Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[Teddy B 17,252]

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.

It is a difficult situation, no two people are the same, and there's no sure way of telling who will be the one to go on that killing spree. But smart guns could have prevented a shooting like Newtown where Adam Lanza used his Mother's weapons to go on a killing spree. There's never going to be a blanket answer or one fix all, but there are plenty of viable options to help curb the amount of gun deaths in this country.

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

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.

Yet another paranoid irrational aficionado joins the party.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

Yes I do think someone that has to traverse a bad part of town to carry his wife to dinner, and carries a weapon is very sane.

In fact someone who would not might be questionable.

as to someone who has an AK47 in their vehicle. Tell me again why an AK47 is so much more dangerous than a Joe Biden special with 8 rounds of 00 buck or for that matter a couple of glocks with 15 round mags.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Another paranoid bunch of rubbish. If you want to have a conversation with people who disagree with you, have the conversation one on one. This whole referring to your opponents in the third person is just idiotic.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It is a difficult situation, no two people are the same, and there's no sure way of telling who will be the one to go on that killing spree. But smart guns could have prevented a shooting like Newtown where Adam Lanza used his Mother's weapons to go on a killing spree. There's never going to be a blanket answer or one fix all, but there are plenty of viable options to help curb the amount of gun deaths in this country.

Yet another paranoid irrational aficionado joins the party.

so you are not in favor of changing the second amendment as you stated.??

I will take it that sense you did your normal insult and move on you don't have a logical answer.

Sweet Predictable but sweet.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes I do think someone that has to traverse a bad part of town to carry his wife to dinner, and carries a weapon is very sane.

In fact someone who would not might be questionable.

as to someone who has an AK47 in their vehicle. Tell me again why an AK47 is so much more dangerous than a Joe Biden special with 8 rounds of 00 buck or for that matter a couple of glocks with 15 round mags.

Does it not occur to you to wonder why there are bad parts of town that make you feel that you need a gun to get to and from dinner?

Is the USA really that dangerous?

I lived there for six years and didn't get robbed, assaulted or raped. Was I lucky?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yes I do think someone that has to traverse a bad part of town to carry his wife to dinner, and carries a weapon is very sane.

In fact someone who would not might be questionable.

as to someone who has an AK47 in their vehicle. Tell me again why an AK47 is so much more dangerous than a Joe Biden special with 8 rounds of 00 buck or for that matter a couple of glocks with 15 round mags.

Most everyone I know that is of a sane mind would consider not putting your wife in such a dangerous situation in the first place the right thing to do. Is a dinner really worth getting you and your wife killed? Anyone that feels the need to carry guns in their vehicle as a means of protection for teir everyday routine is not sane, the type of gun is not a qualifier for sanity.

so you are not in favor of changing the second amendment as you stated.??

I will take it that sense you did your normal insult and move on you don't have a logical answer.

Sweet Predictable but sweet.

If you are having a problem with reading comprehension, i can't help you.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Teddy B

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd say if you're in that much fear of being jacked, robbed and raped maybe going out for dinner isn't for you.

Order in, or cook. And don't choose a scary movie from Netflix.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

You may not see the constitution as a living, breathing document but you must be aware that the Constitution is always subject to interpretation. As such, what is considered to be constitutional today may be considered unconstitutional tomorrow. The constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. If there was no interpretation to what the constitution does and does not allow, then the Supreme Court could have never handed down Brown v. Board of Education since it had decided previously in Plessy v. Ferguson that school segregation is indeed constitutional. Both decisions were made based on the same document - only within a different societal context.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'd say if you're in that much fear of being jacked, robbed and raped maybe going out for dinner isn't for you.

Order in, or cook. And don't choose a scary movie from Netflix.

Could be costly on tv's.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Most everyone I know that is of a sane mind would consider not putting your wife in such a dangerous situation in the first place the right thing to do. Is a dinner really worth getting you and your wife killed? Anyone that feels the need to carry guns in their vehicle as a means of protection for teir everyday routine is not sane, the type of gun is not a qualifier for sanity.

If you are having a problem with reading comprehension, i can't help you.

So this guy..Saved his life from a random knock out thug. Insanity saved his life

Man with concealed weapon shoots ‘knockout game’ attacker – twice

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/22/man-with-concealed-weapon-shoots-knockout-game-attacker-twice-87672

A Michigan man with a concealed handgun and two quick bullets stopped one “knockout game” cold.

And the teen who was shot is telling a local television station it was far from the first time he’d attacked an innocent person chosen at random. But it was probably the last.

knockout1122new

Marvell Weaver is serving a year in jail for attacking a perfect stranger as part of a “knockout game.”

In a WILX News 10 report Thursday, 17-year-old Marvell Weaver – now serving a year in jail for the assault — told an interviewer he used a taser to attack the unnamed victim Feb. 26, while the victim waited for his daughter at a bus stop. It was just a game, he said, one he’d played before.

“Not many, six or seven,” he told the Lansing, Mich., station, like a half-dozen violent attacks is just something kids do when they’re bored. “It wouldn’t be an everyday game, just a certain game to be played on certain days. You don’t even try to rob them or anything. That’s the game.”

Weaver said his group liked to hit crowds, for ease of escape, and played while high on drugs. The victim could be anybody – any age, any gender.

The victim in this case, though, was playing for keeps.

“He shoved something into my side. I wasn’t sure what it was. It had some force to it. I wasn’t sure if it was a knife or a gun,” the victim told WILX.

Turns out, it was taser. Weaver was trying to knock him out without throwing a punch, but the weapon malfunctioned.

The victim’s .40 caliber handgun, though, was working fine. He shot Weaver twice, once in the leg and once in the back – a bullet that hit an inch away from his spine.

“It was just a lesson learned. I wish I hadn’t played the game at all,” Weaver told the station.

His intended victim is glad he had the arms to defend himself – for his own sake, and his 6-year-old daughter’s.

“What they tried to do to me wouldn’t have been a joke if they would’ve succeeded,” the man told WILX. “My child would’ve been left with the aftermath of seeing her father in any type of way I would’ve been left.”

Most everyone I know that is of a sane mind would consider not putting your wife in such a dangerous situation in the first place the right thing to do. Is a dinner really worth getting you and your wife killed? Anyone that feels the need to carry guns in their vehicle as a means of protection for teir everyday routine is not sane, the type of gun is not a qualifier for sanity.

If you are having a problem with reading comprehension, i can't help you.

Ok I get it. Don't ever go in an area unless it is perfect crime free zone.Which of course does not exist.

Huddle in my home like a bed wetting coward, and let criminals dictate my movements

No Thanks

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You may not see the constitution as a living, breathing document but you must be aware that the Constitution is always subject to interpretation. As such, what is considered to be constitutional today may be considered unconstitutional tomorrow. The constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. If there was no interpretation to what the constitution does and does not allow, then the Supreme Court could have never handed down Brown v. Board of Education since it had decided previously in Plessy v. Ferguson that school segregation is indeed constitutional. Both decisions were made based on the same document - only within a different societal context.

Very clear well thought out argument. Congrats.. Your vacation was good for you

However if we want seeping changes to the gun rights program in the US we need to change the constitution. You are talking about taking away laws that were unconstitutional and denied freedoms to begin with.

In denying people 2nd amendment rights you are taking away freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Not the same thing not even close.

[Karee 4,191]

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.

I try to use the same logic when talking about the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Seems black folks should be doing more to turn them into a body that reflects reasonable views. They claim to speak for the black community.

Seems pretty silly doesn't it? See how that works?

Trying to blame an organization that may claim to represent the views of all gun owners is idiocy. I don't think they even make that claim. Maybe they do. The fault is not with the gun owner or the NRA. The fault is with folks like you who can't tell the difference between an organization that represents a small percentage of gun owners, and then asking all gun owners to try and change the views of that organization.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Very clear well thought out argument. Congrats.. Your vacation was good for you

However if we want seeping changes to the gun rights program in the US we need to change the constitution. You are talking about taking away laws that were unconstitutional and denied freedoms to begin with.

In denying people 2nd amendment rights you are taking away freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Not the same thing not even close.

... guaranteed by the constitution as currently interpreted. All it takes is a different interpretation and that is as history has shown always within the realm of the possible. The anti-abortion crowd is certainly counting on that - they want to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights as well.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You are not having the same conversation everyone else is, you read one thing and comprehend another, I can't help you.

So you are not in favor of changing the second amendment ?That is not a hard question to cinder stand is it ? It seems to keep tripping you up.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

... guaranteed by the constitution as currently interpreted. All it takes is a different interpretation and that is as history has shown always within the realm of the possible. The anti-abortion crowd is certainly counting on that - they want to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights as well.

I don't think abortion rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution. Gun rights are very clear.