Eff Google

[xd ED]

Your search - springfield armory - did not match any shopping results.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

[xd ED]

Your search - cz 452 - did not match any shopping results.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

[xd ED]

Your search - ruger 10 22 - did not match any shopping results.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

[Pat Cannon]

I wonder if you guys have some other sort of parental supervision software running.

[xd ED]

I wonder if you guys have some other sort of parental supervision software running.

SpringfieldArmoryGoogle.png

How would I know/ learn of that?
I'm using a very recent upgrade of Mac OS 10.8.1.

Not using any of google's filters/ safe searches

[PileDriver]

Very odd, Pat. I googled the exact same thing you did there, have all my filters off, and still will not pull up anything in Shopping.

[Pat Cannon]

I wonder if you guys have some other sort of parental supervision software running.

SpringfieldArmoryGoogle.png

How would I know/ learn of that?
I'm using a very recent upgrade of Mac OS 10.8.1.

Not using any of google's filters/ safe searches

Hmm. My previous screenshots were from Safari on my old G3 iMac, OS X 10.4.

When I do the same search in Google Chrome on my Ubuntu Linux laptop, I, like you, get:

Your search - springfield armory - did not match any shopping results.

Edit to add: Same result (no results) in Firefox on Linux.

[falgore]

I have to ask. No one even mentioned. Is a company allowed to violated the constitutional protections 2nd amendment and the 1st amendment? liability is not justification of violation if done by government.

Blocking searches in a way is violating both 1st and 2nd. It is not the job of Corporations to police us. If It is, it scares the FRACKING CRAP OUT OF ME! For one if corporations who wield the level of power that a government does who is unanswerable to the constitution and bill of rights, means we are F**KED. Corporations were not elected into power, meaning no loyalty to the people.

This is another example, that we need a separation of business and state. \
We also need a amendment to the constitution that says corporations or (any group of corporations linked in any fashion to include subsidiaries, shells and any other form of hiding the true nature of who is in control) of certain size must also adhere to the constitution and bill of rights.

Our forefathers were trying to write a constitution that protected us from tyranny. Back then they never dreamed that a corporation would be so big as to have or exceed the level of power rivaling governments. Who with enough money can become tyranny itself.

I been using specific, generic many words, few words, key words in different orders, nothing works only ones that come up are big named stores like gander mountain, manufacturers like Remington, reviews mostly generic, or stores that do not have the item is stock.

Liability is a lie ATF had been quoted that gun legal carrying areas murder has gone down 50%ish. Media has refused to post fact, that most mass shootings occur in "no gun posted areas". They refuse to post the fact that in some shootings where a citizen broke a law and carried their gun anyway were able to stop a mufti shooting spree , reducing the number that would otherwise been killed. One was at a mall and a off duty cop carried despite the "NO gun policy" was able to stop it.

Point is liability is a real lame excuse to violate the constitution and bill of rights

I wonder if the Colorado theater had no gun policy. I know ours do where I live.

Google needs to be sued, for violating the 1st and 2nd amendments. 1st is violated by blocking our ability to search and share of information that is of a lawful nature.

guess that is my .02 cents in that google is violating my constitutional right to 1st, 2nd and "protected class" I am poor/disabled (2 protected classes) so I can not drive to the various gun stores due to resource constraint. Google had a door that allowed me the same access as any other, when being able to bring the stores to me. By closing the door they had removed my equal access in pursuit of information and exercising my second amendment. Their excuse is liability, Courts time and again have stated that this kind of excuse is not justification to violate.

Using other search engines is a "diminished access" and thus still in violation. I have never found or used any search engine with the same level of access google "HAD" but was "REMOVED".

I really wish I had billion $$ because I would honestly sue Google Due to number of important violations 3 if I was rich 1st 2nd disabled. Reality 4 adding poor. What I want out of this is simply to have the same level of access I had before and equal access as any other class of citizens.

Falgore

[xd ED]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment restricts the government, not the people. And for better or worse, google are the people.

No one, nor the government is forcing you, me, or anyone to do business with google.
It's their enterprise to run as they see fit, just as it is my choice to utilize them, or not.

[falgore]

I wonder if you guys have some other sort of parental supervision software running.

SpringfieldArmoryGoogle.png

How would I know/ learn of that?
I'm using a very recent upgrade of Mac OS 10.8.1.

Not using any of google's filters/ safe searches

I have no parental control activated and I am getting no matches as well

But then I have google "tracker" blocked using ghostery in firefox

[falgore]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment restricts the government, not the people. And for better or worse, google are the people.

No one, nor the government is forcing you, me, or anyone to do business with google.
It's their enterprise to run as they see fit, just as it is my choice to utilize them, or not.

Which is reason we need amendment to add corporations to the list of "who can not violate' due to their level of power. In that, it is tyranny it was meant to protect against.

We also need to overturn the corporation are people. That was not the case not too long ago. THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL outline. But was lobbied hard quietly to make corporation people. read following link to see my point.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo ... ns_US.html I find this very important read for us layman, to put history in perspective and to help show where I am coming from. We forget history and we will repeat history. Which we are doing now. I am trying to wake people of this fact.

[mrp]

Our forefathers were trying to write a constitution that protected us from tyranny. Back then they never dreamed that a corporation would be so big as to have or exceed the level of power rivaling governments.

Are you implying that they were somehow unaware of the Hudson's Bay Company & East India Company?

[tazdevil]

Well, stick it back to them with the google tracker blocking. They then lose advertising money, and the way the money blows, the way the company grows. Interesting that this company has taken a anti-second amendment status when they where so ready to use our first amendment for their gain.

[xd ED]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment restricts the government, not the people. And for better or worse, google are the people.

No one, nor the government is forcing you, me, or anyone to do business with google.
It's their enterprise to run as they see fit, just as it is my choice to utilize them, or not.

Which is reason we need amendment to add corporations to the list of "who can not violate' due to their level of power. In that, it is tyranny it was meant to protect against.

We also need to overturn the corporation are people. That was not the case not too long ago. THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL outline. But was lobbied hard quietly to make corporation people. read following link to see my point.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo ... ns_US.html I find this very important read for us layman, to put history in perspective and to help show where I am coming from. We forget history and we will repeat history. Which we are doing now. I am trying to wake people of this fact.

I'll not only disagree with your premise that corporations should be singled out in the Bill of Rights, I'll further suggest you misunderstand the founders' intention of the Bill: It is to establish and articulate the limits government can impose on people, not to control the people, however they choose to associate.

[TTS]

I wonder if you guys have some other sort of parental supervision software running.

SpringfieldArmoryGoogle.png

Pat, how are you doing that? I get nothing with any firearms searches (Google Shopping) on any of my Macs or PCs...