Google Shopping Incites 2nd Amendment Row by Removing Guns from Search

    July 5, 2012
    Drew Bowling
    Comments are off for this post.

Google announced back in May that Google Product Search will be replaced by Google Shopping, meaning a number of changes would be on the horizon for Google’s dedicated corner for online merchants. However, Google recently sent a letter to merchants of firearms and weapons that have listings on Google Shopping telling them that the sale of weapons will not be permitted through Google. “We do not allow the promotion or sale of weapons and any related products such as ammunitions or accessory kits on Google Shopping,” the Google Shopping Team wrote. “In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center.”

Do you feel that Google is entitled to make these sorts of decisions and prohibit the sale of certain items on Google Shopping? Who should dictate what’s acceptable and unacceptable to sell on the site? Tell us what you think in the comments.

Naturally, proponents of the 2nd Amendment are up in arms (hah) about Google’s decision to limit or prohibit the sale of firearms through its Shopping site. A petition has been posted on change.com that implores Google to “not interfere with our 2nd amendment rights…” and so far has collected over 300 signatures.

In light of Google’s announcement, searching for weapon-related terms on Google Shopping reflects this policy as you will no longer get any results from most of those searches.

For example, a search for “bullets”:

Google Shopping Bullets

Or “ammo”:

Google Shopping Ammo

While specific terms related to firearms produce exactly zero results, strangely, a generic search of “guns” gave me millions of results (and these were pretty serious guns, too):

Google Shopping Guns

Additionally, I received some more shopping results when I searched for knives, arrows, crossbows, grenades (that do simulated explosions) (which actually included grenade launchers in the results, as well!), and uzi. Even searching for the plainly generic “weapons” gave me a few gun sights and at least one gun. So it doesn’t look like Google has exactly put a wholesale ban on the sale of firearms or firearm-related accessories (or other explosive stuff) – at least for now. Who knows if these results will get cleaned up so as to not offer any sorts of weaponry as the full implementation of Google Shopping takes place this fall, or if merchants’ weapon wares will be forcibly removed by Google should the sellers not comply.

As an aside, Google’s limitation on what kind of weapons you can buy isn’t limited to things you shoot. A search for non-lethal weapons like “stun gun” returned zero results, which makes this all the more confusing. To see the full list of what weapons are prohibited from promotion and which are acceptable, take a look at Google’s Advertising Policies, which are allegedly the guidelines being used for Google Shopping now.

While gun enthusiasts will, and perhaps logically so, take umbrage to Google’s removal of all weaponry listings on Google Shopping, Google isn’t really beholden to any consumer expectations. It’s a corporate business that makes whatever decisions it wants and we the consumers are simply using it by choice. Google is no more required to allow a space for merchants of bullets or shotguns to sell their products on Google Shopping than is a flea market required to allow anybody to set up a table and sell baseball cards if those flea market owners (for whatever reason) don’t agree with the values of baseball. If the private market you’re trying to use to promote your business doesn’t like you, you have little choice but go somewhere else.

More, Google isn’t prohibiting the search listings of weapons; this only (so far as I know) applies to Google Shopping. It’s still just as easy to go to google.com and search for “9mm ammo” and – presto – find many listings of websites that are selling this particular ammunition.

However, I anticipate that not being able to search and purchase weapons on Google Search will affect merchants more than consumers. This will relegate sellers to compete among general Google search rankings instead of being able to minimize the field of competition at Google Shopping. As Google says itself on the Google Shopping (née Product Search) page, “Product Search connects your products to the shoppers searching for them, helping you drive traffic and sales to your store.” If anything, especially if you’re an exclusively online vendor of guns or other weapons, I’d imagine that the diminished site traffic to a business’ page would be more immediately incendiary than Google Search simply no longer allowing the commercial sale of weapons. If anybody wanted to make some kind of legal case about this issue, I tend to think that a more convincing argument could be made that Google Shopping’s new policy harms small businesses than it diminishes citizens’ right to bear arms.

In the end, though, the plausibility of taking this charge to court doesn’t seem favorable because, as mentioned, this is Google’s world and we just live in it. Google was asked for comment regarding the policy change to Google Shopping and the subsequent petition of the decision but it has yet to reply as of this time.

For what it’s worth, Bing Shopping returned beaucoup results for “ammo” (and “9mm ammo”), “bullets,” and “shotgun.” Maybe Bing and Microsoft should start touting their gun-friendly search results among the NRA so as to gain a little more on Google’s lead in search?

Is this more of a free market issue or a 2nd Amendment issue? If you’re an online merchant that will be affected by Google Shopping’s policy change, do you plan to try selling your products elsewhere (like Bing or eBay)? Do you think this is a bad sign for business owners who use Google Shopping? Please share your reactions below.

[HT Outdoor Hub.]
  • http://www.riflegear.com David Christian

    I think they are in a transitional period, there are millions of feeds/products they have to review. I think they have tried to make some blanket filters, such as a search for “9mm” comes up with absolutely nothing, as does a search for “holsters”. The later is really odd, because holsters are one of the few firearms related items their policy actually allows to be advertised, along with scopes and some other items that are not actually part of the firearm. Personally, I think this moves sucks as the product feed and internet presence, along with hundreds of 5 star reviews, are now going to disappear because Google dislikes what my store sales. Oh well, they have no problem showing listings for “butt plugs” and “Vodka”, cause those are so “family friendly”, eh?

  • Brad K

    the second amendment states:

    “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.”

    Nowhere does it say that citizens should not be denied the right to research and/or purchase arms and arms related materials through any and all means necessary.

    This bold move by Google puts us one step closer to a safer society as a whole.

    • Matt G

      Yes a “safer society” where criminals are better armed than its regular law-abiding citizens. Thanks for reminding me.. I had forgotten how frequently our local thugs and alien gang bangers search Google Shopping to legitimately purchase firearms and accessories.

      Google is effectively turning the internet into trash with not only destroying search results recently with the biased promotion of themselves and their partners, but now they are limiting what products can even be searched for.

      At some point, regardless of your anti-gun viewpoints you’ll have to realize Google’s actions are also infringing on freedom of speech as well. LOL – that should hit a nerve with all you ACLU-cronies!

      • Thom

        You’re f$&king kidding, right? Illegal aliens, AIDS, car crashes kill more people than law abiding citizens with guns.

      • http://www.dbugking.com/ Donald V Dunham


    • http://infowars.com JimM

      Do a little research. The Founders and subsequent Supreme Court decisions show that Citizens are the Militia.

      They are however a private company and can limit whatever they like. We have the ability to not use their service.

  • Mark

    Nope. They are actively discriminating against anything gun related. I received a notice from them that my Google shopping items were in violation…and my site doesn’t carry anything closely resembling fire arms or ammunition.

    Before you know it, the liberal influence at Google will start censoring other conservative products they feel they need to “shield us from”. Thank you Google for your concern, but we live in the USA where we value the freedom to make our own decisions and choices.

    Please bring back the good old days where I could perform a Google search and get the results I was looking for…not the biased and politically influenced results that the growing liberal influence at Google has been slowly pushing on us.

    We respect your right to drive your Chevy Volt, eat organic food, power your tent with wind and even recycle your toenail clippings. Please show us the same respect when we drive our F350 pickups, kill our own food, keep our Texas houses at 72 degrees in July and even disagree with you from time to time.

  • Al Haffar

    To Google Management and Board of Directors, you are now playing with 2nd amendment, that means you are censoring what we can and can not do as for the commerce, it appears that you have been influenced by people that would like to see the 2nd amendment go away, and next we will see 1st amendment in order to silence the people from voicing our opinions, the people will speak on this.

  • http://hdfirearms.com Taos Gun Guy

    While more and more of this country goes over to the dark side as regards being “safer” by only allowing criminals to have guns, I can’t really get too excited about this.

    Gun shops, just as many other retailers, bemoan competing on large shopping sites as hurting their ability to showcase their customer service and expertise and get a minimal profit from their sales. I for one am quite OK with Google funneling more business to my site because the consumer can’t shop massive results at Google Shopping. I just have to use the other Web marketing avenues open to me and most are better for my business anyway.

    All Internet exposure is not good exposure.

  • chris

    None of this “infringes” anything on any consumer. We go to Google voluntarily to use their services, they can promote and not promote what they like as a private company. I certainly won’t sign a petition like this. I’ll go to a different company, though. That’s the point of Capitalism. That’s your vote.

    Having said that, it is a dumb move. It in no way has a positive outcome and inconveniences Google’s users and those trying to advertise. I’ll not understand that logic while more provocative things can still be purchased. Besides, they didn’t promote firearms before. We were already looking for them…. Just search for your guns under the regular search bar.

  • chris

    This doesn’t “infringe” on any consumer. We go to them voluntarily for their services. I’m not signing a petition like this.. it’s silly. I love my guns but the complaint makes no sense. Go to a different company. That’s a point of capitalism. That’s your vote.

    Having said that the decision by google makes no sense either. You can still search for much more provocative things to buy. Nothing good comes from it. Besides, you can type your gun searches in the regular search bar… Same thing. Just doesn’t let companies advertise their product there (I don’t like that but that’s the closest I can think of for some kind of legal infringement)

  • http://www.lotusmarketing.ca Marketing Internet Sherbrooke

    That would be a problem if we are getting invaded by zombies.

  • John Murphy

    Of course they are right to not allow guns or ammo to be sold or advertized. The Second Amendment is an anachronism and should have been repealed a century or more ago, as the product of a bygone age which has no place in the modern world. The rest of the developed world looks down on the United States as barbaric to have a so called “right” to bear arms. The US will not be respected in the world until the Second Amendment and armed citizens are gone.

    • http://infowars.com JimM

      John, when you crawl out of your Mom’s basement, please leave the country.

    • http://www.infowars.com Banatu

      Yeah. No one has needed to defend themselves for at least a century. No crime at all in the ‘modern world’. No conceivable scenario in which you may need to shoot an animal in order to eat. Independent people are universally despised the world over, especially America and Switzerland. Gotcha.

  • http://www.TheCigarStore.com Robert Capielo

    I don’t agree at all with Google being the police of the Internet as they almost have a monopoly on search engines.

    I own a cigar store and assume we will be next which sucks and is not fair. We are in business just like Google and all other businesses who are trying to make a living.

    Their reasoning is because of advocates who must also advertize with Google and frankly should mind their own business.

  • http://www.race-mart.com Paul Fink

    We emphatically applaud and support Google’s decision. Google is a corporation not a government agency or a democracy. It’s their product that we use and if they choose not to contribute to the vast proliferation of firearms, it’s their choice to make. If you don’t like it, use Yahoo or Bing.

  • http://E-Reachcomm.com Jody Mahaffey

    I think that Google has become so pervasive in our everyday lives that people forget Google is a business. It’s not a community service. As a business they have every right to determine what they will and will not support. Just as we have the right to bear arms, Google has the right to run their business as they see fit.

    • http://infowars.com JimM

      Jody gets it.

  • http://www.faerynicethings.com Patricia Delnay

    Paypal already limits the items we can sell, throwing knives, batons, and will shut down our paypal account if they scan our site and find anything even remotely related to these items.

    Our Web Store is not affiliated with Ebay though we do sell on Ebay.

    We had a sword and the hand guard was shaped like brass knuckles and that was in violation.

    Though I do agree that there needs to be some standards for the internet, I do not think this is the way it should be done.

    When the company we pay, for advertising or money processing can tell us what we can sell, I am not referring to anything deemed to be illegal, then there is a problem.

    Sure we can go to another company, but the bottom line says we have to be with the company most used by our customers and this is what gives these companies the power they have.

  • David

    Google can do whatever it wants to do….right? Just like the government can limit our freedom without adhering to our constitution, and doing whatever it wants to do regardless of whether its right or not. So, since our socialist government is turning into a communist, muslim regime, why should Google do the right thing??

  • L.A. Ansoms

    The world is bigger than the USA. Google seems to know. A lot of you don’t. The largest part of the civilized world is not as gun crazy as the USA, yet 10 times safer.

    • http://gardengrovefindhomes.com John

      The city with the highest murder rate per capita in the world is not in the US. Care to guess where? Here is a hint. They produce a ton of oil and they speak Spanish.

  • http://SurvivalPrepStore Sean Morelli

    That’s wrong! If they want to legislate morality or politically correct terms, then they should censor all kinds of things. Who am I kidding, they already do. None-the-less its very limiting on business who fit particularly niches and is censoring of American constitutional rights to purchase and defend themselves, and the freedom of speech.

  • Rickey Morris

    This is one of the reasons I no longer support Google, and any of it’s products, nor care about their search results. I learned that my traffic is about the same without worrying about the games they play. Google is not a necessary part of life, although a lot of people, “including Google,” believe they are. The worst part of it is, as long as we are talking about them on blogs, and sites, they get exactly what they want.

    Bing is efficient, and so are many other search engines folks, let Google run people off with their edicts, it will happen sooner or later.

  • http://store.creative-wholesale.com Ken Fallaw

    The sale of weapons and ammo in interstate commerce is prohibited unless you are a registered agent to sell weapons. If the sellers are legal, I do not see why Google has decided to stop listing them.
    Googles recent decision to do away with the Google Base, and change it to Google Shopping, will hurt thousands of small businesses which list their products for sale on the internet. It will make a lot of businesses look for listing on Bing and Yahoo, instead of Google. Now with the Google Shopping, it will be the store that pays the most for the ad words that will get the better listings, and the customers will only see the companies with the higher sales price because they are willing to pay a higher price for the ad words. Our customers will suffer the most.

  • Dell D.

    “Naturally, proponents of the 2nd Amendment are up in arms (hah) about Google’s decision to limit or prohibit the sale of firearms through its Shopping site.” Why would you say (hah)?

    You miss the issue completely. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Google certainly has a right to do what ever dumb, progressive, social engineering crap they want too. The problem is they are a defacto monopoly.

    If BING (Microsoft) were smart they would jump at the opportunity and embrace those users that are sick and tired of a small group of elitists trying to legislate our daily lives.

    Sure we need safeguards for children and weak brained, bleeding heart tree huggers. But buying Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll and M16s should be my decision.

    • http://www.webpronews.com/author/drew-bowling Drew Bowling

      I said “hah” because I was very pleased with my pun. :)

  • http://domsoutdoor.com Jeff Saccullo

    Google’s political postion on how to change the world just creates new opportunities for other seach engines. Google is a private company and can filter content, which it does, the public must not be ignorant of that fact. We the people do have choices, speak by changing your default search engine.

  • Jeannine Kay

    Of course Google is entitled to stop the sale of offensive and dangerous items. There are too many ways in which terrible things including terrible thoughts and websites are peddled on the internet in the name of freedom and free speech. Yes, we all have rights, but everyone seems to forget that with rights one has OBLIGATIONS! So yes, Google must be more ethical than the rest and ban, block etc whatever is unethical and immoral. I for one and I know of many many others who will cheer them on with this type of ethical decision. AT LAST!

    • http://www.infowars.com Banatu

      Problem with this is, who decides what is offensive? I assure you there are at least 150 million Americans out there who see firearms as security and freedom, not offensive.

      Should Google also ban anything to do with ‘gay pride’ or any religion or any product that includes animal parts? I know a lot more people offended by those things than by guns.

      • Ivan Yank

        Unless your name is Jerry Falwell, gays aren’t used to kill people.

  • http://speedoflightenterprsises.com Max Keele

    See, here’s the thing. On the one hand, you have folks screaming about “free markets” and how we can never regulate the free exercise of business. Then on the other, you have folks screaming about “defacto monopolies” and “Google’s social engineering policies.” Weird thing to me is how often those two hands attach to the same person. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Either Google is a business in a free market and they can do whatever they choose to manage that business, OR, Google should be forced to facilitate gun corporations and “well-armed militias” need to sell and buy firearms through the search engine feed. Pick one.

  • Gary Tucker

    As a private company, Google can do what it wants, as long as it’s lawful. The right to bear arms is no more, or less, important than the right to make one’s, or a private company’s, own decisions, which is part of free speech (oh well, Obamacare shot that down).

  • Richard Beasley

    Google probably has the law on their side on this one but what we need is a gun and arms site that bars any listings or sales that co-list on this new site and Google at the same time regardless of what they have to sell or list with Google. That way those of us who support guns, etc., will be allowed to have our own site for conducting business between those of like interest without affiliating ourselves with Google and the far left anti-gun lobby as we have been forced to do in the past. The gun rights group need their own highly specific website and system of commerce to reassure us that Google and the likes there of do not further suppress any more of our Constitutional rights than they have already destroyed.

  • https://twitter.com/#!/top10traffic Jesse Fisher

    Google is not a government agency, they have the right to sell or not sell anything they choose. Gun sellers can sell on a dozen other places, including Craigslist.

  • Jerry

    Google has gotten pretty scary. Please READ the new requirements from Google for their new shopping solution and you will notice that GOOGLE makes decisions for the merchant in terms of RMAs and Credits. If Google decides to give someone’s money back the merchant must do so within 2 business days! This agreement give Google WAY too much power over the merchant.
    In addition the merchant much give Google access to all their shipping records such as UPS. That’s the equivalent of giving Google their customer base. It’s required as part of this new agreement.
    Google is really abusing their power here. It’s not a matter of “can they”. This is America. They can. But should they use their extreme power to abuse businesses? I dare say Google has long ago forgotten their motto of “Do no evil.” This is wrong. This is evil.

  • http://www.infowars.com Banatu

    I agree with so many others here — I wholly support gun rights and think there’s too many laws attempting to restrict them, but Google can do whatever they want with their search engine. If they want to drive traffic away by presenting only selective products, that’s their choice.

    Actually, given the complicated laws and ludicrous fines and lawsuits gun sellers/owners/buyers are constantly harassed with (especially when shipping is involved), I hardly blame them.

  • http://webdesignjustforyou.com Eileen Forte

    I think it’s outrageous. As long as the sale is a legal transaction, why should Google be discriminating against those who like and sell or buy guns? I myself am not a gun person, but I believe in everybody’s right to sell legal products. It appears to be discrimination based on some person at Google’s personal and/or political beliefs (or who knows, it might be a ploy to entice the gun companies to pay them big bucks!?!)

  • http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com ron

    Google are “shooting themselves in the foot” business wise with this one. Unless all search engines unilaterally agree on what to allow searches for then it will be simple enough to use Bing or another search engine to do the search for guns instead. People that advertise on Google that own gun related businesses will probably no longer do so and lose them even more business. Like the news search and service providers and payment companies should remain neutral or risk losing customers,and rightly so.

  • Freeman Hall

    The merchant: ie Google has every right to decide what products they sell or NOT sell. This does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment and it’s time the gunslingers get a grip on reality. This is not the 1700s or 1800s and this antiquated amendment should be struck down. Maybe when this is done, more parents will see their children reach maturity.

  • http://streemit.net Dan M

    Google is certainly entitled to ban sales of firearms and related items through Google Shopping, just like I’m entitled to boycott Google Shopping because of their stupid-ass policy.

  • Peter Hutchison

    Google own the service and surely can make such rules as they think fit.

    • Joons

      Good grief a post at last that spells it out.
      If the gun lobby want to set up a site to sell guns – go ahead – there actually a few so you’re probably not adding anything to the gun mayhem out there.
      Why beat on Google SHOPPING (most on this board have not figured out this is not Google SEARCH) – you just ran out and tweeted Charlton Heston in his mausoleum for guidance – read the fricking article before running for the flag and the minutemen

  • John

    Google has a right to provide its services and their delivery that it sees fit according to its high ethical and moral standards. People in society can continue to behave and operate according their own conscious. I fully support Googles ethical behavior. Society on this war ridden planet could do with more pro-survival decisions and not more ways to destroy one another. Freedom of speech is in the constitution too – but hate sites, porn sites and other degraded things people do seem to be blocked and we are all very happy they are.

    • http://www.infowars.com Banatu

      Those sites aren’t blocked. You can find an endless amount of porn, hate sites, etc on Google (assuming you don’t have ‘safe search’ type software enabled), but it has to be clearly requesting it. For example, searching for ‘toys’ is not clearly asking for porn and you won’t get porn results on Google. But you can search for ‘sex toys’ and get millions of porn results.

      This isn’t quite censoring, it’s just common decency/courtesy.

      I hardly think guns fall into the same category, but whatever. You can still find gun shops on Google. Personally I’ve never used Google shopping for anything at all and couldn’t care less what they do or don’t list.

    • Mike O’Lary

      “All” please define that. You most certainly are not welcome to include me in that. This planet is so obese with human population now it is killing the planet. Blaming the spoon for being fat is just plain . . inappropriate. That is ~exactly~ what one does when they blame guns for gun deaths. For a fact; there are well over 9 million guns in the US today that killed no one. I have been a gun owner and collector for over 30 years. If guns are killers, every one of mine have been malfunctioning constantly and consistently.

      THINK. Please.

  • Glenn Marriott

    Creating a safer society for corrupt politicians.

    – State manufactured terrorist threats to instil public fear – Done
    – provide “protection” from manufactured threats – Done
    – Inhibit free speech – Done
    – Tap all communications – Done
    – Censorship of the web – Done

    These are but a few of the many liberties and freedoms that have already been removed from the peoples by our new and very dangerous “Privatised Government”.

  • Mike O’Lary

    Google can make whatever rules they want – they are free to do so. Just like I am free to use and recommend other search services to my clients, as I have begun doing.

    I’m finished with Google.

    In fact even my Android phone is going away. VERY soon.

  • http://welchindustries.com Lamar Welch

    2nd Amendment stands, Google Falls!

  • http://www.johnbrassfield.com John Brassfield

    This is silly, what a bunch of bozos. I switching to Yahoo. JB

    • http://www.jandcsales.com Cathy Gilronan

      Yahoo won’t let you advertise or be a part of their market place either
      So what’s the next one?

  • http://www.adwh.com Dawn

    Seriously? Free Market Issue – Private companies have every right to make whatever business policies or rules they like. As an individual, I have every right to stop using their services, if I don’t like those rules and/or policies.


  • http://www.blockercreek.com Darrel Dunson

    Personally, I feel that Google or any other entity has the right to decide what they will or will not allow to be marketed on their site. That being said, were I a manufacturer or broker of items in question, not only would I remove the merchandise I was asked to, I would promptly take all my other business elsewhere as well. As merchants and consumers, we have rights as well. For instance; I hold a concealed firearm permit. Some businesses post signs banning the practice of concealed carry on their premises. I promptly inform the owners that I consider that an infringement upon my rights and the rights of other customers to be protected while on their premises and that I, in protest, will no longer be trading at their business because of their stand on the issue and I encourage all of my associates to do the same. In most cases the businesses have retracted their ban, and most others have gone out of business.

    • Joons

      why do you carry a concealed weapon?
      Are you in fear of your life? Are you being targeted?
      Maybe you’re just objectionable and looking for some justifiable homicide to make your day?
      Are you just a testosterone junkie who likes feeling that cool gun metal on your thigh?
      Bet that’s it?

  • http://www.lakesidepottery.com Morty and Patty

    Thank you Google – you just saved a lot of lives! Arms belong in the ARMy and the arm of the law.

    • http://www.blockercreek.com Darrel Dunson

      The law fills out reports after you become a victim of a crime. Gun toters that walk the streets by your side deter and prevent crime, proven fact. Check the stats. A police report never prevented a crime from being prevented, yet the fear of consequences should the intended victim or the next person over be armed prevents many crimes.

    • Simon

      You are completely brainwashed…Think about this scenario… All guns are illegal as Crack and Heroin are. Yet, Crack and Heroin is, and ALWAYS be around.
      In ‘your dream’ scenario all these guns are illegal, who do you think will have them? Now that you realize that law abiding citizens would be unarmed who do you think will have them and if they have them don’t you think the scenario would go something like this.

      Bad guy #1 says to bad guy #2 “Lets follow that B&^tch in her Benz to her home & invade her when she get there” Bad guy #2 replies,”Yeah it is not like they have any guns like we do. LOL!”
      “I bet she thinks a call to 911 is going stop the 2 minutes it will take to rob them at gunpoint, or even rape the bi)*tch..Yuk Yuk yuk!!!!”

      Or in today’s scenario, Bad guy #1 says “I bet that Bi^*&tch is packing… Just look at her smug A22” Did you see the NRA sticker? Bad guy #2 replies Yeah, lets go look for an easier target. Bad guy #1 says, “I cannot wait till only bad guys have the guns” Bad guy#2 “I heard that”
      Think about it…..

    • Joons

      Thanks Morty & Patty
      A bit of reason in contrast to the redneck right, 2nd amendment, gun toting, right to kill (Zimmerman and many more) fanatics
      Why is the US so absolutely opposite to the rest of the western world. Why does the US have the gun murder rate it does, why does the US population live with the mayhem on its streets? Why does the US live in fear?
      It’s a gun culture – everyone has guns – so kids playing in Mommy & Daddy’s bedroom open a closet and get to play cowboys and Indians with an S&W 38 – result – dead child.
      Very sad, very dumb

  • http://www.thedigitalcig.com Tim Acevedo

    Not only did they take off fire arms but they also removed my whole line of electronic cigarettes. I don’t think they should be able to do this. I get some items but fire arms and e cigs.

    Google really knows how to upset online businesses. I got a lot of traffic from the shopping feed. For them to be in control of what is allowed to be placed on the feed is not cool.

  • http://www.blockercreek.com Darrel Dunson

    Just read posts, including my own. Appears Google and supporters of their ill thought out policies are clearly in the minority. I predict that when the cash register bell grows quiet that Google will rethink their policy. Statistics show, world wide that the presence of guns in the hands of responsible citizens deter crime and removal of them creates an instant increase in crime.

  • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

    How could Google ensure that a given vendor can legally sell firearms or related products?

    I don’t like their limiting the types of products one can sell via Google Shopping but Google Shopping puts them in a whole different role and responsibility than Product Search did.

    Does E-Bay or Amazon allow firearms to be sold via their sites? Some parts and accessories, yes, complete firearms or dependent parts and ammunition, no.

  • http://www.daltonphoto.com rick

    Moral argument – Google needs to be more tolerant of people who aren’t like them. Who is google to impose their morality on the rest of the world? What gives them the right? On what moral ground do they stand? What is their moral compass, and who says it is the correct one? Aren’t morals relative? Aren’t we told to not impose our morality on others? Is google “God”?

    Business perspective- Google will miss out on a lot of money. I wouldn’t want to own their stock about now. Since the US has twice as many guns as it has citizens… There is clearly a market for this type of personal protection, and people are okay with it. Are they prepared for a boycott? Could this be an opportunity for a rival to gain market share?

    Common sense/Slippery slope – More people are killed by car accidents, motorcycle accidents, drownings in pools than in accidental gun deaths. Is google going to cut off auto, motorcycle and pool companies as well? What is next? Will Google insist motorcycle and bicycle dealers include a helmet with each purchase? Will religion be next? If your religion doesn’t pass the Google sniff test, no more listing?

    • http://www.blockercreek.com Darrel Dunson

      Don’t forget Rick, more people die in bed than in front of a gun. Will beds be next? Who wants their bed outlawed?
      Good post, Rick!

    • Craig Barmore

      Bravo again! Well said… :)

  • Simon

    I immediately removed Google from my home page at start up and look for other search engines instead. Un American Google is not for me

    • Craig Barmore

      YES! Luv it! Me too… :)

  • Jerry

    I have to tell you… I thought twice about signing. Three times even. Why? Because I own a business and Google has already said that they’re going to penalize businesses in their search engine results that don’t sign up for their new shopper program. Do they have that right? Yes they do. Is that a type of extortion? It sure is.

    I’m afraid that be signing your petition I may be jeopardizing my livelihood as my business depends heavily on the Internet search results. If Google decides they don’t like me signing… it could destroy my business.

    • S Young

      What a freakin wuss you are – when they come for you, there won’t be anyone left to stand up for you !!! People like you make me sick ….

    • Joons

      HuH – Huh – Huh – oh again – Huh
      You have options – guess capitalism is dead in your neighborhood – not in mine.
      Why are Americans so in fear?
      I just don’t get it.
      I see a ton of these posts on boards on US sites.

      The US folk used to be out there and now you’e mice.

      Get on your hindlegs!

  • Peter Lusby

    The Constitution For The United States Of America controls ONLY the behavior of the Federal government. There is no “second amendment right” when dealing with any other entity in the world. Google can do as they please, as long as they don’t break any statute that applies to them. And if they choose to exclude a lucrative source of advertizing revenue, who cares? There are plenty of other advertising outlets who will gladly pick up the dollars that Google drops, and nothing will really change for the buyers or sellers of the products that Google bans.

  • http://www.daltonphoto.com rick

    By the way, I support Google’s right to do as they please. I don’t want to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or the like. However, I will use a search engine that doesn’t track my web traffic, and allows me to find a weapon of my choosing, should I decide to purchase one.


  • S Young

    And that, folks, is WHY I don’t use any Google products… Google=Government … Google TELLS you that they are spying on you and collecting your information and emails etc, yet you continue to use them? Are you really that stupid? Apparently so … Good luck with that morons.

    • Craig Barmore

      Ditto on that.. :)

    • Joons

      OMG get the whoo-hoo police here immediately! My tin hat is in place.

      So if you sell product “A” and someone else sells product “B” and your local newspaper that promotes grocery stores does not carry your ads you’re going to have a caniption – get a reality check.
      Free enterprise is the right and ability to sell what you want.
      Google in this case is providing a marketplace for products that they wish to provide a marketplace for.
      Hey I want to sell an A1 Abrams tank and you own a gas station I insist it’s on the forecourt of your gas station – i’ll crush any windshield washer/oil racks in my way.

      Conspiracy theorist at it again??

  • Bill

    I agree with their decision to ban sales of firearms on Google. I am a member of NRA and supporter of the legal use and sale of guns, ammo, etc. But it is not good to have easy access to these via Google. There are plenty of sources of purchasing them personally and not over the internet. Good character and legal users won’t have a problem with this I think, and can keep sales from those who are otherwise motivated. Thanks.

  • http://www.theokaynetwork.com Steve G

    I don’t have a problem with Google not allowing certain products to be listed in their product search. All this means if you want to search for guns and related simply go somewhere else. I’m sure sex toys are next on Google’s list if they haven’t already taken that out.

  • sh

    Private companies should be able to do as they please and we should be able to use or not use them. However, to ban a legal, heavily regulated product but profit from explicit and abusive porn at the same time is not being “ethical”.

  • Sandy Wyatt

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with Google. Safeway doesn’t sell guns, and nobody is complaining about that. Neither does my toy store. Google doesn’t have to sell them either. Their stand is OK by me.

  • http://www.ebbesquaredrains.com Rodger Kaufman

    Google is certainly entitled to ban sales of firearms and related items through Google Shopping, they own the site and control it, just like I’m entitled to boycott Google Shopping because of ridiculous policy. I will never use the Google Shopping, NEVER.

    • Craig Barmore

      Bravo! I believe there is a strong concensus about not patronizing Google in many regards, this being one of them. However, they do have rights too.. :)

  • Letty

    Absolutely right! Any business has a right to sell or NOT SELL any legal product at their discretion, and they don’t owe anyone any explanation for any such decisions. If they don’t want to sell weapons then that is their right. People who want to buy weapons will simply have to look elsewhere.

  • Craig Barmore

    Regarding restrictions on guns and related items. I can only attest to the fact that “bad people kill people” “good people do not kill people” and for certain, “guns do not kill people….people do”. You get the idea? It is ridiculous and retarded to think otherwise. The sport of hunting, target shooting and collecting is a wholesome and harmless hobby. Why punish the innocent with unfair treatment by others who do not enjoy the hobby. I am really sick of a meddling government and others trying to impose their ideas on others. I can’t wait for the return of Jesus Christ, out Savior! BTW, I do not collect guns, I just believe the rights should not be tampered with. :)

  • Craig Barmore

    Follow-up… Re: The original issue of Google selling guns (I got off tract). No, they do not have to and it is their right not to. That should be okay with everyone. The good (GREAT) news is that other search engines are, most of the time, more affordable and effective anyway. :))

  • http://www.jandcsales.com Cathy Gilronan

    This is one more road block for people that already have more restrictions on them by the Federal/State/Local governments than most other businesses. Maybe it is time we Optimize for our own search engines and leave Google and Yahoo in the dust.
    I have wonderful customers that spread the news about our new Gun Store like wild fire. Maybe I don’t need Google. And that can spread too.

    • Craig Barmore

      Very good and well said! :)

  • Tim F

    Have they banned the sale of 32 ounce sodas in New York yet?? (j/k) I never purchase anything from Google anyway but this just validates my original reasons for not shopping with them.

  • http://www.captaincyberzone.com Cap’n Cyberzone

    Since Google has committed itself (and shown itself) to being a “Liberal nanny” with the inane “feel good” policy that the sale of weapons will not be permitted through Google (“anymore”! Which underlines their hypocrisy) then we can expect Google’s “honesty” and “cognizance” to ban all weapons such as all knives, razors, bats & clubs (baseball, golf, etc.), flag poles [used as a spear or club], cords, toxic liquids, etc.
    Feel free to reply and add to the list that we’re sure the “committed” Google must now end the sale of through Google Shopping:

    • Ivan Yank

      Y’know, as a teacher, I’ve had to prevent so many near-fatalities because sophomores or green freshmen were going all Braveheart with flag poles. I completely agree, this Google better make certain it knows what it’s getting its pearly white toes into.

  • Richard H.

    Alcohol tobacco firearms, no more ads for that, Oh My what will we do?

  • cariboost

    C’mon. If I have a store, I can sell whatever I want or don’t want to sell. No sane legal system is going to require that I sell specific products, whatever they may be. It’s supposed to be the land of the free, remember.

    Seemed like a stupid question to me but perhaps you and some others think it’s valid to consider.

    • http://www.rentmpm.com.au Peter Carabot

      It is your right to do that, Google doesnt sell guns they are just another advertising platform.

  • Don Hey

    I think Google will be cutting its own throat. Have they taken into consideration the amount of gun owners in America? Or do they think that the way Google is grown they cannot be touched. Either way I think they are out of touch with its consumers to even consider this avenue. Google, I am a businessman and will be first in a long line of true patriots to boycott you should you choose to pursue this venture. Nuff Said!

    • http://www.wheaterville.com lazarus

      Me? I’m buying more Google stock today :)

      Way to go Google!

    • http://bonniemcdonough.com Bonnie

      I agree. They are out of touch with not only consumers but the many web owners who are affected by their many upgrades. They make it difficult for many. But yes, they are powerful and this is merely a political statement, not a logical business decision. Just look at the conversation and attention it has drawn to them. It keeps them in the news.

  • Cassonya

    Google owns its web site so has a perfect right to take whatever advertising it wants to. I may wish they hadn’t stopped taking those ads but I’d be upset if I was told what I could sell. This is after all the USA not China.

  • Priscilla

    Don’t bother with the silly Google people. Use Bing. I just checked by doing a search for Glock handguns. Show Google they’re not the only game in town.

    • http://www.wheaterville.com lazarus

      Hopefully BING will follow suit.

      Thanks for the tip tho…I had BING as my default search engine. I just turned that off and went to Google, and I’ll shoot them a note about why.

      • http://bonniemcdonough.com Bonnie

        What! I own a gun legally, actually more than one. My husband has a gun collection. If Google thinks or anyone thinks that the purchase of guns will be stalled by their action , which is the clear statement they are making, then they are foolish people. I agree that they have the right to sell on their search engine what they want. I think it is more of an issue of who supports the right to bear arms and who does not. There are many things you can sell on the internet that do harm physically and emotionally. Just the mere ability to shop at all on the internet creates financial issues for many. If they want to rule the world or at least try to they have proven in the past that they certainly have the right to try. It will take more than Google’s actions to stop the sale of firearms I am glad to say.

  • http://PalmSpringsHomesAndEstates.com Nancy Hankin

    When you own a company, such as Goggle does, you have the right to restrict information that could be harmful.I only wish other sites would remove porn as well as guns and amunition from the Internet.

    • http://bonniemcdonough.com Bonnie

      Interesting. Maybe they like the porn sites! Think of the advertising revenue they would lose if they made that decision. Money talks. And Google is merely making a political statement with the gun issue.r

    • http://www.rentmpm.com.au Peter Carabot

      Cannot stop there Nancy, what about sugar, fat food, fast food, cocacola, condoms, botox, make up (it’s really bad for your pores),religion (might antagonize one lot against the other) etc. etc. etc.!!

      • Ivan Yank

        Didj’tya read the links? Google clearly says they prefer the fatty tatties over fat-stabbing bullet-guns. We can drinks ourselves deaf on all the Mountain Dew that Google pours outta each of our ‘pewters.

        Oh wait, that’s right. I fergat! SODERS DON’T KNILL PEOPLE.

  • http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/ Alan

    Google are hypocrites in that they solicit advertising from hunting and gun related business while they wont allow publishers to have any gun/hunting related discussion on their website… Our outdoors forum was without warning dropped from adwords because it discussed hunting amongst many other outdoors activities but many of their advertisers on adwords are from like companies.. in fact they have twice sent my safari business a letter suggesting we advertise with them… (its obvious from our business name what we do). So will they still carry adds from hunting stores selling rifles or safari companies, hunting lodges, etc. on adwords… It seems quite they don’t care where the money comes from and its about time all hunters and shooting enthusiasts banned google… We certainly have.

  • http://www.wheaterville.com lazarus

    Many of the same people screaming that Google “has to” sell guns or else is in violation of the 2nd Amendment, are the Same Screamers who say the Free Market will always prevail, and should.
    Google doesn’t “have to” sell anything it doesn’t want to. Neither do I.
    I can say: I’m not selling guns, condoms or chewing gum. Go somewhere else to buy those things.
    Could this be more obvious?

  • Priscilla

    Just forget about the silly Google people. They have the right to make their own rules, but we can show them they’re not the only game in town. Use Bing. I just did a test search for Glock and got plenty of results.

  • AM McE

    Of course they are: they own it.

    Particularly regarding firearms. There is no way they know who is selling and whether or not they are doing required background checks. Why would they want to assume that legal headache if some whacko buys a gun through google and goes ballistic.

    Please. Like it or not, Google can do what they want. Don’t like it, go back to Bing or Yahoo.

    Now regarding charging people to list products: that is a different matter entirely and I think Google will see a backlash from that that will harm them.

  • http://www.bettatrading.com.au/ Steve Challis

    Of course Google can decide what to sell and what not to sell. When someone tries to make me sell something in our shop that I don’t want to sell, I tell them NO, as politely as possible.

  • http://bonniemcdonough.com Bonnie

    Google is not the only search engine in town or the only shopping search engine. Just use someone else. Google needs a wakeup call. They are becoming less friendly to businesses. And people looking to purchase a gun can just use other keywords to find them. The web is good at creating buzz words. It will just make gun vendors a bit more savy in the way they get their pages seen. Seems like a political statement being made by Google more than a business decision.

    • Ivan Yank

      May I introduce to everyone else the last person on earth that actually has enough brain cells to rub together to conclude logical sense?


    it is NOT Googles (or anybody else) business what anybody sells unless it is against the law.

    People make the choice to use Alcohol, tabbacco, firearms etc These things in themselves do not cause a problem (to anybody else).

    Their miss use is the problem. More people die / injured from car related incidents than fireams – but cars are not illegal (and at this time I dont see that becoming law). How many people are effected from the misuse (deliberate or accidental) of knives. If knives are made illegal then every house wife will be in jail. Knives kill and maim too.

    A sense of responsible use is what is required – this applies to everything in life, not just firearms. I think the vocal minority need a reality check.

  • John

    Anyone else sick of Google yet?

  • http://www.rentmpm.com.au Peter Carabot

    I must say that I am not a proponent for the second amendment or a gun fanatic. I would feel the same way for any product. The question is rather simple: is the product you are trying to sell a legal product? if Yes NOBODY can stop you from promoting it. The only screen that you could use would be a “restricted Category” screen to save the innocents…. from seeing “Disturbing” pictures of Weapons and the like. A search on Google for “Nargile” produced 342 results for Water Pipes and as anybody knows they primarily used to smoke “illegal” drugs. In my opinion it is far more dangerous to promote an illegal activity i.e. drugs consumption then a legal sport, i.e. Hunting, target practice etc. Shooting is also an Olympic Sport! Cant get any more ligall then that!!

  • Jim

    I have banned Google from all of our computers and opted for Bing until such time as Google reverts to the ability to shop arms pricing and outlets. As an NRA member, gun owner and enthusiast and CCW holder, I resent the censorship of weapons on Google no less than I resent and oppose our Government’s infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

  • P Hunt

    It really doesn’t matter at this point since they are going commercial anyway. See you later Google. Just remember…what goes up, must come down. Enjoy the ride while you can Google just like all of the execs of the companies who created this wonderful recession.

  • Mike Salmons

    Fuck Google. I didn’t use google shopping before and I will never use it now. I will be closing my g mail account and recommending all those I know who use g mail to do the same. See Ya left wing jerks.

  • d davis

    Use Bing. Drop Google

  • Jim

    Shopping is different from search, and they kept guns it in the search. I’ve go no problem with this. They’ll pay for this in the marketplace, and that’s the breaks when you make this type of decision, but that’s where it should be decided. I come from a region where gun ownership is as normal as car ownership and, me, I’ll still be using Google.

  • Clem Dog

    Google can eat sxxt and die!

  • http://artsweightloss.com Art

    Google isn’t the only player in searching for guns. If you want a gun you don’t need a search engine.

    • Ivan Yank

      Duh. None of these bucketheads actually waited to comment, they just trigger-fingered everything. Comment now, read later.

  • http://online-backup.stocklii.com stocklii

    I think that prohibiting the sale of certain weapon items search on google for me would be to some extent very unfair. Indeed if google has to present as a global search engine I do not see why it would ban such research. So it would be preferable to establish strict rules concerning the one who will decide to contact these kinds of sites to allocate their services instead of simply banning it.

  • Mike

    You can’t buy guns in every store. They have the right to choose what they will offer. There are several other sources available, but it’s just one more reason Google ISN’T the end all in internet search. I wonder if this was done after attending a Bilderberg meeting? :-)

  • paul goin

    they need better safty protocals on there web site of guns. They are in bed with big brother. remember the movies 1984.

  • Brad

    Don’t worry, Hitler did the same thing.

  • Oemazing

    To any one who actually thinks this is worth getting upset about:

    Yes, please stop using Google. Don’t advertise your business with Google, don’t link any of your accounts with Google, don’t even use the Chrome browser. Google will continue to do just fine without your support.

    If you really feel that this has anything to do with 2nd amendment rights, it just shows how uneducated you are. Google is not a government entity and does not have to respect the constitution.

    It is Unamerican for you to tell a BUSINESS how they have to run. How many of you were going to “boycott” JC Penny’s for using Ellen as their spokesperson? How many of you actually are still boycotting? Or was it too inconvenient for you?

    You bitch about a search engine removing guns from their shopping feed, but you buy textiles made by slave labor. You buy diamond rings for your spouses that used children to mine them. You complain about gas prices, but then you vote in the same ass-wipes that keep raising the tax and giving billions of dollars every year to oil companies.

    Grow the fuck up.

  • http://www.toogroagency.com Paula Tooley

    So the legal arms sellers are not welcome at google. What difference does that make? The internet does represent true freedom of speech and promotion of your products good or bad and google cannot censor that.
    I run a family safe website and noone can stop that which I consider good. More people with positive sites should step forward and shun negative, perverted sites. Guns for hunting and security are not considered bad in most communities.
    Thank you for your time and kind consideration.
    Paula Tooley
    CIO, Chief of Internet Operations
    P. O. Box 777
    Oklahoma City, Ok 73101
    Promoting writers and artists since 1999.

  • Don Ostendorf

    It is Googles right to restrict what ever they want. Do I agree with them, NO. So I am using other searches more. Like Bing or Yahoo.

  • http://www.shtf-gear.com SHTF-Gear

    I just had over 7,000 products deactivated in Google Shopping due to this. Weird because I can still list ~other~ hunting products, arrows, crossbows and tactical knives for ‘camping’, but not ammunition?

    I don’t think its a 2nd Amendment issue, but I am frightened for the implications, these are products for legal activities. Wait until they drop all iPhone related shopping results in favor of Android accessories…

    While they are not the only game in town and there are other shopping engine sites, it was a significant source of my traffic. The problem is google wielded their power of search (results) over the other CSE sites a few months ago and dropped their rankings several notches/pages. While they claim it is for ‘search relevance’, they are manipulating results to their own benefit. It ~is~ their product, and they can do what they want with it, but I still think it sucks. On top of that, merchants now have to bid for rankings, so which companies do you think are going to get ‘top results’? Cheapest price? Best Service? Deepest advertising pockets?

    Considering they don’t let me purchase/run ads for these products either, I think we all saw it coming…

    F*ck G**gle. Do no Evil My Azz.

    It is a disservice to the consumer and a pain in the ass to merchants.

  • Andrew M

    Let’s be honest, no guns should be legal for anyone to buy outside of armed forces and police. Maybe an exception for farmers and hunting rifles but the rifles should be kept in some sort of a town armory when not in use and signed in and out during set windows of time. At no point should anyone be bringing home guns. There’s a reason the American’s have such a high gun crime rate… they are the far too slack on Gun laws….Simple! ‘Give people guns, people will get shot’

    • http://www.shtf-gear.com SHTF-Gear

      Obviously you are not an American.

      Law abiding citizens are not the problem with ‘guns’.

      England got rid of guns and they still experience gun crime and knife crime shot through the roof. Ban knives and it will be baseball bats and fists. You cannot legislate morality.

      Remove ‘guns/ammo’ from this article and insert any other legal product and it is frightening read.

    • s

      Give people knives, people will be stabbed. Give people cars, people will be run over. Give people hamburgers, they will be fat. What a shame, that We The People are so stupid and feeble, that we need the politics of people like you to protect us from ourselves. “High gun crime rate”.. found in cities where guns, owned by lawful people, are already illegal. Is this why gun crimes are high in major cities? You cannot carry in these areas, yet that is why crimes are high? “Let’s be honest”.. like we all just “agree” with people like you and we are lying to ourselves? I want to buy a ticket to live in your small, naive brain where everything is simple and by removing guns from Americans means that no one ever dies. Do you oppose the President from having armed protection? If not, why not? Because his life is being threatened and he has a divine right to protect his life? If so, why don’t I? What if I am being stalked by someone who has threatened, in no uncertain terms, to kill me? Why am I not entitled, by my mere existence, to protect my life and the life of my offspring? Would you have me defend my house against a man with a gun (who will always be able to purchase one on the black market) with a kitchen knife? Will that make me a more civilized citizen? There is no reasoning with someone who has so little respect for the intelligence of others; there are a lot of stupid people in the world, but most of us are smart enough to know what is good for us. You likely support outlawing kids bringing peanut butter & jelly sandwiches to school, because out of 400 kids, 1 may have an allergy. Learn something about self-responsibility, freedom, liberty, and self-responsibility. Get out of America. You are a horrible person with no respect for life and liberty, and no understanding of the basic principles of self-defense and my right to exist. Have fun riding on your unicorn.

  • James Hill

    Well, That was my e-mail address and Google was my search engine and my home page. However I have now changed all the above and will not do any business whatsoever with a company that intentionally censors firearms or interferes with our constitutional rights as Americans. Thanks Google you really were a good company…

  • Renaldo

    Drew, the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mention the word ‘gun’. Banning guns isn’t a second amendment issue, it’s a freedom issue.

    • Grayson Parks

      you’re right. guns aren’t mentioned. it was the vernacular of the time. while were at it, why not forget that slaves mean blacks? all our fabled forefathers had slaves so that’s okay?

  • AnonyMouse

    APPLAUSE! Hope that Limey stays on his side of the pond!

  • http://price-specifications.com/ Atul Dobariya

    The information provided in your website is very beautifully designed and the detils given is truly outstanding with best possible efforts from your team.

  • Marvin Permenter

    I’ll bet that if they don’t like orange Popsicle that they will leave them off also.

    You believe that only the criminals should have guns, well come live in our city which is rated number 9 in the country in violent crimes. All the bad guys carry guns and the police are a half hour away, what do you do in the mean time,, die!

    • Amelia

      noouzo. you know what the bad guys do? they don’t pay attention to you because you’re not worth a round. google is well within their means to stop the spread of guns and other violet weapons. if there aren’t guns, there aren’t crazys with gun looking to shoot.

  • http://www.evsroll.com EVsRoll

    Google implements algorithms that affect webmasters and advertisers every day with little or no notice to the public.

    Restricting gun access would seem to be just another example.


    • http://www.shtf-gear.com SHTF-Gear

      Yes they do, but those algorithms are typically for data/search results relevance. Removing Web Spam, etc. Not completely dropping products from the web. And lets face it, if google delists you, your site, or your products, you are SOL. They constitute ~70% of all search traffic.

      Maybe they will start removing gun stores from Google Maps, Google Local, etc.

      Imagine if Yellow Pages decided to remove all liquor stores, strip clubs, etc. from its pages.

  • http://nichemarketingsite.wordpress.com Gichuki

    I am sure it is a matter of time that Google cleans all the databases that contain weapon merchandise. They will get away with it despite the petitions. You know how this search engine has behaved in the past.

    • Dmetrius Scarn

      Well. Sad admission here, but you’re only saying this because you’re a god damn American inbred with xenophobia and hatred. Nobody wants to kill you. You’re not that important. Trust us.

  • http://www.clearlyoptics.com Steve

    It is certainly Google’s prerogative to remove whatever products they want from their search whether it be firearms or tampons. They are a private company and should be free to run their company as they see fit. The Second Amendment of the constitution deals specifically with government abridging an individual right to bear arms. It says nothing about private entities.
    That being said, I’ll no longer spend a penny advertising on Google and will find a search engine that better suits my needs. This is my prerogative as the owner of a private business. Google doesn’t need me. I don’t need them.

  • http://undeniableme.wordpress.com CarolAnnB

    The “shopping” segment of “Google Shopping” is managed and owned by Google; therefore, they have the explicit right to sell whatever it is they choose to sell. One does not sell firearms on Craigslist, nor does a Family Dollar, a Hallmark Store or Bi-Lo “shopping” centers (Bi-Lo is a grocery store). Forcing a retailer to sell anything, including weaponry, is dictatorship. If someone does not wish to purchase products from Google Shopping, that is his or her preogative. People need to grow up, get a grip and stop making the 2nd Amendment a more important issue than life and livelihood. Jeesh…

    • http://undeniableme.wordpress.com CarolAnnB

      …And one more note I’d like to add… THANK goodness one online “shopping” company (Google) is doing the RIGHT thing. God forbid another Jared Loughner-type have even EASIER and UNCHECKED access to weapons. Kudos to Google for being PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE and looking out for its citizen consumers!

      • http://www.shtf-gear.com SHTF-Gear

        You have no idea what you are talking about….

        Google is NOT selling these products. Merchants are submitting their product feeds to google to make them searchable for customers. Google is just choosing not to display these products. No one is forcing ANYONE to ‘sell’ or ‘buy’ a weapon.

        Any sales (internet or otherwise) are still done through an Firearm Dealer which still has a background checks,etc.

        Speaking of dictatorships, please understand that throughout history, when governments remove weapons from the hands of their citizens, bad things happen. Very bad things.

      • http://www.myvotes.org Tominguez

        you have to be working for google Carol, nobody likes to use guns, and is not the point, the point is that google is not a law, google owes a lot to merchants who work so hard to meet the constantly changing updates, merchants who work so hard in creating content and products to feed them to google so they can turn into a very nice profit, google owes that to the people and google is nobody, I say again, nobody to decide what goes and goes not into google, that is why they invented the filters. Google is the standard for search, thus, you have to act as neutral as possible, if they even had the face to show to respond to all this, but they don’t they always hide, there is no support of any kind, how can they now try to charge for product feeds with lousy service? How can they ban guns, or anything out of the ordinary, I agree with hate stuff, body parts, drugs, but guns?? Guns don’t kill, people kill. They are also banning skin care and vitamins because their smart team decided is “medicines”, how about that for experts in a subject or industry? Carol, really, you have no idea how low google is going.

    • Craig

      Wake up! This is NOT about what YOU want. It is America, a land where the majority rules.

    • http://ask.com Thomas Hall

      Carol, you must be anti gun yourself. Even if guns are band in this country do you think it will make a difference? Yocrazy if you think so. Have you ever heard of midnight specials?

  • H Coleman

    So DISAGREE with Google on their Gun stand but accept Google thinks they are above everyone and everything. So all I can do is try to use google as little as possible. I already use their “wrench” to delete all searches — but they state they KEEP Everyones searches for 180 days no matter what!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • http://www.myvotes.org Tominguez

      Totally agree, Bing and ask.com are getting pretty good, good for you!

  • Craig

    Censorship of a different form. Google should be ashamed and the American people should not embrace or support Google in their decision. The 2nd Amendment is a right of the people, and not a manipulative issue by Google or any entity.

  • http://ask.com Thomas Hall

    Google decides to drop fire arm sells, I will no longer be using goole. I think google is infrenging on our constitution.

  • http://www.buysantabarbarawine.com marco walters

    Google also sent a letter to all companies who having been uploading wine products to Google Shopping that, as of July 1st, we could no longer sell any wine or beer products through Google Shopping. I’ve been uploading our wine database of 300-500 wines each week since “Google Base” (Shopping) first started.

    I tried changing the category to “juice” or “beverage” and the upload was accepted but none of the wine products show up in Google Shopping.

    Do a search within Google Shopping for “pinot” or “syrah” or “wine” and you will now only find a couple of paid AdWords – but no products display for purchase.

    All this to say, there’s been a major change and it’s not just weapons that Google Shopping stopped featuring. Besides, “wine” or “beer”, I don’t know what other products are prohibited now but I’m guessing that there are other categories.

    It was a great – free – service while it lasted and gave us a lot of traffic and sales.

  • http://www.healthandcommonsense.com/maini.html Karen Wolfe

    I do not sell ammunition on my website. I do sell things that the ‘powers that seem to be’ have tried many times to get ‘regulated’. Vitamins, minerals, etc which have a fantastic safety record compared to what passes for health care products. (Drugs) When a supplement is ‘pulled’ off the market it is because (and this rarely happens) something has gone wrong in the processing or packaging. When a drug is pulled, it is that more than the expected number of patients died because of it. Google is succumbing to pressure from liberals who struggle to make us all toe the line and stay in the bounds of political correctness. The second amendment definitely is about protection from the out of control forces that seek to control our freedoms. This is apparent to a 6th grader when they read the constitution. Google is succumbing and I am sorry to see it. Maybe they just have too much power.

  • MNM

    I suppose Google may have the right to ban firearms, but the real question is their motive. It’s understandable for an establishment to be uncomfortable with guns on company property, but why would any company be interested in banning the intenet sale of products for which the ownership of is defined as a Constitutional right?

    Sounds like a case of corporate executives using business influence to forward their own personal and/or political ideologies.

    Businesses should be about neutrality and their leaders should base such decision on legality, leaving politics and ideology completely out of it. Companies thoughout the U.S. shun political and religious conversations in their offices (mostly likely Google too), then turn around and make policies, such as this, based on the ideologies of the leaders.

    However, the media and the citizens share some of the blame for their silence on this and similar matters.

    • MNM

      After posting my comment, I saw where other people were advocating a switch to Google’s competitors as an expression of discontentment.

      Congralutations to anyone willing to put their money where their beliefs are.

      I switched during the last election when I learned that Google divulged their lack of neutrality by joining the campaign trail.

      It seems that the companies which break neutrality are always the largest and most ingrained into our lives, thus making it a sacrifice to express our displeasure with lack of patronage. But, it is the most influential form of expression to a company, and a sacrifice the citizens must be willing to make in order to keep powerful leaders from abusing their positions.

      The bravery of business leaders to merge politics with business can be measured by their balance sheets; with prosperity comes such bravery, conversely doth the bravery subside in conjunction with the prosperity.

  • Dale

    Google caved on 1st amendment in China and now attacking the 2nd amendment in America. I think we can see who the evil empire is really. I know my boycot of all things google won’t hurt google, but hopefully enough will join me to send google a message to not mess with the US Contitution

  • Lee

    I believe that it is well within the right of Google to list, or in this case, ban anything they like.Contrary to popular belief it is still a free country and I prefer it that way.
    Because they have stopped listing guns for whatever reason, I will stop using there services and will switch my browser to someone else which is well within my rights. If enough people feel the same way and do the same thing then perhaps they’ll get the point. (doubtful)

  • Lee

    Oh… one more thing I forgot to mention. I believe we should stop handing out welfare checks and start handing out guns. That would level the playing field. If everyone was packing heat nut jobs would probably think twice about entering a public place and shooting it up!

  • JT