211–220 of 270 posts
It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech. Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding a piece of metal to the end of a barrel doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot. It doesn't increase the chances of the gun to fire accidentally.
Does the loudness of a gun deter its use in the commission of a crime? I think it does, though perhaps only in a handful of cases. Gang violence comes to mind: the gun's loudness gives you away if you're sneaking up on folks, and makes it easier for law enforcement to locate you. If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. However, it appears that some U.S. states do actually protect based on political affiliation. This is decided in court anyway, so the scenario you point out, while plausible, is only theoretical.
Yeah. Though I deeply disagree with political affiliation being a protected group (at least in part because you get to choose your political views). In any case, there isn't yet a gun-rights-maximalist party against which YouTube could be prohibited from discriminating.
I was born in a totalitarian country, and so I don't find "you can choose your political views" very convincing.
What about religious views? You can choose these as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why host videos rather than torrent them?
I should have expanded on this in my post, but I judge the level of difficulty on whether someone's grandmother would be able to upload a video from their iPhone/iPad/Android, for example a cute video of their grandson/granddaughter. It might be easy for us to upload a torrent, but to most others, it is extremely hard, if not impossible. The other problem with torrents is that it relies on reseeding. Preservation of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I happen to agree and appreciate your input, let's avoid words like hypocracy for now. It tends to nurture hostility and I'm trying to get some real insight.
I'm not sure he was attacking anyone here. You need to compare (I mean really read) the majority opinion in Heller with the dissenting opinions. "Hypocrisy" is one word that leaps to mind from time to time, particularly in light of the magnitude of the changes and the way the author of the majority decision is supposedly an originalist and strict constructionist.
It's not that I disagree. In fact, I too believe it to be intrinsically hypocritical than not the more I've re-read it since I posed my initial question. HOWEVER, how we talk about things can be colored by our choice of words. The original poster is correct, but offers no examples from the case document. I believe when we state what we believe to be true, but don't support it directly may be somewhat counter productive to the more open discussion. I appreciate your feedback.
Devils advocate: Mincing words and dancing around language can sometimes lead us away from solutions or understanding. I'm taking a risk. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What federal law? YouTube is a private company and they decided they didn't want this content on their platform.
SESTA/FOSTA and (probably) CLOUD act. I severely doubt this is because of politics on guns, I'm not a pro-gun enthusiast but I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns (or just the slingshot channel). Reddit and Youtube have both removed the same kind of content from their platform, this is not limited to gun enthusiasts but also includes various other content. People like Cody, who runs Cody's Lab, hav…
I'm reasonably certain the same would apply for gun enthusiasts, or the people who make archery equipment out of hardware store stuff like PVC pipe and fiberglass rods.
And from that perspective, this content-based discrimination seems a lot like bullying. You don't like the same things I like, so I use my power to ban you from my social circle forever. The popular kid is uninviting the nerd kid from their party.
They are also uninviting the creepy psycho kid at the same time, of course. No one's quite sure what to do about that one yet, they just don't want to be too close--physically or emotionally--when whatever it is actually happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't think it's a first amendment issue, but the printing press in question is offering to print everyone else's pamphlets for free, but turns down pamphlets that are not compliant with its liberal agenda. I think it is certainly entitled to do so, but I have seen many, even on HN, denying that the Silicon Valley is progressively becoming hostile to non liberal opinions. This seems to be a good illustration. And thi…
"Liberal agenda" I don't know what you mean by that. Please explain. (EDIT: Legitimately don't understand the downvotes here.)
As for why it was downvoted I guess a number of people on both sides found it to be plain false and maybe also someone though it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should have expanded on this in my post, but I judge the level of difficulty on whether someone's grandmother would be able to upload a video from their iPhone/iPad/Android, for example a cute video of their grandson/granddaughter. It might be easy for us to upload a torrent, but to most others, it is extremely hard, if not impossible. The other problem with torrents is that it relies on reseeding. Preservation of…
How is that a problem? Nothing is stopping people from seeding their content themselves or archiving it...
[1]: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/7487775/2012_Olympics_Openi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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." Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your po…
"You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." --unprovably attributed to Admiral Yamamoto "Wolverines!" -- Hollywood movie Red Dawn There are enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to carry one, and enough mulish stubbornness to carry on guerilla warfare for a long time. Americans shoot at each other constantly, and have been intensively studying ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the loudness of a gun deter its use in the commission of a crime? I think it does, though perhaps only in a handful of cases. Gang violence comes to mind: the gun's loudness gives you away if you're sneaking up on folks, and makes it easier for law enforcement to locate you. If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and…
I'm realizing I'm only partially familiar with some of our laws. Is there any data you or the poster can link to illustrate your claims?
The point is that given the availability of effective ear protection, there is no legitimate argument for civilian use of suppressors. There is no plausible argument that their existence would decrease the risk of a gun's being used illegally, and there are great reasons to believe that in some instances it would increase this risk, and/or make it more difficult to catch those who have done so.
Long range flamethrowers are illegal, but could be said to have a "legitimate use" for clearing brush. When there is no good argument for a thing to exist, and there are good safety-based arguments for it to not exist, then in the name of safety we should not have said thing.