Posted on 05/03/2020 8:05:09 PM PDT by Notthemomma
iPhone and iPad users (Apple) and Android users (Google) are now blocked from using the GunBroker app on smart phones and pads to bid on or buy firearms, and the two tech giants have removed the GunBroker app from their stores.
GunBroker discussed this sudden change in the link from 4/27/20 and updated 5/3/20. Both Apple and Google made the anti-gun restriction by saying GunBroker violated their guidelines, specifically, by "facilitating the sale or purchase of firearms." The apps can apparently still be used, for now, to search for and review items for sale, and perhaps also to post items for sale, but bids and purchases have to be done on GunBroker's internet website, GunBroker.com. Again, for now.
I cannot begin to say how utterly disgusted I am at the insane decision by Apple and Android to restrict this basic 2nd amendment activity, namely, the legal buying and selling of firearms on smart device apps, by this well-established and totally legal entity.
All firearms bought on GunBroker and shipped across state lines absolutely have to go through a Federal Firearms License holder on the receiving end, and frequently involve an FFL holder on both ends, with background checks on the buyer as required by Federal and local laws, before a gun purchaser can take possession of a gun. Even for guns not shipped across state lines, all local and state gun laws must be met before a gun bought on GunBroker can be transferred to the buyer. To hinder such above-board and thoroughly legal activity by law-abiding citizens is nothing short of pure anti-gun censorship and infringement of a basic and constitutionally guaranteed right.
GunBroker, from my perusing of its site, has done more than 865 MILLION transactions to date for all sorts of items, sold from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses, from guns to ammo to knives to parts to camping and outdoor gear, etc. etc. etc., all legally and in the open. This has generated tons of income for people and businesses, and allowed many, many sporting enthusiasts to find the items they've been wanting and needing, for their hobbies and livelihoods. And if they've done it to GunBroker, it won't be long before they do it to other similar sites, and to gun forums that use Tapatalk or other mobile apps.
This action is the same as the social media blocking or banning conservative, or pro-firearm, or anti-abortion, or pro-Trump content/users they do not like, because such thought does not mirror their liberal or progressive ideological agendas. Yes, these are private entities that may not have to protect constitutional rights of their users, and yes the hindered activities can still be done in some other fashion, just not as easily and not as mainstream, but that is in fact the goal of the tech giants and social media!
Shame on Apple and Google for falling into this evil liberal attack on America, all because, you know, "guns."
https://support.gunbroker.com/hc/en-us/articles/225068787-Mobile-Aps-Mobile-Site-Use
From the link:
Apple / Iphone / Ipad Unfortunately, Apple has removed our app from their store. They state our app violates their guidelines. Here is what they told us:
"Apple has removed your App since it violates our guidelines. Specifically, this item:
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident it’s safe to do so— that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, or in exceptionally poor taste. Examples of such content include: 1.1 (removed) 1.2 (removed) 1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms."
Access to Apple’s complete guidelines is available here: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
Google / Android
Unfortunately, Google has removed our app from their store. They state our app violates their guidelines. Here is what they told us:
"After review, GunBroker.com, com.gunbroker.android has been suspended and removed from Google Play due to a policy violation.
Issue: Violation of Dangerous Products policy We don't allow apps that facilitate the sale of explosives, firearms, ammunition or certain firearms accessories. We also don’t allow apps that provide instructions for the manufacture of explosives, firearms, ammunition, restricted firearm accessories, or other weapons."
As a general rule, one should always avoid using apps whenever possible when a browser will do the job. If that means you have to go to a desktop site to do what you need to do, so be it.
Are these software companies potential publishers? It could impact the ability to restrict certain apps. A class action lawsuit might work in this case.
I fail to understand why these operations, e.g. Apps described in the story, FaceBook, and Twitter are not considered public utilities like the telephone company. I am not in favor of big government regulation but the phone companies are regulated, in large part, to prevent such censorship.
But hey, the Planned Parenthood app still works.....
Yes, there is a Planned Parenthood App.
We also have the right to not patronize such, if we choose.
The division between pro gun/anti gun is only going to get bigger. As the left descends deeper into marxism/globalism, they're going to get increasingly radical and un American.
all tech companies should be regulated like public utilities or should be shut down. they should be brought under us constitution/bill of rights
“...All tech companies should be regulated like public utilities or should be shut down. they should be brought under us constitution/bill of rights...”
I’m not a big fan of govt. regulation, but these outfits have grown so large and powerful that they’ve essentially become near monopolies and should be regulated as a public utilities.
Gunbroker is a great site! But I have no sympathy for ppl still using google and google products! Bad choice to load mobile apps as well.
How do you get that bunch of nonsense out of what is effectively a censorship issue?
Companies controlling mass communications should not be allowed to censor on the basis of politics.
My reading of the Constitution seems to indicate that I can do what I like with my business, as long as I don't break any criminal laws... IMHO...
My reading of the Constitution informs me the founders intent in creating the first amendment is to prevent censorship. This is a necessary reading of intent because the companies controlling mass communications are now exercising powers previously only within the ability of government.
Unless you can make your own ammunition, you are still at other people's mercy.
"The “animating principle” behind the doctrine, Roberts wrote, “is that no one can own the law.”
We also have the right to not patronize such, if we choose.
This way of looking at things is foolish. It is similar to telling the Jews they didn't have to listen to Hitler's speeches. The problem is that this allows other voices to gain raw political power with which they can oppress the minority gun owners.
Denying a voice to people whom they can censor is a first step in increasing oppression against them.
Our position needs to be "Give everyone equal voice, or be banned from carrying public communications traffic."
An excellent point, that certainly applies to sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. I believe both Apple & Google are publicly traded. A few years back, the 'left-tard' CEO of Apple announced that, "if you don't believe in global warming, Apple doesn't want your business" (or words to that effect). My response was - "Hey dipshit! How does telling a bunch of people that you DON'T WANT THEIR BUSINESS maximize value for the company's shareholders? Are you f*cking crazy?"
The same question can and should be asked, with regard to the current 'progressive virtue posturing' by Apple and Google management...
Are there not apps from the playstore or whatever for porn? threesomes? and hookups? How are they safer.
I use an “old fashioned” flip phone. Made by Motorola quite a few years ago.
I don't think the principle helps you at all.
The concept is works developed by taxpayer funded public bodies - in this case legislatures and courts - can't be copyrighted because everyone should have the same access to them.
The so called public communications systems you're concerned about were developed by private companies with private capital.
There is no such thing as a "private" communications system that requires public participation.
If they want to be a "private" company practicing censorship, they need to be a "club", like Free Republic.
So far as i'm concerned, if the public utilizes a communications system, it cannot be "private."
No one is required to participate in any of the social media platforms.
If you mean their business model requires public participation to be successful the same is true for newspapers, magazines, TV shows, casinos, golf courses, shopping malls, restaurants, etc., etc. etc.
So far as i'm concerned, if the public utilizes a communications system, it cannot be "private."
The only reason to limit this principle to communications systems is it gets you your desired result without revealing that what you really want is government control of private property.
No one is required to use the telephone either, but they will miss out on a lot of social and business activity if they refrain from using one. Same thing with Fascist book.
If you mean their business model requires public participation to be successful the same is true for newspapers, magazines, TV shows, casinos, golf courses, shopping malls, restaurants, etc., etc. etc.
Those are one way communications. If google wants to publish it's own content, it ought to be able to do whatever it d@mn well pleases, but that's not how google works. They allow the majority of the public to upload communications, and they restrict it for anyone who expresses a position or opinion they think should be banned.
The only reason to limit this principle to communications systems is it gets you your desired result without revealing that what you really want is government control of private property.
Communications systems utilized by the *PUBLIC* cannot be "private property".
As Roberts said "No one can be allowed to own the law."
So too is it also true that "No one can be allowed to own public communications."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.