Apple CEO Tim Cook on Hate Speech: 'You Have No Place on Our Platform'

Jensend said:
Yes.
Liberals tend to think that more restrictive gun laws will reduce the likelihood and severity of these crimes.

The conservative view tends to be that if more people had their guns with them it would reduce these crimes.

Not sure how “crisis actors” is conservative or liberal.
Click to expand...
Who do we blame for this? Android users? When do admit that individuals make a choice?
 
Jensend said:
Yes.
Liberals tend to think that more restrictive gun laws will reduce the likelihood and severity of these crimes.

The conservative view tends to be that if more people had their guns with them it would reduce these crimes.

Not sure how “crisis actors” is conservative or liberal.
Click to expand...
It’s a crazy notion that the more people have guns the less violence will there be. Just consider what happened in the shopping mall in Hoover Alabama on Thanksgiving day. A black guy was killed by a cop because he was running with a gun in his hand. He turned out not to be the shooter. He was probably an armed civilian who wanted to stop the shooter. If a trained cop can make a mistake like this in a crisis situation, an armed civilian will make a mistake and kill the wrong person at a much higher probability.

Armed civilians walking around is not the answer to stop gun violence. The more guns we have on the streets, the higher the probability of a mistake being made there is.

Guns held at home for self defense is one thing, but guns on the streets is quite another.

Maybe all handguns should be banned from civilian use. Keep shotguns at home for self defense and use rifles for hunting. Sawing off the barrel should be punishable by a prison term. This way, we can still defend ourselves at homes, but carrying guns (open or concealed) should only be allowed for police, military, and certified security guards.

A handgun found in one’s possession should land one in prison for one year. Second offense, the term goes up to 5 years. Third offense, 10 years in prison.

Bring your handgun to the police and get $1,000. Get them off the streets within a year or two and then ban them completely.

To own guns, everyone must undergo security and mental background checks, and then take special gun-handling classes. Those who already own guns should be required to get checked and certified within 2 years.

Screw the Second Amendment. Gun ownership should be a privilege (like driving) and not a constitutional right.
 
SquireSCA said:
Which side has more evidence to support it? We added tens of millions of guns to the population and relaxed laws and let 16 million people have concealed carry permits, yet violent crime dropped 30% in that time and is back where it was when carter was in office...
Click to expand...
THAT’S DOES NOT FIT THE NARRATIVE! CHANGE THOSE STATISTICS!
/s
 
sirozha said:
It’s a crazy notion that the more people have guns the less violence will there be. Just consider what happened in the shopping mall in Hoover Alabama on Thanksgiving day. A black guy was killed by a cop because he was running with a gun in his hand. He turned out not to be the shooter. He was probably an armed civilian who wanted to stop the shooter. If a trained cop can make a mistake like this in a crisis situation, an armed civilian will make a mistake and kill the wrong person at a much higher probability.

Armed civilians walking around is not the answer to stop gun violence. The more guns we have on the streets, the higher the probability of a mistake being made there is.

Guns held at home for self defense is one thing, but guns on the streets is quite another.

Maybe all handguns should be banned from civilian use. Keep shotguns at home for self defense and use rifles for hunting. Sawing off the barrel should be punishable by a prison term. This way, we can still defend ourselves at homes, but carrying guns (open or concealed) should only be allowed for police, military, and certified security guards.

A handgun found in one’s possession should land one in prison for one year. Second offense, the term goes up to 5 years. Third offense, 10 years in prison.

Bring your handgun to the police and get $1,000. Get them off the streets within a year or two and then ban them completely.

To own guns, everyone must undergo security and mental background checks, and then take special gun-handling classes. Those who already own guns should be required to get checked and certified within 2 years.

Screw the Second Amendment. Gun ownership should be a privilege (like driving) and not a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Except it isn’t. We have a bill of rights. If you don’t like it, move.

Nobody cares what you think it should be. It is what it is.

They aren’t going anywhere. There are more guns than people. If you want them gone come and take them and let’s see how far you get.
[doublepost=1544389370][/doublepost]Although the $1000 for a handgun is a sweet deal, I could get over 20 grand!
 
SquireSCA said:
Which side has more evidence to support it? We added tens of millions of guns to the population and relaxed laws and let 16 million people have concealed carry permits, yet violent crime dropped 30% in that time and is back where it was when carter was in office...
Click to expand...
The gun deaths per 100,000 people in the US is over 6 times that of Canada. What’s the real difference? No Second Amendment in Canada. It’s a privilege to own guns in Canada, just like driving is a privilege.The privilege one must earn. It’s a constitutional right in the US to own guns, the right that no one can infringe upon. Therefore, a complete nutcase can legally buy an unlimited number of firearms and ammo, and nothing can be done until he kills someone. This has happened much too often in the past few years that no one even disputes this anymore.

Are Americans so stupid that they can’t change a totally insane constitutional amendment just because someone decided it was a good idea over two centuries ago, when only muskets existed, and mass murder with a firearm was a technical impossibility?
 
Last edited:
I don’t care, it’s irrelevant. Until you get 2/3 of both Houses and 38 states to vote to ratify, the second amendment is the law of the land. Nothing short of a Ratification process can change that.
 
SquireSCA said:
Except it isn’t. We have a bill of rights. If you don’t like it, move.

Nobody cares what you think it should be. It is what it is.

They aren’t going anywhere. There are more guns than people. If you want them gone come and take them and let’s see how far you get.
[doublepost=1544389370][/doublepost]Although the $1000 for a handgun is a sweet deal, I could get over 20 grand!
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights wasn’t engraved on the stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses, was it?
 
sirozha said:
The Bill of Rights wasn’t engraved on the stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses, was it?
Click to expand...

No, but it was created in a way that can only be legally changed by Ratification.

The bill of rights is the cornerstone of this country and our fundamental rights cannot be removed because you don’t like them.

The only legal way to do so is by amending the constitution via ratification. 2/3 of Both Houses and 3/4 of the states. When you get the votes, then we can talk.
 
SquireSCA said:
No, but it was created in a way that can only be legally changed by Ratification.

The bill of rights is the cornerstone of this country and our fundamental rights cannot be removed because you don’t like them.

The only legal way to do so is by amending the constitution via ratification. 2/3 of Both Houses and 3/4 of the states. When you get the votes, then we can talk.
Click to expand...
The normal course of events is first to talk and then effect a change, not the other way around.
 
sirozha said:
Is this a threat of violence?
Click to expand...
Its an analogy, where you seem to think it is ok to deprive innocent people of their fundamental rights, without due process...
[doublepost=1544391045][/doublepost]Meaning, you clearly don’t care about the law, rights, etc... so continuing to discuss this with you is pointless.

Did that confuse you?
 
SquireSCA said:
Its an analogy, where you seem to think it is ok to deprive innocent people of their fundamental rights, without due process...
[doublepost=1544391045][/doublepost]Meaning, you clearly don’t care about the law, rights, etc... so continuing to discuss this with you is pointless.

Did that confuse you?
Click to expand...
Who said without a due process? I think it’s you who are confused.
 
SquireSCA said:
You did. Rights are rights. Unless I have broken the law, I don’t have to justify my rights to you. It’s not a privilege no matter how much you wish it would be.

Do you live in the us?
Click to expand...
I do.

Why don’t you clamor for driving to be a constitutional right? Shouldn’t driving be a right way before owning a gun should be a right?

You know why driving is not a constitutional right? Because cars didn’t exist back then, and guns did. That’s the only reason.
 
Why would it? The fundamental right to protect yourself is more important than the convenience of driving.

You might better understand this, we’re you to actually read the constitution, as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, where the founders debated back and forth on this issue... it will give clear insight into their intent, and why the second amendment was so critical to us. There is a reason why it is #2, right after free speech. Many would argue that without the second, we really don’t have any of the others...
 
SquireSCA said:
Why would it? The fundamental right to protect yourself is more important than the convenience of driving.

You might better understand this, we’re you to actually read the constitution, as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, where the founders debated back and forth on this issue... it will give clear insight into their intent, and why the second amendment was so critical to us. There is a reason why it is #2, right after free speech. Many would argue that without the second, we really don’t have any of the others...
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights doesn’t end at the Second Amendment. Amendments kept being added much later. Why aren’t you up in arms about driving not being a right? Americans own many more cars than they do guns. Try to take cars away from Americans and see what happens. We love our trucks and SUVs. How dare the government regulate vehicles and not recognize vehicle ownership as an inalienable right? We MUST have this right codified as a constitutional amendment!
 
Then go ahead and add it. Get the votes and make it a right. Good luck.

Taking away fundamental rights carries with it a high burden of proof and following the guidelines for ratification. That’s how it works.
 
SquireSCA said:
Then go ahead and add it. Get the votes and make it a right. Good luck.

Taking away fundamental rights carries with it a high burden of proof and following the guidelines for ratification. That’s how it works.
Click to expand...
You never answered my question why you are totally fine with driving being a privilege but you threaten people with violence when they question gun ownership being a constitutional right.
 
Nobody threatened anyone with violence. What are you babbling about? I said that *YOU* seem to have a shoot first, ask questions mentality. It’s an expression.

How you have twisted that into a threat, is beyond me... you are clearly not qualified to be in this discussion. Do I have to block you?
[doublepost=1544393934][/doublepost]You can question the constitution all you want, it’s a free country. But it says what it says and it means what it means. It’s the foundation of this country and you can’t just change it because you don’t like it.

I mean, you can, if you follow the Ratification process.
 
SquireSCA said:
Which side has more evidence to support it? We added tens of millions of guns to the population and relaxed laws and let 16 million people have concealed carry permits, yet violent crime dropped 30% in that time and is back where it was when carter was in office...
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in debating about guns right now. I was just pointing out that at least part of the reason that Alex Jones was banned had nothing to do with political viewpoints, yet some conservatives like to point to it as some kind of case of “liberal” censorship.
 
Jensend said:
I’m not interested in debating about guns right now. I was just pointing out that at least part of the reason that Alex Jones was banned had nothing to do with political viewpoints, yet some conservatives like to point to it as some kind of case of “liberal” censorship.
Click to expand...
Jones is one of a thousand examples.

You can’t pretend that it’s not happening. I didn’t mention jones, I have personaly never listened to him.
 
Does anyone here think nothing should be censored on the macrumors forums as long as it isn’t illegal?
 
Jensend said:
Does anyone here think nothing should be censored on the macrumors forums as long as it isn’t illegal?
Click to expand...

Me. Unless it is Illegal, nudity, or something clearly defined as spam or things like that, let it ride... just my opinion. If someone wants to say something stupid, let them.

The problem is when a mod puts their personal beliefs and bias at the forefront and takes it upon themselves to be the thought police, that annoys most people...
[doublepost=1544394654][/doublepost]I mean, if you are clearly just screaming and being disruptive, maybe moderate that but to me, moderation should always be the last option. If I don’t like your posts, I just click the ignore button and poof... no more posts from you...

I am just shy of 50 years old. I don’t need a babysitter to protect me from words or speech I don’t like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top