old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 34,428
Jared reads the whole letter out loud. It's magnificent. 
Self serving publicity stunt that has no teeth.
This discussion smacks a little of the discussion on Tulsi Gabbard's change of political parties. She issued a long video expressing almost exactly what I, among others, thought about 2A. Yet the naysayers and "yeah, butters" seemed to want to deny her veracity on the premise that politicians will say one thing and do the opposite.
The Governor's letter has been, not "attacked," but questioned, on the same basis.
Whle it may be disappointingly true that politicians are prone to prevarication (to put it politely), yet Tulsi and the Montana Governor have passionately and firmly outlined our positions.
Whether they are lying or not, the firm public expressions in favor of First and Second Amendment rights must earn a tip of the hat and a huzzah from me.
Some of us seem to delight in cutting off our ownnoogiesstrengths by casting doubt on the motivations of both of these strong 1A / 2A advocates.
I could be wrong, but I still thank them for their strong public 1A / 2A advocacy.
Terry, 230RN
This discussion smacks a little of the discussion on Tulsi Gabbard's change of political parties. She issued a long video expressing almost exactly what I, among others, thought about 2A. Yet the naysayers and "yeah, butters" seemed to want to deny her veracity on the premise that politicians will say one thing and do the opposite.
The Governor's letter has been, not "attacked," but questioned, on the same basis.
Whle it may be disappointingly true that politicians are prone to prevarication (to put it politely), yet Tulsi and the Montana Governor have passionately and firmly outlined our positions.
Whether they are lying or not, the firm public expressions in favor of First and Second Amendment rights must earn a tip of the hat and a huzzah from me.
Some of us seem to delight in cutting off our ownnoogiesstrengths by casting doubt on the motivations of both of these strong 1A / 2A advocates.
I could be wrong, but I still thank them for their strong public 1A / 2A advocacy.
Terry, 230RN
Tulsi’s voting record doesn’t mirror.with what she now claims.
She's no longer in office. I think I saw she got hired to be a commentator on Fox.And that is the only thing that counts, how they vote, time will tell how she votes on gun issues going forward
She's no longer in office. I think I saw she got hired to be a commentator on Fox.
She struck a deal this year with Foxnews, and she gets a check.Tulsi has a Podcast now. She is also a frequent commentator on Fox News. Don't know if she gets paid but I would guess she receives some type of stipend.
Well lets see what she spouts off when it comes to guns.
Google is a private sector company. They can remove any content they see fit. Members have no right to free speech on that platform, just like we do not have the right to post whatever we want to post on this very forum. There is nothing anyone, including the Montana AG, can do about it. His threats hold no water.
First, YouTube doesn't pay every who uploads videos to their platform. You have to meet a particular set of requirements beforehand. Most of the firearm and other type of content is demonertized as are some entire channels as well.Almost, I suggest you look into the differences between forum and publisher. Places like this site are a forum. There are established rules of conduct that are in theory applied evenly across the board, we all know that is not the case. The same is said for sites like twatter. The "legal" biggie is that the "host" of the forum is not responsible for content on their site, they just provide the means for different ideas to be tossed out for public debate. This is how some of the real wacko sites stay alive, they don't do anything but provide the "forum" for exchange of ideas.
The "town square" thing is something we have seen quite a bit lately with Musk and Twitter. That is to be a forum, a neutral ground for the exchange of ideas. We all know just how even handed that place was.
In a place like Youtube they want to be that however they also have a firm hold on quite a few things that make them a publisher. They pay their "content creators" is a REAL biggie. That makes you a publisher, and in a great many places that puts you in the world of an employer. Giving down to evals on your content. This is why the huge suit in Germany you never hear anything about. All around "hiding" some content while pushing others goes against some pretty big laws with some pretty steep fines in the EU. Same laws exist here in the states but no one wants to grand stand on that yet, they know where the bread is buttered.
It is quite complex. But the protections on the "host" are what most sites like this live on. They are "not responsible" for anything that is said on here, just like places like stormfront or any of the other crazy places.
First, YouTube doesn't pay every who uploads videos to their platform. You have to meet a particular set of requirements beforehand. Most of the firearm and other type of content is demonertized as are some entire channels as well.
Next, I am not 100% sure that forum and other social media platforms can NOT be held liable for what other's posted on their platforms. Under a few circumstances, I believe they can be.
Fine. Let's call them publishers. A publisher has the right to pick and choose what they want or don't want to publish as do magazines and newspapers. Radio stations, TV, and streaming services choose which ads and content they allow on their platforms. All of the above aren't obligated to allow any and every type of ad or content.
I am sure that we can give Congress more power and ask them to start legislating social media, but that's a slippery slope that's going to end badly as all thing do when government get involved. Several bills have already been introduced to police "hate speech" and "misinformation," and we all know what that entails.... I rather deal with YouTube's and other social media's bias as is, and keep the government bureaucrats out of it and from getting involved.
YouTube should have the freedom to allow whatever they want on their servers. There are other websites where content creators can and do upload their firearm related videos (Full30 and GunStreamer).
Tulsi’s voting record doesn’t mirror.with what she now claims.
Google is a private sector company. They can remove any content they see fit. Members have no right to free speech on that platform, just like we do not have the right to post whatever we want to post on this very forum. There is nothing anyone, including the Montana AG, can do about it. His threats hold no water.
Phone companies use public airwaves and/or interstate easements in order to conduct their business. They are regulated by public service commissions. In exchange for this special treatment they agree to abide by set standards of privacy and access. In essence they enjoy government-enforced monopolies in exchange for following the rules and making a regulated amount of profit.I wonder what people would think if phone companies, which are private sector companies, were to sensor, in real time, with some sort of AI, speech which they find inappropriate.
Maybe interrupt or stop conversations people may be having about guns or the 2A?
That would stink.
Phone companies use public airwaves and/or interstate easements in order to conduct their business. They are regulated by public service commissions. In exchange for this special treatment they agree to abide by set standards of privacy and access. In essence they enjoy government-enforced monopolies in exchange for following the rules and making a regulated amount of profit.
There is no equivalent protection for YouTube. Anyone can start a video sharing website and host all the gun videos they want. It’s really not the same.
There is no equivalent protection for YouTube. Anyone can start a video sharing website and host all the gun videos they want. It’s really not the same.