Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Global Security Chief Indicted in Scheme to Trade iPads for Gun Permits, but Apple Says It's Found No Wrongdoing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but it happens both ways. Big corps are often selectively paid by the city or state to build there, and the worst part is it's done totally legally.
Works pretty well in Europe. Much lower homicide rate overall.Creating a system where only goverments and the elite can defend themselves.... brilliant!
Rules for thee, not for me.
... when/where you have totalitarian governments.
Lower crime rates in general too. And restricted speech. Go live there if you prefer it and aren't there already.
Oh, also much lower immigration rate, so maybe you're not able to.
And yet they have some of the best crime shows, go figure.
What do you mean by complicit? What do you think Mr. Moyer did to be complicit in the act?
Agreeing to pay or actually paying extortion doesn't make it not extortion. Indeed, if anything, that's what makes it extortion rather than attempted extortion. Rape is still rape even if the victim doesn't resist (or gives up resistance). Theft is still theft even if the victim doesn't resist (or gives up resistance).
Because if Europeans had more guns there wouldn’t be restricted speech? Correlation doesn’t mean causation. And fortunately I don’t have to go there since I am already there.
He was complicit in paying the bribe instead of reporting the extortion (which, I would say as a non-lawyer, it was).
This is why you have “Shall Issue“ laws. No room for bribery and other shenanigans. We dont let sherriffs have discretion for when to enforce the first amendment, or arson, or looting....or wait. We are screwed!
Here in the US, there’s a big difference between the right to bear arms and the right to concealed carry.
All constitutional rights in the US come with restrictions. The Supreme Court (ultimately) decides what those restrictions are.
Learn to deal with shades of grey, few things in life are black and white.
Yup, freedom and the right to defend yourself is not free, everything comes at a cost.
It's easy to say that you don't need a gun until that day when you need a gun, that is why the elites have both guns and security.
In the US, it’s relatively uncommon and it’ll get you put in prison. In some countries, nothing gets done without it.
LOL! Someone needs to retake 9th grade civics or read the U.S. Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment reads in full:
”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
See https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
Got that? *A well-regulated militia*...
The right to bear arms is a conditional one, regulated by the government. Even the majordomo of originalism, Justice Scalia, said so. Next time, don't grab one phrase out of context simply to support an NRA, rightwing talking point. In fact, many legal scholars feel the Court erred in its historical analysis — there is *no* individual right to bear arms, just a collective one, which is currently represented by the National Guard.
Ah, the NRA... the gun manufacturers' lobby filled with self-enriching, corrupt talking heads; an organization going bankrupt and being investigated for a host of financial misdeeds.
"The 'well-regulated' bit" refers to the militia, not the right to keep and bear arms. That seems to have escaped you.
Triggered much? Generalize much?
Here in the US, there are “Leftists” that love their guns and can hit a tin can from two miles away. They’ll make sure you know that, should you happen to come trespassing on their property.
Edit: for those who don’t understand what US leftists might think about guns, here’s a little lesson. Google has much more, I’ll guarantee you.
‘If others have rifles, we’ll have rifles’: why US leftist groups are taking up arms
Armed antifascists groups say they want to protect events from other malicious and potentially armed groups – a phenomenon that is becoming more and more common
So don’t shoot the messenger, those of you who are triggered by gun toting leftists 🤣🤣🤣 You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own set of facts.
Last edited:
Finally a way to get rid of Tim Cook!!
Let Phil Schiller or Johnny Ive run Apple as Steve originally wanted.
Let Phil Schiller or Johnny Ive run Apple as Steve originally wanted.
Why does anyone need armed security? You really need someone to explain this to you?
That is a point most people (across the political spectrum) don’t get. Political beliefs aren’t on a one dimensional scale (ie right and left). One can be socially conservative and economically liberal or fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Take the libertarian party. They support a smaller less intrusive federal government (in contrast to most Republicans and Democrats) but they vary widely on social issues. I think people wouldn’t be so divided if everyone wasn’t grouped into one of two camps.
Liberals: Rules for thee but not for me
My point was that paying it rather than reporting it doesn't make it bribery rather than extortion. Indeed, extortion as we've come to define it in the U.S. - expanding on what would have been considered extortion under English common law - generally requires the element of consent. The victim consents to the extortion. That's generally what makes it extortion rather than some form of theft.
Kind of like when someone tries to murder their wife, and they don't succeed? Since she's alive there's no crime.
Makes perfect sense!