O Moves on 'smart guns'...

[legalimmigrant]

actually the real cowards are those who refuse to accept the risk and responsibility of making their own safety a personal duty. Such cowards outsource that duty to the government and seek to ban other men from accepting such responsibility. Why? Because cowards don't want to be reminded of their own inadequacies and timidity by having to see armed men in their vicinity.

Spot on. The best post since I joined. Still, I would like to add this. A quote:

When you are done with this book, you will also realize that police are not only useless when you are in trouble, but actually contribute to crime by demanding a monopoly on the use of deadly force, while, at the same time, refusing to confront the bad guys when the bullets are flying in your neighborhood school, as getting shot before retirement would be really silly.

Their allies - the media and the teachers - will try their best to tell you or your kids that only the police should have guns and that you should always answer all their questions when asked. If you already bought this s***, you are too stupid to be a parent. By the way, that "We Serve and Protect" on the police cars is also a lie to make you feel warm and fuzzy toward the cops, as the Supreme Court said back in 2005 that the police are not legally obligated to serve or protect. Bottom line: police do not protect; they investigate after they find you dead.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I am a former police officer and I can tell you it happened all the time.

So if a person wanted to buy a gun that only he or she could possibly use, what's wrong with that? Why the rabid opposition against them?

 

[OpportunityCost]

So if a person wanted to buy a gun that only he or she could possibly use, what's wrong with that? Why the rabid opposition against them?

Reliability, outside interference---private or government, government subsidy and subsequent taxation of the analog version, skepticism it wont become another method of control.

Those are the easy ones.

 

[TurtleDude]

So if a person wanted to buy a gun that only he or she could possibly use, what's wrong with that? Why the rabid opposition against them?

because anything that prevents anyone but the "authorized user" to use the weapon can be hacked to prevent even the authorized user from using it

If you understood firearm defense you would know that handguns are essentially reflexive weapons. its why so many cops no longer carry weapons that have manual safeties.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Sure...several.

Why do I oppose obama on this, or any liberal? For the same reason I oppose any politician in enacting rules and/or laws on many things. Sales taxes are a prime example. They will sell you a bill of goods on taxes and play on people's emotions to get them passed. It always starts small..........and grows ..and grows ..and grows.
Growing up in California, the sales tax was 3%...and grew to 4, 5, 6, 7 and then 8%. The earth quake of 1989 generated a 1/4 % tax for the counties hit the hardest...to rebuild.

Then someone in Sacramento got the bright idea to alter the tax code to have different tax rates in different counties....and provided all the bull**** platitudes and reasons to support that crap. and now.........................

The California sales tax rate is currently 6.25%. However, California adds a "mandatory" local rate of 1.25% that increases the total state sales and use tax base to 7.5%. Depending on local municipalities, the total tax rate can be as high at 10.0%. That's just one example of the "evil' of government.

My point......if they develop smart guns, eventually some asshole politician will propose a law that will "mandate" those for everyone....and all other guns will be outlawed and people will have draconian restrictions placed on them for using one of the original guns. It would put an undue financial burden on millions of people who can't afford the new technology....or any new gun. Just like taxes....it opens a big can of worms! So **** obama and **** liberals!

In other words, you don't want to allow people the OPTION to have smart guns if they want. Why? Because of what you THINK will happen.

You're deliberately restricting the freedom of choice of responsible gun owners just because of what you personally THINK will happen...and it doesn't matter to you that almost every week, someone else dies because somebody - sometimes it's their kid - got the gun and shot them...or shot themselves.

You would allow the tragedies that you KNOW are happening to continue to happen every week...because of what you THINK would happen if you allowed responsible gun owners the freedom of choice.

That's really sad.

 

[legalimmigrant]

So if a person wanted to buy a gun that only he or she could possibly use, what's wrong with that? Why the rabid opposition against them?

Guns are not underwear. Only in the loony land of liberals, guns are personal.

In the loon land, if I defend myself with my conceal carry gun and the a****** I was trying to blow away knocks it out of hand, a Good Samaritan picks it up to defend me and himself, if my gun is as smart as Obama is an idiot, I and my new best friend are both dead.

So here is my best heart-felt advice to liberals: don't speak before you have a chance to think things over. Please.

 

[jkennedy]

Guns are not underwear. Only in the loony land of liberals, guns are personal.

In the loon land, if I defend myself with my conceal carry gun and the a****** I was trying to blow away knocks it out of hand, a Good Samaritan picks it up to defend me and himself, if my gun is as smart as Obama is an idiot, I and my new best friend are both dead.

So here is my best heart-felt advice to liberals: don't speak before you have a chance to think things over. Please.

WOW! It doesn't get crazier than this. These cowards who own guns are so scared of those around them they believe any danger to society is acceptable. I have a better idea for you - grow a pair.

 

[jkennedy]

because anything that prevents anyone but the "authorized user" to use the weapon can be hacked to prevent even the authorized user from using it

If you understood firearm defense you would know that handguns are essentially reflexive weapons. its why so many cops no longer carry weapons that have manual safeties.

Give it a break. You lunatics are scared of everything. Why not advocate for "no safety?" After all, what if the safety fails and you cowards are subjected to real life?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Guns are not underwear. Only in the loony land of liberals, guns are personal.

In the loon land, if I defend myself with my conceal carry gun and the a****** I was trying to blow away knocks it out of hand, a Good Samaritan picks it up to defend me and himself, if my gun is as smart as Obama is an idiot, I and my new best friend are both dead.

So here is my best heart-felt advice to liberals: don't speak before you have a chance to think things over. Please.

But why not allow a person a choice to purchase a smart gun if that's what he or she wants to buy?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

because anything that prevents anyone but the "authorized user" to use the weapon can be hacked to prevent even the authorized user from using it

If you understood firearm defense you would know that handguns are essentially reflexive weapons. its why so many cops no longer carry weapons that have manual safeties.

Oh - it's the "can be hacked" excuse now. Yeah, I guess the five year-old in the back seat of the car digging into mommy's purse is going to hack into that smart gun, huh?

But you still haven't answered the question - WHY NOT allow people the freedom of choice, if they wanted to purchase a smart gun?

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh - it's the "can be hacked" excuse now. Yeah, I guess the five year-old in the back seat of the car digging into mommy's purse is going to hack into that smart gun, huh?

But you still haven't answered the question - WHY NOT allow people the freedom of choice, if they wanted to purchase a smart gun?

Let me get this straight

gun banners like you-people who constantly talk about banning this or restricting that, are now pretending you support freedom of choice

great

support my right to own a 30 round magazine fed select fire rifle and I have no problem with you buying a "smart gun"

but what is really at stake is you want to force people like me to buy those silly smart firearms and make everything else illegal

so pardon me if I find your claims about "Free choice" to be dishonest. Free choice when it comes to firearms IS NOT SOMETHING you have EVER supported on this board

 

[legalimmigrant]

Give it a break. You lunatics are scared of everything. Why not advocate for "no safety?" After all, what if the safety fails and you cowards are subjected to real life?

If a gun safety was electronic and designed by an anti-gun loon, I would remove that safety right after I opened the box. Luckily, Obama was not consulted how to make guns better.

 

[legalimmigrant]

WOW! It doesn't get crazier than this. These cowards who own guns are so scared of those around them they believe any danger to society is acceptable. I have a better idea for you - grow a pair.

Oh, yes it does. Like proposing that a gun can be smart and reliable at the same time, in spite of: dirt, oil, mud, blood, old batteries, heat, cold, shock, gloves ...

Is it enough, or should I continue proving that Obama is a gun idiot?

 

[legalimmigrant]

If you would like to know what to do in the situations where you can save lives without risking yours, the answer is simple: do nothing and let them all die if you happen to live in a state like Illinois. Here is why.

The State of Illinois - broke and corrupt as no other - was forced by a federal judge to pass a concealed carry law. The whores in Springfield did as told and, in the process, made what they passed as useless as humanly possible by banning guns almost everywhere except for the streets, while ignoring the well-established tradition that most mass murderers prefer shooting inside building to keep the prospective targets from running away. Shooting indoors also helps the shooters not to get shot by a SWAT sniper.

So, if you happen to have a gun on you in a library or some other place with a no-gun sticker on the door and you hear shots fired, don’t be a moron and don’t intervene - even if the shooter is an easy, no-risk target for you. Instead, run to the nearest exit and be happy that you are safe.

After the evening news, to feel better, assume that those who died were abortion-loving, gun-hating liberals who, before that federal judge gave the state a deadline and an ultimatum, did their very best to keep you disarmed because “guns kill”. To absolve yourself even more completely of any remorse for turning tail, accept that the victims would most likely be in favor of that moronic no-guns door sticker to make you a criminal if you decide to ignore it.

If you fire and stop the mayhem, you will be arrested and thrown in jail. The fact that you saved a dozen humans from violent death is not going to be a factor when dealing with the mindless robots at the local police station. After you spend a ton of money on lawyers, it will be up to a jury or a judge to decide what to do with you.

 

[iguanaman]

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..

Unless what they want is your firearms of course. Then knowing about them is a liability.
Not that you care but smart guns can have more than one approved owner.

 

[iguanaman]

If you would like to know what to do in the situations where you can save lives without risking yours, the answer is simple: do nothing and let them all die if you happen to live in a state like Illinois. Here is why.

The State of Illinois - broke and corrupt as no other - was forced by a federal judge to pass a concealed carry law. The whores in Springfield did as told and, in the process, made what they passed as useless as humanly possible by banning guns almost everywhere except for the streets, while ignoring the well-established tradition that most mass murderers prefer shooting inside building to keep the prospective targets from running away. Shooting indoors also helps the shooters not to get shot by a SWAT sniper.

So, if you happen to have a gun on you in a library or some other place with a no-gun sticker on the door and you hear shots fired, don’t be a moron and don’t intervene - even if the shooter is an easy, no-risk target for you. Instead, run to the nearest exit and be happy that you are safe.

After the evening news, to feel better, assume that those who died were abortion-loving, gun-hating liberals who, before that federal judge gave the state a deadline and an ultimatum, did their very best to keep you disarmed because “guns kill”. To absolve yourself even more completely of any remorse for turning tail, accept that the victims would most likely be in favor of that moronic no-guns door sticker to make you a criminal if you decide to ignore it.

If you fire and stop the mayhem, you will be arrested and thrown in jail. The fact that you saved a dozen humans from violent death is not going to be a factor when dealing with the mindless robots at the local police station. After you spend a ton of money on lawyers, it will be up to a jury or a judge to decide what to do with you.

Actually not doing anything is mostly the case no matter where the shooters are. Smart gun owners know that they will be mistaken for the perps if they show their weapon in shooting incident and risk being targeted by police snipers. This pretty much makes civilians carrying guns useless in all such situations, anything else is just another myth to get people to buy more guns.
Oregon Shooting: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun - POLITICO Magazine

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually not doing anything is mostly the case no matter where the shooters are. Smart gun owners know that they will be mistaken for the perps if they show their weapon in shooting incident and risk being targeted by police snipers. This pretty much makes civilians carrying guns useless in all such situations, anything else is just another myth to get people to buy more guns.

I am curious what sort of training or expertise do you have to make such an opinion. I find your claims to be contrary to known reality

 

[MickeyW]

In other words, you don't want to allow people the OPTION to have smart guns if they want. Why? Because of what you THINK will happen.

You're deliberately restricting the freedom of choice of responsible gun owners just because of what you personally THINK will happen...and it doesn't matter to you that almost every week, someone else dies because somebody - sometimes it's their kid - got the gun and shot them...or shot themselves.

You would allow the tragedies that you KNOW are happening to continue to happen every week...because of what you THINK would happen if you allowed responsible gun owners the freedom of choice.

That's really sad.

Typically ................entering ideas and words into the equation....not in evidence.

I'm fine with people having a choice of what kind of gun they want to buy.......as a Conservative...I want the Feds to stay the hell out of it!

I'm not for restricting Freedom of Choice....just Freedom to allow the gubbment have their way with us...... like they did with Social Security, GW, obamacare, Patriot Act and many other things! Anytime...................the Federal Govt. is involved in "making our lives better"......it doesn't!

OC and TD just handed you your hat....now you want to pick on me, huh?

 

[Deuce]

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.

You're going to whine on message boards, that's what you're gonna do.

 

[MickeyW]

Guns are not underwear. Only in the loony land of liberals, guns are personal.

In the loon land, if I defend myself with my conceal carry gun and the a****** I was trying to blow away knocks it out of hand, a Good Samaritan picks it up to defend me and himself, if my gun is as smart as Obama is an idiot, I and my new best friend are both dead.

So here is my best heart-felt advice to liberals: don't speak before you have a chance to think things over. Please.

In addition, many a civilian has grabbed the cops gun while the cop is being pummeled, and shot the perp, saving the cop's life.

Smart guns have limited smarts.

 

[MickeyW]

WOW! It doesn't get crazier than this. These cowards who own guns are so scared of those around them they believe any danger to society is acceptable. I have a better idea for you - grow a pair.

They aren't cowards, they are "wise men". The criminals are the cowards! Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

But why not allow a person a choice to purchase a smart gun if that's what he or she wants to buy?

No problem....just keep Uncle Same far, far away, from any of it!

 

[MickeyW]

Let me get this straight

gun banners like you-people who constantly talk about banning this or restricting that, are now pretending you support freedom of choice

great

support my right to own a 30 round magazine fed select fire rifle and I have no problem with you buying a "smart gun"

but what is really at stake is you want to force people like me to buy those silly smart firearms and make everything else illegal

so pardon me if I find your claims about "Free choice" to be dishonest. Free choice when it comes to firearms IS NOT SOMETHING you have EVER supported on this board

Ain't THAT the Truth!

:applaud:applaud

 

[MickeyW]

Oh - it's the "can be hacked" excuse now. Yeah, I guess the five year-old in the back seat of the car digging into mommy's purse is going to hack into that smart gun, huh?

But you still haven't answered the question - WHY NOT allow people the freedom of choice, if they wanted to purchase a smart gun?

Sorry GC...TD keeps cleaning your clock ......with the Truth!

 

[legalimmigrant]

Actually not doing anything is mostly the case no matter where the shooters are. Smart gun owners know that they will be mistaken for the perps if they show their weapon in shooting incident and risk being targeted by police snipers. This pretty much makes civilians carrying guns useless in all such situations, anything else is just another myth to get people to buy more guns.
Oregon Shooting: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun - POLITICO Magazine

Why don't you tell this bit of wisdom to the survivors of the Killeen cafeteria slaughter in 1991 in Texas. A quote:

The Luby's shooting was a mass shooting that took place on October 16, 1991, at a restaurant in Killeen, Texas. The perpetrator, George Hennard, crashed his pickup truck through the front of a Luby's Cafeteria, and immediately shot and killed 23 people, and wounded 27 others before shooting and killing himself. It is the third-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, behind only the Virginia Tech and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. that did not occur at a school.

Now I have a question for you: would you like to have a gun on you if you, your wife and your kids were there at that moment? A simple yes or no will do. If I may ask, please answer the question without writing an essay.

 

[OpportunityCost]

But why not allow a person a choice to purchase a smart gun if that's what he or she wants to buy?

I have no problem at all with that. I have a problem when a government goon like Obama signals how much he likes them and sees them as a good alternative and will possibly subsidize them or push them as hard as he can. I know their issues and anything you can take out with a $40 cell jammer is not going to be reliable. I also don't like the fact that government tends to force things they can control. So I have no problem with choice, but I KNOW you do in regards to magazine size, weapon types, and fire rate.

So why don't you just be honest about why you think these guns are just so super happy great? Because right now you are trying to figure out the opposition and you have already gotten it, but you are still asking questions like you don't know the problems. Your arguments reek of hidden agenda and I can't stand hidden agendas. They are usually about ****ing someone over.