Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate (bloomberg.com)
YouTube has quietly introduced tighter restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in the U.S. gun-control debate. "YouTube will ban videos that promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories, including bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire faster," reports Bloomberg. "Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms." From the report: "We routinely make updates and adjustments to our enforcement guidelines across all of our policies," a YouTube spokeswoman said in a statement. "While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories." The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry lobbying group, called YouTube's new policy "worrisome." "We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales," the foundation said in a statement. "We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech."
The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike's Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to "repeated or severe violations" of the video platform's guidelines.
The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike's Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to "repeated or severe violations" of the video platform's guidelines.
Won't be long before all they have are cat videos.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Enters U.S. gun-control debate by censoring. Nice!
Reddit has banned gun sale subreddits today.
DuckDuckGo for internet searches
ProtonMail for email
Libre office for docs
And adblockers to shove it up their ass.
Then YouTube can do without my views (or content).
I know that my dropping YT doesn't matter much, but I won't feel like I'm supporting censorship,even if they have the right on their platform.
Time also to change my default search engine from Google to something else even if it's not as good.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Doubling down every step of the journey down the drain
I hate it when these big corporate pinko Commie businesses ban American and Patriotic things from their property! It's censorship! It's SOCIALIST!
I hope in Making America Great Again, Trump takes these companies over and forces them to show these videos and let them know what Freedom really is!
First the Confederate Flag and now this. What's next? Banning God and Jesus!
MAGA - Trump for lifetime President so he'll give us a country of Liberty and Freedom for all!
I can't argue with any irrational and uninformed Lefty. I gotta go and get some beer before Hannity comes on and tells me like it is!
That did it for youtub. I'll see if Vimeo hasn't lost their sanity.
No one is forcing people to be on youtube.
Go elsewhere.
Just google for alternatives to YouTube...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So, if YouTube's management won't allow content they find offensive, then they must approve of everything currently on YouTube. Wow, what a bunch of misogynistic sadists work for YouTube.
I'm a run-off-the-mill educated European left-wing liberal and nevertheless occasionally like watching US firearms videos like FPSRussia shooting bazookas at Zombie clown figures. Don't get me wrong, I am for fairly strict gun control and think many US states would fare better with stricter control and better background checks, but I don't quite see the point of that video restriction, to be honest. It does nothing for tighter gun control and I fail to see any beneficial effect of restricting hobby videos and (legal!) sales information. Makes no sense to me.
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
YT has been dancing around this one for a while now. It's been an awkward experience for viewers and the main channels. Like other banned content, just go elsewhere, mainly full30.com. Maybe because I've been online since the 80s, I've always found there's a better place for most content than YT anyway.
Like many big companies end up doing. In time, YouTube will join Myspace and Facebook in the hall of internet has-beens.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Could a new startup PLEASE dethrone YouTube. There are a million video sites but none of them does social networking and subscriptions quiet like YouTube. Youtube has way way too much social networking tools to users and content creators actually and it is their key advantage. Now that they are a household name, their brand alone is an advantage as well but not for long if they keep trying to censor the creators or make them walk on egg shells knowing a small little slip of the tongue could cause your videos and even your channel to get banned or demonetized (and you being essentially fired from your job). That is another option, YouTube Creators could create a Union to give them at least a tiny bit of strength against this overfed and power hungry beast that wants to dictate you their terms or face your entire livelihood destroyed.
Itâ(TM)s not a free-speech violation. That doesnâ(TM)t mean itâ(TM)s not censorship.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If this is the best "answer" they have I eagerly welcome their demise
clips on the suitable applications of high explosives
Unlike the ISPs, there's dozens of viable competitors to YouTube out there. Absolutely no need to regulate the platform providers like they're common carriers. No siree, YouTube will be replaced in no time by a more free speech friendly alternative...
Amirite...?
It's as if they're saying, "Let's at least make a political statement on gun control," statement.
Also, from the tin foil hat department - How far will this go back in Youtube's HQ? While it sounds crazy today, what will the Youtube owners say about working on cars in a decade, when many people are riding around in autonomous cars? What will happen when a "terrorist" uses an old-fashioned car with a steering wheel, gas pedal, and no autobraking system to mow down dozens of people in a random city? Is Youtube going to remove auto mechanic HOWTO videos so we can't modify (or even fix) our own cars? Slippery slope 101.
And just today, Gab TV went online.
Seriously - why do these companies think they need to direct our thoughts and actions into "acceptable" channels?
There's an interesting set of "public forum" lawsuits that discuss this. Especially this one from CA.
Basically, if a system becomes the equivalent of the town bulletin board, then freedom of speech must be enforced.
(I recall a man suing a mall for taking down his (otherwise legal) posts on *their* builletin board. They claimed that their board was private property, and could decide what was allowed. He claimed that the mall replaced the supermarket which used to be there, and the mall bulletin-board now became the public forum that used to be the supermarket bulletin-board.)
I think the dividing line would have to be public access. If you *pay* someone to write (for example) articles for your paper, then you can control what they write and choose to publish or not. If you *let anyone* post commentary or opinions, then first amendment must be enforced.
(Oh and if you disagree, can you please show why companies don't need to enforce freedom of speech, while bakeries must make custom gay wedding cakes when they don't want to? They're both 1st amendment issues.)
Uploaded to a file server.
YouTube is becoming pointless anyway as they move to shovel more advertising down our throats.
Have gnu, will travel.
Let them make whatever rules they want.
Slow Motion of an AK-47 Underwater
This is your daily warning to Save your favoured videos to hard disk instead of simply Liking them or Favouriting them. You never know how long they're going to last and you dont want to have to Bittorrent the missing episode of 'let's fire this unusual gun under safe conditions, thanks to our sponsorship by Joe's Gun Shack' a month from now.
All the gun nuts complaining out there: you obviously had no problem with extremist Islamic videos being taken down, so why shouldn't Youtube also take down videos that supports a culture that is responsible for more deaths in the US than Islamic extremism?
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
So no link to anything actually from Alphabet, Google, or YouTube... just a shoddy Brietbart link? Channels like FPSRussia still up and doing just fine (as they should be).
I am going to go with this is a hyper exaggerated version of the policy at best until I see something real. You kids have fun mucking about in the clickbait though...
The slippery slope is indeed very, very, very slippery.
Google is increasingly made up of left leaning philosophies.
Their logic is: kids are mass murdering with guns: lets stop teaching them how to use them lest we are complicit.
The logic is flawed because they really should be asking:
Why are so many young men so angry at the world that they want to wreak destruction on it. That is the right question, because there are societies with lots of guns (eg switzerland) that don't have young men shooting up schools. Guns are a symptom of a deeper cultural problem.
The left are trying to divide everyone into social groups that are victims. This doesn't help angry young men and only makes the problem worse especially white ones who are told they are the new scum of the earth.
The message needs to be: the world is chaos, and your job is to reduce the chaos through sacrifice. Find something in the world that needs fixing, that makes the world a better place, and strive as hard as you can to fix it. Sacrifice means putting off todays gratification for a better future. A surgeon spends 15 years of hard work before he is an expert saving lives and creating order.
So while I get what youtube is trying to do, I think it will be entirely ineffective.
46137
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
It might not be his fault.
Note that some school textbooks show the amendment rewritten to promote that view.
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
I saw that one well-known gun vlogger has started posting his videos on PornHub. If PH plays their cards right, they could launch a site with more general branding "vidhub"? "AnythingGoesTube"? and take a significant chunk of the traffic that YT gets today.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But an AT4 would do nicely...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
OK, it's stupid. YouTube is really going to pay dearly for this. Taking any stance on any issue is not what YouTube should be doing. BUT! They're well within their right to shoot themselves in the foot.
As a side note, opening this can of worms is going to be a complete nightmare for Google. Once you take one stance on one issue, now you're going to be expected take more stances on issues someone feels is critical. Also, now that you've put your card on the table, refusing to take a stance when demanded to will always result in the most negative position being assumed. Sorry about that Google, but you have my sympathy.
They, we, and everyone would have been much better off if YouTube kept silent and just said, 'We store and redistribute our user's videos, nothing more. Each user is responsible for the content of their videos.'
Remember supporting the freedom of information even though "the bad guys" might also find it?
Remember when ISPs and server operators did it we called it censorship just as if the government had done it?
Remember when geeks showed finesse rather than imposed their will with a hammer?
Anyone remember?
Nah?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
https://www.full30.com/ has it covered. Hickok45 right on the front page.
Define terms first.
Then debate.
Debate class 101.
Thank you for defining terms more precisely for this debate.
Who am I kidding? This is Slashdot! ;-)
on suggested videos, don't browse while logged in and don't leave or read any of the comments. That's about all you can do since they're a near monopoly on much of their content. Don't give them any more eyeball time than you have to. Kill time in other ways besides youtube browsing Get your cat videos elsewhere, get your music elsewhere. Read a book. Watch what you want to watch and not a second more, no matter how tempting it is.
With 400 pounds of content, you sure are a big digital nuisance creimer!
MOD THIS MEANINGLESS KARMA WHORING COMMENT DOWN!!!
creimer sock puppet post to build up his karma!
CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE: /. so make sure to go to:
Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on
https://slashdot.org/~_sharp'r...
https://slashdot.org/~crreimer
https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
https://slashdot.org/~criss69
https://slashdot.org/~Anonymou...
https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
https://slashdot.org/~ILoveFat...
https://slashdot.org/~IHateFat...
https://slashdot.org/~IAteFatC...
https://slashdot.org/~ITapeFat...
https://slashdot.org/~IApeFatC...
https://slashdot.org/~IPrayFat...
https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!
Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!
creimer wrote:
I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!
Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.
creimer wrote:
All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."
But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!
Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses
And all the king's men
Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
Together again.
Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Creimy's real pictures:
Before the sex change:
https://ibb.co/
Reddit is banning all gun,explosive,violence,drugs and alcohol groups, except for marijunana. I guess they need their weed.
They dont like net neutrality? What gives, Google? Oh only neutral in word and not in spirit. I get it... :-/
Your definition of free speech is incorrect by the way. Free speech means you are free to speak up whatever and nobody has a right to stop you (and even for that there is consequences from prison if your message was intentionally putting people in danger - yelling fire in a crowd - or litigation from private person). It does not mean you are free to chose the platform of somebody else to carry your speech. Free speech is not impeded by YT refusing to carry somebody's message/speech. Just like any forum/newspaper/book publisher can refuse to print your pamphlet on any ground, but you are free to do your own printing and distributing.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
looking up the actual terms of service rules, they have nothing against videos assembling firearms as mentioned in the overview. They do prohibit videos on how to manufacture them however.
Google was a company embedded with deep state spying from the beginning, and is a megacorp now. Which means its inherently right-wing, their stupid decision here aside.
There's no shortage of people here claiming that because Alphabet/YouTube is a private company, they have complete freedom to censor as they like and there's no threat to constitutional freedoms.
15-20 years ago, this line of thinking would have been reasonable: if the video rental store down the street didn't carry porn, there were lots of other video stores, and starting your own video store was relatively easy. The policies of one store, even a big chain like Blockbuster Video, didn't have much influence on your life.
But things are very different now. Like it or not, Google/FB/Twitter/etc represent the modern "public square". They have become the primary venue for everyday social sharing and discourse. And there seems to be very little chance of unseating them from supremacy. That means these services must be held to a higher standard. Just as we try to do when they impact elections and the democratic process.
Remember when antiwar protestors were confined to "free speech zones" during the Bush era, ensuring that dissenting opinions would be safely kept away from the public eye where they might have an influence? This is exactly the same soft tyranny in different clothes. You may have rights on paper, but exercising them is made effectively impossible by a vast web of restrictions and limitations.
That's the future where policies like this are taking us: free speech will be whatever Alphabet Inc. or Facebook wants to place before the public eye. The rest of us can talk, but nobody can listen.
I think I have *touched* four firearms in my life. I've never fired one. Not really interested in firing one, but I watch so many youtube videos about guns you'd think I was the next mass shooter. Information/entertainment is not the same thing as indoctrination. Gun videos are just fun to watch.
On a YT channel. Slowly. Painfully.
TUK MA GAAARNS!!
1. Do you have that same position on net neutrality? I'm betting you support the government mandating PRIVATE COMPANIES handle all data packets the same no matter the political content, but when GUNS are involved (like when Trump is involved) a LOT of supposedly principled people miraculously change their tune.
2. Why did you feel it necessary to abuse the name of Christ? I see this all the time, with people abusing the name "Jesus" or the title "Christ", which are offensive uses of these words for Christians, but I never see anybody rant and rave abusing the name "Mohammed" (or Buddha, or any other religious figure (Thor?)). I can accept that a gutless person would be unwilling to abuse the name of the Muslim prophet, for fear of being murdered by a member of the "religion of peace", but that still does not explain the lack of abuse of other religions. While I'm on the subject, what's the point of injecting the word "fucking" into the middle of that expression? It's nonsensical and not even grammatically proper. I'd love an explanation.
All these big tech companies in the Bay Area throw temper tantrums about net neutrality. They lobby for it and encourage their users to support it and all based on the idea that the non-governmental entities that transport out data (like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon etc) need to be forced, BY GOVERNMENT, to carry all content in the same way. Supporters insist that data packets not be throttled, and certainly not blocked because of their content.
Then, along comes YouTube and it decides to "virtue signal" by censoring perfectly legal content that is politically unpopular with left wingers.
Think it's a coincidence that the net neutrality these big tech giants supported did not in any way apply to THEM? These big companies that provide seach index/functions, big data storage, and serve web pages and videos are every bit as important to the users of the internet as the ISPs, and most people need all of these companies in order to get what they want over the net. What good is non-discriminatory data transport if the companies hosting the data and helping people search for and stream the data ARE discriminating?
When planning to impose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is to disarm the common people. Google understands this and is taking appropriate action.
I'm personally for strict gun laws and limits on private ownership (ie. only for hunting or sporting purposes, with serious background checks and so on), but this is extremely heavy-handed.
Are informational gun videos illegal? Fuck no. Even if private gun ownership wasn't legal, informational videos about guns would still be legal and informative.
Eat the rich.
This is just yet another of those symbolic things large, immoral corporations do to show how moral they are. In the same vein as when evangelical church leaders thunder against gays and then go and enjoy the favours of rent boys. From a business point of view it makes sense, I suppose: the majority, even in America, are very much in favour of strong restrictions on weapons, and those that see the alleged right to bear arms as the most important constitutional freedom bar none, are relatively few, despite the sound level they generate. They don't loose much by doing this.
Sounds like "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" has devolved to "censor that which we find politically inconvenient".
I live in a country with hard gun control, and I am all for gun control but I am also a nerd who loves movies and history.
These past few weeks I have been building myself a replica of Deckard's blaster gun from Blade Runner -- my favourite props from one of my all-time favourite films. I have been modifying a water pistol to look more like the real thing, which had been cobbled together from a revolver and a rifle. I have watched a bunch of disassembly videos on Youtube recently and they have been very helpful in showing details of the revolver and rifle and how they work. I'm fine with being restricted to replica parts, because I don't want a real gun around my house anyway.
A couple of years ago, I built Han Solo's blaster from Star Wars and was similarly helped by videos on Youtube on the historic Mauser C96 pistol.
Through recommendations on Youtube, I have been led to several channels that show the history of firearms. It has been very interesting.
I think that what is most dangerous is not the firearms themselves but bad attitude around gun violence. I believe that revenge-movies are especially harmful.
If Youtube is going to be consistent, they should ban all videos of guns being used -- including movie trailers. There is a remake of the revenge-movie Death Wish coming up. Ban that from Youtube, and we can talk.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
When you have a bunch of people who do not respect the core tenets they are standing on making rules that slowly destroy their own platform.
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And state code...
TITLE 38. MILITARY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 2. MILITARY AFFAIRS
ARTICLE 1. STATE MILITIA GENERALLY
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. 38-2-3 (2006)
38-2-3. Division and composition of militia; membership of unorganized militia
(a) The militia of the state shall be divided into the organized militia, the state reserve list, the state retired list, and the unorganized militia.
(b) The organized militia shall be composed of:
(1) An Army National Guard and an Air National Guard which forces, together with an inactive National Guard, when such is authorized by the laws of the United States and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall comprise the Georgia National Guard;
(2) The Georgia Naval Militia whenever such a state force shall be duly organized; and
(3) The State Defense Force whenever such a state force shall be duly organized.
(c) The state reserve list and the state retired list shall include the persons who are lawfully carried thereon and such persons as may be transferred thereto or placed thereon by the Governor in accordance with this chapter.
(d) Subject to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States, the unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are, or who have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States.
What is so hard about removing any hyperlinks in the description to any gun products and stores? I completely understand for gun stores who use youtube, but everyone else... just remove the links and you are all set.
If it was just about the right to bear arms, then that's all it would have said.
Guntube! Nothing 'but guns, guns, guns!
YouTube is banning videos of legal content. What next?
As much as folks complain when YouTube censors something keep in mind that Google has only successfully grown their service with everything that they've done so obviously they know what they're doing and it's not like anyone even pays for this service but Advertisers. Folks who know tech understand the sheer millions of dollars of hardware behind running such a vast system needs more than just "views" to fund it. It is the advertisers that are essentially paying for it. If everyone suddenly could magically block the advertisement on Google, it's entire system wouldn't last a year.
And that's really the irony of the situation, people are complaining that something they're getting for "free" isn't good enough for them. Well it isn't "free", someone paid for it and maybe just maybe that someone doesn't like guns. If pro-gun folks feel so strongly about this, put your money where your ideals are. Start your own youtube or service and learn just how difficult it is. I recently learned for example there's actual an NRA TV Channel, but it most certainly isn't free.
Face it child, your lack of manhood is not really anyone's concern. Stopping losers like you from hurting people is however.
Unless, of course you think that the NRA should be forced to let the NAMBLA publish articles in their magazine.
Bigotry ËbiÉÉ(TM)trÄ" (n) intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
Marijuana is illegal throughout the United State, unlike firearms..
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It all went down hill when Google bowed to the Chinese government. Money drives all their decisions, and the NRA isn't paying YouTube to keep the videos. Google is far more afraid of a progressive boycott, novel lawsuits that try to shift the blame of gun violence on a common carrier, and grassroots anti-gun campaigns.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Shouldn't YouTube be banning food related videos due to the obesity epidemic in America?
Google has gone totally nuts with extremism.
Does anyone actually try to follow YouTube videos as instructions?
God help us all. If thatâ(TM)s really going to be a âthingâ(TM) and itâ(TM)s not just a bunch of amateur vanity video demonstrating why professional presenters and scriptwriters are worth hiring, then someone should really being in some sort of content QC. Pretty much everything Iâ(TM)ve seen on there that wasnâ(TM)t produced by the manufacturer is better described as âhow I bodge things with no reference to safetyâ(TM) than âinstructional and educationalâ(TM).
I understand your points (and understood them before you clarified them). And I know you are just talking about what is legal and not what you or I would do.
Someone coming into your house? Sure, you have no idea of their intent, so you are justified in assuming the worst. (presumption here is they were breaking in, and didn't just open your front door and say "hello?")
Someone stealing your car? Is that really self-defense? Yes, it's obviously a crime to steal someone's car but is this crime punishable by death? That seems a bit much for me. You also said if someone was "intending" to commit a crime? Again, punishable by death? Are you prepared to make that call?
I am all for gun rights, and am a gun owner myself. Where I live I can conceal carry without a permit - yet I don't. Because I live in a decent neighborhood, and aside from situations that are very very unlikely to happen, I don't NEED to carry. For me it's not as much about gun control but the mental attitude that one person is JUSTIFIED in killing another person for a petty crime.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I have observed that any individual who acknowledges one of these rights tends to acknowledge both, and also tends to be master of their own fate. Conversely, I have also observed that any individual who refuses to acknowledge one tends to refuse to acknowledge both, and also tends to be a lemming, deserving of a lemming's fate.
Like I said before... I'm going to be a bit more hesitant to pull out my weapon in public than at home just as a matter of principle and the higher level of scrutiny my actions would be subject too. But the law in Texas is pretty clear that if somebody is committing or threatening to commit a felony (like stealing a car, or assaulting somebody) the average citizen is legally allowed to defend themselves and others using deadly force. But I keep pointing out that some kind of immediate behavior that would be a felony is required in public. This rules out shooting somebody due to a verbal altercation or how they look.
Now I'm not sure I'd be shooting somebody stealing my car myself, but I'm pretty sure that would be permissible.
You see, in Texas, since 1995, there is no legal requirement to retreat anymore and I can legally defend myself anyplace I'm legally entitled to be as if I'm at home, including the use of a firearm, without having to retreat.
You remember George Zimmerman? Same kind of law from Florida applies here in Texas. The shooting in that case was in self defense.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Prohibition was added by progressives in the 20th century, then removed. We do need to not take progressives seriously.
The right to bear arms wasn't invented by the Founders. Arguments about it are discussed by Machiavelli. The Founders chose to have a republic with the right to bear arms.
Prohibition was added by progressives in the 20th century, then removed. We do need to not take progressives seriously.
The right to bear arms wasn't invented by the Founders. Arguments about it are discussed by Machiavelli. The Founders chose to have a republic that does not take away the right to bear arms.
FTFY
^^ this! ^^
fantastic
ØÙSØ Ú©ÙÙSÙ - crypto currency
remember when the you in youtube stood for âoeyouâ? between this, cutting out all non famous people from the revenue share, and the constant tagging about youtube tv and red, now the you stands for âoebasically hulu with a few popular moronsâ
In taking down damned near every subreddit having anything to do with guns, under the guise of not wanting to promote transactions for illegal things (including legal guns).
They even took down /r/gundeals which only posts links to online gun deal on teh interwebs.
Unfucking real, but all too believable
It seems clear you lack any civility or intelligence, for that matter.
You really seem infatuated with the word "fuck" and variations on that theme - a clear indication of a low IQ.
open minded person and a non-judgemental opponent of hate.
I bet you HATE Trump, HATE Christians, HATE religious (but possibly not ethnic) Jews. You probably support gay marriage, abortion, recreational drug use, prostitution, etc and despise religions and religious people that say any of these things are bad - but you're probably fine with big government forcing your preferred positions on all these issues onto others.
An attitude toward "religion" (particularly the stupidity of equating "all religions" when there are so many extreme variations between them) which is that broadly hostile combined with a childish rant of expletives says a lot about you - NONE of it good.
The question I have is why, given that lots of smart folks work at YouTube, have they chosen something that is both legal and, compared to racists, political hacks, and conspiracy theorists, relatively unoffensive?
Perhaps this is a test of their pattern recognition software? I bet it's pretty easy to ID a firearm demo.
captcha: desert (the verb). Is that a hint?
i'm all about gun control and all that, but what youtube is doing has nothing to do with it.
A monopoly wants to ban something and you're fine with it. Ok. Just don't expect any sympathy when your phone won't let you call someone when your carrier doesn't approve of your relationship. Don't complain when your ISP blocks content regarding your favorite political party.
By censoring content purley on political grounds, they're setting a pretty big precedent, and picking a really big fight.
Why were people upset with Microsoft's shenanigans, when Linux was always an option?
Because not everybody is in a position to purchase Linux-compatible hardware to replace Windows-compatible, Linux-incompatible hardware, nor to evaluate and purchase licenses for Linux-compatible proprietary applications to replace Windows-exclusive, Wine-incompatible applications that have no free replacement. In your analogy, it's as if only YouTube could stream in the format that a major browser requires.