Originally posted by maryjane: 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.
BART's shut-off of subterranean cell phone service in its downtown San Francisco stations may have prevented a protest Thursday, but it sparked accusations Friday that the action stifled free speech and smacked of the kind of government intrusion employed by Middle East dictators.
"All over the world, people are using mobile devices to protest oppressive regimes, and governments are shutting down cell phone towers and the Internet to stop them," said Michael Risher, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "It's outrageous that in San Francisco, BART is doing the same thing."
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.
I do apologize, but I couldn't get past those first two paragraphs. They basically told me "Warning, this article is going to have all opinion, and pure slant on everything."
Just to clarify, the "relaxed" gun laws they are referring to are the Supreme Court and local court rulings that re-instated what the second amendment meant. This was to overturn laws in Maryland and Washington D.C. (as well as a few other places) that were infringing on the 2nd amendment.
Second, the reason for the massive gun sales was as a result of the fact that people genuinely feared that Obama might be successful in limiting future gun sales. And if it wasn't obvious... Obama has most certainly tried to limit gun ownership through any means possible... he was almost successful too, but then Democrats in mostly Red or mid-west states started feeling the heat from their constituents so they refused to back it for fear of losing their re-election campaigns.
Guns are just like cars... it's a business, and they all like to sell cars and be the most profitable car company out there. But there's also gun competitions just like there are car races. Never the less, if someone wants to buy a Smart-Gun, they can do so... but most people don't want something like that. For people who own guns and go shooting, they like to be able to hand guns to their friends to let them shoot. A typical gun owner doesn't simply just want a gun so that it can sit in a lock box in their closet... what's the point?
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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?
Mine have keys. I don't even use them. Would you want a locked gun in your home if someone broke in and only your kids were home ?
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.
The market already has solutions available for that. That aside, having the option of a smart gun is fine, but as has already been mentioned there are laws already on the books that make that solution unacceptable.
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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?
I lock my home when I leave and unlock it when I am home.
The next step after smart guns will be the "friendly safe" circuitry and programming. This little "feature" will search down range for a "no shooting" signal that will be broadcast from bracelets that just happen to be worn by EVERY cop and politician in the country. Effectively eliminating any threat of a rebellion against the government.
When smart guns hit the market, soon thereafter there will be hackers that can mod the programming for a fee. Just like using HP tuners to reflash the ECM.
This is kinda like requiring a breathalyzer for every car. You have to pay for it because someone else is scared, and if it malfunctions and you get fired, can't get your pregnant wife to the hospital, can't get yourself to the hospital after a accident, etc. Thats your problem. No more laws made from peoples phobias, using its for the children to sell them. Better yet, repeal all those laws.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 05-12-2014).]
Its bad all the way around, you know what you need to keep guns out of your kids hands? discipline and education. and if that does not work a big ass safe with a combination lock will do just fine., its just another way to take away our rights.
When smart guns hit the market, soon thereafter there will be hackers that can mod the programming for a fee. Just like using HP tuners to reflash the ECM.
true but when they do this they are either going to force companies like smith and Wesson, Walther, Tarus, Glock, out of business or they are going to be so expensive the average joe cant afford it.. Get your guns now people.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I do apologize, but I couldn't get past those first two paragraphs. They basically told me "Warning, this article is going to have all opinion, and pure slant on everything."
Just to clarify, the "relaxed" gun laws they are referring to are the Supreme Court and local court rulings that re-instated what the second amendment meant. This was to overturn laws in Maryland and Washington D.C. (as well as a few other places) that were infringing on the 2nd amendment.
Second, the reason for the massive gun sales was as a result of the fact that people genuinely feared that Obama might be successful in limiting future gun sales. And if it wasn't obvious... Obama has most certainly tried to limit gun ownership through any means possible... he was almost successful too, but then Democrats in mostly Red or mid-west states started feeling the heat from their constituents so they refused to back it for fear of losing their re-election campaigns.
Guns are just like cars... it's a business, and they all like to sell cars and be the most profitable car company out there. But there's also gun competitions just like there are car races. Never the less, if someone wants to buy a Smart-Gun, they can do so... but most people don't want something like that. For people who own guns and go shooting, they like to be able to hand guns to their friends to let them shoot. A typical gun owner doesn't simply just want a gun so that it can sit in a lock box in their closet... what's the point?
So yeah... haha... great article.
I'm unsure why some have been surprised that an opinion piece had the authors opinion in it. :S
