Texas Challenge

[Bailey Guns]

^^ I don't know that I disagree with anything you wrote. But what are you going to do about it or what will you do about it? Or what can anyone else do about it? It's obvious that very few people in a position to really do anything aren't going to.

[Irving]

^^ I don't know that I disagree with anything you wrote. But what are you going to do about it or what will you do about it? Or what can anyone else do about it? It's obvious that very few people in a position to really do anything aren't going to.

Agreed. There is the added difficulty of time. Investigations take time, and the country isn't going to stop and wait. I assume that's a big part of the plan, if any part of it is true. Get into office any way possible, then use the power to dodge any consequences.

[FoxtArt]

I read through this thread, and some of it I found rather disheartening on this site. As I?ve said before this is not about Trump, we are at a crisis point in our constitutional republic. I believe people should be extremely concerned about the first amendment violations happening right now. The suppression of opposition is insane. Whether it is social media censoring posts, hosting companies being threatened with circuit removal if they don?t bring down certain websites, scientists who are blackballed for opposing findings of politically protected ?research?, or the thugs who threaten and assault people who dare to speak out. The ?fact checking? thing is ridiculous especially when you look at those doing the ?fact checking.? Under the first amendment people have the right to speak their beliefs regardless if they are accurate or what anybody else thinks about them; and this right should be protected by the government not attacked. This is all gestapo tactics to force people in line. I don?t trust anything or anyone that suppresses opposition; this is and always has been a key indicator of tyranny. This past year (actually several years) we?ve seen an assault on historical artifacts, monuments, American culture, people of faith, people stepping forward in this election, and legal attacks on political opponents. We?ve seen people harassed along with kids being bullied and harassed in school who?s families support the president. The fact that all of this is happening right in front of us should be a massive red flag that there is something seriously wrong with our country.

Just responding in part (to the social media stuff).

Conservatives don't realize the rabbit hole they are going into with those kinds of arguments. It's not a simple discussion. First off, first amendment protections apply first and foremost to government - there's a tier system set up in precedence. It has never been applied to a private business. Now, you may be arguing WELL IT SHOULD APPLY TO PRIVATE WEBSITES.

This is a private website as well. It has removed people in the past that have caused problems. It is also, by definition, a social media platform. So if you require facebook to let anyone post everything that's not prima face illegal, it spirals down and requires this website to require anyone post anything. Gay porn? Is that arguably 1st amendment? Maybe not, but a bunch of LGBT would like to sue everyone they oppose. What about Biden/Harris propaganda? That definitely is protected free speech on this private website right? Can't ban those people. Oh, and if we remove the protections that facebook enjoys, and you can sue them for posts, you also remove the protections that sites like this enjoy, and you can sue them for posts. Guess which companies have the resources to survive those changes?

The knee-jerk reaction that conservatives want would result in the entire opposite of what they want. A complete and total monopoly of all social media by Facebook, Twitter, and Google, the only companies big enough to afford the changes in manpower and litigation. Bye bye, every-single-firearm forum on the internet (no exceptions).

It is a bad precedence to apply 1st amendment protections to private entities.

What's the right answer? I don't have a perfect solution. But I can say, the resolution often proposed by conservatives right now is the worst one.

[MED]

^^ I don't know that I disagree with anything you wrote. But what are you going to do about it or what will you do about it? Or what can anyone else do about it? It's obvious that very few people in a position to really do anything aren't going to.

As far as the election, I will make my voice heard the best I can and support those with the courage and fortitude to do something about it. I can help with awareness; even though we are censored and attacked at every turn, we can use that to discuss and talk to those on the fence about the gravity of what is happening; people need to question this and not let it be swept under the rug. I was talking to my niece last month about the election and what happened. Interesting conversation; she was never political, and never followed any of it. She decided to start following Trump and others because she "wanted to see what all the fuss was about." The thing she couldn't believe was all the information and posts being deleted and the censorship of information. This is what alerted her to there being a real problem without me or anybody else talking in her ear. We need to take this seriously. With regard to what Irving said; absolutely that is the plan; deal with the consequences later if they can't completely suppress it.

As far as the bigger question. Every person is going to have to answer that for themselves as we step into a new future. I guess the question is this: What is your freedom worth to you? Answer that and decide what you want to do about it. I think we are in for a real fight that is if people are willing to fight. I'm not sure what that is going to turn into at this point. I see cyber warfare happening everyday in my job mostly regarding the control of information. I guess people will either lay down and surrender or not.

[FoxtArt]

Agreed. There is the added difficulty of time. Investigations take time, and the country isn't going to stop and wait. I assume that's a big part of the plan, if any part of it is true. Get into office any way possible, then use the power to dodge any consequences.

I think US politicking comes with an informal agreement, much like "I won't tattle on you if you don't tattle on me" between siblings. Once someone is in any kind of high office, the rest of our government will conform to prevent their successful prosecution in almost every instance. The ones at the top of government knows it is all a shit salad, and if they degrade into a food fight they're going to get covered in shit too, nobody has a clean nose at the top. I don't expect to see anyone go after Trump in 2021 for the same reason. It sets a precedence and turnabout becomes fair play.

It would be nice to see prosecutions (Hunter, etc.) but yeah, just like the people believing Hillary would ever be prosecuted, it's like "haven't you lived in the US long enough to know it isn't going to happen?". The king's court never goes after the king.

[MED]

Just responding in part (to the social media stuff).

Conservatives don't realize the rabbit hole they are going into with those kinds of arguments. It's not a simple discussion. First off, first amendment protections apply first and foremost to government - there's a tier system set up in precedence. It has never been applied to a private business. Now, you may be arguing WELL IT SHOULD APPLY TO PRIVATE WEBSITES.

This is a private website as well. It has removed people in the past that have caused problems. It is also, by definition, a social media platform. So if you require facebook to let anyone post everything that's not prima face illegal, it spirals down and requires this website to require anyone post anything. Gay porn? Is that arguably 1st amendment? Maybe not, but a bunch of LGBT would like to sue everyone they oppose. What about Biden/Harris propaganda? That definitely is protected free speech on this private website right? Can't ban those people. Oh, and if we remove the protections that facebook enjoys, and you can sue them for posts, you also remove the protections that sites like this enjoy, and you can sue them for posts. Guess which companies have the resources to survive those changes?

The knee-jerk reaction that conservatives want would result in the entire opposite of what they want. A complete and total monopoly of all social media by Facebook, Twitter, and Google, the only companies big enough to afford the changes in manpower and litigation. Bye bye, every-single-firearm forum on the internet (no exceptions).

It is a bad precedence to apply 1st amendment protections to private entities.

What's the right answer? I don't have a perfect solution. But I can say, the resolution often proposed by conservatives right now is the worst one.

It is important to know that several of the social media providers are definitely guilty of censoring political speech. No where in my post did I talk about forcing policy (conservative or otherwise) on social media companies; just the awareness of what is happening and the systematic suppression of opposition. It's not good enough to just push people off these platforms but they attack the platforms that people stand up to share information. Don't take my post completely out of context with policy issues facing social media. People's first amendment rights are violated when they can't speak or assemble virtually or physically, they are violated when they are forced to concede to situations that are in direct violation of their religious beliefs, they are violated when they are attacked for their beliefs. This is happening, and the control of information is a very real thing. As far as firearm sites like ours; just wait....it's coming.

[WETWRKS]

I don't think there is a precedence for successful turnover of anything (for free, no less) here. And I don't think it has much to do with any political protest. It's more to do with "it's already mine". E.g. when prohibition started I'm sure private owners of alcohol were rushing to dump all their private alcohol out. The only reason certain things were successfully removed is because they actually rounded up the purchases from the purchasers (atkins accelerator, right? Or was it...I forget)

No...they said turn in the springs. They specified they would not be going door to door trying to collect anything but if you eventually got caught with a functioning Akins you would be in trouble.

Here is the other key to all that and the later bumpstocks...the ATF specified that any bumpstock (Akins included) was considered legal as long as it didn't have the spring. This was part of the agreement between the ATF and the makers of the Akins. As such...the later ban on bumpstocks goes against a legal agreement that the ATF made with the owners of bumpstocks. I have been waiting and watching for this to be brought up in a court case.

As for the status of later bumpstocks...the feds dropped prosecution of possession recently since a former ATF agent stated that it did not meet the legal definition of a MG.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/a...-machine-guns/

[Madusa]

Asking for permission, there is no end.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I agree that First Amendment doesn't and shouldn't apply to private entities but the corporations that are censoring, editing, and promulgating specific viewpoints should lose 230 protections. They are not simply a host when they push an agenda.

[Gman]

Agreed. There is the added difficulty of time. Investigations take time, and the country isn't going to stop and wait. I assume that's a big part of the plan, if any part of it is true. Get into office any way possible, then use the power to dodge any consequences.

This. Once you've stuffed a bunch of rigged ballots into the mix, there's no way to separate them. Everyone knows that there's no way in hell that the courts/politicians would throw the mess out and do the voting all over again.