Tuesday, August 06, 2019

BLOGGER, YouTube and the Second Amendment


The Internet is not as free today as it was last week.
Why?

Major Internet websites have decided to bowlderize their content by dissuading Second Amendment websites from publishing on their internet access mechanisms.

YouTube is tightening its restrictions for content about guns and now forbids videos about the selling and making of firearms, ammunition and accessories.The Google-owned video sharing site recently banned videos about how to convert firearms to make them fire more quickly, such as bump stocks. The Justice Department recently took action to ban the devices that speed up the pace of gunfire and allow semi-automatic guns to fire at a rate that mimics a fully automatic firearm. 

I DON'T KNOW how you feel about this, but as far as I'm concerned this is the equivalent of denying individuals the right to exercise their first amendment rights on the most popular means of public expression on the internet.

It's not just about the second amendment, although that's the way it reads on the surface.

Instead, it's "This is MY Website and *_I_* get to decide what I allow you to say here!"

Oh, well, we can't argue with that.  Although, one would think that the most visible website in the WORLD would make an effort to remain neutral about the content it hosts.

Unfortunately, the consequence of this corporate decision is to equate the Constitutional rights of Americans (2nd amendment, remember that?)  as the equivalent of hard pornography.

So the "most visible" website in the world has now assumed the position of the "most powerful".

I'm pretty sure there's a "back story" to this decision, and I would love to learn what it is.
I'm equally certain that you and I will never learn about the discussions which lead to this corporate decision.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

It sounds life leftist at work doing what they do best. censorship.

LibertyNews said...

Blogger has locked the onlygunsandmoney blog:

https://www.libertyparkpress.com/breaking-popular-blog-no-lawyers-only-guns-locked-appeal-filed/

Anonymous said...

After the mass stabbing in Calif. we need to worry about anti-knife laws and a ban on assault knives with a blade over 3".

Anonymous said...

Joe Biden on the 2d Amendment "no amendment is absolute".

Anonymous said...

Where is the Geek?

Jerry The Geek said...

It sounds ... "funny" .. that firearms are registered and knifes are not.

But knifes are used in so many purposes (I butter my bread with a dull knife, so how are we to differentiate between a butter knife and a carving knife?) so it's just too difficult to define the differenc
If you think about it, it's bit the same with guns; you can define a butter knife as "A Dull Blade"m but there are no clearly defined non- purposes purposes FOR GUNS ... merely differences in velocity and caliber.

Personally, I think guns are for fun. I love to shoot in competition ... well, I use to do that before my eyesight got so bad that I can no longer compete with sufficient accuracy to be competitive.

But I can still shoot well enough to defend myself against an aggressor.

(Which I hope never to need, of course, but one never knows what tomorrow will bring.)

I was an infantryman in Viet Nam, I've defended myself and my objectives in battle, and I hated every minute of it. Still, the experience taught me that I am able to be aggressive when the situation calls for aggressive reaction.

Now, in private life, I have learned to avoid situations wherein such response might be required. I walk softly, avoid cantankerous individuals, and I leave a soft footprint wherever I go.

As a means to avoid conflict, That's not always possible because sometimes nasty people will crop up on your individual "Event Horizon". Which is why a sagacious individual will be well advised to furnish oneself with the means for personal defense.

There are times and places when/where it's ill advised to "go packing", but I go there/then as rarely as possible.

But there are no "safe places". Even in a church (as we saw in Texas), one cannot reliably assume that is's "SAFE" to be disarmed.

When the bad guys go packing, when they are determined to cause the most damage, they look for a place where they are "most certain" that the Good Guys will have left their guns at home.

"Peaceful Environs" are not necessarily "Safe Environs". For some few maniacs, they are places where they are certain to meet little or no defenders.

That's when peaceful folks need to go packing.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but in the actual event one needs to be MORE "defensive" in a church or a school than (for example}in a bar. Would-be assailants expect that drunks will carry a gun in a bar; nobody expects worshipers to carry a gun.

Which is why sober folks pack at a mass.

And for folks who think it's sacrilegious to carry a gun in a church, just think how outraged GOD would feel if you allowed some pagan to shoot up your congregation because you're too spiffy to expect the unexpected.

Ever hear of the Charleston Church Murders?