Salesforce says companies that sell semi-automatic weapons can't use its software

[OptimumSlinky]

Incorrect. Guns have many different uses, and most guns in the world have never been used to kill people.
Examples include sport shooting, recreational shooting, hunting, self defense, etc. Even for self defense, you don't actually need to kill someone with a gun to use it for self defense purposes.

Killing someone is one use of a gun. Just like giving yourself cancer and organ damage is one use of using alcohol.

Guns have many uses and origins. However, the AR-15, the center of the entire debate and the weapon of choice for mass shooters in the USA, is derived from the ArmaLite AR-15 design that served as the basis for the M-16 in Vietnam, and the M-16 was not designed for recreational shooting or self-defense. It was designed for the Army for combat, ergo, killing other humans.
Let's be frank: If guys were blowing each other up with fertilizer and doing mass shootings with modified shotguns and deer hunting rifles, that'd be one debate. But they're using the same rifle I carried in Afghanistan, in the same caliber, with the same magazines, optics, and ballistics, and that makes it something else.
Full disclosure: I'm an American and I own two handguns, so I'm not opposed in principle to private citizens owning firearms. I just don't think Bubba down the street needs what I rocked in Kandahar for "home defense," and think the "shall not be infringed" crowd needs to re-read the "well-regulated" passage as it refers to the militia.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Guns have many uses and origins. However, the AR-15, the center of the entire debate and the weapon of choice for mass shooters in the USA, is derived from the ArmaLite AR-15 design that served as the basis for the M-16 in Vietnam, and the M-16 was not designed for recreational shooting or self-defense. It was designed for the Army for combat, ergo, killing other humans.
Let's be frank: If guys were blowing each other up with fertilizer and doing mass shootings with modified shotguns and deer hunting rifles, that'd be one debate. But they're using the same rifle I carried in Afghanistan, in the same caliber, with the same magazines, optics, and ballistics, and that makes it something else.
Full disclosure: I'm an American and I own two handguns, so I'm not opposed in principle to private citizens owning firearms. I just don't think Bubba down the street needs what I rocked in Kandahar for "home defense," and think the "shall not be infringed" crowd needs to re-read the "well-regulated" passage as it refers to the militia.

Thank you for the nuanced interpretation instead of the all-or-nothing argument that many people fall into.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Guns have many uses and origins. However, the AR-15, the center of the entire debate and the weapon of choice for mass shooters in the USA, is derived from the ArmaLite AR-15 design that served as the basis for the M-16 in Vietnam, and the M-16 was not designed for recreational shooting or self-defense. It was designed for the Army for combat, ergo, killing other humans.
Let's be frank: If guys were blowing each other up with fertilizer and doing mass shootings with modified shotguns and deer hunting rifles, that'd be one debate. But they're using the same rifle I carried in Afghanistan, in the same caliber, with the same magazines, optics, and ballistics, and that makes it something else.
Full disclosure: I'm an American and I own two handguns, so I'm not opposed in principle to private citizens owning firearms. I just don't think Bubba down the street needs what I rocked in Kandahar for "home defense," and think the "shall not be infringed" crowd needs to re-read the "well-regulated" passage as it refers to the militia.

First, according to US Federal law, the militia is every able bodied male in the United States. See 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."

Read the Constitution Center's interpretation of what "Well regulated militia" means:
""Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Second, the most common mass shooting weapons are actually semi-automatic pistols, not semi-auto rifles. According to this statistic website, there were 92 mass shooting incidents with handguns, 43 mass shooting incidents with rifles, and 26 mass shooting incidents with shotguns from 1982 to 2019.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ So you can't really claim that AR-15 should be banned because it is some unusually dangerous anomaly compared to the debate over other types of guns.

Third, the AR-15 is not the same gun the military uses. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic only weapon with a firing style not much different than modern pistols that also fire in semi-auto. The military uses "assault rifle" variants of the AR-15 that have to be capable of selective fire, which includes fully automatic fire (except variants such as the A-2 which has burst fire). The “ballistics” of the 5.56mm bullet is not something particularly amazing – it is a medium caliber bullet that actually has less kinetic energy than the larger bullets of other rifles, including hunting rifles. Now, if you want to talk about optics (not much different than the ones that hunters) use or extended magazines, that is an entirely different debate, as there is debate over pistol extended magazines too.

Fourth, as for weapons designed by the military to kill, civilians had top of the line rifles, explosives, and cannons, etc during the Revolutionary War and Civil War too. Whether something is used or originally designed for the military is not an indication that the second amendment does not apply. The US government actually uses surplus M1 Garand rifles to promote civilian marksmanship and allowed countries such as the Philippines and South Korea to sell hundreds of thousands of M1 Garands to US civilians. The M1 Garand is a semi-automatic battlefield rifle created for the military and used during WW2, Korea, and even Vietnam (to a lesser extent). It has a longer range than M16s/AR-15s, and fires a 7.62x51mm bullet that has TWICE the energy of a 5.56mm bullet from an M16/AR-15.

Fifth, it’s actually a Constitutional right to own military grade weaponry in relation to the militia according to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court case United States vs Miller, the court ruled that sawed off shotguns can not be used by civilians because it has no military purpose and has no use to a militia. In that case, the court is saying that the second amendment protects the rights of civilians to have the type of gun that would be important military and to a militia.

Sixth and finally, home defense isn't even the main purpose of the second amendment. The main purpose of arming the people was for the people to defend against threats from both abroad (foreign invasion) and from tyranny within (despotic government).
Read these quotes from Thomas Jefferson for example:
-"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.

-"The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Cooper, 1814.
(It's important to note that the people conscripted in the Greek and pre-Marian Roman levy armies provided their own weapons and equipment)

-"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808.

https://www.monticello.org/site/res...ople-retain-right-keep-and-bear-arms-spurious

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm

Full disclosure: I am also an American, and I actually own zero firearms, and have no intention of owning any firearms any time soon. However, I have read up on the history of gun rights and the writings of our Founding Fathers. I recognize and respect the importance of the second amendment and its broad intention of preserving the right to firearms for multiple reasons. The American Founding Fathers encouraged the people to be armed so they can form into militias (eg. well organized able bodied Americans) to be able to resist both a foreign invasion as well as a despotic tyrant who has taken over the American government.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

First, according to US Federal law, the militia is every able bodied male in the United States. See 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."

Read the Constitution Center's interpretation of what "Well regulated militia" means:
""Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Second, the most common mass shooting weapons are actually semi-automatic pistols, not semi-auto rifles. According to this statistic website, there were 92 mass shooting incidents with handguns, 43 mass shooting incidents with rifles, and 26 mass shooting incidents with shotguns from 1982 to 2019.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ So you can't really claim that AR-15 should be banned because it is some unusually dangerous anomaly compared to the debate over other types of guns.

Third, the AR-15 is not the same gun the military uses. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic only weapon with a firing style not much different than modern pistols that also fire in semi-auto. The military uses "assault rifle" variants of the AR-15 that have to be capable of selective fire, which includes fully automatic fire (except variants such as the A-2 which has burst fire). The “ballistics” of the 5.56mm bullet is not something particularly amazing – it is a medium caliber bullet that actually has less kinetic energy than the larger bullets of other rifles, including hunting rifles. Now, if you want to talk about optics (not much different than the ones that hunters) use or extended magazines, that is an entirely different debate, as there is debate over pistol extended magazines too.

Fourth, as for weapons designed by the military to kill, civilians had top of the line rifles, explosives, and cannons, etc during the Revolutionary War and Civil War too. Whether something is used or originally designed for the military is not an indication that the second amendment does not apply. The US government actually uses surplus M1 Garand rifles to promote civilian marksmanship and allowed countries such as the Philippines and South Korea to sell hundreds of thousands of M1 Garands to US civilians. The M1 Garand is a semi-automatic battlefield rifle created for the military and used during WW2, Korea, and even Vietnam (to a lesser extent). It has a longer range than M16s/AR-15s, and fires a 7.62x51mm bullet that has TWICE the energy of a 5.56mm bullet from an M16/AR-15.

Fifth, it’s actually a Constitutional right to own military grade weaponry in relation to the militia according to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court case United States vs Miller, the court ruled that sawed off shotguns can not be used by civilians because it has no military purpose and has no use to a militia. In that case, the court is saying that the second amendment protects the rights of civilians to have the type of gun that would be important military and to a militia.

Sixth and finally, home defense isn't even the main purpose of the second amendment. The main purpose of arming the people was for the people to defend against threats from both abroad (foreign invasion) and from tyranny within (despotic government).
Read these quotes from Thomas Jefferson for example:
-"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.

-"The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Cooper, 1814.
(It's important to note that the people conscripted in the Greek and pre-Marian Roman levy armies provided their own weapons and equipment)

-"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808.

https://www.monticello.org/site/res...ople-retain-right-keep-and-bear-arms-spurious

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm

Full disclosure: I am also an American, and I actually own zero firearms, and have no intention of owning any firearms any time soon. However, I have read up on the history of gun rights and the writings of our Founding Fathers. I recognize and respect the importance of the second amendment and its broad intention of preserving the right to firearms for multiple reasons. The American Founding Fathers encouraged the people to be armed so they can form into militias (eg. well organized able bodied Americans) to be able to resist both a foreign invasion as well as a despotic tyrant who has taken over the American government.

Thought it may not appear so at first glance, I actually appreciate and agree with most of what you got here. And frankly, our debate here has been more nuanced and meaningful than anything that's been done in Congress in since 2000.
My only counter point is the following: The Constitution is a document that must be interpreted. The current interpretation by the Supreme Court generally coincides with what you're saying, but Mr. (Ms?) Rakove's interpretation of the expression "well-regulated militia" isn't universal and as such, Congress and the Supreme Court could potentially be brought to reinterpret and change the stance. Additionally, even going with that interpretation that regulated means well-organized rather than legally controlled, I'd say we still fail that litmus test. I'd actually support something closer to the German model, where gun owners must join registered, reputable shooting clubs for practice, safety evaluation, and continuing education.
And ain't nobody in the Army using the M4 on burst-fire or full-auto (marksmanship degrades too rapidly), so while technically different, in real world use that distinction is meaningless.
Cheers.

 

[Capaill]

First, according to US Federal law, the militia is every able bodied male in the United States. See 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."

So, what you're saying is, it's against the law for a woman to own a gun outside of the armed forces? Or any man over the age of 45 (which I imagine is most veterans in the US).

Getting back to this article, Salesforce is a private company. They can change the terms of new contracts whenever they want as long as they adhere to local laws. If that change causes them to lose customers and the revenue of those sales to their competitors, then that's their problem. It is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment because Salesforce don't sell the guns directly - the gun seller is free to use software from another supplier, or not at all, and they can still sell their guns to the American public.

Thanks for some of the interesting comments above - it's always good to see a change provoking an educated conversation from both sides, rather than one side jumping straight to the lawsuit. If we could figure out a forum within a nation to have more of that, instead of waiting for the judges to rule on everything, we might come up with some better solutions. Alas that's not how the world works.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Thought it may not appear so at first glance, I actually appreciate and agree with most of what you got here. And frankly, our debate here has been more nuanced and meaningful than anything that's been done in Congress in since 2000.
My only counter point is the following: The Constitution is a document that must be interpreted. The current interpretation by the Supreme Court generally coincides with what you're saying, but Mr. (Ms?) Rakove's interpretation of the expression "well-regulated militia" isn't universal and as such, Congress and the Supreme Court could potentially be brought to reinterpret and change the stance. Additionally, even going with that interpretation that regulated means well-organized rather than legally controlled, I'd say we still fail that litmus test. I'd actually support something closer to the German model, where gun owners must join registered, reputable shooting clubs for practice, safety evaluation, and continuing education. And ain't nobody in the Army using the M4 on burst-fire or full-auto (marksmanship degrades too rapidly), so while technically different, in real world use that distinction is meaningless.
Cheers.

Thanks. I agree that some things can still be up for interpretation.

However, Rakove's interpretation of the historical definition of "regulated" probably [likely?] falls in line with the original interpretation as it is based on the historical context of what the Founding Fathers wanted/intended when they wrote the laws.

If so, then if the Supreme Court wants to reinterpret what a well regulated milita means in the context of the modern meaning of "regulation" in a "regulatory" state, then that would be creating a new definition and strays from the original law. It's the Supreme Court's right to change the meaning, but it's probably not what the original law was intended to do.

Depending on how much they want to shift away from original interpretations, I think they should stick to the formal process of Constitutional Amendments if they want to significantly change what the Constitution does.

As for the German mode, I agree that there should be more formal organizations that practice gun safety, continuing education, background checks for criminal behavior, etc so they have more resemblance to an organized militia. However, I am more unsure about requiring people to "register" if they have guns, in case such name registration lists fall into the hands of the unscrupulous or dangerous members of the central government or regulating authorities that may use them for unethical or unsavory means.

As for nobody using burst fire or full auto, that is still a part of the conception surrounding mass shootings with rifles. When people hear the word "assault rifle" used in a mass shooting, they often automatically assume some guy is spraying a machine gun on full auto shooting thousands of bullets a minute - even if the reality is he is just firing the gun in semi-auto like most pistols.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

So, what you're saying is, it's against the law for a woman to own a gun outside of the armed forces? Or any man over the age of 45 (which I imagine is most veterans in the US).

No, that is not what I am saying. That is just what the definition of what a militia is according to US Code. A militia doesn't have to be a formal government organization - it is just most able bodied males in the US and females in the Natl Guard. It is an illustrative but not exhaustive reason for having guns.
The Second Amendment has been interpreted to preserve the rights to firearms from [excessive] government interference due to 1) having an armed citizenry that can create militias to fight against both external and internal oppression and 2) other factors such as rights to self defense which has its roots in centuries old English laws.

Furthermore, the US federal government is supposed to have no power outside of those expressly or implicitly granted to it in the Constitution, and everything else is a right automatically reserved for the people and the states as stated in the 10th Amendment. So the American people and states automatically start out with all rights, and the federal government is not the one "granting" any rights. The federal government only has the ability to regulate/restrict pre-existing rights.

So a woman automatically has the right to own a gun unless there is a specific and Constitutionally valid law preventing her from doing so - you don't need a law to "grant" women the right to own guns because it was their already their right to do so.

Getting back to this article, Salesforce is a private company. They can change the terms of new contracts whenever they want as long as they adhere to local laws. If that change causes them to lose customers and the revenue of those sales to their competitors, then that's their problem. It is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment because Salesforce don't sell the guns directly - the gun seller is free to use software from another supplier, or not at all, and they can still sell their guns to the American public.

The Federal government has taken other Constitutional Amendments that originally only applied to governments and expanded/interpreted them to apply to certain private parties as well. So the argument of "private company is immune from the Constitution" heavily depends on how much power you think the Federal Government should have.

For example, the 14th Amendment says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Originally, meant that the governments can't discriminate, but the government also can't intervene in private discrimination either. However, nowadays, after many laws and legal battles, the courts today say that "states" subject to federal oversight under the 14th Amdmt include all employees and agencies of the states, as well as private persons and entities having some relationship with the states. So in a state that has private companies doing business with the federal or state government, the Constitutional Amendments do apply to these private businesses. Does Salesforce do business with the federal or state government? Most likely.

Another example is the 1964 Civil Rights Act which regulated private businesses. Congress said its authority for this Act was the ability to regulate private businesses to stop discrimination/further the 14th Amdmt was based on interstate Commerce under Article 1 of the Constitution. The Interstate Commerce Acts have also been greatly expanded to allow the federal government to intervene in almost every private matter because almost everything deals with interstate commerce these days. The nature of selling guns can easily fall under interstate commerce.

So it is not uncommon for the federal government to "regulate" the behavior of private businesses with legal theories stemming from the Constitution, and expand and enforce Constitutional requirements onto the private sector.

If we could figure out a forum within a nation to have more of that, instead of waiting for the judges to rule on everything, we might come up with some better solutions. Alas that's not how the world works.

Probably because the many, if not most voters prefer overly simplistic reduction of political arguments, catchy sound bites, and emotionally charged accusatory statements than the long and more boring process of detailed debate. The leaders in charge do what they do because that seems to be effective in getting them reelected and what most voters respond to.