Military Arms Channel: YouTube Anti-Gun Jihad Kicking Into High Gear

Tim Harmsen of YouTube’s Military Arms Channel writes: YouTube has recently began a campaign of directly attacking content creators they do not agree with philosophically or politically. Firearms channels have been one of the hardest hit by these rapidly changing “policies” . . .

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 1.29.32 PM

YouTube’s new firearms specific policies are above. The Do No Harm media company’s widened their prohibition from anyone posting video that sell certain scary (to them) firearms-related accessories to anyone who . .

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities. Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

YouTube informed me that the media giant defines a “high capacity magazine” as any magazine that holds more than 30 rounds. And yes, any video that simply shows a bump fire stock or “high capacity magazine” is “showing users how to install” one.

YouTube reps have told content creators that the new rules will be applied retroactively. We have 30 days to comply. (A change from the previous bump stock video ban that was implemented without warning, leading to dozens of gun channel bans.)

This will force us to delete all of our videos that do not comply with their new regulations. In my case this covers 10 years of work. I have hundreds of videos will be deemed no longer suitable for YouTube.

I have to remove every video that shows a magazine capable of accepting more than 30 rounds and every video showing the installation of a legal silencer on a firearm or my channel will be deleted by Google.

The likelihood of me accidentally missing some of these videos in my forced purge of content is very high. If I miss three and one or more of their 10,000+ moderators — many hired from the left-leaning, anti-gun rights Southern Poverty Law Center — will catch them.

If so, YouTube will issue three account strikes. The Military Arms channel will be permanently removed. I will forever be banned from the YouTube platform.

The new regulations are clearly designed to force firearms channels off of YouTube.

The anti gunners in charge of the world’s first and second most popular search engines know that pro-gun rights social media voices are loud and strong. They need to silence us because we have the power to stop their political agenda.

Editor’s note: The Military Arms Channel currently welcomes over 690k subscribers. You can also find MAC’s work and the videos of other pro-gun videographers on www.full30.com.

Mr.Harmsen respectfully requests you click here to get to the YouTube policy page, click on NO under “was this article helpful” and tell them to rescind their policy.

comments

  1. avatar Survivordude1090 says:

    Social media is bar-none one of the worst things to happen in America. Lure everyone in, become a sensation, then control the narrative. Slaps people who believe in both the First and Second Amendments in the face. We all took the bait. Now we’re paying for it.

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      > Social media is bar-none one of the worst things to happen in America.

      1) Social media is the result of free-market capitalism.

      2) “Social media is bar-none one of the worst things to happen in America.”

      3) “One of the worst things to happen in America” is the result of free-market capitalism.

      1. avatar Jack Crow says:

        Anti-gun logic in use here.

        It isn’t that social media is bad, it is some peoples’ USE of social media that is bad. As in, FIREARMS aren’t bad, some people’s USE of them is.

        Besides, nobody argues that something made in the greatest political/economical system ever devised can’t have negative or unforeseen consequences. Because, people! People use inanimate objects for good or not inside a system designed to maximize freedom.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          And you might have mentioned: Youtube and google aren’t bad, the PEOPLE who bought them and crapped them up are. Google was the best site around circa 1995. Then, they had their IPO and were bought by the same corporations(Disney, GE, GM, Westinghouse) that own MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc.
          And once they take over, the turn it into another of their mass media outlets. OF COURSE THEY DID. This is what they do. IF we learn about them and their policies, they loose. So long as we allow them to pull the strings from behind the curtain, THEY win.

      2. avatar foobar says:

        Wow, someone didn’t take logic 101.

        1) Slavery is the result of democratic rule.
        2) Slavery is bar-none one of the worst things to happen in America.
        3) One of the worst things to happen in America is the result of democratic rule.

        1) US debt is the result of liberal polices.
        2) The US debt is bar-none of the worst things to happen in America.
        3) One of the worst things to happen in America is the result of liberal polices.

        I can do this all day, that doesn’t make any of this true.

        1. avatar Survivordude1090 says:

          Okay, let me explain.

          The Google search engine is one of the most powerful tech entities in the world. They also own all the major social media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube, Etc. Since they all were started up, they have all dominated, created a virtual monopoly, on the market. And now that everyone is tied to their networks, been drawn in by the illusion of “free internet speech”, they can now create all the rules in regard to what can and cannot be said. Let’s face the reality of the situation, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are the only real ways to spread messages in any significant manner anymore. What else is there? The News? Don’t make me laugh. Actual Protesting? Swept under rug by the mainstream media and not covered by any social media platform in any positive light. And it’s not just gun channels either. Any sort of counter to any of this liberal arts college campus bullshit that infecting this country like I virus have been systematically taken down and destroyed. Anything to do with Men’s Rights is constantly under attack for instance.

          And that’s just the effect it’s had on Free Speech, let’s not get into what social media has done to social interactions. That’s a whole other kettle of fish.

          Social media is the tool of the Liberal Left to control the Narrative and it’s goddamn working, so yes, it IS one of the worst things that happen in this country.

        2. avatar Scoutino says:

          Slavery is most certainly NOT result of democratic rule. It is as old as human race.
          As for your second example, capitalize the Liberal and we have no dispute.

        3. avatar Ryan says:

          Not to get picky on the issue, but Google doesn’t own Facebook. Facebook owns Instagram, which is still pretty open with gun-related content. Granted, you can’t post a 30 min video but you could post links that will get content hosted elsewhere out to your followers.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Since Libertarians make the case that racial discrimination is also the freedom to associate or not associate with individuals and groups. Then it should be entirely appropriate that a private company destroy every gun channel and website in existence. Since these websites are working on private property. The gun Community can then experience what the black community has experienced. Complete discrimination for the next 400 years as it was in the United States. Or maybe it will only take them 50 years????

      The gun channels should have no problem over coming a billion dollar internet company like You Tube or Google who also have very strong political ties to the Ruling Class.
      That is libertarian Logic for you.

      1. avatar Slick says:

        So, what, you want daddy .gov to come and force youtube to bend the knee?

        The libertarian logic would be not using a platform that ACTIVELY hates you. Dont like it? Take your money and time somewhere else, like full30 that is mentioned in the article itself. Invest in alt-tech sites to bring down youtubes market share and force a free market change on their policy.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Exactly (and I’m not even a libertarian, I’m something “far worse”). Although I registered my extreme displeasure in commentary to YouTube, I would never want government to even attempt to force it to do anything. Less government, not more. More liberty, not less.

          I think some are missing the whole dangerous liberty is preferable to peaceful slavery concept. Either that or they are too timid to be free.

        2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Slick
          The Forgotten Weapons channel is not the only gun Channel that has been demonetized by YouTube. The owners can’t make any money off of their videos. But that has not stopped YouTube from running advertisement on that channel and YouTube does in fact collect that advertising Revenue. That seems to me that YouTube is profiting off of someone else’s work and not paying them.
          Is that slavery?

      2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        John in Ohio
        Do you believe that President Theodore Roosevelt was wrong when he broke up the Monopoly of Standard Oil?
        That was fixing prices, charging whatever it wanted, buying out its competition or using whatever tactics necessary to destroy the competition so they could gain total control over the oil business in the United States.

        Do you honestly believe that’s a good thing for the consumer? Do you think that’s a good thing for the citizens of a Nation?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…buying out its competition or using whatever tactics necessary to destroy the competition…”

          Precisely which anti-competitive actions has Facebook taken against other social media sites? Standard Oil bought the entire oil industry? How much of social media does Facebook own? Standard oil prevented anyone else from getting into the oil business. What has Google done to use their power to prevent anyone from competing?

          If government is the problem everywhere else, how can it be the solution for social media?

          Funny how even POTG demand to benefit from that which they did not risk and build. Sounds like a bunch of leftists.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yes, he was wrong.

          “Do you honestly believe that’s a good thing for the consumer? Do you think that’s a good thing for the citizens of a Nation?”

          What is good for the consumer or good for the citizens of a nation don’t matter when it comes to violating individual rights. I don’t want to get into the weeds about the legal fiction of corporations but that is also wrong.

          Is liberty only important until it gets into the pocket book of consumers or gets in the way of the ambitions of a nation? Governments aren’t deities. Immoral acts committed under the banner of government are still immoral acts.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Is liberty only important until it gets into the pocket book of consumers”

          Liberty ends where any government begins. It is the way of things. Want liberty? Get rid of government. The only liberty, the only “rights” you have are those you can defend and enforce yourself. If you would have governance, you must surrender liberty. It is the bargain of mankind.

    3. avatar Mike Dexter's A GOD says:

      Honestly don’t know why Tim and other channels don’t simply oblige them. They hate you, so leave. They hate us, so we’ll follow. Move every single video to full30 and delete your accounts and all content from YouTube. As long as the viewers are made fully aware, they will follow and keep watching.

      I can’t think of a single reason YouTube is holding you back from doing this. And if they’re demonetizing and censoring, then leave. I’ll keep watching. It takes no additional effort to go to full30 than YouTube.

      And no one-foot-in-one-foot-out bullshit. Mass relocation of the content. The reason full30 isn’t taking off is because EVERYONE STILL HAS THEIR CONTENT ON YOUTUBE. Make the move. Clean cut. Ditch the Orwellian google machine.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        It takes no additional effort to go to full30 than YouTube?
        My Panasonic Viera TV, on which I watch all online videos, has an Youtube App. How do I install the Full30 app on it?

        1. avatar Mike Dexter's A GOD says:

          I dunno, ask Tim Harmsen’s ass when they’re creating an app. Obviously there’s a need.

        2. avatar Mick says:

          That’s going to be one of their biggest issues. Streaming devices and mobile devices don’t have an app for alternative sites like Full30, which make them much less accessible.

  2. avatar Bearacuda says:

    If a Christian bakery can be forced to cater a gay wedding then Google should be forced to cater to their userbase regardless of political affiliation.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Gays are protected against private interference by civil rights statutes as a protected class because of historic animus and discrimination against them. Gun owners are not protected against private interference. Therefore your analogy is legally inapt.

      1. avatar Pat says:

        The existence of “protected classes” makes a mockery of “equal protection under the law”.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          > The existence of “protected classes” makes a mockery of “equal protection under the law”.

          Corporate personhood also “makes a mockery of ‘equal protection under the law'”.

          And I’d bet that 99% of the TTAG readership thinks I’m some kind of communist for criticizing corporations.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          > The existence of “protected classes” makes a mockery of “equal protection under the law”.

          So does wealth disparity. When one party can hire the most expensive lawyers available, while another party can’t afford any legal representation, then “equal protection under the law” is a lie.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          The corporation isn’t the person dipshit. It simply recognizes that the owner of a corporation has a right to use that corporation to exercise his own rights. Such as free speech.

        4. avatar anonymous says:

          >> Corporate personhood

          > The corporation isn’t the person dipshit.

          I admire you for not being afraid to display your ignorance of basic economics.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Corporate personhood also “makes a mockery of ‘equal protection under the law’”.

          And I’d bet that 99% of the TTAG readership thinks I’m some kind of communist for criticizing corporations.”

          +1. That legal fiction needs to go.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          So… by the “logic” here, if I want to buy a billboard on the side of a highway that’s my free speech, but if I want to use my privately owned business to buy the same billboard that’s no longer free speech? Really?

        7. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

          Corporations don’t have to be considered “people” to have rights. You can’t steal from a corporation just because it’s not a person. Bottom line: the .gov telling any entity how they can spend their money reeks of totalitarianism. Period.

        8. avatar Kenneth says:

          “I’d bet that 99% of the TTAG readership thinks I’m some kind of communist for criticizing corporations.”
          You’d lose that bet. But I’ll bet you are used to losing.
          I just criticized GE, GM, Disney and Westinghouse by name. I do so all the time. Nobody here EVER calls me communist. Right wing militia type, yeah, but never communist….

        9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Anonymous
          You do not understand basic economics if you don’t know that one of its tenants is that of the freedom to associate or not associate with a person or group. Libertarians have been making this argument for a very long time now. They even support racial discrimination. If you really believed in Liberty and freedom, those Christian Bakers don’t have to make a wedding cake for homosexuals. But homosexuals do want to force themselves on to other people. And that has been their goal since the 1970s. And since TTAG is about gun rights it should be stated that it is the homosexual elected leadership that is responsible for disarming the state of California.

          And it is the stated goal for the homosexual leadership to disarm the American citizenry, because homosexuals are socialist progressive in their political orientation.

          If you disagree you can certainly provide links to open homosexuals who’ve been elected to public office supporting the Second Amendment. With an A rating by the NRA for what it’s worth. Or do these open homosexuals elected to public office have a history of voting for gun civil rights?????

          Tammy Baldwin????
          Tom Ammiano????
          Attorney general Maura Healey????

          p.s.
          About 15 years ago Justin Raimondo, founder of Anti-War.com ran as a republican against Nancy Pelosi. He was the first open homosexual to openly support gun rights while running for office. Unfortunately he lost. Apparently the homosexual voters in Nancy Pelosi’s District prefer getting “free stuff” from a “breeder” in the government, and they also want the government in everyone’s lives.

          http://www.antiwar.com/raimondo/

          Justin Raimondo supported Pat Buchanan for the presidency. Just as the Log Cabin Republican supported Ronald Reagan. As I remember the NAZI homosexuals threw glass bottles at the gay republicans as they marched in gay pride parades in San Francisco.

          https://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=011956

        10. avatar anonymous says:

          >>> The existence of “protected classes” makes a mockery of “equal protection under the law”.

          >> Corporate personhood also “makes a mockery of ‘equal protection under the law’”. And I’d bet that 99% of the TTAG readership thinks I’m some kind of communist for criticizing corporations.

          > You do not understand basic economics if you don’t know that one of its tenants is that of the freedom to associate or not associate with a person or group.

          I understand freedom of association. But a group of people freely associating with each other cannot grant themselves separate legal entity status.

          Corporations aren’t simply the result of freedom of association — they are creatures of statute, a status granted by the government. This creates a distortion in an otherwise free market.

          Or, as somebody else put it 10 years ago: “Like our intellectual forerunners, the classical liberals, we should have always been attacking corporations and monopolies as perversions of free markets. Corporations are government-created statuses that prevent the owners and managers from being liable and financially accountable for actions taken on behalf of the corporation. Adam Smith hated corporations as unaccountable and inefficient, and saw them as government market distortions. We should too.” – Nick Wilson. Libertarian Reform Caucus. 2008.

        11. avatar anonymous says:

          “I’d bet that 99% of the TTAG readership thinks I’m some kind of communist for criticizing corporations.”

          You’d lose that bet. But I’ll bet you are used to losing.
          I just criticized GE, GM, Disney and Westinghouse by name. I do so all the time. Nobody here EVER calls me communist. Right wing militia type, yeah, but never communist….

          Are you a lawyer?

          If you had included the whole post, instead of taking one part of it out of context, it would be obvious that I was referring to the concept of corporations, not specific corporations. There is a difference.

        12. avatar CLarson says:

          We have to live the post-constitutional, oligarchical America we are in, not the constitutional, small government we used to have. Our Founding Fathers would have never stood by at let a handful of companies composed of thousands of non-Americans with questionable loyalties monopolize every park, gathering place, and newspaper stand of their day and let non-westerners dictate content, but we in our arrogance did.
          The only thing that will offer citizens relief from political censorship is state force. Sorry guys but it’s this way or nothing. We need to rally around a piece of legislation and get it passed. If not, we will have sites like TTAG for a while until the Leftist consolidation of social media is complete. But then the domain registrars and ISPs will start dictating content rules to site owners like Farago and he will either comply or have his domain seized or site removed and we will not longer have the modern public space, social media, to organize or complain.

          #ShallNotCensor – http://www.electnehlen.com/shallnotcensor/

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        This is America, there is legally no such thing as “a protected class”… we don’t live under a caste system.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… and it’s unconstitutional as hell. If flies in the face of the equal protection clause.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          This is America, there is legally no such thing as “a protected class”… we don’t live under a caste system.

          That’s why Ted Kennedy was charged with murder and sent to prison for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

          Oh wait, that didn’t happen…

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        Since when does one have to be persecuted to be protected?

      4. avatar Bearacuda says:

        I’m not a legal expert so obviously take this with a grain of salt but I was under the impression that part of that ruling was that the bakery had to comply since there weren’t competitors in the area for them to frequent. Since YouTube has a virtual monopoly and their parent company can interfere with search results I doubt anyone other than an established multi-million dollar individual or company could seriously make an alternative and expect to have the same cultural influence and demographic reach that we currently have with YouTube. Nobody other than people already into guns will go to Full30.

        Obviously I hope I’m wrong since that would mean things are better than I thought.

      5. avatar Defens says:

        18 USC Section 241 states: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
        ~~~
        They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

        By this law, American citizens lawfully attempting to freely exercise a Constitutionally protected right (in this case, right to free speech), should indeed be a protected class.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          You’re constitutional right to free speech in the public square does not, and has never, extended onto private property. Extending “protected classes” into private property is an exception to this, not the standard.

          If you want to buy Google and turn it into a public property, then you can talk about it. And no, if you turn them into a utility it doesn’t effect it, as long as they’re a private business, they get the rights associated with a private business.

      6. avatar Hank says:

        “Protected classes” are unconstitutional. And if you want to go the historical route, any race or sexual orientation can claim “historic” levels of “oppression”.

      7. avatar strych9 says:

        “Gays are protected against private interference by civil rights statutes as a protected class because of historic animus and discrimination against them.”

        How many fucking times do we have to go over and over and over this?

        The bakers violated State regs and laws, not federal ones. They were sued under State law not Federal law because the Federal law doesn’t exist.

        Homosexuals are only protected by Federal law in cases involving employment discrimination and those where a hate crime may have been committed against them based on their homosexual status. There is no Federal law protecting their “right” to force a business to enter into a contract with them.

  3. avatar Nanashi says:

    Doesn’t this hit every video Ian has done at an auction house? It also covers all the videos on how to assemble an 80%.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It also covers every video on how to complete a stripped lower, or how to install a barrel and handguard, etc. on an upper. In short, any video demonstrating how to assemble a firearm will be banned, including, perhaps, videos by manufacturers or users on how to break down a firearm for cleaning.

      1. avatar binder says:

        A stripped lower is a “firearm”. I think they are going after 80% lowers. Also the silencer ban is for “home made” units. I think they get a lot of people posting “solvent trap” conversion videos.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          Fill the paperwork, pay 200, wait over 200 days for the stamp and then have fun converting the fuel filter into suppressor. Nothing bad or illegal there.
          Not to mention 80 percent lowers. They are perfectly legal to finish (with some caveats in California).

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      If you mean Ian from Forgotten Weapons, I think he breaches the first two rules with almost every episode.

    3. avatar Dutch says:

      Ian will be fine, his content is on a number of platforms including his website. The people in trouble are those who only use youtube or me the next time I take a gun apart and need help.

      1. avatar tmm says:

        Ian “should” be fine, but won’t be, I believe. When Ian started to add graphics that included the flag of the country where the firearms were developed/produced, at the time period when the firearm was produced. For Nazi era firearms, this included a Nazi flag. It quickly got “flagged” by youtube, and Ian had to start blurring out the flag or whatever in order to avoid deleted videos etc when posting videos on a German WWII era guns.
        https://youtu.be/of8okKZg7UA

    4. avatar Chris Morton says:

      It also bans EVERY historical video of aircraft firing in combat, since AT LEAST 1915.

      How many rounds of .50BMG in ONE belt of ammunition, for ONE gun, for ONE P-51D?

      How many rounds of 20mm in the feed system of a Vulcan on an AC130?

      Gun control cultism is impossible without a seething mix of ignorance and malice.

  4. avatar Quest says:

    I encourage everyone to boycott Google (who owns YouTube). Set your search engine preference to duckduckgo or Bing on your smart phone or desktop PC.

    Don’t give these anti-freedom corporations another cent from your search traffic.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I block their ads and trackers. Unfortunately, that will also reduce the money people are making through them.

  5. avatar Someguy says:

    Tim, can you pixelate all the suppressors and add 70s “sensual” music?

    1. avatar Waxman says:

      Now that right there is funny as hell!!! Has my vote.

  6. avatar David B says:

    I think you just compared YouTube to Islamic terrorists. That’s kind of like calling everybody with whom you disagree a Nazi. Works for me in this case.

    I’m doing my part by helping Tim on Patreon. Are you?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      They are totalitarian fanatics… I think the analogy is apt.

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        Yup, I’ve seen lots of suicide bombings and beheading out of the Google crowd.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          It would do far less damage than what they actually do.

        2. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Oh, so what your saying is that you were just full of crap before. You don’t like what they say, so they shouldn’t have the right to say it, on their private property. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, how dare they have a “right” to “speech”. For doing that, they’re jihadis.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          There is a difference between free speech and sedition. You do not have a constitutional right to spew anti-freedom propaganda based on lies in order to subvert the Constitution of the United States. That’s called conspiracy to commit treason. If they were arguing for a constitutional amendment, that’d be legal. What they are advocating for is a subversion of the CotUS.

        4. avatar B-Rad says:

          Guy, that’s not how sedition, or treason, works. You are always conflating things.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    I’ve been watching a boatload of videos on YouTube since I got Roku TV. I dunno’ if Patreon is a viable alternative. All social media is a crapshoot because of the leftards who control it…don’t get so invested in a platform you cannot control.

  8. avatar Darthzaketh says:

    Did anyone notice they actually defined High Capacity magazines better than most. Their I.E. was any magazine or belt carrying more than 30 rounds and they didn’t use and either. Its small but they are better then the MSM.

  9. avatar Ronaldo says:

    Military Arms Channel is the group that knowingly posted fake Magpul Mbus sights from Ebay on social media claiming that Magpul made poor products. He later admitted to knowing they were fake BEFORE he posted the pictures. Dozens of people called him out on it but he didn’t care about anything but attention. His channel went from interesting tests to whining and crying about everything.

    1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      +1. I noticed he used some questionable ballistic media in one of his ammo tests. He then quoted a calibration speed about 100 fps too slow.

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      And that somehow justifies what Google/YouTube is trying to do to him?

  10. avatar J says:

    Oppose Gun Control and Weapons Ban Legislation

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Please pass the first link to others so we can get this petition sent to the White House.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

  11. avatar Scott says:

    My blood is still boiling from reading this last night, I said my piece to them on how this was not helpful.

  12. avatar strych9 says:

    Two things:

    First the rules posted in the story state that it’s only homemade silencers that are affected. How many MAC videos feature homemade silencers?

    Secondly, as much as it sucks, if MAC cares about staying up the answer is to take down any videos that contain questionable content, review them and then put them back up after review shows they do not contain questionable/unacceptable content.

    That said I don’t condone what YT is doing. It’s bullshit. However, sticking it to them by staying up is, IMHO, the best way to fight back at this point. It sucks, but playing by their rules and “sticking it to them” by staying up and continuing to post gun videos is the way to fight this and, maybe over time, win.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      What leads you to think that repeated capitulation to YT and their stupid policies is going to stick it to them? The censors aren’t going to be remotely knowledgeable about firearms or accessories so attempting to comply is pointless. Like you’re going to successfully win a debate over terms and definitions with them…

      1. avatar Pat says:

        Yes. Give YouTube exactly what they want. That’s some 3-dimensiomal chess right there.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          Uh, that’s exactly what he’s advocating too. Continue to play the game by their asinine rules and make them money while watering down your content to whatever arbitrary standard they have at the moment and whims of whatever idiot decides to review the content.

          My idea of finding a new home deprives Google of ad revenue without watering down the content.

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          YouTube is playing the part of the bully. Apparently capitulating to the bully and hoping they’ll leave you alone if you’re nice enough to them is the POTG strategy for dealing with a bully.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Given that the alternative is to simply get banned right now and have MAC disappear, why NOT, play by the rules for now? I mean, what fucking good does simply getting banned right now do? How is that a “win” and how does that leave any room for a win later down the road? It doesn’t. It’s just a flat-the-fuck-out loss across the board with no hope of getting anything better in the future. You can’t even needle YouTube over their policies if you’ve been given a life-time ban.

        “Oh, YouTube did something we don’t like, let’s all commit Seppuku, that’ll learn ’em!” is basically what you’re saying. Well, no, actually you’re not even that brave. You want someone else to commit seppuku on your behalf. That’s really what you’re asking for here.

        Jesus, some of you people are hard-headed and willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. Actually, again, check that. You want someone else to cut off their nose.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          You all have some serious cognitive dissonance going on. You’ll castigate the NRA for giving an inch in the hopes of getting a win later, but think the gun channels on YouTube should cave to whatever stupidity Google dreams up so they can maybe get a win later.

          I think they should stop making Google/YT money and find a new home for their content. If there isn’t a suitable home for their content they can band together with a few similar channels and make one.

          Are you trying to tell me POTG can’t point their browser to a different URL to watch a video? POTG are so fickle that they’d rather watch watered down sanitized content and fund people who hate them instead of going to a different site for their gun content? Apparently laziness knows no bounds.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “You’ll castigate the NRA for giving an inch in the hopes of getting a win later, but think the gun channels on YouTube should cave to whatever stupidity Google dreams up so they can maybe get a win later.”

          I have never castigated the NRA for “giving an inch”. In fact, if you look at my history you’ll note that I generally avoid comments on the NRA. When I do comment on them I’m pretty careful about it. I know some people love them and some people hate them. Personally, I’m a member but I have not fully formed an opinion on their current overarching stance. I like some of what they do and don’t like other parts of what they do. When they’re naughty it displeases me but they’re also probably the best chance we have in certain fights that are upcoming. GOA and other orgs are more steadfast and solid in their stance but they can’t punch at the weight class the NRA does. Not even close. As such, I’ve played my cards close to the vest on them.

          “…but think the gun channels on YouTube should cave to whatever stupidity Google…”

          It’s not about “caving”. I don’t know why this term gets thrown around so much. MAC basically has two choices, “cave” (play by the current rules) or die. That’s it. Personally I’ve never been a big fan of the Banzai charge into waiting MGs. It’s stupid. While some say it’s “honorable” or “brave” I say it’s fucking stupid and shows complete lack of grasp of tactics and strategy. It’s even worse when you’re asking someone else to do it for you.

          The issue again here as I said is that this is, for the time being an dichotomy. “Cave” or die. So let’s be real here.

          MAC, as of this morning had 689,655 subs and 741 videos. That’s no PewDiePie (something ridiculous like 61 million subs) but it does give them some punching power if they stay on the platform. Maybe a month from now they decide it’s not worth it and give up, that’s up to MAC. However, simply asking them to commit suicide is stupid. If they want to change platforms, fucking awesome. More power to them. But that’s a business decision for MAC.

          See, darn near 700K subs mean they get some pretty good revenue out of YT themselves. Like probably about $9000/month. Who the fuck are we to ask that MAC give up a sizable amount of income? Income they may desperately need to, I dunno, feed their kids and pay bills? Are YOU gonna pay this guy’s bills? Are YOU going to step up and replace his $9000/month YT revenue stream? Until you are it’s none of your business if he stays on YT or not.

          On top of that if MAC simply leaves then they have no voice on how TY is run. No voice on the abuses YT may commit. They’re just done. Again I ask, what is the point of this? Pretty telling how people are quick to snipe but never actually answer the question of how simply leaving YT solves any problems for MAC or anyone else.

          “I think they should stop making Google/YT money and find a new home for their content.”

          Easier said that done. If it were so easy it would have been done by now and everyone on TTAG would know about it.

          “Are you trying to tell me POTG can’t point their browser to a different URL to watch a video? POTG are so fickle that they’d rather watch watered down sanitized content and fund people who hate them instead of going to a different site for their gun content?”

          No and then yes. They can but they often won’t.

          “Apparently laziness knows no bounds.”

          This, given the situation, is pretty fucking rich. Where’s your website fixing all this? Where’s the cash you’re ponying up to cover MAC’s losses from YT? Like a lot of things in life this shit is easy to say, much harder to actually DO.

        3. avatar Stereodude says:

          If he’s that beholden to Google/YouTube for money and willing to do whatever it takes to keep it I guess he shouldn’t be complaining about it. You paint a picture that he’s got no choice but to sell his principles down the river to keep getting paid. And, we’re supposed to pay him to leave stick to his principles and leave YouTube.

          It sure seems like you think he and his principles are for sale.

  13. avatar Stereodude says:

    Why bother? It’s clear they don’t want the content on their platform and will continue to to slowly strangle them with policy changes. It’s time to find a new platform or come up with some legal strategy to force them to back off permanently.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      There is no such platform. YouTube and Google are effective monopolies and it’s about time they were regulated as such.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Do you see ANY other platform where you see anything like the firearms content on YouTube. The fact is there is a lot of sketchy stuff on YouTube and at least they are trying to be transparent about their policy.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          It doesn’t change the fact that they are infringing on people’s rights to free speech…. and no, being a “private business” is no more an excuse for censorship of legal content than for any other violation of basic human rights.

          It’s time for Congress to get off their asses and hold these clowns accountable.

        2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          Sorry, Serge. The First Amendment does not require YooToobe, or anyone else, to give someone a free microphone.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          You will note that nowhere in my argument did I say a thing about the first amendment. Free speech is not restricted to freedom from government interference.

        4. avatar Stereodude says:

          And what about if no one would sell you a microphone? No one would print your book, pamplet, magazine, or flier? No one would duplicate your CD or DVD? No one would give you a space to meet in? What then?

          It seems you’d rather absolutely stick your principals and fade into obscurity than get your hand a little dirty and turn the regulatory behemoth onto the lefties. You’re in a down and dirty street fight for your life with absolutely no rules, and you’re worried about a little ungentleman like action while your opponent will stop at nothing.

        5. avatar Mike Dexter's A GOD says:

          No, the gubmit should NOT step in and do something. That’s the left’s solution to everything. This whole situation leaves the door wide open for full30 or someone else to come along and start a video hosting platform that boasts about NOT censoring anyone. People will then naturally flock to that platform and leave the cumbersome and restrictive YouTube. That is free market capitalism at work and its awesome.

          Think of this: You are rich (Google/Alphabet). You have the tallest house in the neighborhood (YouTube). Someone demands that since you have the tallest house, they should have the right to stand on your roof and exercise their “free speech.” No, its your property, you built it, and you don’t want them to stand on your roof. “But your house is the biggest, your roof the highest. I have more chance of being seen and heard if I yell from your roof,” the person says. “Too bad. Its mine,” says you. “YoU’rE HiNdErInG mY rIgHt To FrEe SpEeCh! YuR sIlEnCiNg Me!!” says the idiot. No, you’re not. Nothing is preventing him from building his own house with his own roof to yell from. The government isn’t stepping in and arresting him for speaking his mind. This is in no way whatsoever a 1st amendment issue.

          Tim and all the other gun channels have every right to keep creating content. And there is a huge opportunity to collectively move it all to a better, more free and open platform. Tim created one, he should perfect it and persuade all the content creators to move there. If Tim’s isn’t viable, someone else create one. No one is being silenced. Google are just being assholes. But in America, you have a right to be an asshole. And people also have the right to disassociate from you.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Mike Dexter’s A GOD

          Bullshit. A better analogy would be you using illegal trade practices to make sure that you own every building in town. Google and YouTube are an illegal trust. A “free market” solution will not work in a market that is not free due to their interference.

        7. avatar Mike Dexter's A GOD says:

          serge,

          what in the world are you talking about? There is a difference between having the largest market share, and being a monopoly. If there are any instances of YouTube snuffing out competition or creating barriers to entry for other video hosting sites, I’m not aware of it. If they were, places like Vimeo, LiveLeak, Metacafe, etc. wouldn’t even exist.

          All of this is irrelevant however, since the only entity the Bill of Rights was designed to protect people from was the federal government.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Mike Dexter’s A GOD

          Free speech is a human right. If an entity other than the government violates it, that entity needs to be crushed.

          As for the practices you wanted examples of… take a look at the left wing smear campaign against Gab.ai after they refused to censor content on their service. … and if you don’t think Google gives preferential routing to YouTube for video search results, you’re pants on head retarded.

        9. avatar Mike Dexter's A GOD says:

          @serge,

          “Free speech is a human right.” Yes it is. I understand that and agree completely.

          Google/YouTube saying “you know what, we’re sensitive liberal tools and don’t want icky gun content here” isn’t violating anyone’s right to free speech. Did my roof top analogy go completely over your head?

          Forget 1st Amendment entirely. YouTube are acting like dickheads and yes, they should be crushed. Not by some dillweed lawmakers stepping in, but by the user base deciding to get their content elsewhere.

          Running to the government like a kid running to the teacher screaming “HEY, THEY’RE NOT PLAYING FAIR!” now THAT is retarded.

          And Google giving preference to YouTube vids in search results, of course they do. They’re the same company. And again, we’re all perfectly free to go use Bing.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          “And Google giving preference to YouTube vids in search results, of course they do. They’re the same company.”

          … and that’s called a TRUST. Your ancap bullshit doesn’t work when there are companies in the market with larger budgets than most governments.

        11. avatar Mike Dexter's A GOD says:

          Guess what…. forming a trust isn’t illegal in the slightest. It’s done all the time.

          There really is no hope for you is there?

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Mike Dexter’s A GOD

          You failed US history, didn’t you?

        13. avatar Jay Williams says:

          @Mike Dexter’s a GOD

          Very nice set of posts. You’re right on the money.

  14. avatar Defens says:

    Here’s my comment to YouTube on their policy announcement page:
    Your new policy will eliminate hundreds of instructional videos that provide useful instruction on the assembly and installation of perfectly legal parts and accessories. I could understand banning videos on bomb-making or other illegal activity, or even videos on the conversion of guns to illegal configurations (full auto, for example). But to ban videos on the machining of an aluminum block into a legal firearm part , based on your political agenda, is akin to banning videos explaining how to register to vote – this is useful public discourse involving a Constitutionally protected right. You should be ashamed.

  15. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Bullshit. Now my favorite reloading channel is going to disappear because of this? Fuck youtube.

  16. avatar Alan Chambers says:

    Maybe it’s time we organize a boycott of Youtube for a week.

  17. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    Okay be reasonable. The policy states “home made suppressor/silencers.” It doesn’t say anything about NFA suppressor a you buy through the official channels.

    1. avatar binder says:

      I guess there are no “home made suppressor/silencers” videos on youtube at all.

  18. avatar Peter says:

    I told them to rescind this policy, it is unfair, and does nothing but bully law abiding and fun loving Americans!

    1. avatar CZ Peasy says:

      Don’t encourage them!

  19. avatar CZJay says:

    They don’t want the info out there for people to use when confiscation happens. They don’t want you to know how to build firearms, suppressors, magazines, ammunition, etc. For instance, they don’t want Californians to know how to “reload” their own ammo or how to finish a 80% “firearm.” Although each of those things are completely within the law, they want to get ahead of what is coming very soon.

    Google will likely do the same for their search engine. They are burning our digital books in order to control us. Same goes for Twitter and Facebook.

    They are now dehumanizing people on the right and gun owners. They are burning books. They are manipulating the mobs. They are silencing counter arguments. They are actively instigating confrontation.

    By the way, most of the government workers are on their side.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Spot on. The hour is later than some want to realize.

    2. avatar Pliablemoose says:

      I thought it would take longer, be assured more social media sites will follow. reddit just killed about 20 subs including /r/gundeals

  20. avatar ACP_arms says:

    Here’s the message I sent to YouTube –

    ” YouTube,

    Drop “policies on content featuring firearms”, it bans video content that involves legal activity(s) of which YouTube/Google no reason to ban. I don’t like content with skateboards or skateboarding but I don’t want to see that content banned. This is a policy put in place with no other purpose then to appease only a few users of the YouTube platform who do not like firearm related content or firearms in general. If danger is the reason for this policy then YouTube should take a look in the mirror and see how much of the content on YouTube involves dangerous activity’s.”

  21. avatar Phil LA says:

    If they ban all those GD toy videos that my kids are addicted to then I’ll call it a fair compromise.

  22. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Mr.Harmsen respectfully requests you click here to get to the YouTube policy page, click on NO under “was this article helpful” and tell them to rescind their policy.”

    Done.

  23. avatar Dave says:

    Nothing stops MAC from paying for video storage that they own – or lease instead of youtube. Then you can pretty much make your own rules for what you post.

  24. avatar CCityGuy says:

    Seems like a LOT of them have found a home over at http://www.full30.com Lots of folks moving over there. Hopefully the content creators can start getting paid, or maybe they do, not sure.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Tim is one of the owners of Full30, and even he doesn’t use it because the free service youtube provides, can also pay you. He wasn’t on youtube for access, he was on there for money. Full30 is expensive, and to actually host his own video’s is cost prohibitive.

  25. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Rescind this DRACONIAN policy and Eff the Communist’s of Google/You Tube/Suckerberg !

  26. avatar Jim22 says:

    I unsubscribed MAC when Tim dissed the NRA. It’s kind of stupid to have an arms channel and piss off their five million members.

    1. avatar David B says:

      The NRA doesn’t have 5 million active, paying members. I think they are under 3 million IIRC and a lot of them are lifetime. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it makes me think of Trump and not being able to question his wealth.

  27. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    If YouTube keeps banning content they’ll just become a signpost until something else takes it’s place. Since the demonetization purge every other video I watch has a comment to see the full video go to xyz website.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Corporations like Google do not care if they destroy such insignificant parts of their portfolio. They usually buy up things before they reach its peak, then they milk it until it’s dead.

  28. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Playing nice with the Silicon Valley tyrants won’t do anyone any good. Even if every channel removes videos that are out of compliance YouTube will simply move the goal post next month or next quarter. Today they are banning ‘how to’ videos and bump stock reviews but tomorrow it will be any NFA item or instructions on submitting NFA paperwork, then it will be any video of a semi-automatic firearm.

    The People’s Democratic Party and their propaganda bureau will not be satisfied until the entire nation views firearms ownership with the same disdain we now view cigarette smoking, or worse. They want our guns and/or they want us dead. The only way to accomplish either goal is to convince the vast majority of Americans that we are deviants and more dangerous then Latin American street gangs, ISIS, and pediphiles.

    They want, and need, average Americans to cheer and celebrate when we are dragged from our homes and executed on our front lawns for not falling into line with the Party.

  29. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    InRange and Scholagladiatoria are on BitChute now. Others are on Patreon and Full30. There are other options if you look for them.

  30. avatar jazzdelaney says:

    My comment submitted:

    Remove your restrictions on content creator’s first amendment right to discuss, document and explore their FEDERALLY LEGAL second amendment rights to own, operate and opine on firearms. If YouTube and Alphabet set the bar that the most strict and stringent local laws from any region must be reflected in their terms of use, then true freedom of speech must surely be subverted based upon legal restrictions to freedom that can easily be found in many regions of the world. As a public company, you are legally and constitutionally free to go down this path, but as a platform user and lover of open internet freedom principles please, please do not.

  31. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Want to determine the operating policies of a commercial (non-privately owned) company?

    But it outright. Then do what you want.

    I don’t shop Whole Foods; don’t like their lefty policies and politics. I do not want to own a grocery chain. I moved on.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… guess you’d be ok with Whole Foods if they bough up every other grocery store in driving distance of your home? Effectively, that’s what Google has done. By doing so, they have become the public square of the 21st century. Sorry kiddies, but out of control corporatism is just as bad as out of control communism.

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        You have a 12 year olds understanding of how constitutional law work here. And then instead of learning some things, you spout your kiddo bs. I’d wager almost everyone here is senior to you in both age and intellect. Just go post under your other pseudonym with all goofy capitalization

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          That rich… You have a 5 year old’s understanding of how to win a war for the exercise of your rights. You’d be the sort of general who marches his troops in lines side by side across the battlefield in formation like you’re Napoleon while you’re enemy hides in the shadows and is engaged in full on guerilla warfare. You’d rather lose than adapt conduct unbecoming to a proper gentleman and get your hands a little dirty.

          Apparently, losing while clutching to naive idealism is superior to winning and having to wash your hands.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You may be too young to remember, but there was a whole world before YouTube was invented. Millions of guns were bought and sold without any online facility for viewing all sorts of gun stuff. There was actually life on the planet before personal computers, and way before the information super hiway. Somehow we managed.

        No one has a natural, human or civil right to view YouTube. It is a private corporation. The alternatives are abundant. Maybe not as pervasive, but YouTube takes no action to prevent other social media from starting or flourishing. You don’t get to have something just because you want it. That’s where the lefties live.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Good comment.

          The only right one can expect is that government censors neither an individual posting or viewing on a platform. As much as I loathe the legal fiction of corporations, in no way would I want government getting involved.

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          John would rather lose his ability to exercise his 2nd amendment rights than get his hands dirty. Instead he sits on the sidelines and throw stones at the people engaged in the dirty political fight for the exercise of their 2A rights because they don’t pass his 2A purity test. The idea of playing a little dirty against an opponent who will stop at nothing to win, who doesn’t play by any rules is out of the question. The idea of turning the gov’t monster against the left goes against his idealistic principles as a upstanding and proper gentleman.

          Losing while clutching to absolutism and idealism is better than winning and having to wash your hands afterward.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Stereodude, not true and up yours.

        4. avatar Stereodude says:

          Wow, you sure showed me…

          So, tell me John. What is your actual strategy to win? Saying “Shall not be infringed!” over and over until you’re blue in the face isn’t going to win.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh what a load of bullshit. Alphabet is an illegal anti-competitive trust that makes sure that no other hosting sites ever get the organic traffic YouTube does. Worse, they then collude with their buddies in the media and other major corporations to make sure that alternatives dedicated to free speech are branded as “racist”… Take a look at what happened to Gab.ai.

          Right now, social media has become the pubic square of the 21st century. There is a middle ground between nationalizing it and letting Alphabet set up their own defacto unaccountable government of that pubic square while making damn sure that no other such space can exist. A simple constitutional solution would be to apply a “shall not censor” standard to all public speech. It protects the rights of hundreds of millions at the expense of a minor inconvenience to a tiny handful that has nothing to do with their individual rights.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Off your meds, again?

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          You’re the one arguing that forcing you to treat your customers equally is somehow an infringement of your “rights”.

        8. avatar RogueVal says:

          He said pubic square…hah.

      3. avatar Sweepy says:

        For once, you and I are in total agreement, pwrserge. YouTube (and Google as a whole) has placed itself in a position where it effectively IS the sole provider of a service. Are there other video hosting sites and search engines out there? Absolutely. Do they come close to even a fraction of a percent of YouTube and Google’s combined market share? Not even close.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You have been too successful at your business so government is going to bust up your company and distribute it among your competitors. Redistribution of wealth… how communist/socialist. SMH

        2. avatar Stereodude says:

          John, you say that like they got their dominant, effective monopolistic position in the market by running the tightest ship in the business above reproach in every possible way with not even a hint of impropriety and now some POTG want to sick the evil leviathan that is the Federal gov’t on them simply because “we” don’t like what they’re doing.

          That’s not even close to the reality of the situation.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I didn’t state anything of the sort.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do they come close to even a fraction of a percent of YouTube and Google’s combined market share? Not even close.”

          Doesn’t matter. If we refuse the left’s claim that they should control all the news, we cannot turn around and whine that we don’t control social media.

          The left is a bunch of parasites, demanding they get a free ride on the back of what others build. This whole thing about wanting to force social media to host our viewpoint sounds like leftist whining. You want your own social media giant? Build it.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sam I Am

          Strawman ahoy. Nobody is saying “control” of social media. Preventing censorship is not the same thing as marching the troops into Google’s offices and running the place by government fiat.

          Do we need to talk about the guy in the UK who was just found guilty of posting a “grossly offensive” joke video? That’s where you’re headed. Collusion between companies and left wing government groups to stamp out any dissent.

          That outcome is utterly unacceptable. If it takes a “shall not censor” law to prevent it, it’s a small price to pay to maintain an open marketplace of ideas necessary for the preservation of any free society.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do we need to talk about the guy in the UK who was just found guilty of posting a “grossly offensive” joke video?”

          That is government action.

          There are already laws governing monopolies, public accommodation, hate speech, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and a host of other laws. If you are convinced Facebook etc. are violating laws, why not initiate (or at least encourage) a legal action in federal court?

          You guys just want what you want, like all the leftists we pretend to hold in contempt while being envious of their winning tactics.

          BTW, I allow some neighbors to borrow tools and lawn equipment. I refuse to allow some of the other neighbors. Do those refused have “a right” to my tools and equipment just because I favor some neighbors over others? I have the best stocked garage for six blocks around. Does my discrimination between neighbors constitute some sort of evil plot to make the refused neighbors seek other sources for tools and equipment?

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sam I Am

          Whatever you say libertard. Sorry sonny, in the real world overreaching corporations are just as much of a threat to your liberty as overreaching governments. YouTube is clearly violating the free speech rights of a large portion of its user base.

          Your bullshit analogies are a non-argument. You are not the only practical source of garage tools for your neighbors nor did you enter a profit sharing arrangement to make money off of their work. Finally, you are not in league with the garage tool supplier to make sure that only you have access to certain tools.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Your inability to maintain a civil conversation puts you in the showflake category with the lefties. Sorry, you earn your reputation. Accusing others of having your disabilities of thought puts you in the position of letting the weenie of ignorance hang out for all to see.

          But to correct you once and for all, I am a free enterprise, Laissez-faire, Caveat Emptor kinda guy. Not to mention a hopeless second amendment absolutist. Can you give me one name of a “libtard” with those principles?
          Denouncing everyone else as an idiot points the finger solely at you.

          Oh, I have one other principle: Let dunderheads speak/post. Great entertainment for the rest of us.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Feel free to move your ancap ass to Somalia… they have all the small government you would ever want.

        10. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Feel free to move your commie ass to North Korea… they have all the government you would ever want.

  32. avatar Kyle says:

    You tube is nothing more than a entertainment vehicle, same as ABC. just regulate um the same way through the FCC

    1. avatar Rick says:

      TV networks are not regulated in the way you’re implying. Local broadcast stations are regulated via the FCC license, but one does not follow the other.

  33. avatar Ret1SG says:

    All I have to say is that I clicked on and expressed my opinion to you-tube.. Hopefully all of you did the same. Numbers count.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      A nice fat civil rights violation fine from the federal government matters a lot more. It’s about time to contact your representative about introducing an anti-censorship law.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        Its been months, you’re continued repeating of non-factual information is tiring.

        It’s almost like your from a different country, and only have a vague idea of what constitutional law is about. Like from a Marxist-Leninist propaganda based country.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You mean I might realize that fundamental freedoms, such as the free exchange of ideas, need to be protected from EVERYONE, not just the government? Ok… guilty as charged.

  34. avatar Bob999 says:

    Let me point out the elephant in the room. Google has become a worldwide monopoly. Monopolies are illegal in most countries including the US. The only reason they haven’t been split up like AT&T or fined billions of dollars like Microsoft is that their executives are hardcore leftists with paid lobbyists strategically inserted all over the world paying politicians huge bribes…oh, I mean “speaking fees”. Google is very similar to those companies in Nazi Germany that collaborated with that brutal socialist government for the sake of power and money. And, who says history doesn’t repeat itself

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Let me point out….

      Standard Oil was broken up into 25 different oil companies. John Rockefeller was the largest stockholder in each of them. He became even more wealthy after anti-trust action.

      Let me point out….
      Bill Gates is a gazillionaire lefty, and richer because the government “went after” Microsoft.

      Let me point out….
      Bill Gates and others demanded the government help them by breaking Apple’s proprietary in house hardware and software integration. It nearly ruined Apple. Apple was a minor player in the computer revolution until Jobs figured out the future was not in desktop computing. Now Apple is the wealthiest company in the world.

      Let me point out….
      Mark Zuckerberg is a lefty darling. His is worth a gazillion dollars. The lefties are now demanding the government take action against FacePlant because Zuckerberg let a company “affiliated with Trump” use FacePlant data to help Trump win the election. I predict Zuckerberg will end up even more rich, and FacePlant even more powerful as a result.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You seem to be under the impression that money is more important to these commies than political power. You would be dead wrong.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Money IS political power.

          What I am saying, to those capable of critical thought, is the “solution” (government invasion of private business) did not lead to hundreds of small oil companies flourishing. The result was to enlarge the cartel, and make the members richer. Microsoft actually got bigger, Apple got bigger (where are the smaller flourishing smaller, and competitive companies? ). Why are you not complaining that the auto manufacturers are stifling competition? At one time, there were dozens of independent auto manufacturers in the US. Where are they now? (having the same car produced by several “companies” , using different labels, is not a proper comparison)

          It is duplicitous to demand government allow markets to be free, but intervene when it is to our advantage. It is tragic that our country has become so lazy that the response to success is to ask government to “level the playing field”. Larger companies always buy up the smaller companies in the same industry. We love the efficiencies, until we find ourselves inconvenienced.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sam I Am

          Fucktard, their size was never the problem. Their undue influence was. There are numerous competing oil companies now. Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold on the browser market. That was the goal.

          Again kiddo, nobody is arguing for government takeover of private businesses. A government telling you that you can’t ban people off your service because you don’t like their speech is no different than the government telling you that if you open a shop, you can’t deny service to someone because you don’t like their skin color.

          The problem with the gay wedding cake was never the fact that they were forced to provide a service. It was that they were forced to provide a service THEY DID NOT OFFER.

        3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          “Fucktard”… “libertard”… “retarded”… “kiddies”… “kiddo”… “sonny”… “son”… all that and more from you, on one lousy page. It’s a real wonder no one wants to debate such a childish troll, isn’t it?

          It’s truly unfortunate that you’re unable to see your immaturity erupting from every post, with the scorn and contempt for anyone who thinks differently spewing forth like vomit. Are you fulfilled in some way by putting others down? Do you then feel superior to those you insulted on the internet? Like wow, impressive, dude!

          And look here, “kiddo”… I have to ask, are you even out of your twenties yet? You certainly don’t sound like it. Some days I wonder if you’ve even entered your twenties yet.

          On second thought, never mind, don’t answer that… there’s nothing you can say that would convince me you’re 30+. Absolutely nothing.

  35. avatar Jeff Willsea says:

    Here is the note I left on the YouTube feedback (I’m sure it will be ignored):

    I support free speech and the second amendment. Why is YouTube banning something that is legal in the US? This will reduce my YouTube time to nil.

    What happened to Do No Harm? Has the corporate motto now become Allow No Offense?

    When did Google become the thought police? I’ve lived long enough to see Evil IBM turn to a good company and see Good Google turn to Evil Google?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Social media are not the government. Commercial companies are not the government. Your business, you write and enforce the rules. My business is not your business.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Until your business violates my human rights. Sorry kiddo, my right to free speech trumps your “right” to censor things you don’t like.

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          Is it your human right, or is it your constitutional right, or is it you civic right? You need to get your rights right.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You need to get your rights right.”

          Nice !

          Wish I had said that.

          I probably will.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Free speech is an essential human right to the function of a free society. The 1st amendment exists to prevent government from destroying it because, at the time, they were the only people with that sort of power. These days, tech companies can “unperson” you rather easily. That’s just as much of a problem as a bunch of redcoats busting down your door and arresting your for what came off of your printing press.

  36. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Use Patreon.com to support your favorite channels (Until another privately owned company drops people whose content it doesn’t like). I’ll give Full30 a look, last time I used the site (over a year ago) it was a barely functioning mess. I commend their efforts in seeing the writing on the wall years ago and doing something about it.

  37. avatar anonymoose says:

    RIP Royal Nonesuch

  38. avatar asdf says:

    Too bad full30 vids don’t play on a flagship samsung… or a full on gaming rig..?

  39. avatar Dsevans says:

    YouTube has declared itself Social media, making it a public forum. Being a public forum you cannot censor/ and or punish another person for their point of view/Content. It will be interesting where this goes, either they are sued for 1st amendment violations under the constitution and/or lose a lot of followers and advertising money. Either way this community will not go quietly into that good night. They should take a big step back from their “progressive” virtue signaling and look at other social media applications already facing litigation for the same behavior.

    1. avatar RogueVal says:

      Good lord, just because a product is “social media” doesn’t make it a government property.

      I know I know, you are very interested in government intervention in the courts to manage the 1st amendment.

      You really want the government to butt out of the 2nd amendment.

      Pick your lane.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You done stuffing straw men son? Nobody is talking about making anything “government property”. Requiring companies that rely on their function as a 21st century public square to exist to treat all speech equally is not the same thing as nationalizing them. It’s called a balance of freedom kiddo. The “freedom” of a company to censor 3rd party content when they rely on 3rd party content to exist is not as important as making sure that we have a free exchange of ideas in our society.

        Please learn the difference between free speech and the 1st amendment. Just as the right to keep and bear arms exists without the 2nd, so does freedom of speech exist without the 1st. Common law protects your right to keep and bear arms from individuals as some random dude taking your gun is illegal. Why is it then so absurd that there should be a law preventing individuals from shoving a metaphorical gag in your mouth?

  40. avatar Florida use to be Pro2a until the rinos came says:

    America Peeps for Freedom spread the word Florida is getting hit hard!
    Florida Constitution Revision Commission pushing Gun Control on the ballot! Email all of them even if u don’t live in Florida!
    Contact the Gov and Florida Officials and tell them u will not spend ur money in Florida until they stop denying Human Civil #2a Rights To Florida!
    Contact Commissioners pushing gun Control with a big NO to taking Civil Rights!

    IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: VOTE AGAINST GUN CONTROL AMENDMENTS

    Hank.Coxe@flcrc.gov,Arthenia.Joyner@flcrc.gov,Frank.Kruppenbacher@flcrc.gov,
    Roberto.Martinez@flcrc.gov,Sherry.Plymale@flcrc.gov,
    Chris.Smith@flcrc.gov,jose.armas@flcrc.gov,carlos.beruff@flcrc.gov,
    Pam.Bondi@flcrc.gov,Lisa.Carlton@flcrc.gov,Timothy.Cerio@flcrc.gov,
    Jose.Diaz@flcrc.gov,Erika.Donalds@flcrc.gov,Don.Gaetz@flcrc.gov,
    Emery.Gainey@flcrc.gov,Anna.Gamez@flcrc.gov,Tom.Grady@flcrc.gov,
    Brecht.Heuchan@flcrc.gov,Marva.Johnson@flcrc.gov,
    Darlene.Jordan@flcrc.gov,Fred.Karlinsky@flcrc.gov,
    Belinda.Keiser@flcrc.gov,Tom.Lee@flcrc.gov,
    Gary.Lester@flcrc.gov,Patricia.Levesque@flcrc.gov,
    Rich.Newsome@flcrc.gov,Chris.Nocco@flcrc.gov,
    Jeanette.Nunez@flcrc.gov,Darryl.Rouson@flcrc.gov,
    William.Schifino@flcrc.gov,Bob.Solari@flcrc.gov,
    Chris.Sprowls@flcrc.gov,John.Stargel@flcrc.gov,
    John.Stemberger@flcrc.gov,Pam.Stewart@flcrc.gov,
    Jacqui.Lippisch@flcrc.gov,Carolyn.Timmann@flcrc.gov,
    Nicole.Washington@flcrc.gov

    Among these amendments are:

    *An “assault weapons” ban which bans the distribution, sale, transfer, and possession of so-called assault weapons and any detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 9 rounds. (Makes possession illegal with no compensation provided for those already possessed that must be surrendered)

    *A ban on any semi-automatic rifle that is able to accept a detachable magazine or has a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. (that means almost all semi-automatic rifles)

    *A ban on the sale and transfer of “assault weapons” and defines “transfer” as the conveyance “from a person or entity to another person or entity WITHOUT any conveyance of money or other valuable consideration.” (Note: to “convey” between persons without compensation could mean the simple act of handing the firearm to another person while hunting, on the range, or anywhere)

    *A 10 day waiting period (excluding weekends and legal holidays) on all firearms to facilitate a background check.

    *A ban on the purchase of any firearm by a person under 21 years of age.

    *A ban on the sale, transfer and possession of bump stocks and other accessories, tools, kits, etc.

    Please email CRC Commissioners and tell them to OPPOSE gun control amendments!

    PLEASE DO IT NOW!!! They could be voting on these amendments at any time!

    PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:

    https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner/2017/0003/Amendment/682026/PDF

    https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner/2017/0003/Amendment/545572/PDF

    https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner/2017/0003/Amendment/290732/HTML

    https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner/2017/0003/Amendment/783324/PDF

    https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner/2017/0003/Amendment/117574/PDF

    https://www.flcrc.gov/Proposals/Commissioner/2017/0003/Amendment/615688/PDF

  41. avatar Free Enterprise Rocks says:

    Gun channels on YouTube: call a waahmbulance, but YouTube ain’t your gig, it’s a private enterprise that can do what it wants. Start your own gun site with uncensored gun videos instead. In this life, you’ve got to create your own party and not rely on others for anything.

    Get self-reliant, dump YouTube and do your own web site, gun people!

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      The naive idealist who thinks there’s a true free market at play in social media and online video hosting has self identified. We can all go home now.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Sorry kiddo… there is no such thing as a “free market”… What you propose is modern feudalism… sorry son, the real world doesn’t work that way.

  42. avatar Joe says:

    This policy Google is proposing is absurd and and makes no sense in reducing, preventing or stopping anyone from doing anything illegal or “bad” with a gun. Will Google ban all the channels that show violence such as stupid tricks and “Fails” content also?

    1. avatar zebra dun says:

      War history, violent video game channels. The list in danger of being banned grows as we speak.

  43. avatar Scott Kirkpatrick says:

    As free market capitalism is at work we as gun owners need to work to purchase as many shares of the Facebook parent stock and then give marching orders at shareholder meetings. It’s just how to do it so it isn’t 1 share 1 voice but 5 million shares as a collective voice.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That is a good suggestion.

  44. avatar zebra dun says:

    One fine day YouTube will regret a lot of their SJW virtue signalling.
    Once this starts it will end up banning so much stuff it won’t be you tube it will be their tube and boring as hell.
    Cat videos and baby laughing videos the war history channels will be next!

  45. avatar RobS says:

    https://www.popvox.com/us/federal/bills/highlights

    This website show what Federal Bills are coming down the pike. Look and pass it on..

    Oh, here is one. They don’t give a crap about you or your family. Only them…

    H.R. 2951 To allow Members of Congress to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the United States, with exceptions.

  46. avatar ava8harrierusmc1 says:

    Ok as a black man I own a lot of rifles and do not plan on giving them up because someone says it wrong to own such weapons.

    I live in the state of california and i still will not give them up i plan on moving as soon as possible.

    Im sorry such things happen like these shooting but you can not blame lawful owners of such firearms.

    These states are slowly taking these rights away from the people so that we may become enslaved in a modern way the people who do this is just playing into the State plan to disarm us.

    There is something happening in this country if you look around and it is not nice. The people will have to chose sides in the coming years.

    I myself most likely will be too old or not alive but i do plan on passing what i have to those i love. This includes items and information which is just as important to those who will protect our rights in the coming years.

    My last words and please think about this carefully

    Think of the thousands of young men and woman that give their lives because they believed in this country and fought those who would have tried to take those rights away.

    World War l and World War ll should be enough look up how many Marines died in the South pacific.

    How many guys in the Army died in France Germany and so on.

    All gave their lives because of a believe in this nation and many where Black men who came back to this nation back to Jim Crow.

    Was these lives taken was it for nothing?

    Think about it because it can and most likely will happen again and who will protect the great nation of our if those who do not believe in us land here?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Im sorry such things happen like these shooting but you can not blame lawful owners of such firearms.”

      The problem for lawful owners of firearms is that the school shootings (because “children”) are conducted in “nice neighborhoods”. That scares the crap out of non-gun owners. They do not care about the daily shootings in minority neighborhoods (or inner cities) because those so upset about guns do not live in “bad” neighborhoods. The anti-gun crowd is fearful that a “normal looking” person might one day just bust out and go crazy with a gun.

      And….it does not go unnoticed that somehow, the school shootings (not shootings in sight of a school) do not happen in the low-income schools. On the one hand it would be interesting to see the reaction of the gun grabbers and the media if an inner city did experience a school mass shooting. On the other hand no one really wants to see another school shooting, anywhere. Ever.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      Don’t move to Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Las Vegas, Florida, Hawaii, etc. Even Texas is becoming a strong hold for Californians who destroyed California.

  47. avatar boycott youtube /google says:

    simple solution everybody flag every video they find offensive then when youtube spends the next 5 years trying to review them all they might give the idea of censoring content up,that or go broke playing thought police

  48. avatar Joshua says:

    Liberals will soon control all social media. That’s what Obama wanted, when suckerberg gave up the 50 million users’ info to the Obama communist regime. You can have cross dressers, transgenders, muslim terrorists, illegal aliens, but law abiding Christian citizens are banned.

  49. avatar Monserrate Rude says:

    Good day Military Arms Channel: YouTube Anti-Gun Jihad Kicking Into High Gear – The Truth About Guns

    NEW SOFTWARE – Live Event Blaster 2
    Watch me Rank On Page #1 In 60 Seconds !
    Get Instant Access to The ONLY SOFTWARE That RANKS Hundreds Of Live Events For You
    And Keeps The Rankings Sticking For Good!!
    Read More: http://bit.ly/Live_Event_Blaster

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email