To New York Democrats, you have the right to free speech, but speech they don’t like may cause you to lose your ability to purchase a gun.

According to Newsweek, Senator Kevin Palmer is currently working on legislation that would allow authorities to go over the social media history of would-be gun purchasers for up to three years prior to the purchase to check for offensive or hateful speech:

Eric Adams, the president of Brooklyn Borough, and state Senator Kevin Palmer are currently writing the proposed legislation, which would give law enforcement authorities the power to check up to three years of an individual’s social media accounts and internet search history before they are allowed to buy a gun, WCBS Newsradio 880 reported. One of the main aims is to identify any hate speech shared by the users, as the politicians noted that such offensive comments are generally only discovered after mass shootings occur.

“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” Adams explained, according to the WCBS report.

“If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation,” the borough president pointed out.

According to Adams, if this rule was already in place, then the Pittsburg Synagogue shooting would have never happened, as the shooter had posted anti-Semitic things before his attack.

“There would have been a clear indicator of the shooter in the Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh,” said Adams, according to Spectrum News NY 1. “The profile of a person who was mentally unstable of purchasing or possessing a firearm would have been flagged.”

Where to begin on why this is one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas?

For one, depriving someone of their ability to purchase a firearm for themselves due to the fact that someone may find it alarming or offensive is shaky ground, to begin with. What is and isn’t offensive changes with the political winds far more quickly than people believe.

For instance, the Clinton administration and the Democrats took a hard-line stance on illegal immigration in the 90’s due to the fact that it threatened labor unions with far cheaper alternatives to working hands. Today, with the Democrats having embraced identity politics, today’s Democrats would consider 90’s Democrats to be horrifically racist. Just ask 90’s era Harry Reid.

Even closer to that, Barack Obama once touted that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. His mind changed faster than a caffeine-fueled hummingbird once he found out that his voting base swapped their minds mid-term. He adjusted his platform accordingly, but he was at that platform in the first place because that was what many Democrats supposedly believed. Ask Hillary Clinton…in 2004.

Much of what conservatives spout is touted as hate speech by mainstream sources and activist groups like the SPLC when it’s absolutely not at all hate speech, and Democrats were saying the same things not that long ago. As I said, it’s horrifically unstable ground to base depriving someone the ability to own a firearm.

Secondly, who makes the rules as to what is and isn’t offensive? At this moment the answer seems to be leftists. It seems like an awfully Orwellian thing to be able to say no to someone’s right to own a firearm because a leftist doesn’t approve of what you’re saying. Not to mention the fact that if it does boil down to what you say online, then you can only say politically leftist things in order to be approved, essentially making you another voice in the echo chamber by force just so you can practice your rights.

This isn’t a country where you can practice your rights IF you say the correct things to your elected overlords. These rights are God-given, not kind allowances by a politician.

Furthermore, the Orwellianism of it all seems like it sits on a slippery slope. If they can make you submit your online and social media history to purchase a gun, what else would that extend to later on? Buying airline tickets? Purchasing other items online like pressure cookers? What would it stop you from purchasing just in case authorities got the wrong idea?

This kind of legislation isn’t just an attack on the 2nd Amendment, it’s an attack on the First. Visit the wrong sites, say the wrong things, and you’re rights are bunk.

Doubleplussno thank you.