Gun TV channel

[Darrell KSR]

Intriguing.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201...d94f4fed20f789

[suncat05]

DIRECTV needs to get their heads out of their collective anal cavity and bring this on.

[Darrell KSR]

Don't know if you saw or not, but they had an interesting slide show at the bottom of that article--17 Alabamians with conceal carry permits, showing what they carry, and why they carry. Very regular Joes and Janes.

Also, don't just click on the pics and read the text there. Each slide (almost) has two slides to it, and there is some text underneath each of them. The first one is what they carry. The second is their description of why they carry--usually a little more than the text contained in the picture.

At least I found it interesting. I always enjoy reading what people carry, too.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Somewhat OT - Hickok45 got booted off of youtube this morning.

[suncat05]

Hickok45 can be a little bit off the wall sometimes. But most of his videos are usually pretty informative.

What did he do to get kicked off of YouTube?

[Darrell KSR]

Hickok45*just made a statement*on his Facebook page.

Apparently, Google + is more sensitive about firearms related postings and such. I never use Google+ and did not even realize the videos were being posted over there, I guess. I will keep you posted via Facebook here and the Hickok45andson channel. I have communicated with YouTube via email this morning, and hopefully, we’ll be able to get the channel back up soon. I had just posted a new video.

[KentuckyWildcat]

My boss just said he was back.

I'm not sure to be honest. He posted this on FB
Apparently, Google + is more sensitive about firearms related postings and such. I never use Google+ and did not even realize the videos were being posted over there, I guess. I will keep you posted via Facebook here and the Hickok45andson channel. I have communicated with YouTube via email this morning, and hopefully, we'll be able to get the channel back up soon. I had just posted a new video.
ALSO: please stay tuned here and at the Hickok45andson channel on YouTube for any information. I cannot answer all the questions, of course, that are flowing in. I'll just have to keep you updated here as we know anything. Appreciate all the expressions of support. Thanks

[Darrell KSR]

ickok45

10 mins*·*

We're BACK! It was a long scary morning. I really don't know what I'd do if I were not able to inflict lame humor upon millions of shooting enthusiasts every week! Life is fragile, especially "virtual" life.*

Like

[CitizenBBN]

Hickok trips alarms with Google and gets booted, but I bet I can find plenty of radical Islamist recruiting crap on there without any trouble.

As fearful as I am of big government, I'm just as fearful of the level of control big corporations are getting over our ability to freely assemble and speak, as they control the platforms by which so many Americans gather. It would be like selling off all the public squares and court houses of old to one company who can then decide who can stand there and stump.

[Darrell KSR]

Hickok trips alarms with Google and gets booted, but I bet I can find plenty of radical Islamist recruiting crap on there without any trouble.

As fearful as I am of big government, I'm just as fearful of the level of control big corporations are getting over our ability to freely assemble and speak, as they control the platforms by which so many Americans gather. It would be like selling off all the public squares and court houses of old to one company who can then decide who can stand there and stump.

Good comments. Me, too. Both.

[CitizenBBN]

Good comments. Me, too. Both.

We probably need to reexamine the definition of public versus private in a virtual world. I'm a devout libertarian, but I think calling it the "information superhighway" is an apt description.

On our roads the state argues they can regulate things like wearing seatbelts b/c it's a government road. The internet is like a road as well, but a road owned by a private company that we still need in order to conduct business and even communicate with each other.

You know what that sounds like? A railroad of old. They were lifelines to people who were very dependent on them. It also was the source of the first serious regulation of an industry in the US.

This is the same thing. I'm loathe to give the government regulatory power, but I'm also loathe to think that if Facebook, Google and Comcast all met they could almost unilaterally wipe something like guns and anything pro-second amendment from the national discussion.

[Darrell KSR]

We probably need to reexamine the definition of public versus private in a virtual world. I'm a devout libertarian, but I think calling it the "information superhighway" is an apt description.

On our roads the state argues they can regulate things like wearing seatbelts b/c it's a government road. The internet is like a road as well, but a road owned by a private company that we still need in order to conduct business and even communicate with each other.

You know what that sounds like? A railroad of old. They were lifelines to people who were very dependent on them. It also was the source of the first serious regulation of an industry in the US.

This is the same thing. I'm loathe to give the government regulatory power, but I'm also loathe to think that if Facebook, Google and Comcast all met they could almost unilaterally wipe something like guns and anything pro-second amendment from the national discussion.

Good thoughts. And if they are coming from a devout libertarian, you know it must have merit.

[CitizenBBN]

Good thoughts. And if they are coming from a devout libertarian, you know it must have merit.

It's a thought I've been having for a while.

For example, Google decided to stop indexing guns for sale in their shopping thing. Private company, their choice. OK.

BUT, think about it like this:

Google is the modern backbone of internet marketing and customers finding you. If we think of it as a road down main street, and you have a business on main street, then them indexing you is like hanging your sign out in front of your store on Main Street. Seem fair?

So them selectively deciding that LEGAL businesses will no longer be shown to customers is a lot like a city council saying the local gun store can't have a sign on Main street when it's legal for them to otherwise do business there and other businesses can have their signs. If that happened they'd win a court challenge against the city, but no way you win such a challenge against Google.

Like I said, I'm very libertarian, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. Those guys think you don't need a government police force b/c private security firms would respond to the need for protection, you'd subscribe and they'd take care of things.

Honestly, those guys are IMO as delusional as the socialists and communists who think people will magically shed their selfishness and greed and all live together in happy communes.

I don't like that the government thinks they can mandate seat belts just b/c they built a road to allow us to get from A to B, but google is very much like a road from A to B as well, just the anarcho-libertarian version where private companies own ALL the roads. Not a tollway here or there, but all the roads. So if Google decides they don't like guns they can keep those businesses from using their road, even if that is a perfectly legal transaction.

It's concerning bc it allows a few companies tremendous power for social engineering. They can make guns bad, and gun owners bad, etc. in ways that you'd never get through in Congress like some ad council campaign against them.

The answer may be to not regulate the details, but for the law to state that any provider or search engine etc. cannot discriminate as to who is indexed, etc. An extension of the idea of net neutrality but to specific search engines, facebook, etc. That they cannot deny association or commerce that is otherwise legal. That's pretty simple, it keeps us from needing regulators b/c issues will be decided in the courts, and it's a clear rule.

[dan_bgblue]

The answer may be to not regulate the details, but for the law to state that any provider or search engine etc. cannot discriminate as to who is indexed, etc. An extension of the idea of net neutrality but to specific search engines, facebook, etc. That they cannot deny association or commerce that is otherwise legal. That's pretty simple, it keeps us from needing regulators b/c issues will be decided in the courts, and it's a clear rule.

Unless I am misreading the thoughts behind this, I believe the law that prevents a bakery to discriminate against a LGBT couple when they want to order a wedding cake from the bakery is similar to what you have in mind. The court decides if law is being broken by the actions of the bakery, and no further bureaucracy is needed to protect the rights of the general public.

[CitizenBBN]

Unless I am misreading the thoughts behind this, I believe the law that prevents a bakery to discriminate against a LGBT couple when they want to order a wedding cake from the bakery is similar to what you have in mind. The court decides if law is being broken by the actions of the bakery, and no further bureaucracy is needed to protect the rights of the general public.

In that sense, yes. The law says google et al cannot discriminate (net neutrality), and that's all they do. No inspections to see if it's being done, etc., but if you think you've been wronged you then legal grounds for action. The same as equal employment law, the feds don't go in and check every business, they pass a law that you can't discriminate and then if you think it happened you can hire a lawyer. (there is the EEOC for complaints, but I see no need for a review board, we can handle it I imagine through class action)