Firearms forums being attacked

[GrayGoose]

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., "shout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater.").
  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

Unless you're with Antifa/BLM.

 

[SUPER X]

Who's your provider?

I think it is more device and software based. Samsung now also out of the blue wants to update

 

[bbbass]

I think they are ridiculous devices and probably actually saved lives in Vegas. I also think "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

Honest question: Does the Second Amendment cover firearms accessories?

Yes, I get that ATF is out of control, but...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Honest question: Does the Second Amendment cover firearms accessories?

Yes, I get that ATF is out of control, but...

I would say : Yes.

Arms :
Noun . Weapons and ammunition , Armaments

Armament :
Noun , Military weapons and equipment.

I think that it is important to remember that the 2A uses the term "Arms" and not firearms.
Arms is a more encompassing of a term than firearms.
Andy

 

[bbbass]

I would say : Yes.

Arms :
Noun . Weapons and ammunition , Armaments

Armament :
Noun , Military weapons and equipment.

I think that it is important to remember that the 2A uses the term "Arms" and not firearms.
Arms is a more encompassing of a term than firearms.
Andy

Thanx for that reminder Andy!!!

 

[DeanMk]

I would say : Yes.

Arms :
Noun . Weapons and ammunition , Armaments

Armament :
Noun , Military weapons and equipment.

I think that it is important to remember that the 2A uses the term "Arms" and not firearms.
Arms is a more encompassing of a term than firearms.
Andy

I think that lends more to how people wrote and spoke in the time when that was written.

 

[Member 38805]

Honest question: Does the Second Amendment cover firearms accessories?

Yes, I get that ATF is out of control, but...

If you read it as it's written it certainly does. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "certain arms" or "arms with just these attachments" or any other sort of prerequisites.
I don't get into a lot of these types of firearms, as my interests are in antique firearms. So I'm not arguing from the point of view that it protects what I own. But rather from the point of view of ALL firearms owners not having their rights trampled on by a government that seems bent on sending firearms owners back to the stone age or at least the pre Constitution age.

 

[bbbass]

If you read it as it's written it certainly does. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "certain arms" or "arms with just these attachments" or any other sort of prerequisites.

Preaching to the choir. Note that they didn't ban "arms with just these attachments" they went after the attachment, hence my question.

Yeah, I can read. It also doesn't say anything about attachments or accessories.

Andy had a better reply.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I think that lends more to how people wrote and spoke in the time when that was written.

Possibly....
But , then that line of thought could also mean that the 1st Amendment limits us to 18th century methods of communication...And who wants that...?

With that said....my definitions in post #224 come from a 21st century dictionary.
Andy

 

[Dinglenutz]

Does the Second Amendment cover firearms accessories?

The second amendment doesn't seem to limit itself to firearms at all, but the knife rights people (they exist) are pretty frustrated about the current state of the law. Making certain things illegal that are used with firearms certainly sounds like an infringement to me.

 

[bbbass]

The second amendment doesn't seem to limit itself to firearms at all, but the knife rights people (they exist) are pretty frustrated about the current state of the law. Making certain things illegal that are used with firearms certainly sounds like an infringement to me.

Agreed. I just wanted to know legally/constitutionally what the thinking is on attachments/accessories to firearms in particular. Thanx for the replies, all.

Going by the def Andy posted, it would seem that the knife rights people (I'm right there with em since I carry a horizontally mounted belt knife) are justified in objecting to infringements on "arms".

 

[awshoot]

Honest question: Does the Second Amendment cover firearms accessories?

Yes, I get that ATF is out of control, but...

This is a double edged sword. If accessories are firearms protected by the 2A, under our current legal regime, they can be the subject of background checks. If they are not, they can be banned.

It's a rough situation.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Also, please remember that the US's "freedom of speech" only applies to the government. It does not apply to private businesses or enterprises. I am not saying that what GoDaddy did was justified. But they do have the right to enforce their own policies.

GoDaddy makes their money by handing out a resource that was originally invented and regulated by the government. They should not be allowed to make value judgements based on content but as long as viable alternatives exist the problem is perhaps not a huge deal. Amazon hosting is a different matter IMO - they made a business choice and it will be sorted out based on contract law.

I do note with interest that Twitter and Facebook both continue to host more content more explicitly promoting violence than Parler did, and yet remain happily hosted by these outfits. It actually seems to be fact that the riots in question (along with a summer of similar rioting) were organized on Facebook and to a lesser extent, Twitter.

Will they be deplatformed any time soon?

What I also don't see is anyone addressing the cause of all of these shutdowns. If people were not posting stuff that could be interpreted as "inciting violence" then you would not see these shut downs

"Could be interpreted as" is a pretty bullsh*t standard. There is a legal standard for "inciting violence" - let's use that.

 

[awshoot]

The second amendment doesn't seem to limit itself to firearms at all, but the knife rights people (they exist) are pretty frustrated about the current state of the law. Making certain things illegal that are used with firearms certainly sounds like an infringement to me.

The 2A applies to arms. That's why the states that banned tazers lost in SCOTUS. Tazers are arms even though they aren't firearms.

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

SCOTUS:

... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding ...

 

[awshoot]

On the original topic, considering how indispensable to modern life digital communications are, it's past time to consider them a utility.

 

[GrayGoose]

If only Al Gore hadn't invented the internet...

 

[dojiijii]

On the original topic, considering how indispensable to modern life digital communications are, it's past time to consider them a utility.

^
I agree with this. But there are questions about what constitutes the utility. Access to the internet? The ability to serve content on the internet?

The backbone of the internet was paid for with government funding (i.e. taxpayer dollars), but private services (e.g. GoDaddy, Facebook) are not. Even the "last mile" (access via your ISP) is served by private business (e.g. Comcast, CenturyLink). Private businesses control access to the internet and the vast majority of the servers, and they decide what content is allowed.

I'm having net neutrality deja-vu right now.

 

[awshoot]

^
I agree with this. But there are questions about what constitutes the utility. Access to the internet? The ability to serve content on the internet?

The backbone of the internet was paid for with government funding (i.e. taxpayer dollars), but private services (e.g. GoDaddy, Facebook) are not. Even the "last mile" (access via your ISP) is served by private business (e.g. Comcast, CenturyLink). Private businesses control access to the internet and the vast majority of the servers, and they decide what content is allowed.

I'm having net neutrality deja-vu right now.

Godaddy is a DNS service. It converts an IP, such https://209.50.61.184 to https://www.northwestfirearms.com -- the fact that private companies are providing the service does not make domain name lookup any less of a utility than when private companies provide services to an electric company.

Facebook grew to its monopolistic size due to government regulation, in particular S230 which shielded it from any and all litigation regarding user content. Facebook would have drowned within a year of its birth from litigation expenses/damages, if it had been responsible for what its users said. Given that it was granted this special immunity but is now abusing this gift from the American public, FB deserves nothing.

Comcast/Verizon/etc. abuse the telecommunications laws egregiously by calling themselves common carriers when it means they get public money and access to public property, and private services when they want to screw people over. If they want to be treated like any other private companies, then they should be paying for all the public rights of way they use. If they want to be common carriers, then sure, use those public rights of way free, but don't discriminate. Either way, this a PICK ONE situation, not a have your cake and eat it too screw job situation.

 

[nammac]

SCOTUS:

... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding ...

This is a significant statement by the SCOTUS, it makes AR's, AK's, and all 20th/21st century weaponry covered by the Second Amendment. Period...

Now back to the regularly scheduled posts...

 

[dojiijii]

Godaddy is a DNS service.

That is one part of the services they offer, and one that is only required if you're hosting something on the internet.

Facebook grew to its monopolistic size due to government regulation, in particular S230 which shielded it from any and all litigation regarding user content. Facebook would have drowned within a year of its birth from litigation expenses/damages, if it had been responsible for what its users said. Given that it was granted this special immunity but is now abusing this gift from the American public, FB deserves nothing.

As you suggest, ANY platform REQUIRED to moderate the speech of their users would never survive; they'd either get litigated out of business or have to hire so many moderators and lawyers that they'd lose money. But Facebook doesn't have "special" immunity, and they didn't become as big as they are because of S230. Other platforms had the same immunity; Facebook got big because it was an attractive alternative to MySpace, and became huge because they violate anti-monopoly rules by quashing or buying up all their competition.

Comcast/Verizon/etc. abuse the telecommunications laws egregiously by calling themselves common carriers when it means they get public money and access to public property, and private services when they want to screw people over. If they want to be treated like any other private companies, then they should be paying for all the public rights of way they use. If they want to be common carriers, then sure, use those public rights of way free, but don't discriminate. Either way, this a PICK ONE situation, not a have your cake and eat it too screw job situation.

Agreed. The carriers are given way too much latitude.