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.
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.
Just google for alternatives to YouTube...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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
clips on the suitable applications of high explosives
The 2nd Amendment is not about "a well regulated militia".
This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. This is about free speech.
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.
Per the meaning at the time of it's writing... plenty are, well regulated simply meaning "well trained/practiced."
Given the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903, where all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45 are part of the 'unorganized militia'... you really don't know what you are talking about... do you?
Slow Motion of an AK-47 Underwater
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them.
Second... the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase has not been interpreted by the courts as you'd like. The Right to bear arms is an "individual right" as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which means it is a right enjoyed by the individual and doesn't require you to be a member of any group or engage in any specific activity. One gets to bear arms (i.e. own and carry firearms) and this right cannot be infringed by the 2nd amendment.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Such a tired old argument you propose that's been shut down time and time and time again. The 2nd Amendment was drafted so that the people had a means of standing up against a tyrannical government and its army. This is regardless of how successful they would or would not be in doing so.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
We are actually failing to live up to the demands of the 2nd Amendment by limiting what we citizens are allowed to purchase and the training that we receive when in possession of these weapons. On the large scale, the "gun problems" that exist in this country have less to do with guns and far more to do with criminal gangs. For those instances where we genuinely have "crazies" engaging in mass killings, we have a lot of work to do to better keep our finger on the pulse of what sorts of things are happening in our local communities and the people that are members of them. This was not necessarily a problem for white communities a couple hundred years ago. Our completely disconnected and disengaged cultural mentality is creating an issue that was never foreseen.
Guns are not the problem. They are the tool by which the problem manifests itself in the real world. Get rid of guns and you solve nothing to do with the problem. You've simply stuck some bubblegum into the side of a cracking damn.
Your argument is silly. Ignoring your incorrect understanding that "the people" means only "the militia", the militia is defined by 10 U.S. Code 246:
"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."
Unless you're asserting most gun nuts are women and you think women should be disarmed.
Nobody on the left want to have any kind of "meaningful dialog", it's all about following by the book their marxist doctrine.
Ha! And you're doing such a bang up job of demonstrating how you want a "meaninful dialog", aren't cha?
Crocodile tears.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
More people die in auto accidents. Ban car videos when?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.'
I'm thinking that bans like this are going to foster the growth of the "Conservative Internet", where people who are getting sick of Google/Reddit/Facebook's restrictions on things like guns and cryptocurrency ads will start their own competing sites.
Sure, most of these sites will be lame Libertarian clones of the existing social media sites out there, but who knows... This crackdown on the "undesirables" might spur the invention of the next Facebook or Google.
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.
That doesn't make your case. It's like saying all Germans in the third reich were military after "declaring" a "total war", meaningless except as a symbol.
There are plenty of videos of things being run over by cars:
https://www.youtube.com/result...
Yeah, and if you read the first thing in that comment, you'd know I was using the phrase "run over" in the context of "promote crashing into things".
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Everyone thinks they are Takumi. Everyone thinks they are expert drifters. And more often than not, they fuck up.
you can only show them shooting at things to kill or destroy them.
Lots of target shooting. Hunting too, if that's your thing. Lots of emphasis on safety and very little ass-hattery compared to the driving vids.
Have gnu, will travel.
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
If the US is ever invaded by a foreign power... they will take over without firing a shot.
Significant evidence suggests that this has, in fact, just occurred.
Thanks, "rednecks."
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.
Don't watch ads for channels YouTube doesn't hate. There is an extension that sort of let's you block ads for all but whitelisted channels but it doesn't block as well as uBlock. Personally I just uBlock all YouTube ads but might patreon or send Bitcoin if I want to support something. YouTube can die die die
...
Moreso, the second amendment like the fourth and the first ascribed protections to "the" right that per-existed the United States and the revolution. It was well established that all Englishmen of the time had these rights and for hundreds of years as is the case for the right of arms. The inspiration of the second comes from the Bill of Rights of 1689 after a Catholic king took away the arms of protestants to suppress political dissent. The majority opinion from Scalia makes not of this ancestry.
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...
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?
Say "hi" to the Trade Unionists when you see them...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
DuckDuckGo is an obvious honeypot.
Shut up, Ivan.
FPSRussia is long dead. They demonetised it completely, and it hasn't been updated in years.
Second amendment: "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."
The second amendment states the "militia" part and the different "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part.
Government can not infringe with peoples right to join and make militias. Government can not infringe with different part of the second amendment right that is about: "right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that:
"the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.
Pennsylvania was not alone in its express discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry government.
At the first session of Congress in March 1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of England.
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.
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.
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.
Shame for your argument that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
The Heller decision was pretty decisive on the individual right to bear arms. Plus, I don't see them reversing this any time soon.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them
You just said I don't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Well... I didn't exactly say that, but I catch your reasoning. I'm not going to take a position on this, but I will point out that most of these kinds of cases are slippery slopes as far as constitutional rights are involved and there ARE limits to one's rights. In the case of speech and arms, these are individual rights subject to the "strict test" in the courts, meaning that laws MUST be the minimum intrusion on the right possible and the government has the burden to prove this.
How this applies to baking cakes, I'll leave up to you.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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
When planning to impose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is to disarm the common people. Google understands this and is taking appropriate action.
When planning to depose a deeply unpopular tyranny, step #1 is not to rely on fantasies about armed uprisings, but to engage in proper popular political action.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
There's also at least one of a guy burning to death in a multi-car pile-up. It's 18 minutes long. Some people might take it as torture porn; I took it as a sobering advertisement for the Jaws of Life (and for not driving like a maniac).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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
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
Then why does it use those exact words?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We have crossed that line long ago. From now on, it's an eye for an eye, you better hit the gym, boy.
Oddly enough, invasions are expected to be met with organized military force. It's only legal for civilians to use armed resistance against invasions until the defending army shows up. (The civilians must also carry weapons openly and abide by the laws of war.) At that point, they can join the army if the army wants them.
Equally oddly, the US spends more money on the armed forces than anybody else, and it isn't close. The US Armed Forces have demonstrated great skill and capabilities in recent wars. It would be exceedingly difficult to make an amphibious invasion because of the dominance of the US Navy, and the Army and Air Force are more than capable of opposing invading forces from Canada and/or Mexico. Unorganized rednecks wouldn't matter.
I marvel at the number of gun nuts who seem to forget that we do, in fact, have very powerful armed forces.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
Yeah because everybody should be expected to keep up with everything a court decides. Hell, if they didn't even read the dissenting opinions it's not worth talking about, right?!?!
Here's a mind-blower for you. Maybe the court decisions aren't always right? Citizens United comes to mind.
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.
Anybody who has finished high school English with decent grades could read this sentence and tell that the founders intended for there to be a militia ... you know ... being necessary to protect the security of a free State. This all came on the back of breaking away from Britain. Now we pay taxes and have a police force in place of a militia. If a militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, maybe the 2nd amendment isn't as relevant as we all thought. In the everlasting words of Immortal Technique as it relates to what the Founding Fathers though:
But you know what the fuck I think is just pathetic and gay?
When n***** speculate what the fuck 'Pac would say
You don't know shit about a dead man's perspective
I'm all for owning a gun as an individual, FYI. It would be great though if we could have an actual argument without the gun nuts getting all uppity every time. I'm referring to just talking. But alas, they run only on emotions. It's hard to have a logical debate when somebody wants an emotional debate.
Maybe the government had it right back in the day of the Three-Fifths Clause? We had such free-thinkers back then and they knew how to write such perfect perfect laws. I mean ... seriously guys ... when has the government ever been wrong?! /s
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
Those citizen militia on Flight 93 should have followed government instructions and allowed the plane to be flown into its target in Washington, DC. We would all have been better off.
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.
He does not even understand the 1939 Miller decision which specifically states that weapons suitable for a militia are protected.
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.
We have crossed that line long ago.
Because everyone "on the left" is the same person and deserves to be treated as if they are exactly the same person who humiliated you once some time in the past?
From now on, it's an eye for an eye,
Remember, kids, everybody is better off we poke out everyone's eyes! Xora said so.
you better hit the gym, boy.
Ha! You made me laugh. But, seriously, your writing makes you appear to be paranoid, delusional, hypocritical and abusive. Is that really the image you want to project?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
You do know that we know what the perspective was for the Founding Fathers because they told us and wrote it down.
Also, you know that the people against the 3/5ths compromise were slave owners? They wanted slaves to be counted equally so that the slave states would have more power in the newly formed Congress. You know, how every 10 years we have a census that is used to redistribute the number of Representatives each State has in one of the chambers of Congress?
Sheesh. Learn some history scrow.