Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Liberal revisionist history is so great to read. Did you attend school here or perhaps Briton?. Liberal logic fail

Firstly, Britain would be the country, although many people actually prefer for their country of origin to be identified as England, Scotland or Wales etc. A Briton is a person from the United Kingdom of Great Britain of Northern Ireland. We're all British but not everyone from here chooses to identify themselves in that way.

Secondly, to suggest that an opinion on subject which is defined by opinions is illogical is itself a logical fallacy. Logic is irrelevant to the conversation.

The facts here are simply that there is a great variety of opinion on the origin of the 2nd amendment and what it originally meant and whether or not the same meaning applies to the modern day context. Noone has a monopoly on the truth, much as you may want to believe otherwise.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[Karee 4,191]

This makes about as much sense as gun buy-backs. Another stupid idea that will never work. If there were 1000 guns in circulation in the U.S,. then maybe. There's 330+ million. How about addressing why people value human life so little? I guess that's too difficult. Let's focus on the object they use for their violence rather than the reasons for the violence itself.

I'm waiting for a proposed "smart bullet" that will only kill people commiting crimes. That's about as logical as this proposal..

[B_J 2,752]

I agree with your premise, a limit on how many guns each person or each household can own, would be a good idea in my opinion,

But there are people who do collect guns who are totally harmless. I know some who like to collect for the history - guns used in different wars, etc.

You agree with the idea of limiting how many guns these people can own?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Thanks for the further edification, Teddy. I know there are gun nuts out there. But to me, a gun nut is someone who acts nuts (crazy, unstable, mentallly inept) while holding a gun. That's not how the term has been used here, to be sure. Some here speak out as if to say, "If you own a gun, you are a gun nut. If you support gun ownership, you are a gun nut!" It gets old.

I own guns, I support such. Thus far, have never shot anyone, and have done my best as an instructor to properly behave myself around them as well as to properly train others in their intended use. I know it's hard to keep all of us "wacko" gun owners in the proper pigeonholes, and wide-stroke brushes tend to get used in this as well as many other discussions. But I unequivocally state for the record, I am not a nut, I am an aficianado in the truest sense of the word.

Have you not read some of the posts here? Do you think someone packing heat to take their wife to dinner in the bad part of town, or someone who keeps a small arsenal on them at all times including an AK47 in their vehicle, or someone who continuously claims he will shoot first and ask questions later when he feels threatened, to be the ramblings of rational people? I don't, and there are many more examples of this irresponsible behavior that has been posted here by the gun aficionados.

The other sector of the gun aficionado crowd are the ones who appear to be fairly rational, but they blame everyone else for the gun problem and don't believe it is their responsibility to try to help find a resolution to the tens of thousands of deaths each year at the end of a gun. They will not even entertain any ideas that change the status quo or inconvenience themselves one bit. Case in point, the first reply this thread received stating the idea of smart guns is stupid, no dialogue about why, it just is. The link then posted to back up the claim that the idea of smart guns is stupid is to a fringe gun blog that concludes smart guns are merely a means to gun prohibition. It's their right to own guns and no matter how many people are killed each year, they refuse to do anything about it.

Based on what I've read of your posts, I don't lump you in the gun aficionado crowd as it's known here. I apologize if it came off that way. There are a few rational and logical gun owners who post here and it's nice to have rational and logical conversations with them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks for the further edification, Teddy. I know there are gun nuts out there. But to me, a gun nut is someone who acts nuts (crazy, unstable, mentallly inept) while holding a gun. That's not how the term has been used here, to be sure. Some here speak out as if to say, "If you own a gun, you are a gun nut. If you support gun ownership, you are a gun nut!" It gets old.

I own guns, I support such. Thus far, have never shot anyone, and have done my best as an instructor to properly behave myself around them as well as to properly train others in their intended use. I know it's hard to keep all of us "wacko" gun owners in the proper pigeonholes, and wide-stroke brushes tend to get used in this as well as many other discussions. But I unequivocally state for the record, I am not a nut, I am an aficianado in the truest sense of the word.

More guns equals more gun related death. There is no way around that. Are guns the sole reason for crime rates in individual areas? No they are not, but proliferation is a definite problem.

Why is it the NRA never seems to brings itself to take a definitive position on school shootings, at least as far as condemning the actions of the shooter or appear willing to work with anyone who suggests anything to impose any sort of regulation or restrictions to prevent future tragedies.

What you are saying is reasonable, but when the national bodybthat speaks for you, and other supposedly responsible gun owners appears to be run by extremists you shouldn't be surprised that people tar all gun aficionados with the same brush.

Seems to me that responsible gun owners need to be doing more to turn the NRA into a body that actually reflects reasonable views. On the other hand if the NRA actually does accurately represent your views, then you shouldn't be too surprised that people don't view it (or you) very positively.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Ted we understand the real reason for this post. Fit every gun in the United States with this smart device and have the government hold the kill switch. Just like phones..

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/2014/02/20/kill-switch-to-cut-cell-phone-thefts/5653545/

Senate push for cell phone kill switch

Disable every gun in the United States.

People like you who don't believe the 2nd should have ever existed.... Press a button and not a gun would fire in all of the United States.. But we did not BAN guns, It is not about the kids is it Ted....You would be demanding a device to prevent drunk driving on EVERY car .. Blow into it so not one person could drive drunk and kill their children..... Where is the out cry for this? It's all about guns control and destroying the 2nd

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Cars should have a built in breathalyser. Controversial it is not.

[Karee 4,191]

Cars should have a built in breathalyser. Controversial it is not.

That's funny.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Ted we understand the real reason for this post. Fit every gun in the United States with this smart device and have the government hold the kill switch. Just like phones..

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/2014/02/20/kill-switch-to-cut-cell-phone-thefts/5653545/

Senate push for cell phone kill switch

Disable every gun in the United States.

People like you who don't believe the 2nd should have ever existed.... Press a button and not a gun would fire in all of the United States.. But we did not BAN guns, It is not about the kids is it Ted....You would be demanding a device to prevent drunk driving on EVERY car .. Blow into it so not one person could drive drunk and kill their children..... Where is the out cry for this? It's all about guns control and destroying the 2nd

Do you read the same posts everyone else does? I never said the 2nd amendment should have never existed. Where did you learn to read? You are the face of the paranoid irrational gun aficionados on VJ.

[B_J 2,752]

Do you read the same posts everyone else does? I never said the 2nd amendment should have never existed. Where did you learn to read? You are the face of the paranoid irrational gun aficionados on VJ.

[Teddy B 17,252]

But there are people who do collect guns who are totally harmless. I know some who like to collect for the history - guns used in different wars, etc.

You agree with the idea of limiting how many guns these people can own?

Maybe, I'm sure there could be some categories of gun owners such as collectors that would be exempt from such a law. But let's face it, it's never happening anyway.

[B_J 2,752]

Maybe, I'm sure there could be some categories of gun owners such as collectors that would be exempt from such a law. But let's face it, it's never happening anyway.

It's a difficult situation. I know people who have a small collection and they can tell you the story of each gun. It's really fascinating. And then you hear about somebody with a small arsenal that goes nuts and kills a bunch of people.

I don't know the answer. But, like you, I think the smart gun idea is at least worth considering.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I agree with your premise, a limit on how many guns each person or each household can own, would be a good idea in my opinion, but that will never happen. As we've seen the 2nd amendment is pretty much teflon. I realistically do not see any type of major changes ever happening to the 2nd amendment. Having a smart gun program will at least help the problem going forward, and it doesn't impede the 2nd amendment in any drastic way.

cool and while we are at it let's limit how many times a year you can exercise free speech and refuse to a warrant less search

If the founding fathers were to sit down today and rewrite the constitution, the 2nd amendment would probably not even exist, there is no need for it in current day America. It was written in completely different times under completely different circumstances. How people can claim with a straight face that the intentions of the founding fathers over 200 years ago were meant to hold true today in regards to firearms, is beyond me.

Well alright then let's get an amendment going and change it. You know there is a way to change it right?

If it's so absurd let's modify it. I am all for it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Liberal revisionist history is so great to read. Did you attend school here or perhaps Briton?. Liberal logic fail

Logic is a stretch. These libs seem to forget that there is a constitutional way to change the constitution. Two in fact.

So as they maintain it's so absurd, our leaders would never approve it. Well snap then. It's simple change it.

P.S. By change it I don't mean some weed toking tree hugger on the 9th change it with a stroke of the pen.

The constitution is not a living breathing document. It is the basis of our government and the cornerstone of our freedom.

One thing they are correct about. Our forefathers could have never envisioned so much of our modern problems, that is why they made ways to change it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This makes about as much sense as gun buy-backs. Another stupid idea that will never work. If there were 1000 guns in circulation in the U.S,. then maybe. There's 330+ million. How about addressing why people value human life so little? I guess that's too difficult. Let's focus on the object they use for their violence rather than the reasons for the violence itself.

I'm waiting for a proposed "smart bullet" that will only kill people commiting crimes. That's about as logical as this proposal..

and I can promise you it would take the bad guys about 10 seconds to work around such technology. A gun is a mechanical device, whatever controller you put on it could easily be removed and the gun made to fire without it.

In industry it's called jumping out a PLC child's play. There is no way you are going to put a bio-metric lock on a gun that can't be undone in short order.

Once again a far flung idea that will only hurt honest gun owners, by far flung people who have no clue.