Replies

How is that defamation or bashing? I figured I'd say that to get people's attention since it happens quite often. People stop reading at one sentence that particularly provokes them and then reply without reading the rest. Anyway I am not a gun owner, but I will be in the future when I have my own home to protect (I'm a student, living in an apartment).

"While many people advocate the possession and use of firearms, some do not."

The above statement is at the heart of the controversy and what you seem to be missing.

Symantec has made an anti-gun judgment based on those who do not support gun rights.

If you take their statement at face value as to their intent, then consumers should have the option of blocking Planned Parenthood pro abortion sites,gay(non porno ones are not blocked to my knowledge)sites,and communist, anarchist, and socialist sites.

Most Americans, including myself, do not want their children browsing sites like I've listed above but no filters exist to protect my child against what I consider truly dangerous to my child's well being.

I think it would be a difficult point to argue that legal guns owned by Americans have killed more children than abortion on demand.

Symantec has made a judgment that legally owned firearms, supported in law by our Constitution, are more dangerous to children than abortion or Communism.

What is not being articulated on this thread is that they have placed legally owned firearms in the same category as the most obscene pornography.

True, it is up to the parents to activate or deactivate the filter, so why is there no filter for sites I consider just as dangerous to my child as anti-gun people feel pro gun sites are to theirs?

The answer, if one is honest, is a left wing bias.

That bias is indeed worthy of a boycott.

I will not buy Symantec products again.