• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O Moves on 'smart guns'...

My understanding is that the technology is easily capable of allowing for authorization of multiple fingerprints with built-in margins of error to account for smudging or cuts.

What does it do to account for battery failure or removal? This is nothing more than a "smart" lock.
 
Much like green energy or the internet, there needs to be a fundamental support from the Government behind these types of new technologies in order to get to a point where they could become close to 100% reliable.

The only technologies that are dependent on government money are the highly questionable ones. Steve Jobs never needed a grant, nor Bill Gates. Not one of the advanced medical technologies we use today was subsidized. You can water a dessert all you like, but sooner or later it's going back to being desert
 
I think this is more about driving the price of a modest fire arm out of the reach of law abiding people with modest incomes.
 
:lamo

“As long as I’m your president, I will do everything in my power to make our communities safer and keep guns out of the wrong hands,”

7 years and 5 months into his presidency, Obama is 'engaging' violence in communities. By ignoring the violence in the communities and offering grants to gun manufacturers.

Like I said...

:lamo

He could have started with Chicago where he came from politically. But he chose to ignore the most violent place in America by sending in "dead fish".
 
There is no way I want this technology anywhere near me.
 
Much like green energy or the internet, there needs to be a fundamental support from the Government behind these types of new technologies in order to get to a point where they could become close to 100% reliable.

Isn't it funny that only gun control advocates like this idea? Did you notice how every single gun owner in this thread rejects it? Does that tell you anything?
 
as long as the choice to aquire and possess a smart gun is voluntary and entirely up to the consumer....I don't care if he pushes smart gun tech.

if he, in any shape form or fashion, takes that choice from the consumer, we'll have a problem on our hands.


no matter if you are anti-gun or pro-gun, folks need to realize and understand that there are very real concerns dealing with smart-gun tech... and quite literally, lives are on the line.
 
Funny thing. I have what some might consider an 'arsenal'. Never once have my guns accidentally gun off. Never once have they gone off on shooting sprees. Never once have they robbed a bank. Turns out...you dont need some fancy hi tech to create 'safe' guns. You just need to have 'smart' owners. Good luck legislating that.

And another thing...

Anti-gun leftists constantly shriek about background checks and straw purchases. Why are there so many violent crimes we ask? They say "because people buy those guns and then sell them to criminals". And 'smart' technology prevents that how again?
 
Smart Guns Are Junk Technology Only Wanted By Dumb People
Why smart guns are stupid – Rare
Why Obama’s Smart Gun Push Will Misfire | TechCrunch

There are several problems. There is no real demand for one thing. There are far too many things that can go wrong for another. There is also the issue of hacking to disable the guns.

If its not 100% reliable or close to it, its a non starter. A gun that wont fire isn't going to get bought.

I agree completely. However, since when has practicality or reality prevented this president or his administration from spending the people's money foolishly? On something, or in support of something that doesn't have a demand? Just have to look at his 'green-tech' recovery failure.

Oh well that doesn't mean anything . . . the government's implemented all sorts of **** that was a stupid waste of high-tech money and didn't work. and once they implement anything and force it on others to follow along with, they rarely back down lest they look the ass.

Indeed. Makes me wonder why there are so many statists around, whi think the government can do no wrong, that there isn't an issue into which the government shouldn't interject itself. :screwy

once again Obama thinks he is king and can just make up laws on people.
sorry Obama you are not king you are president.
you don't get to make up laws.

once again you show how much of a failure you are. worst president in history.

how did this guy pass constitutional law again? maybe he needs a refresher course.

Indeed. Thank goodness that his imperial reign will soon come to an end, just not soon enough.

This would be " smart gun" tech that would have a back door so that the government could turn your gun off at any time, natch.

Hell. No.

Exactly my first thought as well. Just some sort of radio signal, a back door in the electronics, a special federally required chip on the activation circuit, it all it would take. Instant disarmament at the touch of a button. Exactly what the statist left end of the political spectrum seems to want.

Even if the tech was working perfectly, I still wouldn't want that crap.

Right there with you on that.

as long as the choice to aquire and possess a smart gun is voluntary and entirely up to the consumer....I don't care if he pushes smart gun tech.

if he, in any shape form or fashion, takes that choice from the consumer, we'll have a problem on our hands.


no matter if you are anti-gun or pro-gun, folks need to realize and understand that there are very real concerns dealing with smart-gun tech... and quite literally, lives are on the line.

Nothing that the aforementioned gun safe couldn't take care of. Why support the million dollar solution when the $2 solution works just fine? ('Cause it's that or less to put a breech cable on the firearm for Christ's sake!).

Funny thing. I have what some might consider an 'arsenal'. Never once have my guns accidentally gun off. Never once have they gone off on shooting sprees. Never once have they robbed a bank. Turns out...you dont need some fancy hi tech to create 'safe' guns. You just need to have 'smart' owners. Good luck legislating that.

And another thing...

Anti-gun leftists constantly shriek about background checks and straw purchases. Why are there so many violent crimes we ask? They say "because people buy those guns and then sell them to criminals". And 'smart' technology prevents that how again?

It doesn't, and it won't. Pretty much the same as all the other anti-gun 'solutions' to their perceived 'problem'.
 
I know little of it, but this type of gun sounds very dangerous to a person attempting to defend themselves.
Beyond dangerous, suicidal. If you forgot to charge it, or it has a read pattern error, or even a short that puts enough heat to a bullet will cause an unexpected discharge. Not to mention the chance of hacking, the one that was proposed was over 2K$ for an anemic .22 which required wearing a (sold separately) identifier watch which had to synch and that in itself is idiocy, you have less than 2 seconds in a self defense situation and that many steps will result in catastrophe.

This factors in minor failure, if the device has a catastrophic failure your chances go from slim to zero.
 
Beyond dangerous, suicidal. If you forgot to charge it, or it has a read pattern error, or even a short that puts enough heat to a bullet will cause an unexpected discharge. Not to mention the chance of hacking, the one that was proposed was over 2K$ for an anemic .22 which required wearing a (sold separately) identifier watch which had to synch and that in itself is idiocy, you have less than 2 seconds in a self defense situation and that many steps will result in catastrophe.

This factors in minor failure, if the device has a catastrophic failure your chances go from slim to zero.

It can be said with certainty that it probably would take weeks at the most to hack and deactivate, Most criminals are simply not going to bother. They bring their own gun. This would just be one more reason for doing so.

All things are possible in the mind of the believer.....
 
It can be said with certainty that it probably would take weeks at the most to hack and deactivate, Most criminals are simply not going to bother. They bring their own gun. This would just be one more reason for doing so.

All things are possible in the mind of the believer.....
They don't care now about being caught with a weapon as a prohibited person, why should they care if an "analog" gun is banned because of these "smart" guns. Only an idiot would trust their life to a high tech, failure prone weapon when the standard firearm is much more reliable. Where they may invest time is deactivating a potential victim's firearm, and creating a monopoly of force using the very stupid weapon that morons like Obama and the Democrat party try to foist on us.
 
...except for the two times when Obama expanded gun rights.

Also, as a former LEO, wouldn't you appreciate some additional protection against the threat of a criminal grabbing your firearm and using it against you? Or the possibility of a child getting hold of your firearm at home and then using it against themselves of a family member?

That's rather stupid. When Obama's bodyguards are limited to such weapons, I might consider them. We don' have any "children" in our home. My only son is 18, a black belt and a highly rated competitive shooter.
 
Do you know much about how guns operate? What makes them tick?

Do you realize how absurd the notion is of putting some kind of electronic fingerprint detecting block on them would be?

You are dealing with someone who originally called for a complete ban on handguns. he does not see any real value in citizens being able to carry pistols or have them for self defense. Gun banners are rarely worried about the pubic safety of those of us who want to carry guns. Most of the schemes they support are not really designed to impact criminals-rather the goal is to impact those of us who don't buy into the leftwing mindset.

so when we argue such smart guns could leave a gun owner vulnerable to criminal attack, I suspect many anti gunners are thinking "so what"?
 
Many have said the same thing about space travel, the internet, GPS, solar energy, electric vehicles, self-driving vehicles, etc. etc.

Sci-fi fantasy is usually just technology envisioned a few generations before they actually exist.

no one has passed a law banning airplanes or trains once space travel is realistic. Gasoline driven vehicles are not targeted for becoming contraband when electric cars are readily available
 
I think this is more about driving the price of a modest fire arm out of the reach of law abiding people with modest incomes.


crapping on the poor has always been a major plank in the gun banners' agenda
 
WASHINGTON — President Obama will use the power of his office to push for adoption of so-called smart gun technology that could eventually limit the use of a firearm to its owner, the White House announced Friday morning.

The move is intended to allow Mr. Obama to confront firearms violence in the face of fierce opposition to broader gun control measures. But critics of smart gun technology, including some police officials, are expected to fight a proposal that they see as unproven and an unwarranted restriction on the freedom to use firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/u...-weight-behind-smart-gun-technology.html?_r=0


As a retired LEO, and pro-gun activist, I will fight him all the way. Nothing a liberal comes up with, regarding guns, is ever good.

The Liberal's Gun Corner | Where the Second Amendment and Liberalism do a Group Hug! :)
 
About as "space age" and "high tech" as I need to go with smart gun technology is Glock. :thumbs:

No government subsidies required.
 
Should I buy a separate home defense gun for every person in my house?

Just having a firearm, and them knowing it, is usually all it takes..

Buy as many as you need....hell...buy enough for your whole neighborhood....

I'm guessing this was a headline from your NRA newsletter?

Or is the NRA too anti-second amendment for you?

I'm guessing, that your guessing, is majorly flawed. Nice try.

My understanding is that the technology is easily capable of allowing for authorization of multiple fingerprints with built-in margins of error to account for smudging or cuts.

And technology ...fails...all the time....think it can't? Why then do car makers have so many recalls these days? More than ever before.

Oh well that doesn't mean anything . . . the government's implemented all sorts of **** that was a stupid waste of high-tech money and didn't work. and once they implement anything and force it on others to follow along with, they rarely back down lest they look the ass.

Ya...just look at Solara!

Even the article hints that there is very little Obama can do within the confines of executive action. This is a media event, nothing more.

Pretty much....and the media loves to LIE!

Smart guns are the default position of the anti-gun left. THIS....THIS will be the answer.....

Yep..anti-gunners are complete bozo morons! I'd like to think their condition is genetic.....but I think it's mostly learned behavior, with a huge lack of intuitive thought.
 
Last edited:
WASHINGTON — President Obama will use the power of his office to push for adoption of so-called smart gun technology that could eventually limit the use of a firearm to its owner, the White House announced Friday morning.

The move is intended to allow Mr. Obama to confront firearms violence in the face of fierce opposition to broader gun control measures. But critics of smart gun technology, including some police officials, are expected to fight a proposal that they see as unproven and an unwarranted restriction on the freedom to use firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/u...-weight-behind-smart-gun-technology.html?_r=0


As a retired LEO, and pro-gun activist, I will fight him all the way. Nothing a liberal comes up with, regarding guns, is ever good.




When the police and military have been using them for 10-15 yrs and fixed all the bugs out of the system, I'll consider buying one.


Till then... :no:
 
When the police and military have been using them for 10-15 yrs and fixed all the bugs out of the system, I'll consider buying one.


Till then... :no:
Not even then. If we ever get to the point where high velocity personalized rail guns are a common item then I will accept electronic and technical internals and firing systems. For good ole' fashioned gunpowder I will keep it analog.
 
Not even then. If we ever get to the point where high velocity personalized rail guns are a common item then I will accept electronic and technical internals and firing systems. For good ole' fashioned gunpowder I will keep it analog.

Ditto! :thumbs::thumbs:
 
Much like green energy or the internet, there needs to be a fundamental support from the Government behind these types of new technologies in order to get to a point where they could become close to 100% reliable.

All it would take to kill one with a wifi identifier is a cel phone jammer. $40.00 to $180.00 depending on range and quality. And I'm not even being creative.
 
What a bunch of sci-fi non-sense.

The spirit of the 2nd Ammendment is about forming anti-government militias. What am I supposed to do with my comrade's gun if he/she gets shot by the government?

Biometrics for gun use? Just who exactly is going to be the master database for all that personal data? He might as well be asking for a mandatory Federal gun registry.

The pass code thing is novel but should always be optional. Maybe some people would like that option, if they feel like dishing out $ for it?

Maybe we should be address the culture of violence and pharmaceutical drug use in this country before we put some much freakin attention on a weapon. Seriously, the world is laughing at us because we can't control our crazy people.
 
Back
Top Bottom