Author Topic: Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) (Read 901 times)

Master of Reality · « **on:** 4 November 2003, 00:56 »

read about it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/11/02/1729239.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=99

quote:
...Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites....

Apparently supporting Olympic Sports, Recreational Activities, and Food sources is what symantec is completely against.

Edit: changed the title of the topic.

[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

mobrien_12 · « **Reply #1 on:** 4 November 2003, 01:08 »

Is this something you can turn off???

flap · « **Reply #2 on:** 4 November 2003, 01:08 »

It blocks the NRA? Sounds good to me.

hm_murdock · « **Reply #3 on:** 4 November 2003, 02:17 »

good?

so, one of the group that stands up for one of the few bits of the Bill of Rights that still remains have enemies in the technology industry?

You know what? Theres times I think about this country and wonder why anybody would ever want to wrong it. How good, and just and fair and free we are.

Then shit like this comes along and I realize that the United States is a shadow of what it once was. It's now a corporate oligarchy where big company 1 can compete with big company 2 by means of outright subterfuge, and immoral ways.

Fuck Symantec. I'm gonna go take my M1 over to the shooting range and enjoy owning my firearm responsibly.

If anybody has a problem with me having it, fuck off.

Laukev7 · « **Reply #4 on:** 4 November 2003, 05:21 »

What's the use of firearms? I have lived my whole life in Canada without firearms. You can't do squat with a firearm if the thug pulls it out first (which will happen in most situations), and you'd probably get sued, anyway.

slave · « **Reply #5 on:** 4 November 2003, 05:30 »

Another reason not to use Symantec's products. Fucking censorware.

Whatever your opinions on gun control are, you have to admit this is pretty low.

Stryker · « **Reply #6 on:** 4 November 2003, 06:20 »

quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
What's the use of firearms? I have lived my whole life in Canada without firearms. You can't do squat with a firearm if the thug pulls it out first (which will happen in most situations), and you'd probably get sued, anyway.

Trap shooting, skeet shooting, very valid and entertaining sports. Hunting can be argued but I believe if you don't waste what you kill then there shouldn't be a problem (if your licensed properly and all that crap).

As far as the other guy pulling it out first...

would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?

insomnia · « **Reply #7 on:** 4 November 2003, 06:46 »

quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:

would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?

I whould use some creepy gas to kill them before they can shoot.

Guns do kill.

Laukev7 · « **Reply #8 on:** 4 November 2003, 06:54 »

quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:

Trap shooting, skeet shooting, very valid and entertaining sports. Hunting can be argued but I believe if you don't waste what you kill then there shouldn't be a problem (if your licensed properly and all that crap).

You don't need to bear them in public for skeet shooting.

quote:
(if your licensed properly and all that crap)

Bowling for Columbine, anyone?

By the way, you can get a license in Canada as well, in case I mislead you. It's just more strictly regulated.

quote:
would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too?

So you think that money (banks) is more important than human lives (criminality)? Shows how crazy capitalism is in the States.

Also, you're not seriously telling me there are less bank robberies in the USA than in Canada, where firearms are more restricted?

Stryker · « **Reply #9 on:** 4 November 2003, 07:53 »

You asked what the use of firearms is. Nothing about having one in public.

What does columbine have anything to do with this? They weren't hunting, and humans are not legal game.

quote:

So you think that money (banks) is more important than human lives (criminality)? Shows how crazy capitalism is in the States.

I said that? I think if we were all allowed to carry guns until we proved we can't handle it, there would be less roberies. If someone wants to get a firearm and use it against people, there is nothing you can do to stop them. All you can do is make it a little more difficult. And because it's difficult, a criminal can feel secure in knowing that nobody else around him has a firearm and can defend themselves.

and you didn't answer my question. If we could all have firearms carried with us, would you rob a bank? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that they probably don't have a gun - because it's a lot more difficult for them to get?

quote:

Also, you're not seriously telling me there are less bank robberies in the USA than in Canada, where firearms are more restricted?

I never said that. Are you telling me that because canada MAY (i've seen no proof) have less bank roberies, that the united states shouldn't worry about decreasing them?

quote:

I whould use some creepy gas to kill them before they can shoot.

Ok, that's great. Hope I never meet you.

quote:

Guns do kill.

really? A gun can unlock itself from storage, can unlock the ammo, can load itself, walk to a target, disengage the safety, and pull the trigger? Nearly every accident involving firearms can be prevented. I suggest taking a hunter's safety course... wether or not you plan to hunt, take the class it'll do you some good.

Laukev7 · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 November 2003, 08:40 »

quote:
and you didn't answer my question. If we could all have firearms carried with us, would you rob a bank? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that they probably don't have a gun - because it's a lot more difficult for them to get?

Real robbers don't usually hold-up banks alone, they do it in small groups. And they could have machine guns, against which handguns would be quite ineffective, since a machine gun would shoot 6 bullets in your chest before you even have the time to reach your holster.

quote:
really? A gun can unlock itself from storage, can unlock the ammo, can load itself, walk to a target, disengage the safety, and pull the trigger?

You just proved my point. Such guns are totally useless against a robber with a ready gun. Even forty armed people would not stand a chance; they would never even have time to unholster the gun, let alone disengage the safety. Even if the safety is already disengaged, the robber will have time to either flee or shoot the person before he unholsters.

quote:
a criminal can feel secure in knowing that nobody else around him has a firearm and can defend themselves.

Since your point is about security, each individual person amongst the 40 might feel just as deterred by the gun of the robber than the robber might be by the people.

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

Stryker · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 November 2003, 10:24 »

quote:

Real robbers don't usually hold-up banks alone, they do it in small groups. And they could have machine guns, against which handguns would be quite ineffective, since a machine gun would shoot 6 bullets in your chest before you even have the time to reach your holster.

There aren't very many real robbers then, most do it by themselves or with a partner. And you still didn't answer the question. And machine guns aren't very easy to get. It would be very stupid to hold up a bank when everybody in there has a gun. If I were to carry my gun around with me, it'd be loaded but have the safety on. And it doesn't take any effort to turn the safety off. I could shoot them just as fast as they could shoot me. But it doesn't matter, the robber wouldn't be there to begin with because he knows that SOMEONE in that bank would shoot him and it'd all be for nothing.

quote:

Since your point is about security, each individual person amongst the 40 might feel just as deterred by the gun of the robber than the robber might be by the people.

I wouldn't be too worried if I was in a room full of people defending me. I would be worried if a room full of people with guns wanted to kill me. But, I'm not a criminal. You may think I am because I enjoy my gun, and think people should have more rights to their firearms... but i'm not.

Laukev7 · « **Reply #12 on:** 5 November 2003, 02:12 »

quote:
There aren't very many real robbers then, most do it by themselves or with a partner.

And get arrested quickly.

quote:
And machine guns aren't very easy to get.

Neither would handguns be if they were prohibited.

quote:
It would be very stupid to hold up a bank when everybody in there has a gun.

It would be very stupid to hold up a bank in the first place, since no one in the bank even knows how to open the vault (at least where I live).

quote:
because he knows that SOMEONE in that bank would shoot him and it'd all be for nothing.

See above. And security guards and cameras can live up to that task fairly well.

quote:
And you still didn't answer the question.

I would not be deterred by a room full of armed people, because I would never be stupid enough to rob any bank alone. And if I did, I would threaten to blow the shit up if anyone pointed a gun at me, because I would have to bring explosives to open the vault anyway.

[ November 04, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

flap · « **Reply #13 on:** 5 November 2003, 02:39 »

If these pro-gun Americans think the right to own a firearm is such a fundamental one, why do they think it is that people in other countries that don't have such liberal gun laws never, ever complain that they don't have the same rights? In this country most people regard the American obsession with guns with amusement. Most people here can't conceive of wanting to own a firearm, but maybe that's because we don't need them because we never made them legal in the first place. In this country even the police aren't armed, because they don't need to be. Compare that to the US where "more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War" (http://www.peace.ca/giftfeararticles.htm). Do you really think that's the mark of a civilised country?

[ November 04, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

Stryker · « **Reply #14 on:** 5 November 2003, 05:56 »

Very few people are killed accidently by a gun. Less than almost every other way you could die. People are murdered often, that's not something that'll change. People are stupid. And most people that rob a store are not caught, you are fooled into thinking that by the media. They won't announce anything like : "This week we haven't caught the guy that robbed that mini-mart on 23rd and 5th 6 months ago" but you may hear something like "We caught the guy that robbed the..." Most people get away with robery. That's not really the point, you got off subject with that remark.

Saying i'm not allowed to have a gun is just as silly as saying i'm not allowed to have a baseball bat. Both can kill someone, but none of them are dangerous by themselves. Both are used for sport. If you do not want to own a gun, i respect that and I will not try to convince you (or force you by legal means) to have one. You shouldn't do it to me. I, like most people in this country, am responsible with my firearms.

The difference between a baseball bat and a firearm, is that some people like to carry a firearm around with them. Why? It really doesn't matter, they just do. Maybe they feel safer, maybe it helps his self esteem, maybe it helps him with the chicks, maybe he likes showing people he meets, maybe he just does it to spite you. It's none of your business what a person does with it. It's not harming you.

I've taken the classes, earned the money... i've done what i've had to do to for my firearm. If you don't want one, fine... don't ruin it for everybody else. I'm done with this subject, people like you just piss me off (no offense) and I can't deal with it right now.

« previous next » Print Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Go Down Author Topic: Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) (Read 901 times) Master of Reality VIP Posts: 4,249 Kudos: 177 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « on: 4 November 2003, 00:56 » read about it: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/11/02/1729239.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=99 quote: ...Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites.... Apparently supporting Olympic Sports, Recreational Activities, and Food sources is what symantec is completely against. Edit: changed the title of the topic. [ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ] Logged Disorder \| Rating Paranoid: Moderate Schizoid: Moderate Linux User #283518 'It takes more than a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head to stop Bob' mobrien_12 VIP Posts: 2,138 Kudos: 711 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #1 on: 4 November 2003, 01:08 » Is this something you can turn off??? Logged In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight.... flap Member Posts: 1,268 Kudos: 137 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #2 on: 4 November 2003, 01:08 » It blocks the NRA? Sounds good to me. Logged "While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara http://counterpunch.org http://globalresearch.ca hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #3 on: 4 November 2003, 02:17 » good? so, one of the group that stands up for one of the few bits of the Bill of Rights that still remains have enemies in the technology industry? You know what? Theres times I think about this country and wonder why anybody would ever want to wrong it. How good, and just and fair and free we are. Then shit like this comes along and I realize that the United States is a shadow of what it once was. It's now a corporate oligarchy where big company 1 can compete with big company 2 by means of outright subterfuge, and immoral ways. Fuck Symantec. I'm gonna go take my M1 over to the shooting range and enjoy owning my firearm responsibly. If anybody has a problem with me having it, fuck off. Logged Go the fuck ~ Laukev7 VIP Posts: 2,828 Kudos: 494 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #4 on: 4 November 2003, 05:21 » What's the use of firearms? I have lived my whole life in Canada without firearms. You can't do squat with a firearm if the thug pulls it out first (which will happen in most situations), and you'd probably get sued, anyway. Logged slave Member Posts: 1,136 Kudos: 0 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #5 on: 4 November 2003, 05:30 » Another reason not to use Symantec's products. Fucking censorware. Whatever your opinions on gun control are, you have to admit this is pretty low. Logged woodland@bayou.com Stryker VIP Posts: 1,258 Kudos: 41 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #6 on: 4 November 2003, 06:20 » quote: Originally posted by Laukev7: What's the use of firearms? I have lived my whole life in Canada without firearms. You can't do squat with a firearm if the thug pulls it out first (which will happen in most situations), and you'd probably get sued, anyway. Trap shooting, skeet shooting, very valid and entertaining sports. Hunting can be argued but I believe if you don't waste what you kill then there shouldn't be a problem (if your licensed properly and all that crap). As far as the other guy pulling it out first... would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too? Logged insomnia Member Posts: 587 Kudos: 0 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #7 on: 4 November 2003, 06:46 » quote: Originally posted by Stryker: would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too? I whould use some creepy gas to kill them before they can shoot. Guns do kill. Logged Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral. R. Stallman http://www.pvda.be/ Laukev7 VIP Posts: 2,828 Kudos: 494 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #8 on: 4 November 2003, 06:54 » quote: Originally posted by Stryker: Trap shooting, skeet shooting, very valid and entertaining sports. Hunting can be argued but I believe if you don't waste what you kill then there shouldn't be a problem (if your licensed properly and all that crap). You don't need to bear them in public for skeet shooting. quote: (if your licensed properly and all that crap) Bowling for Columbine, anyone? By the way, you can get a license in Canada as well, in case I mislead you. It's just more strictly regulated. quote: would you pull out a gun and try to rob a bank, if you know that the 40 people in there could have guns too? So you think that money (banks) is more important than human lives (criminality)? Shows how crazy capitalism is in the States. Also, you're not seriously telling me there are less bank robberies in the USA than in Canada, where firearms are more restricted? Logged Stryker VIP Posts: 1,258 Kudos: 41 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #9 on: 4 November 2003, 07:53 » You asked what the use of firearms is. Nothing about having one in public. What does columbine have anything to do with this? They weren't hunting, and humans are not legal game. quote: So you think that money (banks) is more important than human lives (criminality)? Shows how crazy capitalism is in the States. I said that? I think if we were all allowed to carry guns until we proved we can't handle it, there would be less roberies. If someone wants to get a firearm and use it against people, there is nothing you can do to stop them. All you can do is make it a little more difficult. And because it's difficult, a criminal can feel secure in knowing that nobody else around him has a firearm and can defend themselves. and you didn't answer my question. If we could all have firearms carried with us, would you rob a bank? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that they probably don't have a gun - because it's a lot more difficult for them to get? quote: Also, you're not seriously telling me there are less bank robberies in the USA than in Canada, where firearms are more restricted? I never said that. Are you telling me that because canada MAY (i've seen no proof) have less bank roberies, that the united states shouldn't worry about decreasing them? quote: I whould use some creepy gas to kill them before they can shoot. Ok, that's great. Hope I never meet you. quote: Guns do kill. really? A gun can unlock itself from storage, can unlock the ammo, can load itself, walk to a target, disengage the safety, and pull the trigger? Nearly every accident involving firearms can be prevented. I suggest taking a hunter's safety course... wether or not you plan to hunt, take the class it'll do you some good. Logged Laukev7 VIP Posts: 2,828 Kudos: 494 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #10 on: 4 November 2003, 08:40 » quote: and you didn't answer my question. If we could all have firearms carried with us, would you rob a bank? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that they probably don't have a gun - because it's a lot more difficult for them to get? Real robbers don't usually hold-up banks alone, they do it in small groups. And they could have machine guns, against which handguns would be quite ineffective, since a machine gun would shoot 6 bullets in your chest before you even have the time to reach your holster. quote: really? A gun can unlock itself from storage, can unlock the ammo, can load itself, walk to a target, disengage the safety, and pull the trigger? You just proved my point. Such guns are totally useless against a robber with a ready gun. Even forty armed people would not stand a chance; they would never even have time to unholster the gun, let alone disengage the safety. Even if the safety is already disengaged, the robber will have time to either flee or shoot the person before he unholsters. quote: a criminal can feel secure in knowing that nobody else around him has a firearm and can defend themselves. Since your point is about security, each individual person amongst the 40 might feel just as deterred by the gun of the robber than the robber might be by the people. [ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ] Logged Stryker VIP Posts: 1,258 Kudos: 41 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #11 on: 4 November 2003, 10:24 » quote: Real robbers don't usually hold-up banks alone, they do it in small groups. And they could have machine guns, against which handguns would be quite ineffective, since a machine gun would shoot 6 bullets in your chest before you even have the time to reach your holster. There aren't very many real robbers then, most do it by themselves or with a partner. And you still didn't answer the question. And machine guns aren't very easy to get. It would be very stupid to hold up a bank when everybody in there has a gun. If I were to carry my gun around with me, it'd be loaded but have the safety on. And it doesn't take any effort to turn the safety off. I could shoot them just as fast as they could shoot me. But it doesn't matter, the robber wouldn't be there to begin with because he knows that SOMEONE in that bank would shoot him and it'd all be for nothing. quote: Since your point is about security, each individual person amongst the 40 might feel just as deterred by the gun of the robber than the robber might be by the people. I wouldn't be too worried if I was in a room full of people defending me. I would be worried if a room full of people with guns wanted to kill me. But, I'm not a criminal. You may think I am because I enjoy my gun, and think people should have more rights to their firearms... but i'm not. Logged Laukev7 VIP Posts: 2,828 Kudos: 494 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #12 on: 5 November 2003, 02:12 » quote: There aren't very many real robbers then, most do it by themselves or with a partner. And get arrested quickly. quote: And machine guns aren't very easy to get. Neither would handguns be if they were prohibited. quote: It would be very stupid to hold up a bank when everybody in there has a gun. It would be very stupid to hold up a bank in the first place, since no one in the bank even knows how to open the vault (at least where I live). quote: because he knows that SOMEONE in that bank would shoot him and it'd all be for nothing. See above. And security guards and cameras can live up to that task fairly well. quote: And you still didn't answer the question. I would not be deterred by a room full of armed people, because I would never be stupid enough to rob any bank alone. And if I did, I would threaten to blow the shit up if anyone pointed a gun at me, because I would have to bring explosives to open the vault anyway. [ November 04, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ] Logged flap Member Posts: 1,268 Kudos: 137 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #13 on: 5 November 2003, 02:39 » If these pro-gun Americans think the right to own a firearm is such a fundamental one, why do they think it is that people in other countries that don't have such liberal gun laws never, ever complain that they don't have the same rights? In this country most people regard the American obsession with guns with amusement. Most people here can't conceive of wanting to own a firearm, but maybe that's because we don't need them because we never made them legal in the first place. In this country even the police aren't armed, because they don't need to be. Compare that to the US where "more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War" (http://www.peace.ca/giftfeararticles.htm). Do you really think that's the mark of a civilised country? [ November 04, 2003: Message edited by: flap ] Logged "While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara http://counterpunch.org http://globalresearch.ca Stryker VIP Posts: 1,258 Kudos: 41 Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) « Reply #14 on: 5 November 2003, 05:56 » Very few people are killed accidently by a gun. Less than almost every other way you could die. People are murdered often, that's not something that'll change. People are stupid. And most people that rob a store are not caught, you are fooled into thinking that by the media. They won't announce anything like : "This week we haven't caught the guy that robbed that mini-mart on 23rd and 5th 6 months ago" but you may hear something like "We caught the guy that robbed the..." Most people get away with robery. That's not really the point, you got off subject with that remark. Saying i'm not allowed to have a gun is just as silly as saying i'm not allowed to have a baseball bat. Both can kill someone, but none of them are dangerous by themselves. Both are used for sport. If you do not want to own a gun, i respect that and I will not try to convince you (or force you by legal means) to have one. You shouldn't do it to me. I, like most people in this country, am responsible with my firearms. The difference between a baseball bat and a firearm, is that some people like to carry a firearm around with them. Why? It really doesn't matter, they just do. Maybe they feel safer, maybe it helps his self esteem, maybe it helps him with the chicks, maybe he likes showing people he meets, maybe he just does it to spite you. It's none of your business what a person does with it. It's not harming you. I've taken the classes, earned the money... i've done what i've had to do to for my firearm. If you don't want one, fine... don't ruin it for everybody else. I'm done with this subject, people like you just piss me off (no offense) and I can't deal with it right now. Logged Print Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Go Up « previous next » Stop Microsoft » Forum » Miscellaneous » The Lounge » Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom)
Share or donate

Author Topic: Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom) (Read 901 times)

Share or donate