Why does the NRA oppose Smart Guns?

[haymarket]

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has violated his oath of office, violated the Constitution, and is a criminal lower than the most common of robbers.

I will be happy with reality on my side while the only people who would sign on to your statements would be radical right wing extremists with no support in law or the Constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

I will be happy with reality on my side while the only people who would sign on to your statements would be radical right wing extremists with no support in law or the Constitution.

radical right wing extremists seems to be used on anyone who actually wants the constitution to be followed as written rather than buying into "if it feels good, its constitutional" leftwing nonsense

 

[Crimefree]

I am not sure I understand your question. The NRA is a legitimate group which has a position and represents that position perhaps better than any other special interest lobbying group today. if I were teaching a class in how to be an effective lobbying organization and win your issue no matter what the public view of it, I would use the NRA as an example.

Women's rights, Back rights and gun control are far better examples than the NRA. They at least achieved something. What has the NRA achieved? Then again I did not expect you to have a correct choice in teaching as an example.

 

[TurtleDude]

Spam!??!?!?!? :doh:shock: It is the truth and the truth is always in order no matter the partisan or ideologue who hates it.

its complete crap because you have no idea what those people were thinking. I suspect most of them just don't like the fact that the federal government was not delegated any power to regulate firearms and since most of them are big fans of government power, they just decided to act without the proper power to do it

 

[haymarket]

radical right wing extremists seems to be used on anyone who actually wants the constitution to be followed as written rather than buying into "if it feels good, its constitutional" leftwing nonsense

uh - no... in this case it is the people described by Bob Blaylock in the post I was replying to.

 

[TurtleDude]

uh - no... in this case it is the people described by Bob Blaylock in the post I was replying to.

your posts constantly refer to people who support the constitution as written as such

 

[haymarket]

its complete crap because you have no idea what those people were thinking. I suspect most of them just don't like the fact that the federal government was not delegated any power to regulate firearms and since most of them are big fans of government power, they just decided to act without the proper power to do it

Actually, I am far less concerned with the vague and inexact nonsensical idea that anybody can read minds or thoughts and am far more concerned with actions. And my description of the actions was and is correct.


But you seem to be involved in a contradiction here my friend. In countless previous posts in many different threads on the subject of guns and taxes you have no trouble telling all of us what other people are thinking Turtle. You repeatedly have justified a tactic of NOT debating what somebody actually says but responding to their secret thoughts or what you believe their hidden motivations are.

So why is it fair for anybody to then criticize others when they themselves have repeatedly engaged in the tactics they appear to pretend to condemn?

 

[Ockham]

OK so that the sales talk but is that actually a problem that needs this kind if solution?

That goes down the ideological path - anti-gun folks who as you know are all about child safety, claim all sorts of statistics that children are killing each other my mistake and this will curb child deaths. Pro-gun folks say this infringes on use and ownership unfairly, puts now an electronic failure device (ie., when the fob battery runs out) that could put people's lives at risk when a homeowner needs to defend his family, children or property and the gun doesn't work (dead batteries).

I mean it pretty easy to gun proof children and make sure it is out of reach. Even in our current state of gun controls insisted irresponsibility only 600 accidental firearms death per year are recorded. So that one sounds like a hysterical reaction rather than a solution.

I would agree - assuming the gun owner has some knowledge and experience making a gun safe is relatively easy to do even with children in the house - given that there are a plethora of safety devices built into the gun and sold with or as an accessory to the gun for storage and transport safety.

I have been assured that crimes of passion simply grab the nearest thing. They are not premeditated and don't involve running to get a gun. On the other hand most such crimes are committed by the person who would have the gun key anyway so I guess that one is also a fail.

Quite true.

OK that two down any more?

The tactic being taken by anti-gunners is one of "a million cuts". They impede by multiple ways from claiming guns are "fully automatic" because the gun stock is black, to claiming a gun is "military" because it looks similar in design and color to military weapons, to claiming a caliber is too large, or that ammunition is not traceable (ie., laser serial numbers on ammo cartridges), to straw purchases, transfers, inherited guns, ammunition availability and costs, number of shells clips can hold, amount of ammo a person can or cannot purchase at one time, etc... the list goes on and on. These "cuts" are all sold as reasonable measures and every time there is a shooting where some mentally ill nut decides to kill a bunch of people the inanimate tool is blamed instead of the person. This has been going on fairly consistently from an ideological sense since the early 1970's - Democrats would like nothing better than to repeal the 2nd amendment or at the very least, make gun ownership for the general populace nearly impossible and Republicans generally wanting and fighting for general gun ownership and in some places, registration for CCW.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, I am far less concerned with the vague and inexact nonsensical idea that anybody can read minds or thoughts and am far more concerned with actions. And my description of the actions was and is correct.


But you seem to be involved in a contradiction here my friend. In countless previous posts in many different threads on the subject of guns and taxes you have no trouble telling all of us what other people are thinking Turtle. You repeatedly have justified a tactic of NOT debating what somebody actually says but responding to their secret thoughts or what you believe their hidden motivations are.

So why is it fair for anybody to then criticize others when they themselves have repeatedly engaged in the tactics they appear to pretend to condemn?

when someone claims they aren't a gun banner yet every time their current legal goal is met they immediately start supporting yet another restriction-they are a gun banner

when someone claims that their motivation is to "prevent crime" yet they back say a law like the Hughes Amendment which has nothing remotely related to crime control yet they don't support people carrying licensed handguns, its easy to note they are lying about their motivations.

most gun haters are 1) not going to admit what their goal is

2) and will present a facade.

by their actions we know them

 

[haymarket]

your posts constantly refer to people who support the constitution as written as such

Go back and read - I was replying to the litany from Blaylock saying that people in our government doing their job are worse than robbers.

 

[TurtleDude]

Go back and read - I was replying to the litany from Blaylock saying that people in our government doing their job are worse than robbers.

well he is correct about some

 

[haymarket]

when someone claims they aren't a gun banner yet every time their current legal goal is met they immediately start supporting yet another restriction-they are a gun banner

when someone claims that their motivation is to "prevent crime" yet they back say a law like the Hughes Amendment which has nothing remotely related to crime control yet they don't support people carrying licensed handguns, its easy to note they are lying about their motivations.

most gun haters are 1) not going to admit what their goal is

2) and will present a facade.

by their actions we know them

Again, the tactic of NOT debating what somebody actually says or advocates but pretending that one can read the minds of others is not intellectually honest.

 

[Crimefree]

Really? I did not know that. Could you be good enough to present those views of Hitler so we can verify your claim?

I don't have to. Find a German politician who objected to the democide and treatment of Jews or who was imprisoned for doing it. It was against the law. Oh! soooorry it was passed and agreed to by honest caring politicians and found to be lawful.

Why do you need so many lessons in politics?

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, the tactic of NOT debating what somebody actually says or advocates but pretending that one can read the minds of others is not intellectually honest.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote

we are well versed in what the anti gun extremists do.

Sarah Brady booted Josh Sugarmann from her organization because he came out and said they wanted to ban handguns. We know anti gun advocates are not honest. We know that because they continually ignore facts to spew claims. for example, they still claim that allowing people to carry concealed weapons will cause "blood to run in the street" 40 years ago they made this claim and there wasn't lots of evidence either way. Now that almost every state has CCW and this "blood in the street" crap hasn't happened, its easy to call the anti gun types liars and worse because they continue to spew stuff in the face of undeniable evidence


I don't expect those who want to ban guns to be honest about it. what we do know is that their actions prove that is what they want

look at your "interpretation" of the second amendment. You have created an interpretation that "allows" bans on just about every gun

 

[Amadeus]

Since all of the relevant anti-Smart Gun and anti-bullet stamping points have been thoroughly debunked, I guess we'll call this discussion settled. It's been fun.

 

[TurtleDude]

Since all of the relevant anti-Smart Gun and anti-bullet stamping points have been thoroughly debunked, I guess we'll call this discussion settled. It's been fun.

translation-your nonsense got stomped and you are giving up. You have debunked nothing and merely have proven why anti gun side has to appeal to emotion because logic is not something they have in stock

 

[haymarket]

I don't have to. Find a German politician who objected to the democide and treatment of Jews or who was imprisoned for doing it. It was against the law. Oh! soooorry it was passed and agreed to by honest caring politicians and found to be lawful.

Why do you need so many lessons in politics?

You are unable to back up your claims so you do not do so.

 

[haymarket]

I guess you didn't read what I wrote

we are well versed in what the anti gun extremists do.

Sarah Brady booted Josh Sugarmann from her organization because he came out and said they wanted to ban handguns. We know anti gun advocates are not honest. We know that because they continually ignore facts to spew claims. for example, they still claim that allowing people to carry concealed weapons will cause "blood to run in the street" 40 years ago they made this claim and there wasn't lots of evidence either way. Now that almost every state has CCW and this "blood in the street" crap hasn't happened, its easy to call the anti gun types liars and worse because they continue to spew stuff in the face of undeniable evidence


I don't expect those who want to ban guns to be honest about it. what we do know is that their actions prove that is what they want

look at your "interpretation" of the second amendment. You have created an interpretation that "allows" bans on just about every gun

I am NOT Sarah Brady. Nor am I Josh Sugarmann.

I would respectfully ask that if you want to engage me in debate that you 1) NOT substitute the views of others as a strawman for my own, and 2) have the intellectual integrity to quote what I have advocated and respond to that in replying to me.

 

[Amadeus]

translation-your nonsense got stomped and you are giving up. You have debunked nothing and merely have proven why anti gun side has to appeal to emotion because logic is not something they have in stock

1) I've shown a viable use for Smart Guns.
2) I've shown that Smart Gun technology is reliable
3) I've shown that Smart Guns are pro-Second Amendment.
4) I've shown that repealing the Smart Gun law would not reduce NRA opposition.
5) I've shown that bullet-stamping is effective as a Crime Fighting tool.
6) I've shown that registration is NOT required for bullet-stamping to be effective.
7) I've shown that bullet-stamping doesn't put a burden on Gun Manufacturers.

There is effectively zero reason to oppose either of these technologies, and yet the NRA continues to do so and will do so in the future.

Cheerio.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) I've shown a viable use for Smart Guns.
2) I've shown that Smart Gun technology is reliable
3) I've shown that Smart Guns are pro-Second Amendment.
4) I've shown that repealing the Smart Gun law would not reduce NRA opposition.
5) I've shown that bullet-stamping is effective as a Crime Fighting tool.
6) I've shown that registration is NOT required for bullet-stamping to be effective.
7) I've shown that bullet-stamping doesn't put a burden on Gun Manufacturers.

There is effectively zero reason to oppose either of these technologies, and yet the NRA continues to do so and will do so in the future.

Cheerio.

1) perhaps-people who are unable to safely store real guns
2) no you haven't
3) no you haven't
4) no you haven't
5) that's complete speculative BS
6) that is even more stupid
7) the burden is on the citizenry

nice fail

 

[Ockham]

1) I've shown a viable use for Smart Guns.
2) I've shown that Smart Gun technology is reliable
3) I've shown that Smart Guns are pro-Second Amendment.
4) I've shown that repealing the Smart Gun law would not reduce NRA opposition.
5) I've shown that bullet-stamping is effective as a Crime Fighting tool.
6) I've shown that registration is NOT required for bullet-stamping to be effective.
7) I've shown that bullet-stamping doesn't put a burden on Gun Manufacturers.

There is effectively zero reason to oppose either of these technologies, and yet the NRA continues to do so and will do so in the future.

Cheerio.

You've shown a perspective through your post that is delusional and primarily in denial. You're list is thing you have NOT shown to any degree other than as a superficial ideological view. Have a nice day.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Go back and read - I was replying to the litany from Blaylock saying that people in our government doing their job are worse than robbers.

Their job is, before all else, to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the highest law in this nation.

To use the power of their positions to violate the Constitution is, at best, grotesque malfeasance.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am NOT Sarah Brady. Nor am I Josh Sugarmann.

I would respectfully ask that if you want to engage me in debate that you 1) NOT substitute the views of others as a strawman for my own, and 2) have the intellectual integrity to quote what I have advocated and respond to that in replying to me.

no but you have fashioned some of the most mind numbing arguments that are so ludicrous that they defy reality. such as claiming "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow infringements

claiming if someone can one A gun its permissible for the government to ban all sorts of other guns because that gun owner can "still enjoy" his 2A rights

claiming that no specific type of class of weapon is protected. in reality what you are saying is that citizens may be constitutionally denied acquiring an entire class of weapon if there are other types available

 

[haymarket]

Their job is, before all else, to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the highest law in this nation.

To use the power of their positions to violate the Constitution is, at best, grotesque malfeasance.

And the only people who feel like you do as evidenced by the litany you have already provided are far right extremists.

 

[haymarket]

no but you have fashioned some of the most mind numbing arguments that are so ludicrous that they defy reality. such as claiming "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow infringements

claiming if someone can one A gun its permissible for the government to ban all sorts of other guns because that gun owner can "still enjoy" his 2A rights

claiming that no specific type of class of weapon is protected. in reality what you are saying is that citizens may be constitutionally denied acquiring an entire class of weapon if there are other types available

The Second Amendment says what it says and it does not include any prohibition or ban on what modernists call incremental infringements. It only protects against the right not being able to be exercised or infringed. That is far more final and definitive that the incremental modernist construction of infringements.

Nor does it protect a class or type of weapon either.

I deal with what the Amendment actually says. And my view is shared by a very long list of people that I have already provided including many conservatives including Ronald Reagan.

So let us then compare interpretations Turtle. We have the long list I have provided of well educated people who agree with me and we have.... well what exactly do we have that agree with your interpretation that no incremental infringements are allowed? Can you point to any responsible people who agree with you?

So compare the two and then it is easy to see which argument is - to use your words - LUDICROUS and MIND NUMBING. And it is not mine that is supported even by Ronald Reagan.