"smart guns" are meant to deprive us of TEACHING OTHERS to shoot, enjoy guns

[LaMidRighter]

IF someone wants to buy one-that is fine with me. Just don't tell me I have to buy one or tell me that any gun that doesn't have those features is contraband as many gun haters want

For the price of the gun and the watch I can get three and possibly four decent firearms, or two really good ones, or even a Desert Eagle and a carry piece. At that point, it would be beyond stupid for me to waste 2K$ on a .22 that has massive drawbacks.

 

[jamesrage]

it is a generational, long term way to reduce the number of hunters and users of guns for self defense (including vs the govt). Do not fall for it. If only you can fire the gun, then yo you can't train anyone to shoot it.

I think it is another attempt by anti-2nd amendment trash to unnecessarily increase the costs of firearms in order to prevent the poor their right to keep and bear arms.Plus I imagine it would be extremely easy for an electronically fired weapon to be disabled by an external source.

 

[LaMidRighter]

As long as it is voluntary I don't care. My concern is that there will be a push to make it mandatory... and you KNOW there will be.

There are a couple of weasels already suggesting it. One NE Democrat in Congress for sure though I can't remember his name, a few state reps. in those areas suggesting it(NJ IIRC), and I think that moron Holder wants to "study" that premise as well.

I can see certain applications for the technology, but personally I am very loathe to add high tech gizmos that LIMIT functionality, to a life-saving device where they do not enhance said function. Given how often computers lock up or crash, phones suffer from dead batteries or no signal, etc etc, I am loathe to depend on such a thing when my life is in danger.

A simple RF jammer will take that gun out. No thank you!

Hell I'm even lukewarm on powered optics, which is a function ENHANCER, for the same reason: risk of hi-tech failing you when you really need it.

I like the hybrid stuff that has a default unpowered utility, I like the electronic scopes too but like you stated, more to go wrong.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you would agree that it might be constitutional to bar murderers from owning AK-47s?

Murderers should be put to death, or else kept in prison for life, with no possibility of parole or other release. This would render moot any question about what rights of free citizens may or may not be denied them.

But if they are released back into free society, then I would have to absolutely disagree that it is Constitutional to deny them the right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to all free Americans, and no part of government has any authority to deny it. I don't think that murderers should ever be allowed again to be free, but if they ever are set free, then they must be treated as free.

The authority competent to interpret the Constitution disagrees with you.

·
·
·​

The authority competent to interpret the Constitution disagrees with you.

But they do have that plenary authority.

The Constitution itself disagrees with you, and with all of your absurd nonsense about “authority competent” and “plenary authority” to violate it.

And who is Laurence Tureaud?

He is someone who is known for his expressed compassion toward the one who lacks wisdom.

 

[Paleocon]

Murderers should be put to death, or else kept in prison for life, with no possibility of parole or other release. This would render moot any question about what rights of free citizens may or may not be denied them.

But if they are released back into free society, then I would have to absolutely disagree that it is Constitutional to deny them the right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to all free Americans, and no part of government has any authority to deny it. I don't think that murderers should ever be allowed again to be free, but if they ever are set free, then they must be treated as free.





The Constitution itself disagrees with you, and with all of your absurd nonsense about “authority competent” and “plenary authority” to violate it.




He is someone who is known for his expressed compassion toward the one who lacks wisdom.

Why should prisoners be denied their Second Amendment rights? After all, the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly say that prisoners can be denied the right to own firearms.

The authority competent to interpret the constitution disagrees with you.

That's nice.

 

[Crimefree]

Why should prisoners be denied their Second Amendment rights? After all, the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly say that prisoners can be denied the right to own firearms.

The authority competent to interpret the constitution disagrees with you.

That's nice.

Prisoners are not denied their rights. As punishment they may not excise that right. Once free and released back into society the punishment is complete unless further measure were applied at the time of the trial. No government may deny the right of a group of people that are considered free citizens. What next, no guns for blacks, Jews....?

Rights may not be infringed just because it is CONVENIENT or somebody MAY.

There very principle is rights belong to all and once one starts on elitism.... The question is are you an elitist who believes others rights can be sacrificed due to expediency or convenience but yours are safe?

 

[Paleocon]

Prisoners are not denied their rights. As punishment they may not excise that right. Once free and released back into society the punishment is complete unless further measure were applied at the time of the trial. No government may deny the right of a group of people that are considered free citizens. What next, no guns for blacks, Jews....?

Rights may not be infringed just because it is CONVENIENT or somebody MAY.

There very principle is rights belong to all and once one starts on elitism.... The question is are you an elitist who believes others rights can be sacrificed due to expediency or convenience but yours are safe?

I'm making a reductio ad absurdum. Now tell me, where in the text of the 2A does it explicitly say that prisoners can be denied the right to bear arms?

Are you really comparing blacks and Jews to criminals?

 

[Crimefree]

Why bother a firearm is a mechanical device, simply made and simple in construction. Any electronics to impede use are easily defeated or bypassed. Even if the electronics are placed in a sealed temper proof box all they really are is a step between two mechanical movements. Nothing that could not be solved in a garage in less than a day.

WTF is the point but bull**** appeals to emotional paranoid people who are willing to make others pay for their problems.

 

[VanceMack]

There is no understandable logic in opposing a firearm that prevents non owners like teen agers and children, thieves from firing it.

To say that it somehow restricts the quaint notion that any idiot has a constitutional right to walk around with military hardware is beyond any reasoned individual. How such things as fingerprint recognition somehow take away the skills of hand to eye coordination, leading game with the matrix of distance and motion, or anything else is patently absurd.

As long as they dont mandate the weapons...meh...develop away.

Let me ask you something. Do you use fingerprint recognition on say...an iphone?

Would you like to trust your life to "try again"? Cuz...if so...Bless your heart. Buy away...have at it and I am totally serious.

I agree there is a kneejerk reaction to the technology that is easy to understand but doesnt make a ton of sense. The idea behind it is fine. The rationale...OK...for those that want it. And I doubt it will ever be mandated. However...I CAN see this becoming an issue.Anti gun types do this thing. They promote bans and restrictions and then when there is blowback, they instead offer a 'compromise', followed by shock and dismay when the other side isnt willing to even meet them halfway. So long as this doesnt become 'that' (a compromise offering on maintaining 2nd Amendment rights), then I have no problem with them developing the technology.I would just never trust my life to it.

 

[VanceMack]

OK...all this talk of guns has me ready to buy another one!

 

[TurtleDude]

For the price of the gun and the watch I can get three and possibly four decent firearms, or two really good ones, or even a Desert Eagle and a carry piece. At that point, it would be beyond stupid for me to waste 2K$ on a .22 that has massive drawbacks.

I note the gun apparently comes in 22 caliber-hardly a defensive round

 

[Aunt Spiker]

it is a generational, long term way to reduce the number of hunters and users of guns for self defense (including vs the govt). Do not fall for it. If only you can fire the gun, then yo you can't train anyone to shoot it.

That's the point, isn't it? To keep others from shooting it.

If that's your desired intent then I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem I see is it becoming mandatory or regulation that all guns function in the same way. Even then, it wouldn't keep you from teaching others, however. It would just make it more annoying to do so.

 

[Crimefree]

I'm making a reductio ad absurdum. Now tell me, where in the text of the 2A does it explicitly say that prisoners can be denied the right to bear arms?

Please give me your interpretation of "shall not be infringed" that allows this claim of yours?

The absurdity is that you are trying to prove something I never said. I said prisoners may not exercise the right. Not that they did not have the right. While locked up they are also denied the right to excise freedom but once released that right still applies. If the right to freedom is left intact and all other rights are, where do such fools come from who would deny this one right becasue THEY ARE AFRAID. It is up to them to face their fears and get over the irrationality of such a fear.

Are you really comparing blacks and Jews to criminals?

Yes, do you have a problem with that? Explain to me what is the difference as far as our rights go.

Maybe you should try such comparisons to see the irrationality of such demands. You cannot turn free people into second class citizens becasue you don't like them.

 

[Paleocon]

The absurdity is that you are trying to prove something I never said. I said prisoners may not exercise the right. Not that they did not have the right. While locked up they are also denied the right to excise freedom but once released that right still applies. If the right to freedom is left intact and all other rights are, where do such fools come from who would deny this one right becasue THEY ARE AFRAID. It is up to them to face their fears and get over the irrationality of such a fear.



Yes, do you have a problem with that? Explain to me what is the difference as far as our rights go.

Maybe you should try such comparisons to see the irrationality of such demands. You cannot turn free people into second class citizens becasue you don't like them.

Then where does the 2A explicitly state that prisoners can be denied the exercise of their right to bear arms?

Being black is involuntary.

 

[Crimefree]

That's the point, isn't it? To keep others from shooting it.

If that's your desired intent then I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem I see is it becoming mandatory or regulation that all guns function in the same way. Even then, it wouldn't keep you from teaching others, however. It would just make it more annoying to do so.

So what would this in fact achieve? Please supply some evidence of any claim.

 

[Crimefree]

Then where does the 2A explicitly state that prisoners can be denied the exercise of their right to bear arms?

Why should the 2A expressly state this? Government is given the authority to punish people who break the laws we agree to. Try there.

Being black is involuntary.

Irrelevant.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So what would this in fact achieve? Please supply some evidence of any claim.

"If that's your desired intent then I see nothing wrong with it" - What's impossible to understand about that? Why is that so offensive to some people?

If someone wants to buy a weapon and be the only one to use it then doesn't that simply allow them to do this? What does it matter to do if someone feels it's a good idea for their self.

If I were to make the effort of buying a smart gun it would be so that someone else couldn't shoot it, but I could use it when I wanted to.

Someone couldn't steal it and commit a crime with my weapon, for example. Also, it would be to allow myself to go to the shooting range and just fire off a few rounds without having to worry about my children ever getting ahold of the weapon.

See - I wouldn't buy it with the intention of wanting other people to use it. Purpose achieved.

I fail to see the personal offense someone would take in regard to this: I wouldn't loan my gun out, anyway, or try to teach someone else how to shoot to begin with.

 

[Crimefree]

As long as they dont mandate the weapons...meh...develop away.

Let me ask you something. Do you use fingerprint recognition on say...an iphone?

Would you like to trust your life to "try again"? Cuz...if so...Bless your heart. Buy away...have at it and I am totally serious.

I agree there is a kneejerk reaction to the technology that is easy to understand but doesnt make a ton of sense. The idea behind it is fine. The rationale...OK...for those that want it. And I doubt it will ever be mandated. However...I CAN see this becoming an issue.Anti gun types do this thing. They promote bans and restrictions and then when there is blowback, they instead offer a 'compromise', followed by shock and dismay when the other side isnt willing to even meet them halfway. So long as this doesnt become 'that' (a compromise offering on maintaining 2nd Amendment rights), then I have no problem with them developing the technology.I would just never trust my life to it.

Other than being a solution to a non-problem of what actual use is it.

Here is an idea lets sell all narcotics and other drugs in a sealed box only the patient can open.... That should work out fine and reduce drug taking. I don't have a problem if your medication cost 5 times more. There is no sensible reason we should not do this.... and I must be met at least half way.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"If that's your desired intent then I see nothing wrong with it" - What's impossible to understand about that? Why is that so offensive to some people?

If someone wants to buy a weapon and be the only one to use it then doesn't that simply allow them to do this? What does it matter to do if someone feels it's a good idea for their self.

If I were to make the effort of buying a smart gun it would be so that someone else couldn't shoot it, but I could use it when I wanted to.

Someone couldn't steal it and commit a crime with my weapon, for example. Also, it would be to allow myself to go to the shooting range and just fire off a few rounds without having to worry about my children ever getting ahold of the weapon.

See - I wouldn't buy it with the intention of wanting other people to use it. Purpose achieved.

I fail to see the personal offense someone would take in regard to this: I wouldn't loan my gun out, anyway, or try to teach someone else how to shoot to begin with.

Explain how a gun safe does not meet your stated needs?

 

[VanceMack]

Other than being a solution to a non-problem of what actual use is it.

Here is an idea lets sell all narcotics and other drugs in a sealed box only the patient can open.... That should work out fine and reduce drug taking. I don't have a problem if your medication cost 5 times more. There is no sensible reason we should not do this.... and I must be met at least half way.

Sure...I get it. Its not something I would ever use. The 'ring' technology, the watch, the fingerprint ID...its all fallible and I agree completely...the VAST VAST by oh so ridiculous numbers majority of firearm owners are responsible and will never have a concern for this technology. Firearm owners that are already irresponsible will likely leave these weapons accessable with the watch right next to it. It wont do anything to make the world a safer place. But hey...on the plus side it might encourage some truly well meaning bleeding heart liberal be inspired to purchase one.

 

[Paleocon]

Why should the 2A expressly state this? Government is given the authority to punish people who break the laws we agree to. Try there.



Irrelevant.

It's a reductio as absurdum. Bob argued that the 2A is subject to no interpretation and forbids any restriction on the right to bear arms, so I'm showing the absurdity of that interpretation.

 

[Crimefree]

Sure...I get it. Its not something I would ever use. The 'ring' technology, the watch, the fingerprint ID...its all fallible and I agree completely...the VAST VAST by oh so ridiculous numbers majority of firearm owners are responsible and will never have a concern for this technology. Firearm owners that are already irresponsible will likely leave these weapons accessable with the watch right next to it. It wont do anything to make the world a safer place. But hey...on the plus side it might encourage some truly well meaning bleeding heart liberal be inspired to purchase one.

I am not one for letting bleeding heart liberals bleed all over me and quite honestly I view them as social terrorists holding people up to emotional ransom unless their unrelenting cries of appeasement for their irrational fears are met. Screw them they have a problem not the rest of the world they are trying to get to fit into their nightmarish world of paranoia and quivering fear of everything.

Nobody guarantees us a safe world and if we can learn to not play in traffic.... we don't force motorists to fit cushions to bumpers and electronic idiot or drunk blocks to vehicles. We are astute and pragmatic enough to realise that this has to be policed and driving on our roads is not without risk.

Mention a gun and OMG nothing is to much to apply. Rights, screw your rights I am afraid of you and you and your guns need to be controlled. You must pass tests, be registered, trained, sane, stable, non violent and may not have guns that frighten me the most...

Just to pee on the battery of false hope, well meaning bleeding hearts cannot be appeased. They are never going to buy a gun even if it has flowers painted on it. The bleeding heart liberals who already own a gun are well on the way to giving all their rights to government is exchange for governments protection from what they fear. Demanding back ground checks, registrations, smart guns, training, sanity tests, firearm exclusions, magazine limits and a plethora of rubbish gun control has dreamt up. They are gun control advocates they just refuse to acknowledge it.

What is so difficult about just demanding our rights to which we are entitled and why do others see OUR rights as something they can piss on because they don't like it? Our rights are for our own protection. Who do they think is going to protect them? Government?

Oops I think I got carried away...

 

[Crimefree]

It's a reductio as absurdum. Bob argued that the 2A is subject to no interpretation and forbids any restriction on the right to bear arms, so I'm showing the absurdity of that interpretation.

I did not ask for an interpretation I asked what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you. Stop dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[Paleocon]

I did not ask for an interpretation I asked what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you. Stop dancing on the head of a pin.

So do you concede that Bob's interpretation is unreasonable?

 

[VanceMack]

I am not one for letting bleeding heart liberals bleed all over me and quite honestly I view them as social terrorists holding people up to emotional ransom unless their unrelenting cries of appeasement for their irrational fears are met. Screw them they have a problem not the rest of the world they are trying to get to fit into their nightmarish world of paranoia and quivering fear of everything.

Nobody guarantees us a safe world and if we can learn to not play in traffic.... we don't force motorists to fit cushions to bumpers and electronic idiot or drunk blocks to vehicles. We are astute and pragmatic enough to realise that this has to be policed and driving on our roads is not without risk.

Mention a gun and OMG nothing is to much to apply. Rights, screw your rights I am afraid of you and you and your guns need to be controlled. You must pass tests, be registered, trained, sane, stable, non violent and may not have guns that frighten me the most...

Just to pee on the battery of false hope, well meaning bleeding hearts cannot be appeased. They are never going to buy a gun even if it has flowers painted on it. The bleeding heart liberals who already own a gun are well on the way to giving all their rights to government is exchange for governments protection from what they fear. Demanding back ground checks, registrations, smart guns, training, sanity tests, firearm exclusions, magazine limits and a plethora of rubbish gun control has dreamt up. They are gun control advocates they just refuse to acknowledge it.

What is so difficult about just demanding our rights to which we are entitled and why do others see OUR rights as something they can piss on because they don't like it? Our rights are for our own protection. Who do they think is going to protect them? Government?

Oops I think I got carried away...

I can refer you to some people to talk to if you are up for it.

Seriously...Im not sure what value you see in rolling into every discussion with a flamethrower held backwards.