DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 07, 2014, 10:13:12 AM
-
http://thegunwire.com/
Almost everything .
Including some anti-.
-
I believe that a gun with the heart of a smartphone is a natural development , it could help you hit your target , it might even help you find your target and help ensure that you have found an appropriate target. It might make it a lot harder to steal if password protected , perhaps even biometric activated. If the police carried guns that could not be ripped off their hip and used immediately against the officer this would reduce the fatal shooting of officers by about 10%.
Imagine that your gun can dial 911 for you , record the incident with a camera, use infrared to make the hidden in the dark clear and easy to see.
Best of all you might never miss , guns that can hold fire until exactly aligned already exist, they are just a bit expensive. This might be developed into an enhancement in avoidance of collateral damage also, perhaps that is the next thing to develop.
I would like to have a smart gun , too bad that the anti-gun lobby has halted progress.
“We’re starting to see electronics embedded into guns. The smart gun controversy is out there, where a gun can actually recognize a user and then not work for someone who’s not authorized through that gun to use it,” Miniter said. “The anti-gun movement wants to make that mandatory. By making it mandatory, it would make every gun available now illegal.”
He added, “Attorney General Eric Holder had a conversation with one of the makers of one of the smart guns, Bill Gentry of Kodiak Arms. Holder was going on about possibly using the government to authorize it and have that sort of control. Bill Gentry said, ‘Wait a minute, Mr. Holder. If you try to mandate my technology, I will burn it down.’
“This is the level that this is separating between gun owners and those who understand this topic and some on the government side who see this as an effort to control it.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/mandatory-smartgun-would-make-every-gun-illegal/#LZ662C2gb2VvDDuE.99
-
....................Carroll County, Md., which on May 22 adopted a resolution declaring it a “Second Amendment sanctuary county.”
The resolution declares the Maryland Firearms Safety Act of 2013, or MFSA – which reportedly bans the sale of 45 types of rifles and magazines and requires law-abiding citizens to submit to licensing fees, background checks, fingerprinting and renewal fees – clearly violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution along with Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
The resolution further declares that the unconstitutional provisions of the act will not be enforced in Carroll County.
The resolution quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
The Board of County Commissioners then resolved, “Carroll County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing any element of the MFSA that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
After making a few exceptions for provisions affecting felons, the mentally ill and so forth, the resolution also states, “The Board herein declares null and void within Carroll County, elements of any and all international treaties, including the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UNATT) that infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/backlash-gun-control-laws-nullified/#KKkfxWfSI6FpBdmR.99
-
I believe that a gun with the heart of a smartphone is a natural development , it could help you hit your target , it might even help you find your target and help ensure that you have found an appropriate target. It might make it a lot harder to steal if password protected , perhaps even biometric activated. If the police carried guns that could not be ripped off their hip and used immediately against the officer this would reduce the fatal shooting of officers by about 10%.
Imagine that your gun can dial 911 for you , record the incident with a camera, use infrared to make the hidden in the dark clear and easy to see.
Best of all you might never miss , guns that can hold fire until exactly aligned already exist, they are just a bit expensive. This might be developed into an enhancement in avoidance of collateral damage also, perhaps that is the next thing to develop.
I would like to have a smart gun , too bad that the anti-gun lobby has halted progress.
“We’re starting to see electronics embedded into guns. The smart gun controversy is out there, where a gun can actually recognize a user and then not work for someone who’s not authorized through that gun to use it,” Miniter said. “The anti-gun movement wants to make that mandatory. By making it mandatory, it would make every gun available now illegal.”
He added, “Attorney General Eric Holder had a conversation with one of the makers of one of the smart guns, Bill Gentry of Kodiak Arms. Holder was going on about possibly using the government to authorize it and have that sort of control. Bill Gentry said, ‘Wait a minute, Mr. Holder. If you try to mandate my technology, I will burn it down.’
“This is the level that this is separating between gun owners and those who understand this topic and some on the government side who see this as an effort to control it.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/mandatory-smartgun-would-make-every-gun-illegal/#LZ662C2gb2VvDDuE.99
Wow :o
-
The smart gun controversy is out there, where a gun can actually recognize a user and then not work for someone who’s not authorized through that gun to use it,” Miniter said. “The anti-gun movement wants to make that mandatory. By making it mandatory, it would make every gun available now illegal.”
===============================================
When the government made airbags mandatory, did it make every car without them illegal? This would depend on the way the law is written.
-
The smart gun controversy is out there, where a gun can actually recognize a user and then not work for someone who’s not authorized through that gun to use it,” Miniter said. “The anti-gun movement wants to make that mandatory. By making it mandatory, it would make every gun available now illegal.”
===============================================
When the government made airbags mandatory, did it make every car without them illegal? This would depend on the way the law is written.
That is true , but there is very good reason to distrust the people responsible for writing this bill. Do you remember the absolutely embarrassing "assault weapon ban" that was signed by Clinton? A lot of the people who contributed to that fiasco are still in the congress or in the lobby , if this looked like a means to reduce the firepower of the common man this would become their goal.
Requiring it before it is cheap enough to afford for the common man would make a high burden on the common man who wanted one. It is a already a weeks pay to get a simple gun of reasonable quality for a minimum wage worker, should they have to choose between having a gun or having food? A ban on simple guns would be nearly the same as allowing guns for plutocrats only. Very contrary to the sprit of the second amendment.
Also though I might like to have one with very advanced features , I would certainly also like to have one that did not die without fresh batteries.
-
........................................................ a conversation with one of the makers of one of the smart guns, Bill Gentry of Kodiak Arms. Holder was going on about possibly using the government to authorize it and have that sort of control. Bill Gentry said, ‘Wait a minute, Mr. Holder. If you try to mandate my technology, I will burn it down.’
Wow :o
[/quote]
I know ,...right?
The government is a very big potential customer of this technology , I am pleased to see someone defending the right thing in the face of government power for the wrong thing and a potential for huge profit for doing the evil thing.
Do people tell inconvenient truth to cabinet secretaries and the President very often?
-
Yeah, right. Minimum wage folks deserve to have lethal weapons.
If the ban on whatever Clinton banned made for fewer weapons in circulation, it was an improvement.
I don't expect to see any sensible gun laws for a long time. I expect to see more mass murders, more drive by shootings, and more people killed with guns. I do NOT expect to see pistols and rifles being used in any way to depose any oppressive government in this country. Clowns that think that it woill are just plumb ignorant of all the weapons that the government has at its disposal.
I imagine we will see a Red Dawn III film in which evil Muslims take over the country and are defeated by NRA members.
-
Yeah, right. Minimum wage folks deserve to have lethal weapons.
What have you got against them?If the ban on whatever Clinton banned made for fewer weapons in circulation, it was an improvement.
It did not, the guns in circulation increased sharply and this WAS an improvement.
I don't expect to see any sensible gun laws for a long time. I expect to see more mass murders, more drive by shootings, and more people killed with guns.
This seems to be a very instinctive or intuitive opinion for you. In fact all crime stats are down for the same period that guns in circulation have skyrocketed. If you were slightly more scientific you might be more sanguine .
I do NOT expect to see pistols and rifles being used in any way to depose any oppressive government in this country. Clowns that think that it woill are just plumb ignorant of all the weapons that the government has at its disposal.
This is a problem, what can we do to reachieve parity ?
I imagine we will see a Red Dawn III film in which evil Muslims take over the country and are defeated by NRA members.
Would this make money? If so ,you will be right, it is inevitable.
-
A film does not have to appeal to everyone to make money. Red Dawn I was pretty stupid, but it apparently make a lot as a rental, so they made a remake. I don't have any idea how many Diehard films they have been. Those I have seen were essentially extreme violence and special FX punctuated by funny quips. No one gat any Oscars, but they did make a lot of money.
If you tell people what the cannot have, it can become a fad, and they want it. I have noticed that old VW's especially the convertibles, are worth a fortune. The original cars were underpowered, noisy, and did not handle very well, but there was some cuteness about them that Datsun 210's lacked. Guns are far less useful than VW's: you cannot drive one to work, and they are for many people more of a fad. Plus it is easier to collect guns than cars because they are smaller.
Violent crime is lower in the US because the population is older, and many fewer people have served in the military. Ex military people as a rule feel more affection for guns than those who have not been in the military. I do not think that the crime rate is lower because there are more guns.
-
There are more guns and the crime rate has fallen .
This is not proof of causality, I have no direct evidence to offer that shows that my intuition is right and that more guns in responsible hands is good for the order and safety of the society , I do wish it amounted to proof , but there are enough other factors to consider that the quality of "proof " is strained, and I cannot claim that the theory of "more guns make less crime" is proven.
BUT .... that the guns per capata rose sharply at the same time that violent crime decreased does prove that more guns do not cause more crime , quite conclusively.
-
BINGO!! 8)
-
Some guy with four guns is no more likely to shoot someone than a guy with only one lone gun.
The fact that you have a closetful of guns does not make anyone, including you, safer.
-
Some guy with four guns is no more likely to shoot someone than a guy with only one lone gun.
The fact that you have a closetful of guns does not make anyone, including you, safer.
Isn't practical experience refuting this point of view?
-
No. I don;t see how.
-
BINGO 8)
-
If sirs and Plane have a gun, a hundred guns, a thousand guns, it does not make me any safer.
-
Not designed to make you safer.
Plane is simply pointing out the facts that more guns are currently in circulation, and despite your cries of too many, violent crime has been going down, thus debunking your own claims. It's no wonder you "don't see it". Seeing it would be tantamount to declaring just how wrong you've been, on this issue
-
If sirs and Plane have a gun, a hundred guns, a thousand guns, it does not make me any safer.
It is an ingenious system for making you safer.
In the US a home invader is rolling the dice with his life in the balance, when he breaks in he can't know that it is not my house where there are guns to drive him out again, if he is fast enough.
This system benefits you directly , but if you do not like it you can post a yard sign that informs all concerned that your home is a gun free zone. This nullifies the benefit to you of your neighbors being armed .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA
(http://onlinecarrytraining.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/gun-free-zone-concealed-carry.gif)
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb and declare that as much as the professor detests that anyone else exercise their 2nd Amendment right, that he has no intention to provide would be bad guys that his home is perhaps a tad less protected than anyone else's
-
Eeeeeh...
Lets not read his mind, in spite of long familiarity , it is better to get it from the horse.
-
I'd say it's a safe bet
-
If I owned a business, I would not post any gun free zone signs. People who had guns would not check them, and it would only annoy them. I am not opposed to people thinking I am potentially dangerous.
-
If I owned a business, I would not post any gun free zone signs.
Good thing Plane didn't take that bet with me ;)
-
I am not opposed to people thinking I am potentially dangerous.
This is exactly the big deal.
Everyone has personal experience , almost everyone discusses things, we all compute more or less well the dangers of doing what we want to do.
In your state does the criminal culture expect to find resistance to crime to be certain, likely , unlikely, impossible?
That is hard to know , but it is not hard to suppose , that the criminals in a community know better than anyone what the odds are for getting shot on the job.