Symantec has business relationship with NRA

Going to repeat my earlier post since it was attacked by SPAM. Also reported to Moderators. Hope they can solve this.
 

I have been a member of the NRA for years, and additionally a customer of both Norton Anti Virus and Lifelock since...Norton 2012 Lifelock 2015.

I am not going to debate the pro and cons of the NRA, gun control, etc. The folks here that have an opinion have that opinion, and nothing I write is going to change that. I am saddened at the hatred in some of the posts I have seen here. Very sad.

Here are my issues with the subject. My Airline of choice is SWA. They have never been a NRA discount partner. I am not sure if they have been approached, but if they have, and declined I have absolutely no problem with their decision.

However, Symantec DID decide to take advantage of the profits they would receive by offering discounts through the NRA. Then when it became "uncomfortable" to have that "relationship" in a frantic knee jerk decision, they bailed.

Now, for a company that rents cars, sells flowers, etc. That is not a big deal. However, and this is my issue, Symantec has my personal data, all of it. I am not comfortable with someone that "knee jerks" having that information any longer.

I have written and called Symantec, advised them that I respect their decision, but no longer "trust" them with my personal data. NOT because of their stance, but because of the way they reacted. I have requested that they erase all my personal data, and provide documentation showing they have. They have advised they can not do that.

While I respect their decision and position, I feel that anyone that wants to leave them, and ensure they have none of their personal data should be respected as well. I have now allowed others to handle this for me in a legal manner.

I have also advised the NRA they should no longer attempt to secure discounts. I have never used a NRA discount. Don't care about them. In fact I don't think any organization should offer them whether it be AARP, Airline Clubs, etc. As is evident here, too much crap!

Finally, and what concerns me the most, the entire world, media, etc. is no longer talking about solving this horrific problem we have, but taking about stupid discounts! Very Very SAD!

Frank V Actually the usage terms of service agreement doesn't allow for using the forums as a political front. Its not about anyone's rights its an binding agreement we all must abide by.https://community.norton.com/en/legal Admins will more than likely either lock the topics or remove them altogether for those reasons. Have a great day.

Plus Newsweek has terms of service, see 4. YOUR USE OF OUR CONTENT IS RESTRICTED:(a) Unless expressly permitted, you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, enter into a database, display, perform, modify, create derivative works from, transmit or in any way exploit any part of our site or any content thereon .....

I've expressed my views and my struggles with whether I will choose to maintain a relationship with Symantec.

This follow-up post is to commend Symantec for allowing the free flow of discussion by keeping this thread open. With the exception of Frank V and a couple of others, everyone has been respectful regardless of their position. This is a topic that elicits strong emotions by everyone, and I am encouraged by the fact that, with few exceptions, dozens of people have weighed in without stooping to the immature name-calling and insults that usually dominate these discussions and serve only to shut down all debate, discussion, compromise and solutions. I even commend Symantec for leaving those disrespectful posts intact. In addition to respecting free speech, it let's all of us see who is reasonable and thoughtful and who is not.

I still maintain that Symantec has made a mistake. But they are a private business and, thanks to the freedoms we cherish, have every right to choose to grant, and withdraw, whatever product incentives they choose to whomever they choose. And we have a right to buy, or not buy, their products, and to voice our approval or disapproval of their business practices.

You may not be listening, Symantec, but thank you for not shutting us up, regardless of your official terms of service.

I have been reading the comments here and I am amazed at the short sighted shallow reasoning (or, the lack thereof). The typical attack on the NRA never goes beyond the emotional level. I was once of the opinion that I didn't want to have a gun - didn't need one. That all changed about twenty years ago when my wife and I were walking on a forest service road a mile or so from the edge of our high country cabin community. We were confronted by a person who I still believe meant to do us harm. That immediately changed my mind. We were a long way from help - at that time we had no cell phone service in that area. The only thing that the authorities would have been able to do is put us in body bags and start an investigation. I had a sudden emotional response, but I followed it up with a reasoned solution. I accepted the fact that I was responsible for my own personal defense! I got training, I bought a hand gun, I qualified for a concealed carry permit. I did more training - continuous training. I pray that I will never have to draw my weapon except for training and practice. I can guarantee you that if you are ever confronted by a crazed shooter you will pray (or hope) that you have someone like me near you. If not, the police will come and put you in a body bag and start an investigation. I am a proud NRA member.

I have just one more comment in this chain.

The anti-NRA posts are characterized by insults (example: "NRAtards"). This is an example of the old adage: "If you have a good argument - present it; if not, attack your opponent."

No political view here. Just business. This is what Symantec seems to have forgotten. They DID have a poorly advertised discount that they did not have to provide, and it earned them a little business.  They broadly advertised the withdrawal of the discount, with the aim of looking as if they were working for the betterment of all mankind. It was their business decision.  At the end of the day, business should focus on providing a service or product that people need and want.  Leave social work to those who know how.  I perceive of the company as weak in direction, and adrift in it's identity as a provider of security. I do not do business with the weak or conflicted, and I did not wait for certificate expirations. I changed everything that I have over, to another provider that concentrates only on providing security services, not social justice or some perceived diversity. Myself, and the business that I serve "have left the building". Not counting my few personal computers, 132 machines. The damage to the Symantec name is not repairable to us. For us, it's just good business.

Good point. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong as well as many other despots disarmed the citizenry.

Lots of whining and complaining from the NRAholes.

Nobody cares.  Nobody will miss you. 

Yes, It is a good business decision.

Just try to stop being crybabies and move along.

Symantec, many other companies, and the nation are moving along without you.

Join other gun-nutjobs and start a commune.   

In no time at all, myself and other legitimate participants will still be here.  And you tards will be gone.

Bye

Taco, what color is the sky in your world? I now know that you only are interested in the raspy, screeching sound of your own voice and your bigotry. It is so easy to make statements like you did that it isn't even fair (or useful) to try to correct you. It is obvious that you just want to bounce around in your little echo chamber. I guess everyone else has figured you out and lets you talk to yourself. Bye bye, buddy. You introduced me to a new low.

I also support Symantec and the bold move and stand for freedom.

I do not belong to the NRA and can protect my loved ones without a bigger piece of equipment.

Symantec has stopped more intrusion in my life than any gun that I could own would!

God Bless Symantec and the products that really protect us.

I am another who will no longer be using Norton products. After 20 years of using them on every device I could they will no longer get my money. Subscription renewal popped up today and I just got done deleting all of my payment information and cancelling service. I didn't even use the NRA discount but believe your venture into politics is a lose lose for you as a company. You should have just ended all discount programs if you wanted out of the politics. But instead you targeted just the NRA. Companies should just be companies and not get involved at all. Leave the politics to voters and politicians. I think I will just donate my subscription amount to the NRA since it won't be going to Norton.

purchased my first norton product in 2002....

  if symantec doesnt agree with the 2nd ammendment, the right to keep and bear arms, even against the government -etc

then shut up, and be a good little victim..!

if you dont stand for something, you'll fall for anything..

i will also be terminating my association with symantec at the end of subscription this year.

i Am a Benefactor member of the NRA.  DONT TREAD ON ME symantec

agree with many above and also, guns dont kill,  people do..

lack of common sence is frustrating...

...@dissapointed with symantec

"America will Never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and loose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."  Abraham Lincoln 

I have been a member of both the NRA and Norton's for many years, but it appears that will come to an end. I'll give you two guess's as to which one will be dropped. Anyone that will condemn or attack the 2nd amendment which the NRA supports is no friend of mine. The NRA has not attacked nor killed anyone, in fact they promote gun safety. There is no justification for their attacking the NRA.

Symantec now has just 24 days to make a public statement reversing their anti-NRA policy before I switch to McAfee.

Frank,

Your source is "Page Not Found.  The page may have moved or may no longer be available. " on the Washingtonpost website.

Interesting that you use name calling to attack anyone voicing their opinion and use name calling to attack the 1st and 2nd amendment supporters. 

Frank, Can you acknowledge that these shootings is happening in "gun free zones"?  You attack the 1st and 2nd amendments of the United States   Shameful!!!

Frank V,

Your statement "The best available evidence suggests NRA-backed gun policies are making crime worse" is total Bull.

Read the study and you will see the actual facts. 

Of course you and your left wing don't want the facts. And that includes the Washington Post.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

Jim

News Update-

According to Frank's California link, REI never sold guns.  What is REI cutting off, lol. 

Frank, Can you admit that 95% of gun violence is taking place in gun free zones?  FYI:  I'm 20yr retired US military.  Some are better shots than I.  Some are worse.  What does taking away the 1st or 2nd amendment do for public safety? 

You are welcome. 

Dear Symantec, Norton, Etc ... YOU chose to enter the Political discussion when you made a political decision regarding punishing NRA members.  To say otherwise is hypocrisy.  

I would almost never respond to an NRA-type... but Morgan Riley... you are the exception.  I can tell that you have intellect.  You are rare in your crowd.

To some degree, I'm playing Colbert -- to make a point.  Usually, it is your crowd that does aspects of exactly what I'm doing.   Just without the reasoning or intellect. 

But I don't want to leave character too long... as there is no advantage to doing so.

I actually debated in college, and your challenge would not be much for me.  

But I do appreciate your post.  It would be good to sit down over a beer and discuss this with you.  

I think we'd actually come to a respectable understanding of divergent viewpoints.

You seem to be the exception.  

Cheers.

-Frank

sonoma234,

There is no danger that HR 5087 will pass.

Really... it has no chance.

So just keep calm and carry on.

Your Pal,

-Frank5

Morgan Riley,

Oh I'm buying alright...but I'm buying big hop double IPAs.  Bravo hops.

Yes, gun safety is paramount.  In the military, we learn respect for the weapon, and we count on every member of the military to do his/her part for safety.   And... in the military, every single member is screened to see if they have the mental and psychological makeup to ensure gun safety.  And every member has to prove weapon proficiency in order to bear a weapon.  And every member will be denied a weapon when those factors change.

Since we are all part of the militia.... a "well-regulated militia" as stated in the 2nd Amendment, we -- the militia -- should have standards as close to the military standards as possible.  This is not that difficult... see the example of Switzerland.  Generals David Petraeus and retired US Army Gen Stanley McChrystal agreed with this when they were part of a new veterans initiative to reduce gun violence.

The Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.

Your historical vignettes are often repeated fallacies.  They are repeated enough that it is easy to believe them.  While condensed, look to Snopes for clarity on this.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gunhistory.asp

But perhaps the greatest gun myth is that an armed citizenry will prevent government tyranny.   It won't.  As a military planner, I can assure you, the citizenry having arms is literally no match for a strong military.  Not even close.   That does not mean that an armed citizenry could not have an insurgency... much like Afghanistan today.  But no, the citizens could not in any effective manner fight back.   Different means -- namely the voting booth -- have to be utilized to keep a citizenry safe from its own government.   A study of history shows the types of governments that citizens should avoid to not be in a position where the government becomes tyrannical.   Extreme Nationalism seems to be a common first step to tyranny.  Study history to verify this.

With over 33,000 gun deaths annually, the US has a policy problem.  To allow this to continue with no action is unconscionable.   I won't go into what measure I believe should be instituted... but I'll repeat, we are all members of the militia.  A well-regulated militia.  Let's make it as close to military standards as possible.  Everybody screened.  Everybody proven safe and proficient. 

Vox lays out the problem and need for regulation very well.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/2/17050610/guns-shootings...

The NRA resists all regulation and spreads lies and conspiracy theories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/02/26/the-nra-is...

And I support you having a firearm for personal protection.  Just as long as you are the right person with the right mental, emotional, and physical traits to use the weapon effectively and to not hurt or kill somebody else or yourself by lack of bearing or skill.

I'm all for guns.  I own guns.  But over 33,000 fellow citizens annually should not die because we can't seem to properly regulate them.  We are the only 1st world country in the world with the per-capita problem that we have.  It's time to get rid of the NRA and those beholden to it who oppose all sensible regulation.  

When guns are regulated properly, you and your family are safer as well as me and mine.

Your Well-Armed Militia Buddy,

-Frank

Everyone Please keep in mind that Frank does not speak for most Vets.  Frank was in for 3 years as an administration assistant, not 20 years (or more) like most of us.  Frank speaks for the Far-Far-Left.  Frank has no more right to speak for Vets than I do for Communist, Socialist or Nazis, and I find him personally insulting.  He reminds me of Pentagon during the Viet Nam Era.  I was in 1980-2001.  He does try to rewrite history. 

Citizens can and have stood up to a corrupt Gov't.  Fortunately, guns are not always necessary.  When a Gov't becomes too corrupt, a course correction is necessary.  I believe that is what we are seeing with the election of POTUS Trump.