New YouTube Rules Banning Gun Content Spark Outrage

( – Video sharing platform YouTube has announced on Wednesday, June 5 that they will be making changes to the type of firearms-related content that is allowed on their platform, in what they say is an effort to prevent children from being able to view “dangerous content.” Proponents of the Second Amendment are pushing back against the new rules, which go into effect on June 18.

Videos that attempted to sell firearms or firearm accessories were already banned on the platform, as well as videos that would teach viewers how to create their own firearms or accessories. In addition, livestreams that featured people handling firearms have also been against the platform’s rules for years now.

Under the new rules, YouTube will no longer allow users under 18 to view videos that feature homemade firearms or automatic weapons. The platform also plans to ban all videos that instruct viewers on how to remove safety devices from firearms. However, YouTube did clarify that the rules only apply to “real-life use” as opposed to artistic purposes. Videos that are of “public interest,” such as police footage or news clips, are not included in the rule changes.

The platform, which is owned by the same company that owns Google, said they consulted third-party experts to help create their new policies. However, many critics of the policy changes believe that YouTube capitulated to gun control groups when developing their new policies.

Richard D. Hayes II, a lawyer who runs a YouTube channel called Armed Attorneys, suggested that these new rules are a form of censorship from YouTube, who he claims has a history of suppressing Second Amendment content. Hayes believes it is “only a matter of time” before all firearm content is banned on YouTube.

The Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, Aidan Johnston, asked Congress to look into who or what inspired YouTube’s policy change. Johnston suggested that gun control groups and other public figures were behind the change and suggested that the Biden Administration might have been involved as well.

Copyright 2024,