[Walt45]

Obama Unveils New Gun Control Plan, Including ‘Smart Gun’ Requirements and More | TheBlaze.com

These next few months are gonna be ruff for the 2nd amendment.

 

[Cheezywan]

Photo opportunity instead of his job. A gun deciding whether to shoot or not. If it decides to shoot, we blame the gun and ban it. If it decides to not shoot, it is OK to sell in California, Chicago, DC, etc. If an EMP from a lightning strike causes a malfunction, sue the maker. Kinder, gentler, firearms and ammunition.

It must be a slow day at the top.

Cheezywan

 

[joe12180]

No just no. I won't give an inch on this topic. REVOLT

 

[Jammer Six]

Read more than the headline.

This article is about guns for cops. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and does not interfere with gun rights in any way.

Smart guns are like abortions: if you don't want one, don't buy one.

Let us know when a piece of sky actually hits the ground.

 

[nvshooter]

Is there no depth to which this illegitimately-born glans penis will not sink? Oh, why even ask? Asking to what depth is like asking Stalin how many defenseless peasants will he deign to murder today. Tyranny knows no limits in a nation of sheep who rely upon government for their daily survival...

There is a law in Maryland (of all places-- what a shocker) that states "smart guns" only will be sold there once the technology becomes available. This law goes back maybe 20 years. Once the technology is available, "smart guns" will be the only kind that can be sold nationwide. The Maryland law says this. Question for the idiots who came up with such bald stupidity: "How do you propose to put this new technology on a gun that is 50 years old, like an AR-15?" What about on one that is a hundred years old, like a Model 94? What about on a rifle like a Model 70, which has been around since maybe 1949? As per usual, no thought in lawmaking by alpha-hotels who know zero about guns. Just make the law, and demand that the People abide...

 

[Walt45]

Read more than the headline.

This article is about guns for cops. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and does not interfere with gun rights in any way.

Smart guns are like abortions: if you don't want one, don't buy one.

Let us know when a piece of sky actually hits the ground.

I did. I read things like...

“Many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen, misused, or discharged accidentally,” Obama said. “As long as we’ve got the technology to prevent a criminal from stealing and using your smartphone, then we should be able to prevent the wrong person from pulling a trigger on a gun.”

“These common-sense steps are not going to prevent every tragedy, but what if they prevented even one?” Obama wrote in a Facebook post. “We should be doing everything we can to save lives and spare families the pain and unimaginable loss too many Americans have endured.”

Yup. This sounds like an attitude directed towards cops right?

 

[Jammer Six]

Yup. This sounds like an attitude directed towards cops right?

Since that's what he's talking about, I'd have to say yes.

 

[MikeG]

The 'smart gun' stuff is the least of it. The proposal to remove privacy from medical records affects a whole lot more.

 

[nvshooter]

This article is about guns for cops. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and does not interfere with gun rights in any way.

Ever heard the bleating of the anti-Freedom swine who say "If it saves one life...?" That's where it starts. This dictate by Dear Leader is the first step to require that all guns have this elusive technology. Who can disagree, other than the ultra-Right, "let's go kill some schoolkids" conservatives and gun-owners, that some foolish add-on to a simple machine will save a life if it's on every gun to be made, and every gun that has been made back to 1860? It's not about stopping the evil from using a gun. It's about stopping the People from owning a gun. Tyranny knows no bounds in a nation largely populated by sheep who rely on government for their daily survival... I should put that one into Stretch's quotes thread...

 

[Walt45]

Since that's what he's talking about, I'd have to say yes.

Nonsense. Once this tec passes with "flying colors" it will be law for all of us.

But I do agree with you, the President probably does think cops are responsible for all these "tragedies".

 

[Jammer Six]

Nonsense. Once this tec passes with "flying colors" it will be law for all of us.

I'm not worried. I say it won't, and I vote at least as many times as you do. Limits on the guns cops carry are a problem for cops, but not for the rest of us. The only problem a limit (any limit) on cops creates for us is a subtle problem about the long term quality of cops, which is an entirely different discussion.

Mike, you, I agree with.

 

[Bong Son Buck]

Maybe more!

 

[Davers]

The 'smart gun' stuff is the least of it. The proposal to remove privacy from medical records affects a whole lot more.

Just like all the gun control laws, designed to take away or severely reduce our right to bear arms. This law WON'T WORK and is unconstitutional and only those (criminals) will have guns, while many law abiding taxpaying U.S. voter/citizen, will be prohibited. This attempt won't help Hillary in the up-coming election.

 

[tunnels]

This may be a bit off topic but......I watch BBC news, at times. They have been covering the tragedy in Syria - bombings, killing their own people, etc. The one thing that was very noticeable to me was the lack of weapons by the citizens. Never saw a single gun, knife or anything that looked like a weapon.

 

[kramden]

And fools believe that Obama is honest in what he says ,why???? Remember all the "promises" tied to his healthcare? Lie after lie. The man is a complete con and liar!

 

[joe12180]

I'm not worried. I say it won't, and I vote at least as many times as you do. Limits on the guns cops carry are a problem for cops, but not for the rest of us. The only problem a limit (any limit) on cops creates for us is a subtle problem about the long term quality of cops, which is an entirely different discussion.

Mike, you, I agree with.

They are a problem only for cops unless the cop is their to save you and then it becomes your problem too.

 

[Tater]

I will fully support a smart gun when and only when they are in common use by the military and police. Until then, not so much.

 

[Davers]

The 'smart gun' stuff is the least of it. The proposal to remove privacy from medical records affects a whole lot more.

Haven't "They" ever heard "Doctor-Patient confidentially"

 

[Combat Diver]

This may be a bit off topic but......I watch BBC news, at times. They have been covering the tragedy in Syria - bombings, killing their own people, etc. The one thing that was very noticeable to me was the lack of weapons by the citizens. Never saw a single gun, knife or anything that looked like a weapon.

Because Alasaad doesn't trust his people. The Afghan and Iraqi people have a gun in just about every house hold. Iraqis can keep one rifle with 2 mags with ammo. No wonder the AK out sells the SKS.

Back on subject. If it is such a good idea then let the Secret Service Presidential detail be the first to have this awesome techonolgy.

CD

 

[MikeG]

Haven't "They" ever heard "Doctor-Patient confidentially"

Well, we have that now. In theory.

Once "mental health" data is used to disqualify (legal!) firearms purchases, then the door opens up to pretty much everything and anything being used to disqualify (legal!) transactions.

Never mind the potential for additional breach of privacy, etc., once more govt. agencies get their hands on your health data.

Don't believe me? Look at the history of defining mental illness in this country. Go back, say, 50 or a 100 years, or whatever, and see what was considered 'mental illness.'

Now, I am well aware of the fact there are plenty of people whom, due to mental issues, should be discouraged from firearms ownership! I personally know a few. The difficulty is, how to codify into law what is 'obvious.'

The current administration showed their hand by trying to prevent all vets who 'might' have PTSD from future firearms ownership. What is PTSD? A subjective judgement. And for how long? When is someone 'cured?' Ever?

What about people who have ever taken a medication that lists a side effect of increased risk of violent/suicidal/homicidal behavior? One of life's terrible ironies is those sorts of medications are given to people who are already a risk for .... you guessed it, violent/suicidal/homicidal behavior! And if so, what is the cut-off? One pill? One prescription? Took it in the last 5 years? Took the stuff, ever?

The convergence of the single-payer health insurance, with electronic medical records, and the proposal to end medical privacy, is a huge issue that goes beyond liberal/conservative, goes beyond gun control, just is a hole with no bottom.

I will fully support a smart gun when and only when they are in common use by the military and police. Until then, not so much.

The 'smart gun' reference is a red herring. I don't think law enforcement will accept it, and the feds can't make every department in the country use it, even if it works. The military? Hah... no way. Can you imagine the problems in a combat situation if the stuff doesn't work? If the FBI can pay someone to hack a smartphone, our enemies can pay someone to hack a smart gun.

"If it saves one life" is just the usual emotional appeal to people who don't have the intellectual capacity to see past it.