Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Totally agree with you. Seems as if the OP is expecting a negative and irrational response from people. Which I guess is to expected from the irrational anti-gun nutters out there.
This isn't a new topic and has been discussed ad nauseum here in the past.
As such, you probably see a lot of "gun nutters" not having an issue with the technology.
However, it has been floated in the past along with comments that it should be mandatory and retroactive or a host of other piggy-backed requirements which of course is going to anger the folks you are calling "gun nutters" as it's an attempt to dampen ownership under the guise of "safety".
You have to understand that there are constant ongoing attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment using the equivalent of jim crow laws. Impossible licensing processes, bullet taxes, huge registration fees and so forth...all being proposed and enacted across the country as we speak.
I mean, how would you react if anti-abortion foes floated mandatory counseling post abortion due to a handful of suicides that occur afterwards? Common sense right? Of course the $2500 fee to pay for it is payable in advance prior to the procedure. How could you be against it? Are you some sort of Abortion-nut?
They aren't trying to prevent legal abortion...perish the thought, it's for women's health and safety.
I don't want any weapon which could be disabled by the feds by electronic remote, which would be the next step.
Because you plan on "resisting tyranny" with your little pea shooters? LOL! This is like the dumbest of all the crazed notions that gun-nuts manage to come up with.
You have to understand that there are constant ongoing attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment using the equivalent of jim crow laws. Impossible licensing processes, bullet taxes, huge registration fees and so forth...all being proposed and enacted across the country as we speak.
Let's do the math here. The price of the average gun is about 500 bucks. 500 times 330 million. Are the tax payers ready to shell out that kind of cash to buy back all those weapons?
How many BetaMax machines are out there? How may VCR's of any kind at all? How are sales of non-digital SLR's doing? Cars without seatbelts or airbags? Can you smell what The Rock is cooking?
Next 60-Minutes will do a story on smart knives. They will only cut when the register owner has it in hand. This is all rehashed nonsense by those on the left desperate for a way to add additional layers of restrictions on our freedoms.
Well, you could alternativley just stop believing in Fairy Freedoms. You live in a society, you know. There are at least as many responsibilities in a society as there are actual freedoms. Try living up to a few more of those.
All that junk has been scrapped. Guns are different. A Colt Revolver make in 1880 that used a .45 Long Colt cartridge is most likely still around and can shoot modern ammunition. Old guns do not go away. Most are kept as heirlooms or just as guns.
I think so called "smart guns" are just a back door way of making it illegal to own old fashioned "dumb guns". This is nothing more then confiscation dressed up in feel good delusion.
You speak of "responsibilities" as if gun owners were irresponsible fools. I, as an adult, have a responsibility to protect my family and my self, as well as strangers, from violent criminal assault. That responsibility comes before some dreamers idea of creating an ideal society. Yes, I live in a society. Most of the others in that society are decent peaceful people. Just enough are murderous barbarians that I cannot trust these good guys to protect me from the bad guys.
You speak of "responsibilities" as if gun owners were irresponsible fools.
All, are not. But there's no question that some are.
The concept behind smart gun technology is to give people the freedom of choice. If you want that technology, it's available to you. You are not being denied access to it by some lobbyist group or those who use possibilities and "what ifs" as a means to deny you your freedom to choose.
The argument that is based on possibilities should not override the real and factual denial of the right to choose whatever kind of gun someone wants to buy, so long as the gun, smart or not, is legally available.
The gun lobby has fought very hard to deny Americans the freedom to have that choice. Look at the guy in the video. He was threatened and intimidated by nuts and now he's scared to death to even hold a smart gun. And yes, anyone who threatens to kill you for selling a smart gun is mentally unstable, aka: a nut.
They would eventually fall into disrepair, get confiscated due to crimes or be owned and maintained by responsible gun owners.
The important thing is if the gun lobby lost this battle, anyone who wanted to buy a smart gun could. Who has a problem with freedom of choice?
This just shows how little you know about guns.
I have and use guns that are almost 100 years old, I know people shooting guns 150 years old.
They don't just wear out and fall into disrepair.
Smart gun technology is decades away from being reliably functional, let alone actually fit into a modern size handgun and be reliable. Not to mention it will be easily disabled by anyone with just a bit of common sense. The mechanical action of the firearm will remain.
If you were really worried about kids you would be banning swimming pools as they are 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun is.
I have and use guns that are almost 100 years old, I know people shooting guns 150 years old.
They don't just wear out and fall into disrepair.
Smart gun technology is decades away from being reliably functional, let alone actually fit into a modern size handgun and be reliable. Not to mention it will be easily disabled by anyone with just a bit of common sense. The mechanical action of the firearm will remain.
If you were really worried about kids you would be banning swimming pools as they are 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun is.
I just picked up a M95 and took it to the range the next day. Not bad for a gun used by someone's great great grand dad. Oh, and I'm pretty sure no kid is going to be able to pull back the safety/cocker on that gem.
I see nothing wrong with '''smart guns'''.... ie biometeric enabled
I do.
What if there is a legally armed citizen in a legal (oh Hell, or posted) facility. A bad guy comes in and starts shooting.
Legally armed citizen becomes incapacitated.
For whatever reason, I left my gun at home.
I grab legally armed citizen's gun (BTW, I am legal, I have CCW) and DAMN IT, I can;t stop bad guy because some a$$holes passed a dumb a$$ law and his gun will not work in my hands.
What the Hell good is that?
BAD GUY WINS!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
