The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: Elderberry on June 05, 2019, 11:38:11 am
-
The Federalist By Mark Oliva June 4, 2019
Saleforce.com’s discrimination against the firearms industry isn’t capitalism at work. It’s a threat to our rights.
SalesForce recently, and very quietly, updated the software giant’s acceptable-use policy and it’s sending reverberations through the firearms and technology industries. It’s Operation Chokepoint all over again, except it’s coming from a select few technology insiders most Americans have likely never heard of before.
The customer-management system’s executives claim to be standing on their corporate foundational principles. They’re really walling off the industry that provides the means for American citizens to exercise basic constitutional rights. What gun control advocates can’t achieve through the legislative process they’re attempting to do through corporate fiat—policy making from the penthouse boardroom. A quick examination of SalesForce’s new policy restrictions proves this.
They list a series of disqualifying cosmetic features commonly found on modern sporting rifles, including semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash and sound suppressors. They throw in grenade launchers for good measure. The language is eerily similar to that found in U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 that fellow California Sen. Kamala Harris co-sponsors.
This is corporate virtue signaling at best. At worst, it is an effort to squeeze out of existence the industry that makes it possible for American citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and equip our military and brave law enforcement officers who protect our nation and our communities.
Forbes columnist Bruce Weinstein wrote a column saying the National Shooting Sports Foundation has it all wrong to complain about this. This is just the way capitalism works. He dove into stereotypes of what sort of American owns guns (hint for you, Bruce: even Harris admitted to being a gun owner and I’m pretty sure she’s not a Caucasian, male Republican).
More: https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/04/huge-tech-company-tries-ban-gun-makers-using-products/ (https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/04/huge-tech-company-tries-ban-gun-makers-using-products/)
-
Those that don't learn from history....
-
Those that don't learn from history....
@txradioguy
Tend to become landfill in mass graves.
-
@txradioguy
Tend to become landfill in mass graves.
Well there is that too...I was thinking more along the lines of the companies or states that decide to go all anti 2nd Amendment and pay the price for it. K Mart and Dicks Sporting Goods being two that come to mind. Magpul leaving Colorado being another.
-
"But they're private companies," the libertarians mutter...
-
Tucker Carlson did a segment on "corporate woke" last week that outlined how dangerous this is to our basic rights. Libertarian solution? "Go form your own credit card company." **nononono*
-
So, the premise is that private companies, conducting private business, cannot take actions that might be regarded as making it more difficult for individuals to enjoy certain rights?
-
So, the premise is that private companies, conducting private business, cannot take actions that might be regarded as making it more difficult for individuals to enjoy certain rights?
The company you refer to is a publicly traded company. There's nothing "private" about it.
If they want to commit corporate suicide in the same manner of K Mart and Dicks Sporting Goods...let them.
Those that don't learn from history...
-
The company you refer to is a publicly traded company. There's nothing "private" about it.
If they want to commit corporate suicide in the same manner of K Mart and Dicks Sporting Goods...let them.
Those that don't learn from history...
It’s a private company because it isn’t owned or controlled by the government.
-
It’s a private company because it isn’t owned or controlled by the government.
Potato pah-tahto.
They are perfectly free to shoot themselves in the foot over this.
I just wish the ability for a business to pick and choose it's customers was a choice that was allowed to all businesses...not just some.
-
Potato pah-tahto.
They are perfectly free to shoot themselves in the foot over this.
I just wish the ability for a business to pick and choose it's customers was a choice that was allowed to all businesses...not just some.
Another stunning display of ignorance. You’re on a roll today.
-
Another stunning display of ignorance. You’re on a roll today.
Not that I expect you to give any kind of coherent response O...but are you saying that the right to not do business with people is afforded every business in the country?
-
It’s a private company because it isn’t owned or controlled by the government.
It is protected by the government so that its shareholders are not held responsible if the company goes bankrupt.
-
It is protected by the government so that its shareholders are not held responsible if the company goes bankrupt.
So is every business that operates through a legal entity, including an LLC, an LP, an LLP, as well as an Inc, and that limitation on liability has nothing to do with whether it’s owned privately or publicly.
But, are you now saying that one quid pro quo for limited liability should be a prohibition on taking actions that might, even tangentially, have an effect on the ability of someone somewhere to enjoy a right identified in the Constitution?
-
So is every business that operates through a legal entity, including an LLC, an LP, an LLP, as well as an Inc, and that limitation on liability has nothing to do with whether it’s owned privately or publicly.
But, are you now saying that one quid pro quo for limited liability should be a prohibition on taking actions that might, even tangentially, have an effect on the ability of someone somewhere to enjoy a right identified in the Constitution?
I'm saying the exact opposite: if you are getting protections from the government, they should not be permitted to interfere with the ability of its users to enjoy the rights identified in the Constitution.
-
I'm saying the exact opposite: if you are getting protections from the government, they should not be permitted to interfere with the ability of its users to enjoy the rights identified in the Constitution.
Then no, you’re saying exactly what I stated, namely, that any business that operates in a form that gives the owners limited liability should be required to act as if it were a government agency when it comes to the Constitution.
Would this apply whole-cloth, or just to the Second Amendment?
-
Then no, you’re saying exactly what I stated, namely, that any business that operates in a form that gives the owners limited liability should be required to act as if it were a government agency when it comes to the Constitution.
Would this apply whole-cloth, or just to the Second Amendment?
I've said the same thing about social media companies and arbitrary censorship.
-
I've said the same thing about social media companies and arbitrary censorship.
Ok. So is it your position that all businesses should become agencies of the government, responsible for not violating the constitution to the same extent that a government agency is so responsible?