Question for Lefties

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.

As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control ordinances. Alcohol, gambling and a shortage of women could set off men and have them reaching for their guns.

Tombstone, Arizona Territory, offers a good example. One could wear guns when arriving or leaving town, but in between, the gun had to be checked.

Did Most Old West Towns Have “No Carry” Gun Laws?

Did most Old West towns have “no carry” gun laws? Gerard Smith Coos Bay, Oregon As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control

truewestmagazine.com

 

[Ken Mac]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

They are discriminating.

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

The law says they can't. Do I personally think a place should be able to serve whoever they want? Yes. Do I believe that the public should know so they can completely avoid that business? Yes.

Facebook or any similar site can censor whatever they want. If you are unhappy about that, avoid them.

If a business owns the digital town square - you're ok with censoring anyone coming to the town square with opposing views? Got it. You're all for tyranny and authoritarianism. You must hate freedom.

 

[Nostra]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

That no means he is too much of a pussy to answer your question.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.

As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control ordinances. Alcohol, gambling and a shortage of women could set off men and have them reaching for their guns.

Tombstone, Arizona Territory, offers a good example. One could wear guns when arriving or leaving town, but in between, the gun had to be checked.

Did Most Old West Towns Have “No Carry” Gun Laws?

Did most Old West towns have “no carry” gun laws? Gerard Smith Coos Bay, Oregon As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control

truewestmagazine.com

You are believing propaganda.
If you thought about it for a second, you would realize.
The only guns they wanted confiscated were the ones of the cowboys on cattle drives who were not residents.
No resident needed to turn in any gun, ever.
It should be obvious because the residents were not there to gamble and drink, nor would they have voted for laws that disarmed themselves.

If one reads what actually happened in Tombstone, while the Earps won the gun fight, they were fired and chased out of town. The ranchers were the source of income to the town, and they did not want their sheriff killing them,
The idea there was gun control in the west is just a lie.

 

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.

As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control ordinances. Alcohol, gambling and a shortage of women could set off men and have them reaching for their guns.

Tombstone, Arizona Territory, offers a good example. One could wear guns when arriving or leaving town, but in between, the gun had to be checked.

Did Most Old West Towns Have “No Carry” Gun Laws?

Did most Old West towns have “no carry” gun laws? Gerard Smith Coos Bay, Oregon As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control

truewestmagazine.com

You are believing propaganda.
If you thought about it for a second, you would realize.
The only guns they wanted confiscated were the ones of the cowboys on cattle drives who were not residents.
No resident needed to turn in any gun, ever.
It should be obvious because the residents were not there to gamble and drink, nor would they have voted for laws that disarmed themselves.

If one reads what actually happened in Tombstone, while the Earps won the gun fight, they were fired and chased out of town. The ranchers were the source of income to the town, and they did not want their sheriff killing them,
The idea there was gun control in the west is just a lie.

Spin it however you want.

 

[candycorn]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

Sure and no.

it would be a terrible thing to do but nobody has a right to a specific job.

 

[Ken Mac]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

They are discriminating.

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

The law says they can't. Do I personally think a place should be able to serve whoever they want? Yes. Do I believe that the public should know so they can completely avoid that business? Yes.

Facebook or any similar site can censor whatever they want. If you are unhappy about that, avoid them.

If a business owns the digital town square - you're ok with censoring anyone coming to the town square with opposing views? Got it. You're all for tyranny and authoritarianism. You must hate freedom.

pknopp - so you got nothing to respond with so just a generic thumbs downs will do. Got it. You're void of anything logical to respond with.

 

[pknopp]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

They are discriminating.

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

The law says they can't. Do I personally think a place should be able to serve whoever they want? Yes. Do I believe that the public should know so they can completely avoid that business? Yes.

Facebook or any similar site can censor whatever they want. If you are unhappy about that, avoid them.

If a business owns the digital town square - you're ok with censoring anyone coming to the town square with opposing views? Got it. You're all for tyranny and authoritarianism. You must hate freedom.

pknopp - so you got nothing to respond with so just a generic thumbs downs will do. Got it. You're void of anything logical to respond with.

I had absolutely no clue what you are rambling about and saw nothing to gain by asking.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.

As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control ordinances. Alcohol, gambling and a shortage of women could set off men and have them reaching for their guns.

Tombstone, Arizona Territory, offers a good example. One could wear guns when arriving or leaving town, but in between, the gun had to be checked.

Did Most Old West Towns Have “No Carry” Gun Laws?

Did most Old West towns have “no carry” gun laws? Gerard Smith Coos Bay, Oregon As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control

truewestmagazine.com

You are believing propaganda.
If you thought about it for a second, you would realize.
The only guns they wanted confiscated were the ones of the cowboys on cattle drives who were not residents.
No resident needed to turn in any gun, ever.
It should be obvious because the residents were not there to gamble and drink, nor would they have voted for laws that disarmed themselves.

If one reads what actually happened in Tombstone, while the Earps won the gun fight, they were fired and chased out of town. The ranchers were the source of income to the town, and they did not want their sheriff killing them,
The idea there was gun control in the west is just a lie.

Spin it however you want.

There were no police, there were dangerous animals like bears and poisonous snakes, people had to hunt their own food, there were angry natives, etc.
Any one believing the west had gun control has to be pretty much an idiot.
No rational person should believe such obvious false propaganda.
The only gun control was for saloons and casinos.

 

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.

As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control ordinances. Alcohol, gambling and a shortage of women could set off men and have them reaching for their guns.

Tombstone, Arizona Territory, offers a good example. One could wear guns when arriving or leaving town, but in between, the gun had to be checked.

Did Most Old West Towns Have “No Carry” Gun Laws?

Did most Old West towns have “no carry” gun laws? Gerard Smith Coos Bay, Oregon As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control

truewestmagazine.com

You are believing propaganda.
If you thought about it for a second, you would realize.
The only guns they wanted confiscated were the ones of the cowboys on cattle drives who were not residents.
No resident needed to turn in any gun, ever.
It should be obvious because the residents were not there to gamble and drink, nor would they have voted for laws that disarmed themselves.

If one reads what actually happened in Tombstone, while the Earps won the gun fight, they were fired and chased out of town. The ranchers were the source of income to the town, and they did not want their sheriff killing them,
The idea there was gun control in the west is just a lie.

Spin it however you want.

There were no police, there were dangerous animals like bears and poisonous snakes, people had to hunt their own food, there were angry natives, etc.
Any one believing the west had gun control has to be pretty much an idiot.
No rational person should believe such obvious false propaganda.
The only gun control was for saloons and casinos.

No one argued the "west had gun control". I noted that there were towns that banned guns.

 

[Rigby5]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

Sure and no.

it would be a terrible thing to do but nobody has a right to a specific job.

Wrong.
The law specifically says it is illegal to fire based on race, religion, age, gender, etc.
So you DO have a right to a specific job you performed successfully so far.
It does not specifically list political affiliation as one of the things employers can not fire you for, but that is covered by other laws, like the incorporation of the 1st amendment into an individual right.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.

As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control ordinances. Alcohol, gambling and a shortage of women could set off men and have them reaching for their guns.

Tombstone, Arizona Territory, offers a good example. One could wear guns when arriving or leaving town, but in between, the gun had to be checked.

Did Most Old West Towns Have “No Carry” Gun Laws?

Did most Old West towns have “no carry” gun laws? Gerard Smith Coos Bay, Oregon As frontier towns matured, city fathers realized they needed gun control

truewestmagazine.com

You are believing propaganda.
If you thought about it for a second, you would realize.
The only guns they wanted confiscated were the ones of the cowboys on cattle drives who were not residents.
No resident needed to turn in any gun, ever.
It should be obvious because the residents were not there to gamble and drink, nor would they have voted for laws that disarmed themselves.

If one reads what actually happened in Tombstone, while the Earps won the gun fight, they were fired and chased out of town. The ranchers were the source of income to the town, and they did not want their sheriff killing them,
The idea there was gun control in the west is just a lie.

Spin it however you want.

There were no police, there were dangerous animals like bears and poisonous snakes, people had to hunt their own food, there were angry natives, etc.
Any one believing the west had gun control has to be pretty much an idiot.
No rational person should believe such obvious false propaganda.
The only gun control was for saloons and casinos.

No one argued the "west had gun control". I noted that there were towns that banned guns.

But again that is incorrect.
No town ever "banned guns" in the west.
Again, even in the most extreme example like Tombstone, it was ONLY non-resident cowboys coming to town to gamble and drink alcohol who had to temporarily store their weapons.
Residents were NOT required to, and anyone just in down for supplies or other safe activities were not required to.
So it was NOT a general ban on guns in town in any way.
And even Tombstone only tried their ban while drinking and gambling for about a month, as it was so unpopular that the sheriff was fired and had to leave town.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Even the Old West had gun control

Growing up, one of my favorite bumper stickers claimed “The West wasn’t won with a registered gun.” I never agreed with those promoting this viewpoint, so my admiration must have been fueled by som…

thehill.com

 

[Rigby5]

Even the Old West had gun control

Growing up, one of my favorite bumper stickers claimed “The West wasn’t won with a registered gun.” I never agreed with those promoting this viewpoint, so my admiration must have been fueled by som…

thehill.com

The article is totally and completely wrong.
This has already been covered but we can repeat it again.
The gun laws in Tombstone did NOT ban guns.
Residents and transients were NOT required to turn in their guns.
The ONLY people who were required to were the cowboys who came to town at night to drink and gamble.
And the attempt to force cowboy to turn in their guns while partying turned out so badly that the Earps were fired and forced to leave town.
The article is not just wrong, but the exact opposite of reality.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, apparently "covered" by your say so. Quite the ego.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, apparently "covered" by your say so. Quite the ego.

While the Earps and Holiday were found not guilty of murder due to insufficient evidence, they were promptly fired and forced to leave the town of Tombstone.
No further attempts at gun control were made in Tombstone.
The ranchers and cowboys were the source of income for the town, and it was very unpopular to start killing them.