase" is the thinking. These actions -may- be justified for, let's say, child pornography or solicitations for sex. That, however, is another argument. There certainly is no decree in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right to "keep and bear" pornography (although the courts --in their "wisdom"-- have permitted such under the auspices of "free speech." Again, an argument for another day.). Google is one of many whose controlling management takes it upon themselves to decide what "the masses" should, or should not, be able to purchase and own. Many years ago, the Baltimore Sun newspaper made the unilateral decision not to print classified ads for the sale of firearms, although such sales were legal. In more recent years, eBay has decided not to permit the listing of any items related to firearms, as has Craig's List. Of course, potential rapists were able to use Craig's List to locate victims seemed OK, buying a firearm to protect yourself was not. Ignorance plays a great part of this problem and is fostered and encouraged by "the media" and the "anti-gun" crowd. The public is led to believe that -anyone- can purchase -any- type of weapon via the internet without restrictions of any kind. Gun folk know this is a fallacy. While some states permit personal sales of rifles and shotguns, virtually none permit handgun sales to occur without the participation of a federally-licensed dealer and the mandatory FBI background check. Auction sites and firearms dealers will refuse to ship a firearm to other than a licensed dealer, regardless of the type of firearm. Since 1936, the purchase/possession of a weapon capable of firing more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger or a sound suppressor (silencer), is a felony unless a federal tax is paid and a background check is completed. After addictive drugs, firearms are the most regulated product available in this country. How this continues in the face of the 2nd Amendment is a great mystery to many.
Oops! Didn't mean to post comment twice. I apologize.
Tell me when this thread is updated:
|Moms make case for gun control||9 min||Aquarius-WY||3,523|
|It's the Guns, Stupid (Apr '07)||15 min||GoGoBar||102,009|
|Unload your F-ing Gun||23 min||Aquarius-WY||46|
|Area gun sales, fears rising (Nov '12)||40 min||Aquarius-WY||7,075|
|States with strict gun laws found to have fewer...||57 min||Aquarius-WY||4,481|
|How do we protect kids in school?||1 hr||Aquarius-WY||4,037|
|Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square||1 hr||Aquarius-WY||4,063|
|Trayvon Martin Shooting Shows Perils of Lax U.S... (Mar '12)||3 hr||Tray||9,109|