Amusingly, InRangeTV and C&RArsenal have both responded by using pornhub as an alternate distribution platform.
YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
101–110 of 763 posts
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.
Bumpstocks were banned in multiple steps, here in MA where they have a list of ALL people registered to own a firearm they sent a letter out "if you own a bump stock after x date, you're committing a felony". They got back 4 devices. In the WHOLE state. Even though everyone received a letter. It's not going to be easy. source: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachuset...
Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
>hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S How would something like that possibly be carried out?
Similar to how other bans get carried out. Make it illegal and send those who violate the law to jail.
Worked for drugs, and tax evasion, and human trafficking, and alcohol for awhile.
Simply make it illegal and it goes away!
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#104This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.
No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change. I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment. The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is rea…
The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government). The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely…
The object is, that every man should have a gun - Patrick Henry
You might well be a member of your state militia and not even be aware of it...
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#106I suppose net neutrality doesn't have a wide definition. /s
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions…
And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent up…
Please man, the pre-Heller 2008 argument of “well regulated” where you need to pretend means “lots of regulations” and not the real meaning of “well trained and in good working order” is tired.
Leave that nonsense at Reddit.
I used to... I still find it interesting how the “collective right” angle is pushed post Heller and MacDonald with the obviousness that’s always been there of “can you read the rest of the right past the first few words?”
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change. I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment. The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is rea…
The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government). The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely…
> 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.
IANAL but it seems like it applies to people not militias
Wikipedia gives some historical context which makes it seem more clear that it's about people not state-run militias:
> Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain what you mean? I’m genuinely curious if Apple has taken an anti-privacy stance. From what I can tell, they’re the best tech giant for user privacy. They’ve fought the FBI in court to not put in a government backdoor to unlocking user’s devices. Lawyers ain’t cheap.
We don't know what Apple does with their data. They might print it out and make paper airplanes with it. They might use it to test their backups. And yes, they even might sell it. Or, they may do nothing with it at all. We just don't know. I'm not accusing them of misusing our data, but I do know that they have, in the past, chosen to do something that looks like they are disregarding their user's privacy in order to…
Apple devices can be used without iCloud.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#110So no links to licensed gun dealers either, then?
Nope, otherwise /r/gundeals wouldn't have been banned
So when they say “we want common sense things like background checks” then ban avenues that require background checks - you can get an idea of what they really want.
The truest words I’ve ever heard on the gun debate is that “they don’t hate guns, they love guns, they surround themselves guns, it’s you they hate”.