[buggyone]

I saw the following on FoxNews website:

"A Maryland firearms shop owner is backing away from plans to sell a smart gun after backlash from gun rights advocates who fear the technology in the high-tech firearm will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights.

Andy Raymond, owner of Rockville gun store Engage Armament, told The Washington Post he is backing down from selling the gun after word about his plan was spread online by gun rights blogs. He said he even received a death threat."

It seems that gun nuts are terrorizing gun store owners for attempting to sell pistols that can be fired only if the user is wearing a device to allow firing. This is amazing that zealots can actually be loony enough to be against gun safety. What can be said?

[Bogie Shooter]

Would that work in a Georgia bar?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Would that work in a Gerogia bar?

Explain, please.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I saw the following on FoxNews website:

"A Maryland firearms shop owner is backing away from plans to sell a smart gun after backlash from gun rights advocates who fear the technology in the high-tech firearm will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights.

Andy Raymond, owner of Rockville gun store Engage Armament, told The Washington Post he is backing down from selling the gun after word about his plan was spread online by gun rights blogs. He said he even received a death threat."

It seems that gun nuts are terrorizing gun store owners for attempting to sell pistols that can be fired only if the user is wearing a device to allow firing. This is amazing that zealots can actually be loony enough to be against gun safety. What can be said?

One important point to remember: Any gun that can be immobilized remotely can be hacked by others including your government.

Within 60 days after such a smart gun hits the market, you will be able to download a hack from the internet. Hundreds of millions spent and nothing accomplished.

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

These gun laws are not about safety. It is about taking away your rights.

The only people who will be controlled by these anti gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns. No form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...not drugs, not alcohol, not speeding, not running red lights, not common courtesy. None.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Would that work in a Gerogia bar?

Would what work in a Gerogia bar - and what is a Gerogia bar?

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

One important point to remember: Any gun that can be immobilized remotely can be hacked by others including your government.

Within 60 days after such a smart gun hits the market, you will be able to download a hack from the internet. Hundreds of millions spent and nothing accomplished.

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

These gun laws are not about safety. It is about taking away your rights.

The only people who will be controlled by these anti gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns. No form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...not drugs, not alcohol, not speeding, not running red lights, not common courtesy. None.

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by buggyone

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

Well said.

Also... It's only the people who don't give a rip about traffic safety or laws who disregard the speed limits and stop signs and the like. So we should not have those laws because those prone to breaking the law are not going to follow them anyway?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

Your information is incorrect. If you are unable to find accurate information on the NRA website, you may want to try here:

P.L.2002, c.130 (S573 2R SCS)

This law passed in 2002 requires that 3 YEARS, not 90 days, after the availability of a smart gun in the US, that all NEW guns sold in NJ be smart guns. There is absolutely nothing in the law about all gun owners having to convert their already owned guns to smart guns. There is nothing about the gubment comin to git you guns if you can't afford it.

I will leave it to the courts to decide if this is a violation of the 2nd amendment rather than rely on the constitutional experts available on this forum.

[wendyquat]

Originally Posted by buggyone

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

You neglect to mention how many lives have been saved by guns! Without taking the time to do a lot of research I'm confident it far outnumbers that of lives lost!

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by wendyquat

You neglect to mention how many lives have been saved by guns! Without taking the time to do a lot of research I'm confident it far outnumbers that of lives lost!

Boy howdy. I can't even imagine that is the case. (Wars excluded, since those same war guns take lives.)

[Carl in Tampa]

There are multiple reasons to oppose the misnamed "smart guns."

1. Unreliability. There are several different proposed methods of making firearms incapable of firing unless certain conditions are met; usually having to do with the use of magnetic rings, bracelets emitting law powered radio waves, or biometric sensors in the gun determining whether or not the holder is an authorized user.

None of these methods is foolproof and each carries the hazard that the firearm will fail to fire when needed in an emergency.

2. Defeatable. Virtually any technology that is created by a man can be defeated by another man. Locksmiths can defeat locks. Smart gun technologists can defeat smart guns.

3. Ineffectual. Most owners are likely to store the safety device with the firearm, so if one is stolen then both will be stolen.

4. Duplication. Florida law already requires that firearms be properly stored, both in homes and in cars, to prevent their possession by children.

5. Political. It is clearly demonstrable that the real reason for the government pushing of "smart gun" technology is to facilitate the seizure of firearms.

Some states have already passed laws that mandate that as soon as smart guns are offered on the retail market in their states then guns without this technology can no longer be sold. This means that all "regular" firearms in the state will eventually become contraband, effectively making them subject to seizure.

There are also proposals that although the firearms themselves might not be registered, the "safety devices" (rings, bracelets, etc.) will be registered. This effectively tells the government which citizens are gun owners, possibly facilitating future firearms confiscation......or confiscation of the safety devices, rendering the firearms useless.

--------------

What about:

1. Criminals? There will always be criminals. There are no laws that can be passed that will prevent people from committing crimes. Catch them and punish them.

2. Children? In addition to the laws that require proper storage of firearms to keep them out of the hands of children, there should be gun safety programs offered in the public schools.

For decades Ft. Homer W. Hesterly, the Florida National Guard Headquarters in Tampa, had an indoor gun range where organized target shooting by Boy Scouts was permitted.

The university I attended in Florida had an ROTC program where students were trained in firearms handling with the same rifles that were being used by U.S. Army personnel.

The NRA has a firearms safety program directed toward elementary school age children teaching them that if they encounter a firearm they should not touch it and should call an adult.

No program is perfect, but the efforts are appropriate. It's a shame that many children are not exposed to this instruction and it is likely that the firearms tragedies that we read about involving children involve children who have not received this training.

.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

There are multiple reasons to oppose the misnamed "smart guns."

1. Unreliability. There are several different proposed methods of making firearms incapable of firing unless certain conditions are met; usually having to do with the use of magnetic rings, bracelets emitting law powered radio waves, or biometric sensors in the gun determining whether or not the holder is an authorized user.

None of these methods is foolproof and each carries the hazard that the firearm will fail to fire when needed in an emergency.

2. Defeatable. Virtually any technology that is created by a man can be defeated by another man. Locksmiths can defeat locks. Smart gun technologists can defeat smart guns.

3. Ineffectual. Most owners are likely to store the safety device with the firearm, so if one is stolen then both will be stolen.

4. Duplication. Florida law already requires that firearms be properly stored, both in homes and in cars, to prevent their possession by children.

5. Political. It is clearly demonstrable that the real reason for the government pushing of "smart gun" technology is to facilitate the seizure of firearms.

Some states have already passed laws that mandate that as soon as smart guns are offered on the retail market in their states then guns without this technology can no longer be sold. This means that all "regular" firearms in the state will eventually become contraband, effectively making them subject to seizure.

There are also proposals that although the firearms themselves might not be registered, the "safety devices" (rings, bracelets, etc.) will be registered. This effectively tells the government which citizens are gun owners, possibly facilitating future firearms confiscation......or confiscation of the safety devices, rendering the firearms useless.

--------------

What about:

1. Criminals? There will always be criminals. There are no laws that can be passed that will prevent people from committing crimes. Catch them and punish them.

2. Children? In addition to the laws that require proper storage of firearms to keep them out of the hands of children, there should be gun safety programs offered in the public schools.

For decades Ft. Homer W. Hesterly, the Florida National Guard Headquarters in Tampa, had an indoor gun range where organized target shooting by Boy Scouts was permitted.

The university I attended in Florida had an ROTC program where students were trained in firearms handling with the same rifles that were being used by U.S. Army personnel.

The NRA has a firearms safety program directed toward elementary school age children teaching them that if they encounter a firearm they should not touch it and should call an adult.

No program is perfect, but the efforts are appropriate. It's a shame that many children are not exposed to this instruction and it is likely that the firearms tragedies that we read about involving children involve children who have not received this training.

.

I guess we shouldn't have instituted the use of air bags either, because of the risks of them harming someone in the passenger seat and the fact that sometimes they fail to operate. Why not just teach people how to drive safely. There are already laws telling people how to drive.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

[getdul981]

The issue of safety for children is always a joke to me. When I was a kid, we had guns in the house and I KNEW not to mess with them. If I did I would get my butt kicked most severely. The issue for gun safety for children does not belong to the government. The matter of gun safety falls to the parents. If they can't control their children, they don't need to have guns.

The only reason the government would have to require registration of any kind is so they can have control of what you have or what they can take away from you.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by CFrance

I guess we shouldn't have instituted the use of air bags either, because of the risks of them harming someone in the passenger seat and the fact that sometimes they fail to operate. Why not just teach people how to drive safely. There are already laws telling people how to drive.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

I would hazard a guess that you have never had to fire a gun to protect your life.

I have.

And there is no "benefit" of having a gun with a gimmick that might fail that outweighs my requirement for a totally reliable defensive firearm.

.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by getdul981

The issue of safety for children is always a joke to me. When I was a kid, we had guns in the house and I KNEW not to mess with them. If I did I would get my butt kicked most severely. The issue for gun safety for children does not belong to the government. The matter of gun safety falls to the parents. If they can't control their children, they don't need to have guns.

The only reason the government would have to require registration of any kind is so they can have control of what you have or what they can take away from you.

And maybe you were a normal kid with no psychiatric disorders not controllable by parents, or if you had them, the had the to get you treatment. Or maybe you were not a kid whose parents were scraping bottom to put food on the table, unemployed, hooked on drugs, abused as kids, had mental problems of their own... whatever. These gun control issues pertain mainly to the above.

You were one of the lucky ones, raised responsible parents.