# Google Blocking Guns & Weapons?



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I understand that Google is a company, and that they can choose to filter results as they see fit, but isn't this a bit of censorship as well?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/google-censor-firearms-related-shopping-results/

I find Google to be more than just a bit hypocritical when they rally support against SOPA on one hand and suppress search results as they see fit on the other.

https://www.google.com/takeaction/


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Google Shopping will not have gun ads; you can still google guns and find stores or guns for sale.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I understand that. I'm just pointing out their hypocrisy.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Hmmmm..... I have a funky suspicion that Google is sucking up to a certain political affiliation... and I have a funky suspicion that I just turned this political after just FOUR POSTS. Great.....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The big change at Google is their shopping search going commercial. It will no longer be a search of items their crawler found on the Internet with some paid advertising --- it will be ALL paid advertising. So don't expect results in the shopping engine that are not paid ads.

The secondary "problem" is that Google has made a business decision not to accept ads for weapons. Which means (unless someone games the system) weapons will never show up in their shopping results.

That being said, they are a private company ... not the government. Their decision not to sell ads for weapons is not a violation of the constitution. Sure, Americans have the right to free speech and the right to bear arms ... but that protects us against the government infringing on those rights. It does not require a private company to allow all speech on their website nor require them to assist selling guns.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Usually censorship involves government intervention.

We don't have the right to impose ourselves on anyone else, thus the freedoms of expression... just the government isn't supposed to be able to suppress/censor.

The example I often give is... I can make rules in my house to prevent you from doing otherwise permissible things. So, for example, while I support the right to own guns... I don't want them in my house... so if you want to visit my house, you have to leave the gun elsewhere.

Google can certainly make the same kind of decision.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> I understand that Google is a company, and that they can choose to filter results as they see fit, but isn't this a bit of censorship as well?
> 
> I find Google to be more than just a bit hypocritical when they rally support against SOPA on one hand and *suppress search results* as they see fit on the other.





trh said:


> Google Shopping will not have gun ads; you can still google guns and find stores or guns for sale.





Marlin Guy said:


> I understand that. I'm just pointing out their hypocrisy.


And my point is they are not suppressing search results. You'll still be able to Google "how to make a nuclear weapon" and get about 22,900,000 results in 0.49 seconds.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I guess they're still working out the kinks. :nono:

Knife Search

Crossbow Search

Rifle Search

Shotgun

Pistol


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

trh said:


> And my point is they are not suppressing search results. You'll still be able to Google "how to make a nuclear weapon" and get about 22,900,000 results in 0.49 seconds.


But zero results for nuclear weapons on Google Shopping. 

It is a shame as sporting goods is a major industry. Not only are they turning down money from gun and weapon only stores but they are limiting what Bass Pro Shops and other major retailers can list through their site.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marlin Guy said:


> I guess they're still working out the kinks. :nono:


The announcement went out at the end of May. Letters went out in June. Based on the announcement it may be until August 15th until the rules are fully enforced.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't get the fuss. You won't find them on eBay or Amazon either.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...e=UTF8&nodeId=200277700&qid=1341464123&sr=1-1


----------



## mikeren1 (Sep 13, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> I don't get the fuss. You won't find them on eBay or Amazon either.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...e=UTF8&nodeId=200277700&qid=1341464123&sr=1-1


THIS^^^^^ Do we really need another way to get a gun?????????


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> I don't get the fuss. You won't find them on eBay or Amazon either.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...e=UTF8&nodeId=200277700&qid=1341464123&sr=1-1


The fuss is about Google going on about SOPA, waving the flag and talking about freedom, yet choosing to censor who gets to buy and sell what through their storefront.

If Google is truly concerned over the safety of their shoppers then perhaps they should also filter beer, wine, liquor, and automobiles.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Marlin Guy said:


> The fuss is about Google going on about SOPA, waving the flag and talking about freedom, yet choosing to censor who gets to buy and sell what through their storefront.
> 
> If Google is truly concerned over the safety of their shoppers then perhaps they should also filter beer, wine, liquor, and automobiles.


You do realize this is apples vs oranges?

I would protest if the government tried to take away the right to bear arms... but I still don't want guns in my house. Those two ideas are not in conflict.

Google didn't want the government determining what it could and couldn't do on its Web site... they want to make those determinations and limitations themselves.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

And SOPA had nothing to do with weapons.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Once again, remember that this is a policy of Google Shopping and not a restriction of the search engine. The two are different animals. However, I just tried Google Shopping and did a search on "guns", resulting in over fifty pages of hits. It appears that gun lovers can relax for a while.
Note: I don't intend the following to be political or controversial in nature or to offend anyone here - rather, treat it as one man's opinion, coupled with a few facts.  
I'm not a gun person. However, I have no problem with people who wish to legally own a handgun for protection, or own hunting rifles/shotguns if they are hunters. However, I see little value in the gun collecting hobby and the ownership of collections of military weapons. I'm fully aware of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution: _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._. Note that the second amendment refers to a Militia. Back in the 18th century, our forefathers envisioned a loosely organized military force for the protection of the people. Wikipedia defines "militia" nicely -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Cholly said:


> However, I just tried Google Shopping and did a search on "guns", resulting in over fifty pages of hits. It appears that gun lovers can relax for a while.


The result are for airsoft items mostly. Not firearms. :nono2:


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> And SOPA had nothing to do with weapons.


And the second amendment has nothing to do with the rest of them. :nono2:


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear firearms. It does not state nor imply a necessity to sell.

This is not censorship. As has been pointed out, censorship is a governmental function and Google is not the government. It is not about the Second Amendment. It is instead about a business' ability to control their operation, free from outside coercion. That seems like a conservative value to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Exactly... IF Google could be legally forced to accept gun advertisements, then *that* would be a reason to get up in arms because it would be infringing upon their rights.


----------



## bills (Nov 7, 2002)

google is a enity of the N.S.A, a spy for them.. google is a dangerous enity,,


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

What's an "enity" ?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

An adjective describing a screen full of nits that live in the internet?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

The NSA needs a better spell check program.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)




----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Oh, God, no...

For those without Google Goggles, that is a picture of Martin Niemoller, a fact I know only because I have the app. He is the author of the famous "First they came for..." poem against Hitler's oppression.

You know what's the problem with the debate, MarlinGuy? I don't see any temperance from people on your side of the argument. Some of us think that it should be more difficult for you to buy a semi-automatic pistol than it is for a 19 year old to buy a six-pack of beer, and the moment that issue is even brought up, you go all Godwin on us.

You can buy guns from many different sources, MarlinGuy. I bet you could come up with over a dozen ways in which you could legally buy a gun within the next 24 hours. Is it really necessary that Google, against their desires, sell you a gun, too?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

I can't roll my eyes hard enough over this. Seriously, it's not a big deal. It's harder to track the varying gun laws across the country, and in order to avoid getting sued, they're not carrying firearms at all. Not a big deal.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Personally, I'd rather see all mail order sales banned. No catalogs, no web sales. In person, face-to-face at a licensed dealer only.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> Personally, I'd rather see all mail order sales banned. No catalogs, no web sales. In person, face-to-face at a licensed dealer only.


I believe that's the only way you can buy a gun. Catalog and web sales have to be sent to a licensed dealer for pick up. You pay a fee to the dealer. Dealer sends his license info to salesman. Salesman sends gun to dealer. Dealer does background check.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Carl Spock said:


> You can buy guns from many different sources, MarlinGuy. I bet you could come up with over a dozen ways in which you could legally buy a gun within the next 24 hours. Is it really necessary that Google, against their desires, sell you a gun, too?


I have no desire to buy a gun from Google.
I would just like to use their services when shopping for someone to sell me a gun. No different than you searching for someone to sell you a scale model of the Enterprise or a costume for the next convention.

Additionally, your analogy about the 19 year old buying beer demonstrates an insurmountable lack of knowledge on your behalf. So much so that debating someone so inadequately prepared would be an exercise in complete futility.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Personally, I'd rather see all mail order sales banned. No catalogs, no web sales. In person, face-to-face at a licensed dealer only.


That's the way it is today. A company can not sell you a gun without someone filling out the federal paperwork and running the federal background checks; whether it's a web based company, a local mom and pop store or some guy who sells guns out of his house professionally. For the web or mail order companies you are talking about, they must deliver the firearm to a FFL who then fills out the federal paperwork and runs the background checks. So no company is letting you purchase a firearm online and then shipping it directly to your house. Any company that gets caught selling guns without filling out the 4473 paperwork or sending them through an FFL would be shut down by the ATF and they would be put in jail.

In most states, an individual can sell you a gun within their state without using an FFL and filling out federal paperwork. They are allowed to do this because one person is selling private property to another person.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Christopher Gould said:


> I believe that's the only way you can buy a gun. Catalog and web sales have to be sent to a licensed dealer for pick up. You pay a fee to the dealer. Dealer sends his license info to salesman. Salesman sends gun to dealer. Dealer does background check.


That is 100% correct.
Additional restrictions from state to state. Some states will not allow an individual to do a direct to FFL holder transfer. it has to be FFL to FFL, then to purchaser.

As firearms enthusiasts, ignorance of the products and the processes involved is the biggest obstacle we face. Believe it or not, every time we fight to not lose anymore ground on the second amendment we are also fighting for the preservation of the rest of your rights. Nobody fears an unarmed citizenry. Not the white collar criminals and certainly not the blue collar ones.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> Personally, I'd rather see all mail order sales banned. No catalogs, no web sales. In person, face-to-face at a licensed dealer only.


Personally, I'd like to see more restrictions placed on the sales of cars, bicycles, kitchen knives, roller skates, blenders, home theater equipment, ladders, cheeseburgers, bacon, red meats, fatty foods, tobacco products, video games, alcohol, and home use pesticides.
Way too easy for just anyone to lay hands on that kind of stuff these days. Too many people getting hurt.

Oh, and of course Star Trek merchandise.
Only the truly weird deal in that stuff. I heard that Jeffrey Dahmer's place was full of it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Every time Dahmer's name gets brought up it reminds me of a story...

There was a time I was frequenting Toys R Us... and I would sometimes have to return stuff without a receipt and take their Geoffrey Money, which they gave instead of cash... works the same as store credit.

Anyway... because their Geoffrey Giraffe had that name... I used to joke with my friends about going and getting "Dahmer Dollars"... only, one day I slipped and said that in Toys R Us. I got the strangest look from the cashier when I told her Dahmer Dollars were ok instead of cash


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marlin Guy said:


> Oh, and of course Star Trek merchandise.


Dochmey yImev HoH ghotpu ghotpu HoH ghotpu.

Star Trek merchandise doesn't kill people, people kill people. I'm sure someone has used a batleth to kill someone somewhere, but there are sure a lot more people using guns and other traditional weapons.

Their sales are highly regulated (by the government). Many sites just don't want to get involved with complying with those regulations (deciding which weapons are legally sold in each jurisdiction their site serves) and find it easier to simply pass on accepting any advertising to avoid any liability for violating laws.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Marlin Guy said:


> I have no desire to buy a gun from Google.
> I would just like to use their services when shopping for someone to sell me a gun. No different than you searching for someone to sell you a scale model of the Enterprise or a costume for the next convention.


You would like to. They don't want you to. Don't use their service. It's not very hard. You love posting all over about how you stopped with DIRECTV. Now you can do the same with Google. How is that difficult? Put your conviction to define your actions in lack of support.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Shades228 said:


> You would like to. They don't want you to. Don't use their service. It's not very hard. You love posting all over about how you stopped with DIRECTV. Now you can do the same with Google. How is that difficult? Put your conviction to define your actions in lack of support.


Great. Now we can look forward to him posting on multiple threads on how much he dislikes Google and how bored he is with his new search engine.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Marlin Guy said:


> your analogy about the 19 year old buying beer demonstrates an insurmountable lack of knowledge on your behalf. So much so that debating someone so inadequately prepared would be an exercise in complete futility.


Please inform me, O Wise One:

In many states, cannot a person go to a local gun show and from the right vendor, buy a semi-automatic pistol without a background check? If they had criminal intent, could they not use a fake driver's license to do that? When I was 19, I used a fake ID to buy beer. Where's the greater difficulty in illegally buying a gun than beer?



Marlin Guy said:


> Personally, I'd like to see more restrictions placed on the sales of... <snip>
> Oh, and of course Star Trek merchandise.
> Only the truly weird deal in that stuff. I heard that Jeffrey Dahmer's place was full of it.


I love being cast as the weird one in this argument. And Dahmer would be toast when confronted with my phaser. 



MysteryMan said:


> Great. Now we can look forward to him posting on multiple threads on how much he dislikes Google and how bored he is with his new search engine.


Somebody has to use Bing.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> I have no desire to buy a gun from Google.
> I would just like to use their services when shopping for someone to sell me a gun.


And you still will be able to use Google Search. You just won't be able to use Google Store. "glock 19 for sale" just yielded 1,900,000 results. Have at it.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

"Carl Spock" said:


> Please inform me, O Wise One:
> 
> In many states, cannot a person go to a local gun show and from the right vendor, buy a semi-automatic pistol without a background check? If they had criminal intent, could they not use a fake driver's license to do that? When I was 19, I used a fake ID to buy beer. Where's the greater difficulty in illegally buying a gun than beer?


In this example, "vendor" is the key word. If by "vendor" you mean someone who sells guns professionally or a company, the answer is no. Just because it's a gunshow, it doesn't mean the federal regulations around the sale of firearms cease to exist. They must perform an NCIS background check and fill out the 4473 paperwork. For the 4473 paperwork, you must supply your social and another form of ID and then your information is run through the federal background check system. So it's a lot more than a 19 year old kid with a fake ID. It's also a felony to provide false information on the 4473 and you'll probably end up in jail by trying to buy a firearm with a fake ID.

If by "vendor" you mean a private individual who is selling their own personal weapon, the answer is maybe. Some states require all firearm sales to go through an FFL no matter who is selling the gun. The FFL would then run all the background checks and fill out the paperwork. Other states allow private individuals to sell their private property without having to involve the goverment.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> Oh, God, no...
> 
> For those without Google Goggles, that is a picture of Martin Niemoller, a fact I know only because I have the app. He is the author of the famous "First they came for..." poem against Hitler's oppression.
> 
> ...


I am in agreement a hundred percent.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I am a lifetime member of the NRA (although by no means do I agree with everything they do or say) and a stringent supporter of guns and gun rights.

But this is being blown way out of proportion. This is a private company deciding they will not 1) sell guns or 2) take advertising from gun sellers. Yes, they are a large company, but they still have that right.

Google searches will still provide you with all the guns you will ever need.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Herdfan said:


> I am a lifetime member of the NRA (although by no means do I agree with everything they do or say) and a stringent supporter of guns and gun rights.
> 
> But this is being blown way out of proportion. This is a private company deciding they will not 1) sell guns or 2) take advertising from gun sellers. Yes, they are a large company, but they still have that right.
> 
> Google searches will still provide you with all the guns you will ever need.


You are correct. But it seems that the nature of discussions on this board are to many times get blown out of proportion. Sometimes it may be because the posters enjoy making confrontational statements while hiding behind the anonymity of the computer. Other posters are simply misinformed on an issue.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> Great. Now we can look forward to him posting on multiple threads on how much he dislikes Google and how bored he is with his new search engine.


Well, it adds something to your life, doesn't it? Now you'll have two reasons to follow me around troll my posts.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

*Getteau*, thank you for your explanation upthread. 

Your answer points out that while the law provides standards for law abiding citizens who wish to purchase a gun, it also allows for loopholes for those who choose to evade the law. That bothers me. Hell, it scares me. It is all too easy for someone with criminal intent or mental problems to buy a gun, not in a dark alley but out in the open, under the lights of a hotel ballroom.

And I say this as someone who owns guns.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Carl Spock said:


> Your answer points out that while the law provides standards for law abiding citizens who wish to purchase a gun, it also allows for loopholes for those who choose to evade the law.


All laws strike a balance between liberty and a police state. Any determined or uncaring criminal can find their way around any law on the books. If we completely outlawed alcohol, we would still have drunk drivers who do not abide by the law.

My state allows face to face transfers of firearms without paperwork or background checks. I won't sell a gun to someone I haven't personally vetted. Some people will. Some people drive with a BAC over the legal limit. Some 19 year olds use fake ID to buy beer.
They all break the law and they all put themselves and others at risk. Laws are not for the lawless. They are for the lawful.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Marlin Guy said:


> Well, it adds something to your life, doesn't it? Now you'll have two reasons to follow me around troll my posts.


Don't flatter yourself. Reading your posts has had a minuscule impact on my life. And for the record reading and responding to your ludicrous posts doesn't constitute being a troll. :sure:


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Herdfan said:


> I am a lifetime member of the NRA (although by no means do I agree with everything they do or say) and a stringent supporter of guns and gun rights.
> 
> But this is being blown way out of proportion. This is a private company deciding they will not 1) sell guns or 2) take advertising from gun sellers. Yes, they are a large company, but they still have that right.
> 
> Google searches will still provide you with all the guns you will ever need.


+1


----------



## EdJ (Jan 9, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> I understand that Google is a company, and that they can choose to filter results as they see fit, but isn't this a bit of censorship as well?
> 
> http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/google-censor-firearms-related-shopping-results/
> 
> ...


Get over it.... It is a private company and they can do as they like. If you don't like the search results from Google, there are lots of other search engines to use and make default.

If you really feel so strongly about it, buy a share of stock and go to the stockholders meeting to bring it up there.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

EdJ said:


> If you really feel so strongly about it, buy a share of stock and go to the stockholders meeting to bring it up there.


I think I made it clear from the start that I understood that Google as a company could do whatever they want, but that they were being hypocritical with all of their flag waving over SOPA, while censoring their own sites.

As for the stocks, well that's just bad advice.
I sold all of my GOOG months ago and bought SWHC.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"Marlin Guy" said:


> I think I made it clear from the start that I understood that Google as a company could do whatever they want, but that they were being hypocritical with all of their flag waving over SOPA, while censoring their own sites.
> 
> As for the stocks, well that's just bad advice.
> I sold all of my GOOG months ago and bought SWHC.


I don't really understand how this is censorship. If you do a normal Google search of guns, you will get results. The limitation is on the Shopping results, if I understand this correctly. Yes, you cannot purchase firearms via Google Shopping, however, they still allow you to find out information about guns and you can search for firearm dealers via a regular Google Search.

- Merg


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> What's an "enity" ?


Something I'm learning to ignore. As long as someone writes a word in context that I can follow, I am trying to ignore the spelling. It seems useless... :nono2:

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Marlin Guy said:


> I think I made it clear from the start that I understood that Google as a company could do whatever they want, but that they were being hypocritical with all of their flag waving over SOPA, while censoring their own sites.


Firstly... it isn't censorship unless the government is preventing the people from access... and that isn't what is happening here with Google.

Secondly.. it isn't hypocritical at all. It is in fact consistent. Google doesn't want the government to censor them, but they want to control themselves.

I will fight for your right to own a gun, but I do not want a gun myself and I reserve the right to stop you from bringing a gun to my house. I am 100% for gun rights... but I am for YOUR rights AND MY rights... You have a right to own one, and I have a right to stop you from bringing it into my house.

That's not hypocritical at all.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Firstly... it isn't censorship unless the government is preventing the people from access... and that isn't what is happening here with Google.


Nope.
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> Nope.
> "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."


It may be censorship, but it is legal censorship. This board censors things as do most message boards.

I still don't see this as censorship. They are not censoring search results. Just not allow guns to be sold via their shopping portal. If WalMart stopped selling guns in their stores, would that be censorship?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

*Marlin Guy*, you should acknowledge the definition of censorship you used came from Wikipedia.

By this broad definition of censorship, these are all examples of censorship:

- The Iranian government prohibiting the publication of alternative political views in their country
- YouTube not allowing frontal nudity or sex scenes
- Phish not allowing the posting of recordings of their concerts on archive.org
- My mother not allowing me to have a subscription to Playboy when I was fourteen

Obviously these actions do not all have the same consequences but using the same word to describe them implies an equivalency. One is the coercive action of a government; another is good parenting. This gets back to my original complaint that any action prohibiting the distribution of guns is met by many gun advocates with hyper rhetoric. To call this business decision by Google censorship is plain over-the-top. It cheapens the word.

Don't hide behind a questionable definition. Instead, look to the origin of the word. In Roman times there were censors, elected officials who had specific duties, including maintaining public morals. In this is the classic definition of censorship: a government restricting public thought.

It may not bother you to use the right word in its correct usage but I can't see us getting beyond contentious issues like this without taking that step. If every decision involving gun rights (or abortion rights if you want criticize the left) is a threat to personal liberty, as governmental censorship certainly is, it's hard to imagine a common ground upon which we can all meet. The essence of American Democracy for 223 years has been to find that common ground and to govern from it. Excessive rhetoric from all sides is making that increasingly difficult. This discussion is as good a time as any to rein inflammatory talk in.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Marlin Guy said:


> Nope.
> "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."


You can't use it that way, though... and even if it loosely fits, it is (as others have said) legal anyway.

You keep glossing over and missing points some of us have made about how not only is Google not doing this to searches, just to their storefront portion... but more importantly, how they have the right to do what they want in this regard.

Doesn't eBay restrict gun sales as well?

Ultimately, IF you feel that strongly... just don't use Google... that's the only thing you really have the right to do in this case.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> It may be censorship, but it is legal censorship. This board censors things as do most message boards.
> 
> I still don't see this as censorship. They are not censoring search results. Just not allow guns to be sold via their shopping portal. If WalMart stopped selling guns in their stores, would that be censorship?


 lol i would probably pay money to this site if it censored posters more. the noise to signal ratio is horrible some times.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Doesn't eBay restrict gun sales as well?





SayWhat? said:


> You won't find them on eBay or Amazon either.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...e=UTF8&nodeId=200277700&qid=1341464123&sr=1-1


----------

