( YouTube Censorship) #unbanjamesyeager

#51
CBS is a private business
cNN is also a private business
you tube is a private business

how much government oversight should they have???


google has the ability to shape the world... more than most of the other media outlets combined.


Look up self defense- google finds the results you get to see

look up climate change science and google shows you what they want you to see


We lost gun education and safety in schools

we lost responsible guns in movies an television Adam 12 became only cops and criminals can have guns.


Now the like of google shape what we see online.



Gun owners allowed the 1994 federal assault bill to pass. The hunters of duck and deer saw no need for a High capacity magazine nor a shoulder thing that goes up...



now gun owners will support google for banning a retired cop and firearms instructor as they see no need for a high capacity Yeager nor that shoulder thing that goes up




so hide members, I the m1 carbine killed 1,000,000+ people and the lever
action 30-30 takes a huge amount of deer every year - why should you be allowed a presidential assignation rifle? Capable of hitting a human at 300 yards and beyond? Capable of havin a scope above 4 power?



you don’t need that sniper rifle to hunt a deer nor gluten free tacos....


so lets ban ban rifles with optics along with big capacity hair clips and shoulder things that go up....







please play chess.... this is not a checkers game

 
Last edited:
#52
#53
hermosabeach said:
CBS is a private business
cNN is also a private business
you tube is a private business

how much government oversight should they have???


google has the ability to shape the world... more than most of the other media outlets combined.


Look up self defense- google finds the results you get to see

look up climate change science and google shows you what they want you to see


We lost gun education and safety in schools

we lost responsible guns in movies an television Adam 12 became only cops and criminals can have guns.


Now the like of google shape what we see online.



Gun owners allowed the 1994 federal assault bill to pass. The hunters of duck and deer saw no need for a High capacity magazine nor a shoulder thing that goes up...



now gun owners will support google for banning a retired cop and firearms instructor as they see no need for a high capacity Yeager nor that shoulder thing that goes up




so hide members, I the m1 carbine killed 1,000,000+ people and the lever
action 30-30 takes a huge amount of deer every year - why should you be allowed a presidential assignation rifle? Capable of hitting a human at 300 yards and beyond? Capable of havin a scope above 4 power?



you don’t need that sniper rifle to hunt a deer nor gluten free tacos....


so lets ban ban rifles with optics along with big capacity hair clips and shoulder things that go up....







please play chess.... this is not a checkers game
Click to expand...
Youre right.....we should all have to submit for govt approval before we are allowed to publish anything to "make sure its fair"........surely that will make things better......:rolleyes:...fucking idiot.

also, stop trying to imply were all fudds because we dont support james 'Low-T' yeager.........the man has come out on several occasions and literally told the gun comminuty to " go fuck its self"......and now he wants that same gun communiry to help him out.......fuck that.

just becauae we defend an institutions right to their first ammendment doesnt mean we dont support the 2nd.

so take that shit.....and your fucking attitude the fuck outta here


 
#54
hermosabeach said:
so hide members, I the m1 carbine killed 1,000,000+ people and the lever
action 30-30 takes a huge amount of deer every year - why should you be allowed a presidential assignation rifle? Capable of hitting a human at 300 yards and beyond? Capable of havin a scope above 4 power?
Click to expand...

Um, yeah ...

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"347","width":"807","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/I2dJ6CZ.jpg"}[/IMG2]

I think we're talkin' more Saturday Night Special, Lorcin, Jennings, Hi-Point, ya know?

 
#57
mcameron said:
Youre right.....we should all have to submit for govt approval before we are allowed to publish anything to "make sure its fair"........surely that will make things better......:rolleyes:...fucking idiot.

also, stop trying to imply were all fudds because we dont support james 'Low-T' yeager.........the man has come out on several occasions and literally told the gun comminuty to " go fuck its self"......and now he wants that same gun communiry to help him out.......fuck that.

just becauae we defend an institutions right to their first ammendment doesnt mean we dont support the 2nd.

so take that shit.....and your fucking attitude the fuck outta here
Click to expand...

Nothing I can say but +1
 
#58
308pirate said:
I don't disagree with you in principle but youtube is a private business. If they don't want to host a certain content they are free to do so according to the constitution and common law.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the bakery who refused to decorate the gay couple’’s wedding cake.

I’’m not a fan of JY in the least but where does it end? There is a clear double standard in today’s society for conservative values.


 
Last edited:
#61
Rerun7 said:
Tell that to the bakery who refused to decorate the gay couple’’s wedding cake.

I’’m not a fan of JY in the least but where does it end? There is a clear double standard in today’s society for conservative values.

Regardless of your agreement with someone’s view, censorship due to that view is not something we should be ok with.
Click to expand...

so does that mean you think SH should be forced to open a "lesbian and bull dyke" subforum?........how about a "brady campaign" subforum?..........

because if you force youtube to host certain content.....then that means you can force ANY website to host certain content......

if youtube shut down Hillary clintons page, would you have such a hardon for protecting their "free speech" ?.... even though you "dont agree with her views" ?......imma guess not.


just because james "ditch diver" yeager shoots guns......it does not make him good for the gun community.....or even a member of the gun community.......hes made it blatantly clear over the years that he despises the gun community....
 
#62
mcameron said:
so does that mean you think SH should be forced to open a "lesbian and bull dyke" subforum?........how about a "brady campaign" subforum?..........

because if you force youtube to host certain content.....then that means you can force ANY website to host certain content......

if youtube shut down Hillary clintons page, would you have such a hardon for protecting their "free speech" ?.... even though you "dont agree with her views" ?......imma guess not.


just because james "ditch diver" yeager shoots guns......it does not make him good for the gun community.....or even a member of the gun community.......hes made it blatantly clear over the years that he despises the gun community....
Click to expand...

No, you missed my point. Private companies SHOULD be allowed to decide what they want to allow.

The issue is when that decision doesn’t follow a certain narrative it suddenly has to go to the Supreme Court.

 
#63
The bakery case is interesting as it asks whether the first amendment guarantees a business the right to discriminate again a group based on sexual orientation. Non-discrimination laws say that sexual orientation is protected. My guess is the Supreme Court has a decision before their seats get good and warm for the day.

Unfortunately for Yeager, "jerk-off" is not a protected class. Unfortunately for the rest of us, neither is "gun owner."
 
#64
hlee said:
The bakery case is interesting as it asks whether the first amendment guarantees a business the right to discriminate again a group based on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Wrong. How in the fuck did you come up with that?

That's the narrative the left would like you to believe. The real issue at hand is that laws that force a businessman to engage in conduct that violates his deeply held religious belief are a violation of the First Amendment.
 
#66
308pirate said:
Wrong. How in the fuck did you come up with that?

That's the narrative the left would like you to believe. The real issue at hand is that laws that force a businessman to engage in conduct that violates his deeply held religious belief are a violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

It's telling that of course the liberals who want you to bow down to their society destroying agenda attack Christians
.
You don't see them suing a bakery run by an Orthodox Jew over not making things for celebrations that are frowned upon by their religion
You don't see them trying to force a Muslim run bakery to make things in celebration of stuff that Islam frowns upon

I guess since Christians have wimped out and turned into a bunch of pacifists these days we'll just have to wait for the Muslims to take over and then sit back and enjoy the view as the Muslims show these Leftists their own special brand of "tolerance".
 
#68
308pirate said:
Ya, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the major cities in western Europe recently?

Over in my little city in the suburbs of a supposedly red state, the local school park is full of Hijab wearing mothers watching their kids & someone with a "certain middle eastern religion based" last name was runner up in the city council elections.
 
#69
W54/XM-388 said:
Have you seen the major cities in western Europe recently?

Over in my little city in the suburbs of a supposedly red state, the local school park is full of Hijab wearing mothers watching their kids & someone with a "certain middle eastern religion based" last name was runner up in the city council elections.
Click to expand...

Don't care about Europe. They are not us.

As to muslim politicians, they are being watched.
 
#70
As Lowlight recently mentioned to someone in the “AI Gun Control” debacle, “I’d rather you were not on my side,” I’d rather not have Janes Yeager advocate for me, or my side. Fuck that guy & his channel. Yeager is the Most Valuable Player on the other team.
 
#71
308pirate said:
Wrong. How in the fuck did you come up with that?

That's the narrative the left would like you to believe. The real issue at hand is that laws that force a businessman to engage in conduct that violates his deeply held religious belief are a violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said? On one side you have 2 people say that they have been illegally discriminated against. On the other side, you have a business owner claiming first amendment protection. Do non-discrimination laws trump the first amendment? You wouldn't think so. But, what if we replaced gay with black? My feeling is this doesn't go in the favor of the bakery owner.
 
#72
hlee said:
Isn't that what I said? On one side you have 2 people say that they have been illegally discriminated against. On the other side, you have a business owner claiming first amendment protection. Do non-discrimination laws trump the first amendment? You wouldn't think so. But, what if we replaced gay with black? My feeling is this doesn't go in the favor of the bakery owner.
Click to expand...

There is no religion as far as I know that has tenets against skin color.

There are religious issues regarding homosexuality.

and as it is the baker was willing to help as much as he could, he just refused to be an integral present part of the ceremony.

Not the same as you oversimplify.
 
#73
hlee said:
Do non-discrimination laws trump the first amendment?
Click to expand...

They sure as hell don't

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is a sin in many theologies. And many theologies consider marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. Forcing you to participate in the celebration of sin, by requiring you to render services or goods for it, under the cover of "civil rights" or "non discrimination" violates the highlight in red.

The baker didn't tell them he would not make them a cake because they were fags. He told them that he would not make them a cake to celebrate what to him is a sin. He said he would bake them a cake for any other reason.
 
#74
Yes. This baker has knowingly served this gay couple for quite a while apparently, with no objections. He has never refused them service. He is refusing to be a part of their ceremony, which has definite religious implications. In NO way can you compare this to racial discrimination.
 
#75
hlee said:
Isn't that what I said? On one side you have 2 people say that they have been illegally discriminated against. On the other side, you have a business owner claiming first amendment protection. Do non-discrimination laws trump the first amendment? You wouldn't think so. But, what if we replaced gay with black? My feeling is this doesn't go in the favor of the bakery owner.
Click to expand...

This issue is whether Title 2 of the civil rights act extends to sexual orientation. The civil rights act clearly defines race color creed, but not sexual orientation. The question is would that have been covered at the time or is the civil rights act strictly a race issue law. Title 2, IMHO, is unconstitutional. But that’s a different battle and I’m no constitutional scholar. But I do know that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and the trumps any religious claim. First amendment solely protects your right to practice whatever religion you choose and that we shall declare no national religion. It doesn’t give you the right to be a dick and hide behind a religious freedom argument. Do I believe the bakers had the right, yes I do, but only because the business is a private and not government owned entity and I believe individuals have a right to be assholes whether I agree with it or not. If a business wants to discriminate against anyone for any reason, they should have to state that before you enter the business. Society will take care of them, they won’t be in business long because despite what the narrative in the media is, most of us don’t care what you look like or who you love.
 
#76
Tacticaldillhole, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. I was under the (false) impression that sexual orientation had been incorporated into the stature. It has not, as I learned by doing additional research on the law. That said, as this case is going to the SCOTUS, this could change.

so, i rescind some of what I wrote earlier- the two "claim" illegal discrimination, however, the current law does not specifically enumerate sexual orientation as protected. As currently written, the law was not broken. But, the court could use this case to add to the current law.
 
#77
TacticalDillhole said:
This issue is whether Title 2 of the civil rights act extends to sexual orientation. The civil rights act clearly defines race color creed, but not sexual orientation. The question is would that have been covered at the time or is the civil rights act strictly a race issue law. Title 2, IMHO, is unconstitutional. But that’s a different battle and I’m no constitutional scholar. But I do know that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and the trumps any religious claim. First amendment solely protects your right to practice whatever religion you choose and that we shall declare no national religion. It doesn’t give you the right to be a dick and hide behind a religious freedom argument. Do I believe the bakers had the right, yes I do, but only because the business is a private and not government owned entity and I believe individuals have a right to be assholes whether I agree with it or not. If a business wants to discriminate against anyone for any reason, they should have to state that before you enter the business. Society will take care of them, they won’t be in business long because despite what the narrative in the media is, most of us don’t care what you look like or who you love.
Click to expand...

Nope, the issue at hand is that Colorado's non-discrimination statutes infringe on the baker's right to practice his religion without interference from the government. A cursory reading of the case: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission would make that abundantly clear. Even the name of the case is pretty telling.

This has nothing to do with the US Civil Rights Act, which is unconstitutional too as you've pointed out.

Some people actually live their religious convictions, all day, every day (or at least they try, we are not perfect) instead of only for 1 hr during Sunday service. The libtard claim that people need to keep their religion to themselves is just another fucking red herring among many to destroy Christianity in all its forms.
 
Last edited:
#78
hlee said:
Tacticaldillhole, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. I was under the (false) impression that sexual orientation had been incorporated into the stature. It has not, as I learned by doing additional research on the law. That said, as this case is going to the SCOTUS, this could change.

so, i rescind some of what I wrote earlier- the two "claim" illegal discrimination, however, the current law does not specifically enumerate sexual orientation as protected. As currently written, the law was not broken. But, the court could use this case to add to the current law.
Click to expand...

You're still wrong if you think law trumps the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BigJimFish
2025 BigJimFish Review / Article blog: More 350L, Garmin and Athlon Chronos, Leopold Mark 4HD, BurstFire, Field Optics Research, videos and visits
Replies
7
Views
1K
BigJimFish
BigJimFish
Edsel
GET YOUR NUCLEAR STIFFY RIGHT HERE!
Replies
36
Views
3K
Edsel
Edsel
PatMiles
One in Four Gen Z Job Applicants Bring Parents to Interview.
Replies
35
Views
2K
John Barleycorn
John Barleycorn
lash
Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out
Replies
152
Views
6K
lash
lash
CR2 Dude
Training Courses CR2 Course Schedule
Replies
73
Views
5K
CR2 Dude
CR2 Dude
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts