Tech giant brings software to a gun fight

Deplorable Me · May 30, 2019

After the big solar flare guess who's gear will be useless?

subsonic · May 30, 2019

Get woke go broke.

Salesforce has plenty of competitors.

Deplorable Me · May 30, 2019

Seems like if they put conditions of use after the sale it's a breach of contract.

subsonic · May 30, 2019

Deplorable Me said:
Seems like if they put conditions of use after the sale it's a breach of contract.

Yeah, no kidding. You'll notice that Salesforce says this affects new and a "small number" of existing customers, probably a very small number whose maintenance has expired or is expiring.

If they cause active customers to incur large out-migration costs they can expect lawsuits or arbitration claims. Regardless, WaPo is crazy if they think that Salesforce holds the cards here. They have a B2B product, maybe they'll get some small SJW mom-and-pop accounts from this publicity but enterprise isn't going to pick a huge stack like this based on some secondary antigun concerns. If anything this makes Salesforce look risky, and enterprise hates risk.

byron · May 30, 2019

Deplorable Me said:
Seems like if they put conditions of use after the sale it's a breach of contract.

You mean like Cumo did with our lifetime pistol permits

Podmonkey · May 30, 2019

Unacceptable, this must be addressed in Congress, and nothing less than total protection of citizen's constitutional rights is acceptable.
No person nor organization has the right to hinder citizens lawful access to firearms. Period.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is part of the problem and needs to be dealt with on the same terms as these tyrannical technocrats.
This country of liberty was founded on the blood of her enemies and thus the mortar that must shore up the foundations of this Nation's liberty must also be in blood.
Silicon Valley needs to go down. The democrats need to go down. The left in it's entirety needs to go down. To not enact this just and righteous course is unethical.

fresch · May 30, 2019

Podmonkey said:
Unacceptable, this must be addressed in Congress, and nothing less than total protection of citizen's constitutional rights is acceptable.
No person nor organization has the right to hinder citizens lawful access to firearms. Period.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is part of the problem and needs to be dealt with on the same terms as these tyrannical technocrats.
This country of liberty was founded on the blood of her enemies and thus the mortar that must shore up the foundations of this Nation's liberty must also be in blood.
Silicon Valley needs to go down. The democrats need to go down. The left in it's entirety needs to go down. To not enact this just and righteous course is unethical.

Private Co. so leave the guberment out I say, just find a new vendor and tell the gun world you did it.
Hmm, that's a lot of going down going down I can think of a few people I'd like them to go down; but that's for another thread!

Podmonkey · May 30, 2019

fresch said:
Private Co. so leave the guberment out I say, just find a new vendor and tell the gun world you did it.
Hmm, that's a lot of going down going down I can think of a few people I'd like them to go down; but that's for another thread!

I strongly disagree with this private company shit. No person, no organization of any kind should have the ability to deny or impede any legal US citizen's constitutional rights. What this company is doing is so wrong, so evil it makes my head spin and they must be punished. Severely.

subsonic · May 30, 2019

Podmonkey said:
I strongly disagree with this private company shit. No person, no organization of any kind should have the ability to deny or impede any legal US citizen's constitutional rights. What this company is doing is so wrong, so evil it makes my head spin and they must be punished. Severely.

That's the same argument used to say your business has to cater whatever gay, tranny, or abortion shit du jour that the state decides trumps your values regardless of how you feel over the matter.

Salesforce isn't impeding anyones constitutional rights. They have plenty of competitors. A business can use one of them. If they were a monopoly (they aren't), then maybe they could be broken up.

As much as you have or should have a constitutional right to bear arms and speak, they have a constitutional right to limit their trade with the gun business if this is so disturbing to their snowflake CEO. I'll stand up for that right as much as I'd never work for or with Salesforce as long as long as their current CEO is calling the shots.

Podmonkey · May 30, 2019

subsonic said:
That's the same argument used to say your business has to cater whatever gay, tranny, or abortion shit du jour that the state decides trumps your values regardless of how you feel over the matter.

Salesforce isn't impeding anyones constitutional rights. They have plenty of competitors. A business can use one of them. If they were a monopoly (they aren't), then maybe they could be broken up.

As much as you have or should have a constitutional right to bear arms and speak, they have a constitutional right to limit their trade with the gun business if this is so disturbing to their snowflake CEO. I'll stand up for that right as much as I'd never work for or with Salesforce as long as long as their current CEO is calling the shots.

None of that deviant shit is in the constitution.
The right to bear arms is. Full stop.
The leftist scum have already wheedled and cheated their SJW bullshit into society. You would sit back and let this leftist, globalist scum have their way with pir basic human rights? All for some false bullshit ideological nonsense?
Corporations cannot be given free reign. Theodore Roosevelt knew this and under his administration sweeping anti trust, anti monopoly legislation was passed. And it was the right thing to do. What this company is doing is wrong, it is evil they must be stopped, even if we have to burn it to the ground.

Blimey · May 30, 2019

subsonic said:
If they cause active customers to incur large out-migration costs they can expect lawsuits or arbitration claims.

Agree, this seems likely.

Strange fight for Salesforce to pick. Would be truly interesting if instead of pleasantly asking these companies to stop, salesforce actually shuts them down. That would be tremendously damaging to a business that has invested a lot into salesforce. This is dangerous territory and I believe rather stupid. How many businesses choosing between salesforce and competitors are going to go with sf because of this? The smart ones instead would say if it's guns now maybe it's cigarettes tomorrow or alcohol or maybe they hate that our ceo and cio are white, etc.

meketrefe · May 30, 2019

On one side there is the free market.
On the other pure and simple discrimination due to one's beliefs.
What if believing in your most fundamental rights was a religion? Would they escape massive law suits?

subsonic · May 30, 2019

Podmonkey said:
None of that deviant shit is in the constitution.
The right to bear arms is. Full stop.

Freedom of association and commerce is. If I reserve the right to refuse service, then I can exercise my constitutional right to tell someone to take a hike from my establishment. The government should not have to tell me to provide services to someone I don't want to, full stop.

Uninformed and Compliant · May 30, 2019

subsonic said:
Freedom of association and commerce is. If I reserve the right to refuse service, then I can exercise my constitutional right to tell someone to take a hike from my establishment. The government should not have to tell me to provide services to someone I don't want to, full stop.

Counterpoint:

Corporations are a govt construct, not "people". They are exactly, and completely, govt constructions. They have no natural rights; they have the terms and conditions that were dictated as part of their construction.

If Salesforce were a proprietorship in some form, there would be a good argument to be made regarding "rights". But it isn't. It is a construction, and MUST NOT have "rights" like you or I.

Salesforce is just legacy cloud at this point, anyway. Let it die.

gun_slinger_boy · May 30, 2019

This is all for show. If the payout is big enough they will offer their services and software. It's all about the money. How do I know this? Well I work for DoD. They actually put in a bid (amongst others) for some services and software that we would later on take over and maintain. Who has more guns than the military? Hmmm. So it's definitely virtue signaling. Unless the money is right of course. Their software is crap by the way. How hypocritical SMH.

MoMan · May 30, 2019

subsonic said:
Salesforce has plenty of competitors.

Yes they do, AND many of them are better choices from a service/business standpoint!

gun_slinger_boy said:
Their software is crap by the way.

YESSIR! I agree, see above!

meketrefe · May 30, 2019

subsonic said:
Freedom of association and commerce is. If I reserve the right to refuse service, then I can exercise my constitutional right to tell someone to take a hike from my establishment. The government should not have to tell me to provide services to someone I don't want to, full stop.

You are right. you can refuse service.
You can refuse service to a person because of their color or gender but do not expect to go smoothly or to find yourself in the middle of a lawsuit and loose.
I am not saying you do not have the right, I am explaining reality.
Most here consider the right to bear arms a fundamental human right as important as free speech or freedom of religion.

btw fuck salesforce.

Acer-m14 · May 31, 2019

all grocery stores just announced if your a Republican voter you cant use our business

GOPerfect · May 31, 2019

How about this...

Insurance companies get with the State and find out a person is a gun owner, because he or she is a gun owner, these insurance companies will no longer issue policies to the gun owner?

Sure, we still have the 2A but in order to live a normal, everyday life, we cannot own guns?

Banks decide to do the same thing, find out you are a gun owner, whoa, slow down, we cannot give you a loan.

Rights stripped without the governments help.

subsonic · May 31, 2019

GOPerfect said:
How about this...

Insurance companies get with the State and find out a person is a gun owner, because he or she is a gun owner, these insurance companies will no longer issue policies to the gun owner?

Interesting idea. Insurance companies love flushing their policies down the toilet? Can you explain to me why I can't go 5 seconds without encountering a GEICO ad? Or do you honestly believe that gun owners make so many more claims that they are actually uninsurable?

Capitalism and the free market. Insurance companies can already ask you about your guns, most states have no law against it. The reason they don't, is that it's not relevant to them. If some idiot SJW insurance company CEO decided to stop insuring 1/3 of households, they would lose 1/3 of their business and that idiot CEO would lose their job.

GOPerfect · May 31, 2019

subsonic said:
Interesting idea. Insurance companies love flushing their policies down the toilet? Can you explain to me why I can't go 5 seconds without encountering a GEICO ad? Or do you honestly believe that gun owners make so many more claims that they are actually uninsurable?

Capitalism and the free market. Insurance companies can already ask you about your guns, most states have no law against it. The reason they don't, is that it's not relevant to them. If some idiot SJW insurance company CEO decided to stop insuring 1/3 of households, they would lose 1/3 of their business and that idiot CEO would lose their job.

They were examples of the power that companies have. Whatever dude, free market and all.

Citibank refuses to give loans to companies that deal in guns already. Just look around, pay a bit of attention to what is already being done.

Some insurance companies already refuse policies to owners of certain dog breeds, guns may just be next.

ProgSpear · Jun 1, 2019

GOPerfect said:
How about this...

Insurance companies get with the State and find out a person is a gun owner, because he or she is a gun owner, these insurance companies will no longer issue policies to the gun owner?

Sure, we still have the 2A but in order to live a normal, everyday life, we cannot own guns?

Banks decide to do the same thing, find out you are a gun owner, whoa, slow down, we cannot give you a loan.

Rights stripped without the governments help.

I disagree with your last statement.

The government helps in almost all cases by supporting the lawfare that supports this anti-constitutional behavior. It's the crooked activist judges and lenient approach toward progressive causes that provides the legal cover for discrimination against those horrid gun owners, yet protects various classes of mental defectives from any honest discussion of their mental issues, and elevates them on the intersectionality scale.

Of course, once the sharia crowd gets control, all of those problems go away...

Tech giant brings software to a gun fight

20×102mm Vulcan

.700 Nitro Express

.44 mag

.700 Nitro Express

.44 mag

.308 Win

20×102mm Vulcan

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.338 Win Mag

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.44 mag

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.44 mag

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.338 Win Mag

.308 Win

.450/400 Nitro Ex

20×102mm Vulcan

.950 JDJ

.44 mag

.950 JDJ

.338 Win Mag