When a tragedy involves a firearm, most people immediately brainstorm about various ways it could have been prevented. As time goes by and information is recovered, we realize there have been several failures that lead up to the tragedy. In the case of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, we learned there were several warning signs, reports made and factual evidence of the shooter’s potential plan that was overlooked by the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.
Even in light of these serious law enforcement failures, many anti-gun politicians, biased news media, and outspoken and uninformed celebrities use this opportunity to demonize the gun that was used in the tragedy. It becomes again the same argument that semiautomatic rifles should be banned. Although the AR-15 (otherwise known as America’s rifle) has many applications that Americans use for competition, hunting and self defense, very often anti-gun people seize on the opportunity to play the “ban” card on the AR-15.
One of the tactics used is to try and silence the opposition. Instead of bringing forth evidence or using statistics, they are more successful at silencing and removing anyone who would stand in their way. While emotions are behind many things said, most Americans prefer indisputable evidence before any type of legislation is passed. By silencing pro-Second Amendment patriots, liberal voices are heard louder.
This is the movement we are witnessing with YouTube gun channels.
YouTube is seemingly trying their best to silence well-established gun channels. They are doing so with their strike system. If any channel receives three strikes for copyright infringements or any other violation of their terms of service, the channel is removed. The problem with the strike system is that their “terms of service” is loosely written and subject to change at any given time. The use of a firearm, which was once viewed completely acceptable, is now considered dangerous and violent behavior. The deep American tradition of gun ownership and shooting sports can now be deemed violent behavior and unacceptable to the average viewer.
For example, several gun channels that have older videos once considered appropriate and monetize-worthy all of a sudden are determined to be violating YouTube’s terms of service. We have seen several popular gun channels receive strikes on videos that have been acceptable for more than two years. Using this biased and subjective method for accessing strikes creates tension on the creator and might be interpreted as silencing them. Once again, three strikes and the years of hard work, time commitment and expense could be taken off the internet in the matter of a couple of days.
In the video below, I give my thoughts about this along with offering my plan in the event my channel is deactivated. Watch the video and let us know your thoughts.
All opinion articles are the opinion of the author and not necessarily of American Military News. If you are interested in submitting an Op-Ed, please email [email protected]