YouTube and Reddit Banning Firearms Related Content

Status
Not open for further replies.
dgingeri said:
Can be done, yes, and as soon as it is caught, the person can, and probably will, be prosecuted for manufacturing firearms without a permit, which is a sentence of 20-40 years in federal prison.

A semi-talented machine smith can manufacturer an AR upper receiver in a matter of half an hour from a block of aluminum, too. There is no avoid this aspect, with any gun. With a CnC machine, I could make an entire custom firearm. With simply a metal pipe and a pin, anyone with average intelligence could make a .22 firearm that would shoot. (A pop-gun) The same laws apply, though. Manufacturing a firearm without a license is a federally mandated minimum of 20 years in prison. If found to be done to specifically avoid background checks, it can be considered "egregious" and could end up with a sentence of up to 40 years.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, if you are not a prohibited person and you live in a location where it isn't against the law to manufacture or posses it, there is no federal law preventing you from making a firearm for personal use.
No background check is required. Most states you don't even have to serialize it or register it.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use
 
Armenius said:
1st Amendment issue or not, free speech must be absolute or else there is no free speech. When private entities control all the speech platforms, what difference does it make whether or not the government is involved?

Besides that point, this was a gross overreaction to the recent passing of the FOSTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act). Left-leaning organizations such as these just probably took the opportunity to lump firearms with their actions.
Click to expand...

it makes a total difference if government is involved as you have NO legal recourse.
 
Funny...I don't see them deleting videos about the PROMISE program which empowered/enabled/caused Law Enforcement and the School System to NOT put Cruz in jail, suspended status, or a psyche ward. 38 law enforcement visits and nary a charge?

There's a reason why the NRA backs strict firearm laws and the strict enforcement of the same laws.

If you don't know what the PROMISE program was (is?), then you're part of the problem. Google it. Oops. Maybe not. Try bing or duckduckgo.
 
Master_shake_ said:
youtube is allowed to ban whatever they want but a baker has to bake a cake?

what is this craziness?

you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Different issues though. YouTube can ban certain videos because of the content of those videos, not because of personal characteristics of the video's author. You can post videos on YouTube as a 2nd Amendment person even denouncing YouTube for this. You can't do that will do that while selling guns anymore apparently.
 
heatlesssun said:
Different issues though. YouTube can ban certain videos because of the content of those videos, not because of personal characteristics of the video's author.
Click to expand...

the baker can not bake the cake because of the content of the wedding not because of the characteristics of the bridal party.
 
MavericK said:
No, they banned any subreddits that conducted SALES of items like firearms/alcohol/etc. because they are unable to police that shit and make sure things are sold legitimately.

Whether or not you agree with their actions, saying they just "banned guns" is a huge misrepresentation of what happened.
Click to expand...
Funny because from the time I started using /r/gundeals like 3 years ago to now I never once saw any post made that was not from a legit dealer. There were no personal sales going on that I was aware of or saw. If you think them banning the sub was not politically or anti-gun related your living in a fantasy world.
 
Master_shake_ said:
the baker can not bake the cake because of the content of the wedding not because of the characteristics of the bridal party.
Click to expand...

Again, one is discrimination against a class of people versus a class of content. Certain classes of people have CRA 1965 Title II protections where the baker would be in clear violation. Those Title II protections don't extend to content that person might create.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -PK-
like this
heatlesssun said:
Again, one is discrimination against a class of people versus a class on content. Certain classes of people have CRA 1965 Title II protections where the baker would be in clear violation. Those Title II protections don't extend to content that person might create.
Click to expand...

nope content in both accounts.

hey didn't tell the gays he wouldn't make them a cake cause they were gay he said i don't like the idea of gay weddings.

completely different.

but both situations are the same.
 
Skirge01 said:
If your ISP decided to prevent you from posting or reading about certain, legal topics online, is that still not a 1st Amendment issue?
Click to expand...

Only if there are laws preventing other ISP's from serving you. 1st amendment only applies to the government, so unless your ISP is government owned or regulated so that you don't have an ISP choice, it's not a 1st amendment issue in any way, and neither are any YouTube or Reddit decisions unless forced by government regulation.
 
Reddit also banned all the darknet forums, and a plethora of other fringe illicit sub reddits yesterday. They used the gun debate to terminate a TON of content that wasn't deemed advertiser friendly. Long live the front page of Censorship.
 
NickM said:
So, selling guns is the same as prostitution?
Or drugs?
Or automatically assuming since it is a firearm, it's stolen?
Click to expand...

Both are loaded arguments. While there's a lot that could go wrong with prostitution and drugs, neither is good or bad. Same with guns
 
Armenius said:
1st Amendment issue or not, free speech must be absolute or else there is no free speech. When private entities control all the speech platforms, what difference does it make whether or not the government is involved?

Besides that point, this was a gross overreaction to the recent passing of the FOSTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act). Left-leaning organizations such as these just probably took the opportunity to lump firearms with their actions.
Click to expand...

There is no law preventing you from starting your own social media platform that allows whatever speech you want, that's why it's not a 1st amendment or free speech issue.
 
raz-0 said:
Because public speech is a first amendment issue. And the internet is essentially the place where the bulk of public speech takes place. It is also, more than likely, to be determined to be a place of public accommodation, albeit a virtual place. That argument about "it isn't censorship if it isn't the government doing it" is a load of bullshit spewed by people who don't understand the history of the law.

Granted, this is all at the edges of the first amendment and it's protections, but it is an area worthy of debate, especially because of the scale of the entities involved. This is where you get into the notion of the internet being a utility and FCC regulation and such. It's not clearly a first amendment issue, but it's also not NOT a first amendment issue. It can be argued either way, and we all really have a vested interest in how that pans out.
Click to expand...


Again, I'm just going to quote the actual verbiage of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

So, if congress is making a law that prohibits your speech, it is a violation of the first amendment. If anything else results in a limitation of your speech - while it may be unpleasant and in some cases outright wrong, and maybe we should - as a nation - look into laws governing it, it is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.

So, if you want to make a case that this is a first amendment issue, you are going to have to trace it back to congress making a law. I'm not saying this can't be done, but I don't think it exactly will be a straight line. Someone with a lawyerly mind may be able to figure out a way though.
 
Master_shake_ said:
nope content in both accounts.

hey didn't tell the gays he wouldn't make them a cake cause they were gay he said i don't like the idea of gay weddings.

completely different.

but both situations are the same.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class of people. Change sexual orientation to race in that statement and it's a clear CRA 1965 Title II violation.
 
heatlesssun said:
Sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class of people. Change sexual orientation to race in that statement and it's a clear CRA 1965 Title II violation.
Click to expand...

what in the fuck are you talking about?

what did i say about race?

why are you talking abour cra 1965 then if they aren't protected?

what are you saying?
 
Dead Parrot said:
I do as well but I think the baker is an idiot for turning away a paying customer. Its a business, not a moral compass.
Click to expand...

Is a baker in Green Bay an idiot for turning away business from a Chicago Bears fan who wants a "Get stuffed Cheeseheads" cake made? Should he be forced to bake the damn cake?

But hey, I'm all for having a discussion on whether or not corporations should be involving themselves in limiting legal speech about or ability to engage in constitutionally guaranteed rights. Citicorp banks have announced they're going to have a bunch of new rules for dealing with customers who sell guns/accessories etc.. They tried this a few years ago and it didn't go so well but they're trying it again.

Without the 2nd, you have no 1st amendment. Look at the UK, a court just jailed a man for hate speech because he taught his girlfriend's dog to do nazi salutes. Is it a hate crime if I teach my dog to pee on a Yankees pennant on command or growl when someone says the name Tom Brady? How about a pet parrot who squawks "death to EA and their lootboxes"? Clearly it is hate speech to lambast the chip maker you dislike. Maxtor will come back from the grave and sue people for still hating on their bad drives.
 
heatlesssun said:
Sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class of people. Change sexual orientation to race in that statement and it's a clear CRA 1965 Title II violation.
Click to expand...

Yet. They havent decided on that cake case yet right?
 
Master_shake_ said:
and that has to do with.......?
Click to expand...

YouTube, like just about every site out there, including this one can discriminate against content. Doing so based on the characteristics of the author of that content is a completely different matter. 2nd Amendment folks are not banned from YouTube.
 
What a pointless effort. It would take a lot more than a couple of websites to change gun culture. Especially the "I'm John Rambo" delusion.
 
heatlesssun said:
YouTube, like just about every site out there, including this one can discriminate against content. Doing so based on the characteristics of the author of that content is a completely different matter. 2nd Amendment folks are not banned from YouTube.
Click to expand...

and gays aren't banned from buying cakes just not the cake that the company had a problem with.

just like gun videos.

same shit.

haha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
dgingeri said:
Sorry, can't be done. The kit may not be defined as a "working firearm", but there is one key piece of an AR-15 that is considered a firearm and can't be sold without a background check.

Stop the false information. Know the truth.
Click to expand...

An 80 percent lower is not a firearm. I'm not sure you know the truth. Z's use of the word "assemble" isn't really technically correct but if that's what you're objecting to then you're being pedantic and misleading.
 
heatlesssun said:
Can't be the same when one thing is content and the other is people. Did YouTube ban gun owners?
Click to expand...

no and the bakery didn't band gays.

just a gay wedding cake.

it's the same.

identical and duplicated but one is getting taken to court and the other is youtube.
 
Master_shake_ said:
no and the bakery didn't band gays.

just a gay wedding cake.
Click to expand...

And what's the difference between a gay wedding cake versus a straight wedding cake? Again, it all comes down to discriminating against people versus content when comparing it to YouTube.
 
heatlesssun said:
And what's the difference between a gay wedding cake versus a straight wedding cake? Again, it all comes down to discriminating against people versus content when comparing it to YouTube.
Click to expand...

they weren't discriminating against gays just gay weddings.

and youtube is discriminating against gun videos not gun owners.

i'm not sure what you aren't getting here.
 
kju1 said:
My eyebrow went up at his post as well. Ive never seen these.
Click to expand...

This is what cracks me up. Were you not the same leftist chicken little's that were shrieking that repealing Net Neutrality was going to end the world as we know it and that these so called private industries had no RIGHT to manage their own product since the general public "owned" the internet? I half agree with you, but we both know they are backed by leftist extremists and are itching to be regulated if they keep this garbage up. Break up the leftist tech monopoly now!
 
I'm a bit surprised by Reddit's involvement here. Normally, they encourage open-minded attitudes and discussions about things. At least, that's how the subreddits I follow are.
 
Hatriot said:
Right, because if you on the left were ever honest you would admit that you don't really care about murders. You only want a win for your political tribe and advance your tired leftist agenda. If you cared about lives you would see the relationship between deaths and driving, which dwarf gun deaths and unlike firearms, driving is not a right.
Click to expand...

Loosen that tin foil hat buddy.
 
vegeta535 said:
Soon they will toss out the 2nd amendment and take our guns away. Next will be freedom of speech and Martial law will be the norm. Stupid liberals and snow flakes are winning.
Click to expand...

Never. We'll overthrow the government before that happens.
 
Hatriot said:
Right, because if you on the left were ever honest you would admit that you don't really care about murders. You only want a win for your political tribe and advance your tired leftist agenda. If you cared about lives you would see the relationship between deaths and driving, which dwarf gun deaths and unlike firearms, driving is not a right.
Click to expand...

Have you ever made a post that didn't contain the words "leftist" or "soyboy"?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Once you did, you'd still be legally required to register it, I presume
Click to expand...

Wanted to point one thing out- there is no 'registration'; that is the wet dream of those who pursue 100% civilian disarmament, because it is the necessary precursor to confiscation.

What we have is a sort of half-way compromise, where FFL's (dealers) are required to keep files on purchases for police review when a crime is committed.

The important part is the background check, and that happens when a purchase occurs from an FFL, whether that is in a store or on the side of the road.
 
Hatriot said:
Right, because if you on the left were ever honest you would admit that you don't really care about murders.
Click to expand...

This is seriously bizarre. How does any human being with any empathy NOT CARE about innocent people getting their heads blown off? I thought all liberals were snowflakes now you say they are all sociopaths?

And this is dilemma of social networking. All the yelling and screaming and name calling and the rest but hey, any kind of restraint on anything and we're North Korea?

Take it down a notch.
 
Krenum said:
Never. We'll overthrow the government before that happens.
Click to expand...
Lol that's cute. This country turning into a bunch of pussies like the EU. More and more people seem to want their lives to be ran by the government. I honestly don't believe we have enough people in this country brave enough to over throw the government now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top