As every true lover of freedom and the Second Amendment knows, Barack Obama spends most of his time scheming to take away America's guns.
Pay no attention to the relaxed gun laws since Obama's first election, or the record increase in gun sales on his watch. Almost as many guns were produced during Obama's first four years than all eight years of George W. Bush's administration.
Obviously, Obama's crafty operatives know that allowing all that accumulation of firepower will just give them more guns to impound when they make their move. As everyone knows, right, Washington is working on a diabolical project: a "smart gun" that the government will be able to deactivate remotely, probably at the very moment its owner is stoutly defending himself or his household against federal agents.
OK, that's about as far down the road to conspiracy-town as I care to travel.
But I'm not making all this up. One needs surf no further than the esteemed Forbes website to find this: "Smart guns may be susceptible to government tracking or jamming. How hard would it be for the government to require manufacturers to surreptitiously include in computer-enhanced weapons some circuitry that would allow law enforcement to track — or even to disable — the weapons?"
Gun websites, which tend to take a more dire view than Forbes, are, well, up in arms.
According to Shotgun News: "There are people who won't stop until we are disarmed. [Smart guns] are a danger to our rights, no more, no less."
To me, a non-gun owner who doesn't believe the feds are coming in stealth helicopters, the smart gun seems like what it is: a real gun that fires real bullets, and can really kill you.
The difference is that it must be electronically enabled in order to function, a safety measure that has come to be hated and feared by the far right of the gun lobby.
Some smart guns contain sensors that scan the owner's biometric information, or recognize a grip. Some recognize fingerprints.
Others, like the German-made Armatix iP1, won't work unless the shooter is wearing a special wristwatch transmitter.
In other words, smart gun technology might prevent the hundreds of children who stumble upon guns in their homes every year from shooting themselves or someone else, as they do now.
Or perhaps some teen intent on stealing his mother's guns to slaughter schoolchildren might find that they won't operate in anyone else's hands.
And if law enforcement agents could indeed disable smart guns remotely, well, good for them. Presumably they'd have a good reason, but of course that involves trusting law enforcement, which I'm inclined to do once the shooting starts.
I suppose if I were ever to keep a gun in my home, I'd choose a smart gun.
In fact, I'm exactly the sort of customer Andy Raymond had in mind when he decided two years ago to become the first gun shop in America to import the Armatix pistol.
Raymond operates Engage Armament, not far from where I live in Maryland's notoriously liberal Montgomery County.
Unlike Virginia, just across the Potomac River, where you can load up on Glocks and Bushmasters and parade around in public with them, no permit required, Maryland's approach is more, um, Canadian.
Maryland requires new handgun buyers to take a weapons course and be fingerprinted, and imposes a waiting period. As Raymond says, "the state has just about put gun shops out of business" here.
So any new gun, to Raymond, is a good gun. Anything that can persuade cautious people to learn how to shoot is a good, American thing.
"I am pro-gun," he told me at his shop this week, slapping together and dismantling weapons on the counter as he spoke. "I believe in the freedom to own a gun. Any gun. To me, you don't have freedom unless you have freedom of choice. It's like speech, or religion."
The more militant wing of the gun-rights movement, though, has a different view. And when word got out that Raymond was going to offer the Armatix for sale, Engage Armament's phone began to ring.
There were threats. Raymond, a massive, heavily muscled man, took some of the more menacing ones as death threats.
He quickly capitulated, and repudiated his plan to sell the Armatix. He began sleeping in his store, frightened by an anonymous threat to burn it down.
In an attempt to appease his antagonists, he posted a video on his Facebook page justifying his decision, then apologizing, then suggesting in a fit of temper that the death threats should be leveled at anti-gun politicians, not him. The video has since been taken down.
Another merchant, the Oak Tree Gun Club in California, hastily renounced the Armatix a few weeks ago as well after a similarly ferocious reaction.
I asked Raymond how weird is it that gun rights activists across this country are mobilizing against the sale of a gun, probably for the first time in history.
"That irony is not lost on me," he replied.
Raymond says the Armatix has technical issues: "It's not there yet. You can hot-wire it easy."
But he also says the arrival of a truly efficient smart gun is just a matter of time; there is demand, and the market will respond.
Even liberal politicians like the concept (then president Bill Clinton was among the first to advocate it over a decade ago), and so do some gun control advocates.
New Jersey has already passed a law that would essentially require all new guns to be smart-equipped within three years of the first smart gun sale.
The National Rifle Association, which is deeply suspicious of smart guns, opposes any such law, and its more radical allies are determined to keep the weapons out of America, period.
As the Shotgun News website put it: "Until the last anti-gunner gives up and goes to work on transgender rights … any retailers foolish enough to stock one should plan for bankruptcy."
Note the clever comparison of gun control to emasculation. Note, too, how we might be talking about something much worse than bankruptcy. Just ask the rather chastened Andy Raymond.
It seems the gun lobby's howling fanatics aren't as interested in freedom as they pretend. Or at least other people's freedom to choose a safer gun.
on something as dangerous as a firearm im not sure i want it restricted or controlled by something electronic or computer controlled. but then again i am a bit old fashioned that way, i feel comftorble carrying my 1911 cocked and locked with the mechanical safety it has now
on something as dangerous as a firearm im not sure i want it restricted or controlled by something electronic or computer controlled. but then again i am a bit old fashioned that way, i feel comftorble carrying my 1911 cocked and locked with the mechanical safety it has now
Understandable, not everyone trusts newer technologies.
i trust most of them to a point its just when i may possibly have to trust the lives of my family and Friends that i get alittle leery, batteries die and sometimes computers have worse brain farts than i do
It's not so much the technology that people will mistrust. It's those who control the tech. I could see a future where all new guns sold are mandated to be "smart weapons", with logic circuits that allow govt to disable any--or all-- with the "flick of a switch". And of course, anything of this nature can be 'hacked'.
We've already seen the many lies and false denials the US govt has spouted about it's domestic and foreign spying programs, how they promised they "weren't" and now "won't" do this or that, yet have had to crawfish on so many of those statements and finally admit they do and will continue to do so.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-08-2014).]
It's not so much the technology that people will mistrust. It's those who control the tech. I could see a future where all new guns sold are mandated to be "smart weapons", with logic circuits that allow govt to disable any--or all-- with the "flick of a switch". And of course, anything of this nature can be 'hacked'.
We've already seen the many lies and false denials the US govt has spouted about it's domestic and foreign spying programs, how they promised they "weren't" and now "won't" do this or that, yet have had to crawfish on so many of those statements and finally admit they do and will continue to do so.
Well there's no hint of that but it is indeed where the conspiracy theorists will go and apparently threaten gun owners lives over it.
Interesting read, Newf. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As a resident of New Jersey, owning firearms is just not worth the hassle to me, so I don't really have a bone to pick here.
However...
I agree with the writer. IF I ever owned a gun, I'd seriously consider a smart gun. But I'd like to know that if the emergency should arise, and I'm not there, or not able, to use it, can my wife use it? Can my old-enough, properly trained daughter use it? If not, then it's not a lot of help. Nor will one that locks up or fails.
On the other hand...
The writer's statement:
quote
And if law enforcement agents could indeed disable smart guns remotely, well, good for them. Presumably they'd have a good reason, but of course that involves trusting law enforcement, which I'm inclined to do once the shooting starts.
bothers me. Hurricane Katrina proved beyond doubt that law enforcement agents will cheerfully overstep their bounds at the least excuse. What's next for the remote disable smart gun? As soon as anything disturbs the police, disable all weapons in the city? Don't think they aren't absolutely salivating over that idea. OR simply including a continuously-on remote disable transmitter on every cops belt. The range, would of course, have to be long enough to keep snipers disabled, right? So, basically, if there's a cop in your neighborhood, your gun is useless. Good for cops. Pretty useful for criminals, too, if you think about it.
The writer's other statement:
quote
Or perhaps some teen intent on stealing his mother's guns to slaughter schoolchildren might find that they won't operate in anyone else's hands.
is also probably not helpful. If Mom has guns, the "teen" probably has used them and would be ID'ed as an allowed user.
The writer:
1] Completely trusts cops to do the right thing. I don't. They're human, just like me. Who will watch the watchers? Who will police the police?
2] Is plainly NOT a fan of guns, so anything that reduces his fear seems like a great idea. He's more likely to die from a medical error. Has he written as well thought out article about that topic?
Then again...
Whoever called up the gun store threatening the owner is the kind of person that the writer, Newf, and I all agree SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS! What kinda psycho does stuff like that? Don't try to tell me he's defending his second amendment rights. He's a pathetic coward who substitutes his gun for a penis.
Well there's no hint of that but it is indeed where the conspiracy theorists will go and apparently threaten gun owners lives over it.
Many in govt claim there is no internet or mass media "kill switch" and never will be either. Beyond my 'schoolin' but I very much suspect there is. For most users anyway.
if its like the one ive seen on and off online for a while an uses an rf transmitter wristband and a receiver in the gun im betting jamming it wouldent be to horribly hard
Understandable, not everyone trusts newer technologies.
Im one of those. My CCP gun has no manual safety. I keep a full clip + one chambered all the time. It just makes me be more careful with it knowing it can go off in the right circumstance. If your threatened, you lose most common sense and might try to protect yourself by firing at someone in the few seconds you have, with the safety on. Ive been there before and especially if your awakened, your easily confused about whats going on.
Well there's no hint of that but it is indeed where the conspiracy theorists will go and apparently threaten gun owners lives over it.
It doesn't matter if there's a hint of it. The possibility makes it a risk in the future if not now. We may not always have such a benevolent pro-gun president as Obama. Power once granted will be used.
Even if the friendly pro-gun government is a given, you don't want any kind of extra layer of technology on a piece of life saving equipment that requires it's own power source. Imagine trying to use a fire extinguisher, but the battery that arms it is dead. That's why it's a mechanical pin you pull. Or a life jacket that will only inflate after you enter a captcha, to ensure it's a person trying to inflate it and the cord didn't get hung on a piece of hardware.
Any kind of "safety" device like that relies on active technology to enable it's use introduces more risk that the device won't work when needed.
Obama is not pro-gun lets get that straight right now. Just because the article stated gun sales doubled what they were when Bush was office means only one thing. Its like when the weatherman forcasts a big snowstorm here on the east coast. Everyone runs out to the grocery store and buys up all the bread,milk and shitpaper they can carry. When Obama got elected all the fence sitting potential gun owners saw his anti gun policies and flew to the gun stores and bought. Even the people who already owned guns went and bought more. There was such a rush to buy all the guns you possible could because of the fear that Obama would enact strict gun control laws. Just look at Illinois. Now to the douchebag that called and threatend the gun store owner, that was just wrong,way wrong. Yeah its an iffy technology incorporated in a gun but it's still a gun. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its bad. The only problem is that when the tech gets advanced and proven enough it will be more widely implemented. Then you will have to "trust" your government not to turn your gun off on you. We all know how much we trust or government......
Obama and the Democrats/Communists have disarmed us already by making ammo so expensive and hard to get that people don't go target shooting near as much as they used too.
Pay no attention to the relaxed gun laws since Obama's first election, or the record increase in gun sales on his watch. Almost as many guns were produced during Obama's first four years than all eight years of George W. Bush's administration
Good god what a load, talk about a desperate spin.
Not my handywork, just grabbed a quick google pic. I do have some 80's though. You can see my handywork here www.facebook.com/ftwcoatings or www.ftwcoatings.com I have more pics on facebook.
Obama is not pro-gun lets get that straight right now.
While I agree with you - it's irrelevant if it's pro-gun or not. Additional restrictions on our right to self defense are wrong, whether they come from a pro-gun or anti-gun administration. Technology or legislation that has the potential to be abused ... will be. It doesn't matter if the current administration is trustworthy or not. Once in place, someone will eventually abuse that technology or legal power.
Obama supporters should not give Obama any power they wouldn't have wanted George W. Bush to have, and vice versa.
While I agree with you - it's irrelevant if it's pro-gun or not. Additional restrictions on our right to self defense are wrong, whether they come from a pro-gun or anti-gun administration. Technology or legislation that has the potential to be abused ... will be. It doesn't matter if the current administration is trustworthy or not. Once in place, someone will eventually abuse that technology or legal power.
Obama supporters should not give Obama any power they wouldn't have wanted George W. Bush to have, and vice versa.
Shouldn't people have the option to buy "smart" guns if they want them, surely you aren't saying they shouldn't be sold or that it's fair to intimidate sellers NOT to sell them?
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Obama supporters should not give Obama any power they wouldn't have wanted George W. Bush to have, and vice versa.
While I agree with you - it's irrelevant if it's pro-gun or not. Additional restrictions on our right to self defense are wrong, whether they come from a pro-gun or anti-gun administration. Technology or legislation that has the potential to be abused ... will be. It doesn't matter if the current administration is trustworthy or not. Once in place, someone will eventually abuse that technology or legal power.
Obama supporters should not give Obama any power they wouldn't have wanted George W. Bush to have, and vice versa.
Shouldn't people have the option to buy "smart" guns if they want them, surely you aren't saying they shouldn't be sold or that it's fair to intimidate sellers NOT to sell them?
Its real simple, the companies that start manufacturing these, get boycotted by 2A supporters. Dont buy 1 of their products. Not 1. The only way to beat these ideas is where it hurts the most. In the wallet.
Its real simple, the companies that start manufacturing these, get boycotted by 2A supporters. Dont buy 1 of their products. Not 1. The only way to beat these ideas is where it hurts the most. In the wallet.
That would be fair but if you read the article you would see some idiots are not doing so. Maybe there are people who would like a smart gun.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-08-2014).]
Pay no attention to the relaxed gun laws since Obama's first election, or the record increase in gun sales on his watch. Almost as many guns were produced during Obama's first four years than all eight years of George W. Bush's administration
Good god what a load, talk about a desperate spin.
Heh, "smart gun".
Maybe the author is referring to when the Obama Administration ordered gun dealers to sell to Mexican Cartel buyers even though the dealers didn't want to. The gun laws have been relaxed for criminals.
What makes this technology controversial is not the technology itself. It is what the Leftist plan to do with it.
There are already laws in place that trigger as soon as the first "smart" gun hits the market, such as this one. These laws will require ALL guns to incorporate this new unproven technology into their products.
Yes, this is a 2A issue. It makes guns less reliable, and significantly more expensive. It is a backdoor way to make guns illegal for the majority of people that want to exercise their 2A rights.
What makes this technology controversial is not the technology itself. It is what the Leftist plan to do with it.
There are already laws in place that trigger as soon as the first "smart" gun hits the market, such as this one. These laws will require ALL guns to incorporate this new unproven technology into their products.
Yes, this is a 2A issue. It makes guns less reliable, and significantly more expensive. It is a backdoor way to make guns illegal for the majority of people that want to exercise their 2A rights.
Exactly. This is the point. New Jersey already has this law. Once again we will be forced to contest another attempt at infringing our right to keep and bear arms.
What makes this technology controversial is not the technology itself. It is what the Leftist plan to do with it.
There are already laws in place that trigger as soon as the first "smart" gun hits the market, such as this one. These laws will require ALL guns to incorporate this new unproven technology into their products.
Yes, this is a 2A issue. It makes guns less reliable, and significantly more expensive. It is a backdoor way to make guns illegal for the majority of people that want to exercise their 2A rights.
Its like that with many things, if they cant straight up change / get what they want, the door is closed so come in a window, change some definitions, substitute something for something else, starts out as optional.. for a while.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: There are already laws in place that trigger as soon as the first "smart" gun hits the market, such as this one. These laws will require ALL guns to incorporate this new unproven technology into their products.
My normal carry weapon has no manual safety, either (like Rogers). And like him, I keep 15 in the clip and 1 in the pipe. All I have to do is point and squeeze the trigger. I spend enough time on the range that, unless the perp is wearing a LOT of body armor, about 3 rounds will do the trick (to WOUND, of course!!! I would NEVER aim to kill!!!). I'm sure, someday, all weapons will be "smart" but I highly doubt that'll be any time in our lifetime.
The article you posted is obviously biased. It doesn't make it unworthy of discussion. But it hurts the discussion.
Anyone can figure out why there were record increase in gun sales on Obama's watch. It is because they were afraid he would try to take that right away, and so they wanted to get their gun purchases in before he was able to do so. He has an obvious disdain for the constitution of the United States, and the constitutional process of executing laws. So the masses tried to buy their guns before the dictator took away the opportunity.
I don't even want a gun and I almost bought one, just because I was legitimately concerned that it was now or never. He writes:
"Some smart guns contain sensors that scan the owner's biometric information, or recognize a grip. Some recognize fingerprints.
Others, like the German-made Armatix iP1, won't work unless the shooter is wearing a special wristwatch transmitter.
In other words, smart gun technology might prevent the hundreds of children who stumble upon guns in their homes every year from shooting themselves or someone else, as they do now.
Or perhaps some teen intent on stealing his mother's guns to slaughter schoolchildren might find that they won't operate in anyone else's hands." Ok. So he gives some positives about "smart gun technology". Where is the analysis of situations where the technology would get in the way of the usefulness of the gun? Absent.
"And if law enforcement agents could indeed disable smart guns remotely, well, good for them. Presumably they'd have a good reason, but of course that involves trusting law enforcement, which I'm inclined to do once the shooting starts." Wow. What a statement. I trust law enforcement once the shooting starts. Uh, well, what do you do until the shooting starts? And your gun isn't working. And "presumably they'd have a good reason"???? Really? You are going to trust your life to that? And you don't see how them disabling your "smart guns" is taking your rights away? Yes, citizen, you can have a smart gun. See. You just can't decide when it will work or you can actually use it. WE will decide that. I wouldn't use the tactics the people used. It is wrong. But I get where they are coming from. If smart guns become available, there will be many in the government that don't want it as A choice. They will want it to be THE choice. Period.
That's tin foil, stealth helicopter, conspiracy nut thinking? After what you have seen the government do in the last 6 years? No. That is realistic thinking.
Well there's no hint of that but it is indeed where the conspiracy theorists will go and apparently threaten gun owners lives over it.
I realize you are talking this smart gun technology, but is reassuring that you give us your promise that no government ever will act against the citizenry to deliberately limit the freedom of the individual. It is comforting to note from history how right you are.
That's tin foil, stealth helicopter, conspiracy nut thinking? After what you have seen the government do in the last 6 years? No. That is realistic thinking.
I agree, and it is sad.
I think you would have to be a fool to not see the good that "smart guns" (I hate that name) could do, but that is not a great reason to do something. Having an option to choose to get one is of course the right thing on all counts BUT my fear is that it will not stop there,,,, I think it would be foolish to think so.
In other words, smart gun technology might prevent the hundreds of children who stumble upon guns in their homes every year from shooting themselves or someone else, as they do now.
Or perhaps some teen intent on stealing his mother's guns to slaughter schoolchildren might find that they won't operate in anyone else's hands.
There are laws on the books against allowing children to get a hold of guns. Police departments give trigger locks away.
Problem solved.
Heh ... another liberal "think of the children" argument.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-08-2014).]
First U.S. Smart Gun Sale Will Trigger Ban On Traditional Gun Sales In NJ
For many gun rights advocates, May Day was a close call for one aspect of gun control. That’s the day that “smart guns” nearly went on the market – which would have triggered a 2002 law in New Jersey requiring that ALL statewide gun sales be ‘smart guns’ within three years of the first date of sale anywhere in the United States.
That would be a critical blow to the right to bear arms in New Jersey, furthering the often absurd efforts of gun control advocates in the wake of Sandy Hook and other exploited tragedies. That’s because many in power don’t just want ‘smart guns’ to be an available option on the market, they want them to replace all other legal firearms.
A Maryland gun store owner named Andy Raymond, owner of Engage Armament, found out about the smart-sale ‘trigger’ clause the hard way, after he stocked them and announced he was set to become the first retailer in the nation of the Armatix iP1, a .22 caliber ‘smart gun’ that requires the owner wear an RFID watch to authenticate and enable the firearm - See more at: http://marketdailynews.com/...sthash.Qz9GZ6N5.dpuf
Originally posted by cliffw: What is this "smart gun" technology gonna cost ? There are laws on the books against allowing children to get a hold of guns. Police departments give trigger locks away.
Problem solved.
Heh ... another liberal "think of the children" argument.
Would you use an old fashioned trigger lock (as in the photograph) on a gun that you were keeping in the drawer of your bedside nightstand to defend yourself against a home invader? Seems like there is a market for gun owners who want to have a different kind of safety device, that unlocks the gun for action almost instantly, instead of having to thumb dial the combination on one of those old-fashioned trigger locks.
X2
