Eff Google

[PileDriver]

Bing. Any search I've made has worked. Found some decent deals on M&P9c's.

[Heffay]

Bing. Any search I've made has worked. Found some decent deals on M&P9c's.

Which search on Bing didn't work on google?

[falgore]

here is a possible alternative, but it doesn't have a shopping function. What I noticed Is I got better hits on "870 SPS supper slug for sale" on https://ixquick.com/ in a standard search than I did with google. You don't have to use bling which is Microsoft "ANTI GUN" philosophy but has not blocked it yet. One site actually had the gun I was looking for that came up on the first page. Not so with google.

about https://ixquick.com/ They have a https and a http version you can add to your search bar HTTPS is a secure search engine that does not log you IP address
It even has a way to save settings without using cookies Google couldn't do this as far as I can tell. https://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html https://ixquick.com/eng/privacy-policy.html

[falgore]

google provides "access" that is their business By not doing business with them, You loose the level of "access" Google provided.

The core of American with disability act is to provide equal access to disabled people.

Google is blocking my ability to get access to businesses other people can get access to by simply going there physically. Thus I do not have the same level of access as you do.

Normal people have NO "real experience on how big this kind of blocked access has on a disabled or poor person.

For you it may be an inconvenience not doing business with google, but for me its a total block out to get to the resources you do with only little inconvenience.

People who are poor or disabled need to find alternative access as part of adapting to their situation Google use to provide the "ACCESS" That leveled the playing field between normal people and the disabled/poor.

I can tell you now I want to go up to the cities to shop for firearm I can't get their due to lack of transportation/money
Normal people have no such limitations and can go with impunity or only little inconvenience.

Google was our leveling of the playing field by bringing the stores and deals to our computers. Which we now lost due to ban regarding purchasing of firearms using google.

layman terms American with disability act is "Shall not deprive access" google is blocking access Therefore depriving access

So Google is required by law to provide you with a (free) service, whether they would choose to or not?
What if they chose to chose to shut down, or do something else? Should the government force them to stay in business exactly as they operate now?
What if they never existed?

No. the search engine function is already "free" because it is paid for by advertising.
The "ACCESS" is what I am talking about. The access is the door in which I go through to get to a store in Minneapolis. But without the door that Google provided for free. They SLAMMED the DOOR shut. Cutting off the access to the business in Minneapolis. I do not have the "access" to go there in the real world, but you do.

If you do not understand this in real life context. It is like making a brick and mortar business that had a disability parking and ramp and automatic door,to get up onto the sidewalk so a person in a wheelchair can get inside. By google taking the access away, would be the same as Google removing the handicapped parking space and put a 2 1/2 ft curb all around the building to prevent a disabled person in a wheel chair from going inside and doing business. If google had cut off access to disabled at its brick and mortar business in real world, they would find themselves in court so fast with a class action for violating American with disability act of "equal access"

People who do not deal with disabilities on a daily basis, really have no understanding of how seriously life is effected when their "access" is blocked, that everyone else takes for granted. It is not, that a disabled person can or can't do it. It is an action committed by society that prevents a disabled person from participation within society by removing the access that would allow them to participate. In this case google (society) blocking access that had always been there. And Google "FREE" search engine was an access point for disabled people to have access to goods and services that was otherwise denied them in a normal world setting that anyone else took for granted.

Google actions had cut my "access" (that had been there before) to participate in exercising my second amendment right, which I have just as much right as you do to exercise it.. difference between you and I is you have more access options than I do. In both real world and electronically.

[falgore]

There is a difference between their search side and their shopping side. Search is completely unaffected. Shopping is whatever they want it to be.

actually I think google secretly did mess with even the standard search engine. I used https://ixquick.com/ And I was getting a lot of hits that was NOT showing up in the Google search. If it was coming up in google it was so buried, that it took a long time, going through page after page of non related sites before anything of relevance came up.

[Heffay]

Well, if you're getting something for free, then you're not the customer. You're the product.

[tman]

.

Google is blocking my ability to get access to businesses other people can get access to by simply going there physically. Thus I do not have the same level of access as you do.

Try looking in the yellow pages, both analog - and digital - and then see if the listed gun dealers have Web sites.

Google doesn't OWE you a pleasant gun shopping experience.

[goett047]

Solution: Stop. Using. Google.

[mrp]

actually I think google secretly did mess with even the standard search engine. I used https://ixquick.com/ And I was getting a lot of hits that was NOT showing up in the Google search. If it was coming up in google it was so buried, that it took a long time, going through page after page of non related sites before anything of relevance came up.

ixquick is a meta search engine. They just run your search through google, yahoo, bing, etc. and give you the results.

Are you familiar with google advanced search options? If google has a site you're looking for indexed and you're not finding it on the first few pages then you're probably not doing a good job of constructing the search. To suggest that Google has the time or interest in messing with your search results is kinda out there.

[mrp]

No. the search engine function is already "free" because it is paid for by advertising.
The "ACCESS" is what I am talking about. The access is the door in which I go through to get to a store in Minneapolis. But without the door that Google provided for free. They SLAMMED the DOOR shut. Cutting off the access to the business in Minneapolis. I do not have the "access" to go there in the real world, but you do.

If you do not understand this in real life context. It is like making a brick and mortar business that had a disability parking and ramp and automatic door,to get up onto the sidewalk so a person in a wheelchair can get inside. By google taking the access away, would be the same as Google removing the handicapped parking space and put a 2 1/2 ft curb all around the building to prevent a disabled person in a wheel chair from going inside and doing business. If google had cut off access to disabled at its brick and mortar business in real world, they would find themselves in court so fast with a class action for violating American with disability act of "equal access"

It's nothing at all like that. If you want to use the bricks and mortar scenario, it's like google deciding to close down the store. FOR EVERYBODY. You have exactly as much access to gun listings in Google Shopping as anyone else -- None. That's equal access.

In this case google (society) blocking access that had always been there. And Google "FREE" search engine was an access point for disabled people to have access to goods and services that was otherwise denied them in a normal world setting that anyone else took for granted.

"Always" is a strange word to use for a product/service that's only been around for 10 years or so. And again, GOOGLE SHOPPING IS NOT GOOGLE SEARCH.

Google actions had cut my "access" (that had been there before) to participate in exercising my second amendment right, which I have just as much right as you do to exercise it.. difference between you and I is you have more access options than I do. In both real world and electronically.

You have the right to keep and bear arms. That's it. Nowhere does it say you have a right to a pleasant online shopping experience from the comfort of your own home. I understand you're frustrated, and I wish google hadn't made this decision, but they've every right to do so.

[falgore]

No. the search engine function is already "free" because it is paid for by advertising.
The "ACCESS" is what I am talking about. The access is the door in which I go through to get to a store in Minneapolis. But without the door that Google provided for free. They SLAMMED the DOOR shut. Cutting off the access to the business in Minneapolis. I do not have the "access" to go there in the real world, but you do.

If you do not understand this in real life context. It is like making a brick and mortar business that had a disability parking and ramp and automatic door,to get up onto the sidewalk so a person in a wheelchair can get inside. By google taking the access away, would be the same as Google removing the handicapped parking space and put a 2 1/2 ft curb all around the building to prevent a disabled person in a wheel chair from going inside and doing business. If google had cut off access to disabled at its brick and mortar business in real world, they would find themselves in court so fast with a class action for violating American with disability act of "equal access"

It's nothing at all like that. If you want to use the bricks and mortar scenario, it's like google deciding to close down the store. FOR EVERYBODY. You have exactly as much access to gun listings in Google Shopping as anyone else -- None. That's equal access.

In this case google (society) blocking access that had always been there. And Google "FREE" search engine was an access point for disabled people to have access to goods and services that was otherwise denied them in a normal world setting that anyone else took for granted.

"Always" is a strange word to use for a product/service that's only been around for 10 years or so. And again, GOOGLE SHOPPING IS NOT GOOGLE SEARCH.

Google actions had cut my "access" (that had been there before) to participate in exercising my second amendment right, which I have just as much right as you do to exercise it.. difference between you and I is you have more access options than I do. In both real world and electronically.

You have the right to keep and bear arms. That's it. Nowhere does it say you have a right to a pleasant online shopping experience from the comfort of your own home. I understand you're frustrated, and I wish google hadn't made this decision, but they've every right to do so.

Google is the "DOOR" not the actual business. door = access the business is still there you didn't understand the point. Google business is "access" nothing more. the Access is the automatic door, the ramp , the disability parking space. Google is not the actual business. What google did was take out the Automatic door and put a door in that was so narrow that a person in a wheelchair can not get inside. But a normal person can still get inside simply by turning sideways.

Google did not block you "completely", you can still go to said business physically, which I can not.

From a "normals" stand point I would whole heatedly agree with you. But reality is I am not and I know first hand the devastation that Blocked Access can do. I stand my ground, normals just can't comprehend what blocked access is really about unless they are forced to live as a disabled person.

Normals time and time again, try to justify why" so and so" has every right to "block Access" The strongest reason normals do this is because they are either scared or extremely uncomfortable around disabled people due to deep rooted fear that their disease will rub off on them. So by blocking access and justifying away is a act as to keep those they fear from participating and thus not having to do a self adjustment to deal with the disabled folks.

That Is why the American with disability act was created to force normals to remove barriers and to prevent future barriers, that have prevented a group of people from participating.

Now do you realize the same access for the disabled also has a secondary benefits to the normals?? example the ramps on corners of sidewalks. Do you know why, they started requiring those as mandatory and the wider sidewalks? to provide access to those with mobility disabilities. families with strollers also use said ramps bikers use said ramps. It was meant for the disabled not normals AS "EQUAL ACCESS". only place where you don't have a ramp is sidewalks or neighborhoods made before a certain date.

Now the above example explains this next part. the ADA violation does not apply to you but under the gist of the ADA Google violated a fundamental protected rights of the disabled Blocking access to businesses that they would otherwise not have access too. And requiring me to look through yellow pages etc is still in violation under the law of Access for the disabled.

The argument about using yellow pages is on par of the blacks requiring to go to inferior schools which was deemed by supreme court to be in violation of a protected classes rights. Yellow pages is a lesser means than using google which already had the capability to preform and thus is not a fundamental alteration of the business. The access was blocked..

Now that I think about it, I may actually contact the ACLU on the issue. This defiantly needs to go before the court system. No not for punitive damages, but to have our "access" restored.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok direction switch google has "safe" search Google can still be family friendly by simply removing the things as long as safe search is on. then we adults can disable safe search for the purpose of doing our normal protected rights.

It worked for the most part with porn. Only reason it hadn't been perfect with porn is the people who purposely circumvented google rules on posting their site to google.. Law abiding businesses would not have that issue thus safe search would work better with said sites regarding firearms.

what google does not have the right to do is, decide that parents are too stupid to care for their families and therefore forcefully take over the role of taking care of their family as they see fit. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT GOOGLE DID. You know the term "police state". This is what "Corporate state" looks like.

I am not changing my views I am simply changing to another perspective on the issue. As a Parent (which I am not actually) If I was a real parent I would be outraged. Only thing it does is prevents law abiding citizens from doing what they have a right to do. Criminals will simply go to the black market which the law abiding citizen does not have access too.

Little factoid ATF has been quoted saying that murder had dropped 50% in pro gun carrying states despite the mass shootings. So how is blocking gun rights pro family? From purely "emotional fear" or "irrational fear" or "ignorant fear" getting rid of guns all together would seam to be the best way to protect our kids. After all when we get rid of all things deemed dangerous in the "House" prevents the danger to our kids. BUT from cold logic and facts we can not do that with the real world, like we can with our own homes. some of us need to eat and hunting makes that possible, there are animals out there that would like to kill us, but wiping them out would destroy earth and US in process, There are people with malicious intent and there is absolutely NO WAY to stop it , before it happens, They will use anything and everything at hand to carry out their malicious intent. There is only one way to stop one human from harming another. remove the human species from the equation.

OK another factor If all guns were removed per say, which is what google intent is. People would be lulled in to false sense of security. They would forget this world is a dangerous place. They would stop doing things that are common sense to protect themselves from harm. When people feel safe, they loose there vigilance of the risk of danger. Thus stop doing things that would save their life. Example pedestrian going through a intersection WITHOUT looking left or right for on coming traffic, because they believe that the light says the other traffic has to give them right away. Only they get run over because they were lulled in to a false sense of safety. People lack of fear due to thinking that because there are no guns anymore will walk around at night thinking they are safe, so they stop looking over their shoulders to make sure no one is approaching from their blind side.

remember the slogan more light, stops crime? Guess what, police asked many criminals about that. Do you know their response was the extra light made it easier to commit the crime because the "PUBLIC" was lulled in to false sense of security and thus was looking right at the crime taking place only to not even realize it was a crime in progress.

This may seem off topic but its not because I am trying to show some of the false hoods in google decision on the bases of being more family friendly. Which is total ******** in reality. Really need to stop making "excuses" for the "wrong doer" actions.

And that is exactly what I see happening here. Justification for google to commit wrong doing. Oh they have a right to do it, oh you can do it this way, only it will be much harder for you but not me, oh stop using google, etc etc etc When did I become the villain? Just for being disabled and having my "access" cut off and "ACCESS" is NOT a "convenience" for me. As stated in the American with disability act that access is not in the same class as a convenience in that access is a necessity. Only instance where telling me to use an alternative is legitimate, is when the alternative offers a "EQUAL level" of access as the previous. The Blacks equal rights set the presidency for "equal level" that is used by the ADA

No actions that will inhibit the peoples right to carry out their constitutional rights can be implemented. thus cutting my access to acquire a firearm is preventing me from exercising my right to bear arms

Following is edited in after posting originally. To cover the part about acquiring firearms.

Quoted from wiki ""[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."[40]"

Now I pointed out in previous post regarding Hudson bay company and its part in the declaration of independence and the constitution As a result of that I do not distinguish government from the level of power google holds and thus is held to same level of accountability. Now the actions of google equates to disarming civilians by cutting off supply by making rules/laws that prevent with out a crime being committed.

The right to bear arms also includes acquiring because it is assumed that in order to exercise the right to bear arms you have to be able to get one. thus acquiring of arms is protected as well under the right to bear them.

QUOTEING: ""A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

I would have thought you folks were pro bearing arms and would realize that the acquisition is vital in exercising that right and that the removal of the access to exercising that right a violation. Now if the above quote is actually unaltered George Washington was telling us that the actions of ggogle is in violation. because Google falls under the "ANY"

I am a kind of person who would put himself in front of danger to protect a strangers child. I was on the verge of joining the marines, when I had a health setback related to my heart, that prevented me from going through with it. This was PRE- 9-11. I am not some disabled wank who has the intelligence of a fly. Six years of access rights advocacy in my home city has opened the door here for disabled to bring their service animals into places of accommodation, with out being treated like a criminal. That includes hospital emergency rooms and other areas where the animal would not compromise patients, and ambulances . I had to learn OUR rights about access the hard way because of being denied left and right especially with the fact that Mine are hidden.

I am hyper vigilant about justice due to the nature of my disability. Thus my passion about the wrong doing by google. Show me access that is the same level as google with the same ease of google and I will shut my mouth on the ADA front, Not the 1st or 2nd amendments.

[Heffay]

Now that I think about it, I may actually contact the ACLU on the issue. This defiantly needs to go before the court system. No not for punitive damages, but to have our "access" restored.

Are you also going to take Target to court as well? They don't sell guns. Google won't sell guns at their store either. However, you can certainly still search for guns at Google.

[falgore]

Now that I think about it, I may actually contact the ACLU on the issue. This defiantly needs to go before the court system. No not for punitive damages, but to have our "access" restored.

Are you also going to take Target to court as well? They don't sell guns. Google won't sell guns at their store either. However, you can certainly still search for guns at Google.

get it out of your head google is not a store per say, it is a door access point. comparing Google to target is a onion to a apple. The nature of their business is totally different. Google business is "access to other businesses and information the content Google deals is is not their property in regards to other businesses" Targets business is physical general goods store with limited shelf space.

Actually now I think about it Google may be committing "anti trust" by blocking businesses from fair trade. depends on how it is worded It can be shown how it is antitrust. see being that Google is in the access business. their actions is making it more difficult for gun dealers to trade on a level playing field. Smarter people than me can figure out the wording I can visualize how it is antitrust I just don't know how to put it in to text context. I am visual person.

[Heffay]

Actually, I've changed my mind. I think this is a great idea and I think you should pour every available resource into this. Please record/transcribe your conversations with the ACLU and keep a regular update here for us to follow. I also highly recommend contacting the NRA, since they tend to deal with 2nd Amendment issues more reliably than the ACLU (although any red-blooded American really should be a member of both). Good luck, and don't give up the good fight! Keep us posted!

[goett047]

Actually, I've changed my mind. I think this is a great idea and I think you should pour every available resource into this. Please record/transcribe your conversations with the ACLU and keep a regular update here for us to follow. I also highly recommend contacting the NRA, since they tend to deal with 2nd Amendment issues more reliably than the ACLU (although any red-blooded American really should be a member of both). Good luck, and don't give up the good fight! Keep us posted!

You forgot the [/sarcasm]