The openly anti-gun New York Times was giddy on Friday as it was excited to be able to pass on to its readers that Facebook would be banning simple discussions and posts of pictures by legal gun owners to others of their legal firearms that they were looking to sell. While Facebook has never been an advocate of the 1st Amendment as it has always been known to restrict and ban discussions that didn’t fit their own political agenda, it’s hard to imagine a news publication like the New York Times being so excited over an announcement restricting free speech.
Now the New York Times packages their article in a pretty way by stating “Facebook is banning private sales of guns on its flagship social network and its Instagram photo-sharing service, a move meant to clamp down on unlicensed gun transactions.” Sure, that sounds legit, right? Their statement makes it sound as if people are actively and physically transferring firearms utilizing Facebook. But it is physically impossible for a firearm, or gun parts, or ammo (all included in Facebook’s crackdown) to change hands on Facebook. Facebook does not deliver nor transfer physical items. What Facebook is actually doing is banning the simple right of a legal gun owner looking to sell a legally owned firearm from posting a picture of it and telling other legal gun owners that it is for sale for a certain price. Again, the actual delivery of the firearm from that legal gun owner to another legal person is not possible on Facebook. The freedom to discuss firearms between law-abiding citizens of the United States of America on Facebook is what is being banned. The actual sale or transfer process remains the same. And the inclusion of the phrase “unlicensed gun transactions” gives the impression that something is being done illegally – “unlicensed”. As any person taking the time to educate themselves knows, it’s perfectly legal in most states for persons who are not licensed FFL gun dealers to legally sell firearms to family, friends, non-felons. “Unlicensed” does not mean “illegal”.
Even worse, perfectly legal guns are once again being placed in the same nefarious category as illegal drugs. The New York Times article also reported that “Facebook already prohibits people from offering marijuana, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs for sale, and the company said on Friday that it was updating its policy to include guns.” How can the ridiculous leap be made to connect the posting of pictures of legally owned firearms to the illicit sale of illegal drugs with a straight face? How is posting a picture of a legally purchased and owned firearm any different from the posting of a picture of some guy selling his Toyota Prius?
It’s no secret that the 2nd Amendment is constantly under attack these days. But the subtle erosion of the 1st Amendment to subvert the 2nd Amendment is an open attack on the Constitution. While privately owned Facebook is free to ban whatever kind of posts they like on their own social media platform, they are not free to try to convince Americans that what they are doing is anything less than an open attack on two of our most important amendments that have helped to protect, shape, and make this great country what it is. You cannot build a strong home and then remove the nails once you’re done and expect it to remain structurally sound.
Fortunately, there is a pro-gun alternative to Facebook called Gun District (found at GunDistrict.com). The social media platform functions the same as Facebook, but was created and is run by pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment enthusiasts. As always, the responsibility of performing legal transactions remains with the sellers/buyers of firearms and ammo and the adherence to state and federal laws is required.