10 ms·

Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about gun

Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about guns are completely acceptable. This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be being targeted recently. I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expression generally - not just youtube acting alone, but many entities acting similarly, and obviously completely un-democratically or accountably.

madengr 9y ago
Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot? I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.
- scrub_tier 9y ago
  "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 point of view. How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better? How does your right contribute to the security of the state? How did you come to believe you needed this capability? At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others. Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
  - M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
    >Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? It doesn't directly, but without a private right to bear arms all you're left with is a centralised police force on steroids. The big fault of the American gun rights movement is of course that they ignored that arguably most important part of the 2nd amendment, there is no real popular militia that can be taken seriously in the US. For goodness sakes, when the ATF gets to drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, whether you can have a bump stock or not becomes pretty meaningless. One could of course argue that the American model would just collapse into warlordism, but it would be interesting to see it tried.
    - scrub_tier 9y ago
      Respectfully, even if there was a strong recognized militia they had a tank I cannot follow the reasoning. We're a troubled democracy, but the army is practically saintly to many. A sample size of 1 is small, but does anyone here NOT know someone in the military? If so, would you shoot your fellow countrymen? I understand how quickly people abandon their principles in times of crisis, but in 230 years and we've had one civil war?
      - saiya-jin 9y ago
        and you can be easily 7 days away from another, if brownish stuff hits the fan hard enough
  - 1787 9y ago
    Speaking of established case law, we have from the very first page of Heller [1]: > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia... [2] The Constitution encodes a value judgement about the rights it protects; these rights are presumed to be protected unless it can be shown why they aren't in some specific case. That is to say, to ask someone "how [their] right contribute[s] to the security of the state" is wrongheaded - if you wish to deprive them of their right you must first meet strict scrutiny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
- jacknews 9y ago
  Hunting parks as in designated/licensed areas where you can hunt with guns. Not Manhattan, for example. Full auto etc, for what purpose?
  - cobrabyte 9y ago
    Because I want it. It doesn't affect your life or liberty that I have it. Stop blaming guns for the actions of crazy people.
    - jacknews 9y ago
      It does indeed affect my liberty and perception of (and actual) safety. How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument? I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desire, which can easily be acted out in controlled areas; shooting ranges, hunting parks, gun theme parks etc. Or better yet, you can examine your desire, understand it, dissipate it. Try meditating.
      - cobrabyte 9y ago
        By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws. It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers. So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.
mulletbum 9y ago
Why do you feel YouTube has to support "free expression?"
- jacknews 9y ago
  I'm not saying it does, just that it clearly isn't, and it seems to be not alone in the kinds of expression it's choosing to suppress.
leot 9y ago
Note that FPS Russia etc. are still allowed. YouTube is banning videos that show people how to make and modify guns. This isn't a debate about censorship. This is a debate about where to draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable content.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  While I agree with your first statement and generally am okay with YouTube's intention here, I'm willing to bet that their implementation is going to be another shitty algorithm that just blocks completely unrelated videos
  - leot 9y ago
    Right. There will be a false positive rate, and there will be gray area cases, as there always is.
- flyingfences 9y ago
  YouTube's new policy includes a ban on even showing the use of magazines or belts that hold more than thirty rounds.
  - leot 9y ago
    Ok, maybe there are parts that are an overreach. Does that mean the whole thing is a bad idea?
    - flyingfences 9y ago
      Yes.
      - leot 9y ago
        Is this a general principle, or specific just to making it harder for people to find videos depicting how to make deadly weapons?

madengr 9y ago

Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot? I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.

scrub_tier 9y ago
"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 point of view. How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better? How does your right contribute to the security of the state? How did you come to believe you needed this capability? At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others. Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
- M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
  >Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? It doesn't directly, but without a private right to bear arms all you're left with is a centralised police force on steroids. The big fault of the American gun rights movement is of course that they ignored that arguably most important part of the 2nd amendment, there is no real popular militia that can be taken seriously in the US. For goodness sakes, when the ATF gets to drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, whether you can have a bump stock or not becomes pretty meaningless. One could of course argue that the American model would just collapse into warlordism, but it would be interesting to see it tried.
  - scrub_tier 9y ago
    Respectfully, even if there was a strong recognized militia they had a tank I cannot follow the reasoning. We're a troubled democracy, but the army is practically saintly to many. A sample size of 1 is small, but does anyone here NOT know someone in the military? If so, would you shoot your fellow countrymen? I understand how quickly people abandon their principles in times of crisis, but in 230 years and we've had one civil war?
    - saiya-jin 9y ago
      and you can be easily 7 days away from another, if brownish stuff hits the fan hard enough
- 1787 9y ago
  Speaking of established case law, we have from the very first page of Heller [1]: > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia... [2] The Constitution encodes a value judgement about the rights it protects; these rights are presumed to be protected unless it can be shown why they aren't in some specific case. That is to say, to ask someone "how [their] right contribute[s] to the security of the state" is wrongheaded - if you wish to deprive them of their right you must first meet strict scrutiny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
jacknews 9y ago
Hunting parks as in designated/licensed areas where you can hunt with guns. Not Manhattan, for example. Full auto etc, for what purpose?
- cobrabyte 9y ago
  Because I want it. It doesn't affect your life or liberty that I have it. Stop blaming guns for the actions of crazy people.
  - jacknews 9y ago
    It does indeed affect my liberty and perception of (and actual) safety. How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument? I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desire, which can easily be acted out in controlled areas; shooting ranges, hunting parks, gun theme parks etc. Or better yet, you can examine your desire, understand it, dissipate it. Try meditating.
    - cobrabyte 9y ago
      By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws. It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers. So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.

mulletbum 9y ago

Why do you feel YouTube has to support "free expression?"

jacknews 9y ago
I'm not saying it does, just that it clearly isn't, and it seems to be not alone in the kinds of expression it's choosing to suppress.

leot 9y ago

Note that FPS Russia etc. are still allowed. YouTube is banning videos that show people how to make and modify guns. This isn't a debate about censorship. This is a debate about where to draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable content.

mrguyorama 9y ago
While I agree with your first statement and generally am okay with YouTube's intention here, I'm willing to bet that their implementation is going to be another shitty algorithm that just blocks completely unrelated videos
- leot 9y ago
  Right. There will be a false positive rate, and there will be gray area cases, as there always is.
flyingfences 9y ago
YouTube's new policy includes a ban on even showing the use of magazines or belts that hold more than thirty rounds.
- leot 9y ago
  Ok, maybe there are parts that are an overreach. Does that mean the whole thing is a bad idea?
  - flyingfences 9y ago
    Yes.
    - leot 9y ago
      Is this a general principle, or specific just to making it harder for people to find videos depicting how to make deadly weapons?