The correlation between Internet Regulations and Gun Control.

While I don't go nearly as far Left as my friends on the issue of Gun Control, I do agree that guns are a serious problem in the US, where https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-child-and-then-some/?utm_term=.b50c953727df we have more guns than we do people in this country.

Of course, we do have a second amendment and I value the second amendment of the US Constitution, but I have in the past proposed reforms akin to Switzerland's gun laws, which would promote training, mental screening and active service. The only switch to be made is that instead of 'compulsory, active' service, I'd have it instead to be on the active reserves. To be called at any time, but still optional.

But we don't view the internet the same way we do gun control, where we acknowledge we have a problem.(I also believe mental treatments of the mentally ill is crucial.) No, we believe the Internet should be free of restrictions, or at least as many as possible. Where we begin the discussion is normally on the war on pedophilia and pornography, a crucial task indeed.

But the internet, particularly social media is being used in a new way. As one-way unfettered communication for terrorist and xenophobic groups both domestically and abroad. We saw the horror of the ISIS videos, and they used those videos of horrific crimes to continue to regret more would-be extremists, who according to psychological studies were drawn in by promises of more internet-fame and "respect" where they didn't have any prior to joining an extremist or xenophobic group.

I argue that just as lax gun control policies have allowed an expansion of violence, lax internet laws have allowed hate groups to proliferate whereas they would be ostracized in normal society. Indeed, the 'space' that they don't have in the open world, can be had digitally.

Now, there are those(particularly Libertarians) who will argue that I'm on a very dangerous slope, when I propose to literally ban all xenophobic/extremist groups from the use of the free web. Some would argue it'd force them "under ground", but they already are under ground. To me, it would limit exposure of their hate to strictly their own groups. They would be unable to coordinate freely and our LEO's would have a decisive edge against them.

In the case of terrorism, without access to the English-speaking world, the Jihadists wouldn't be able to target our vulnerable Muslim-American community and thus eliminating that threat to our country. In the case of domestic extremism, rival gangs, etc would no longer have that freedom to communicate. They would be extremely limited and would possibly break up.

Of course, we've learned that many gangs have substituted for broken families and I think in assisting families/keeping them stronger, that's another way we can attack this problem. We have the country we're willing to tolerate, and if we tolerate thugs, killers and rapists that's what we'd get.

But by harshly saying no and maintaining discipline, we literally make these bastards feel unwelcome. They're unwelcome in the real world, they need to be unwelcome in the digital age.

 

I know people who would define Republicans as an extreme hate group.

Who gets to decide?

 

Based on xenophobic language, but more importantly: A history of violence/inclination to violence. I want to be perfectly clear: We normal, law-abiding citizens will continue to have a free internet. But those who abuse it? Not so much.

 

Freedom of information is more important than your petty crusade to end what amounts to an insignificant amount of violent extremism- extremism that existed still before the internet.
The 9/11 bombers weren't radicalized online.

 

With each and every 'insignificant amount', it turns out to become quite a bigger amount and a very tragic outcome for the West. Where we would be killed for our freedoms. I think a large part of our cowardice is through a misinterpretation of John Adams's "Give me Liberty or give me Death."

It did not mean keel over and die. It meant they'd rather die, then live a life of slavery. But freedom was first, and fighting FOR freedom came first. In accepting the 'rights' of murderers to murder us, we abdicate our right to freedom and death has become the ultimate restriction on our freedoms and human rights.

We must fight to preserve our right to life, which is non-negotiable.

 

You aren't advocating against the rights of murderers, you're advocating against the rights of the entire public in order to find said murderers.

How many people do you need to be run over before we ban cars?
Honest question. Because a hell of a lot more people die every year from cars than from terror attacks.
Or does it only matter when it's a spooky Muslim causing the death for some holy war?

 

The "lax" gun control we have now has led to a near record low level of violence in this country.

There are very few things that are fixed by regulation. (pollution being one of those few things).

 

'The entire public' is a false red herring statement(and you know it), because the 'entire public' doesn't need nor actively seeks out that information. And you know that as well. Those who do seek out that information may very well use it for civilian purposes, but we've also seen people use it for non-civilian purposes. Having those people identified and then captured before they even begin their plot not only saves 22 lives, but saves a ton more.

Our 'beautiful' Justice System cares so much more about a conviction in the Court of law, then actually stopping the crimes from happening! Hell, that in of itself is your reasoning. Which is fine(typical.) But don't be surprised if it leads to more tragedies, and more people being hurt or killed.

 

"the entire public" is underneath the law and is effected if they ever do need that information, and "the entire public" would have to be monitored for these keywords if you had your way.

lmao I don't care enough about some minute number of people who may or may not die in order to ever support even more of a police state than we already have.

Again,

 

Gun control laws do not prevent guns from being smuggled into the US and sold on the streets, where they are subsequently used in the commission of various crimes. The people participating in gun violence on the streets do not legally purchase their weapons, which is why gun control laws are ineffective.

Hate is purely subjective, with one man's "Hate Speech" being another man's "Love Poems".

You can continue to ostracize what you deem to be "hate groups" by not visiting their web-sites.

 

How has lax gun laws increased violence when we are at an all time low since the 80's?

 

The connection between the internet and gun control is the connection between the first and second amendments.

 

Reading this hogwash is akin to listening to a needle stuck in a vinyl record. Answer one question, how do you defend against an individual who straps on a body belt packed with explosives, walks into a crowded arena and presses the detonator?
If you have the answer I am sure the security services would love to know.

Listen Pal, the only freedom you have is as much as you’re bank or credit card can buy you.

 

No one is saying that guns will defend against every threat. What we are saying is we want to be armed for the threats a firearm is suitable.