Trump= 2A threat.

[SamuraiCO]

I think everyone is over reacting. Until there is actual legislation it means nothing, He knows the Dems will over reach and go for more without agreeing to anything. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't raise hell.

[Gman]

I think everyone is over reacting. Until there is actual legislation it means nothing, He knows the Dems will over reach and go for more without agreeing to anything. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't raise hell.

Since you understand the government theatrics and posturing, I'd recommend folks relax and take it down a notch. But that's just my opinion.

[SamuraiCO]

Exactly GMAN

[Fmedges]

Yes no legislation has been passed, but it's disappointing news for sure. The R's wont control both the houses and the white house forever so eventually they'll get something to go through if the R's don't cave first.

[Martinjmpr]

One thing that gives me a little cautious optimism is that there's obviously a great amount of overlap between the hardcore anti-gunners and the hardcore anti-Trumpers.

That is going to make it awfully tempting for the anti-Trumpers to use the gun issue as a wedge to try and push whoever is the Dem candidate.

And I think THAT is very likely to backfire on them because then instead of looking like people who want "common sense gun reform" or some such meaningless twaddle, it will make it easier to portray the anti-gunners as merely partisan hacks who are riding the gun issue in order to defeat Trump, and that is more likely to make pro-gun and pro-Trump people stand against them.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests

No, nationalizing assets is what the regressive Stalinists/Maoists do. I'd say the thing to do is hit them where it hurts and show the public that Google/YouTube are NOT free speech facilitators but in fact speech monetizers and censors. In addition to that, set up the infrastructure and monetization that directs people to a different domain for free speech about the Second and Tenth Amendments or other issues that Google stomps on. These channels host on YouTube because they make it free and easy but there's no reason they couldn't host the videos elsewhere. Yes, they'd have to pay for storage and bandwidth but Google pays for that now and gets its money back by monetizing the content. Creators could monetize their content themselves instead of letting Google make all (or most) of the money from them.

The other excuse I hear is that YouTube makes it easy for people to search for video content but if someone has a link to your webpage, you can already point them to your videos regardless of where they are hosted.

[Skip]

No, nationalizing assets is what the regressive Stalinists/Maoists do. I'd say the thing to do is hit them where it hurts and show the public that Google/YouTube are NOT free speech facilitators but in fact speech monetizers and censors. In addition to that, set up the infrastructure and monetization that directs people to a different domain for free speech about the Second and Tenth Amendments or other issues that Google stomps on. These channels host on YouTube because they make it free and easy but there's no reason they couldn't host the videos elsewhere. Yes, they'd have to pay for storage and bandwidth but Google pays for that now and gets its money back by monetizing the content. Creators could monetize their content themselves instead of letting Google make all (or most) of the money from them.

The other excuse I hear is that YouTube makes it easy for people to search for video content but if someone has a link to your webpage, you can already point them to your videos regardless of where they are hosted.

That's my point.

If we live in a post-Constitutional America, let's get post-Constitutional already!

I too think the solution is to create Conservative platforms but I am reminded of how Gab was attacked and similars. Unless you are hosted at Sealand, you are vulnerable. Net Neutrality was an attempt to bring much of the webs under centralized control.

It would be all too easy to say a Conservative platform is harmful (e.g. Russian bots interfering in an election) and censor.

I think the general public knows these companies do actively censor. There are two groups that fall along the lines of political polarization...

1. Those who are okay with it because their political enemies are harmed
2. Those who are not okay with because they are harmed

[MrPrena]

Right now, we need something to cover all this stupid media coverage of FL to go away. I just wish NASA would have moon landing scheduled this month.

[StagLefty]

I just wish NASA would have moon landing scheduled this month.

A car on the way to Mars wasn't enough ?

[JohnnyDrama]

Right now, we need something to cover all this stupid media coverage of FL to go away. I just wish NASA would have moon landing scheduled this month.

While I'm with you on wanting the media coverage to go away, I doubt a Lunar landing would suffice. While listening to the news this afternoon, it occurred to me that the media has been chasing the Trump-Russian-collusion thing for over a year and gained no traction. They smell blood with gun control and are going to give it all they've got.