[buggyone]

[quote=MikeV;873616][QUOTE=buggyone;873578]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

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

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?[/QUOTE]

What business is it of yours why, when or where I feel I need to carry a firearm? Like I've said before about these threads - If you don't like the laws that allow us to own or carry a firearm change the Constitution, oh yeah good luck with that!

Who said anything in this thread about not allowing you to own or carry a gun?

[Steve9930]

Criminals have no fences or schedule. Evil strikes everywhere. The difference, do you want to be a victim of it? Concealed carry is only one of the weapons used to protect ourselves the other is street smarts. The police are there to take the report.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

Criminals have no fences or schedule. Evil strikes everywhere. The difference, do you want to be a victim of it? Concealed carry is only one of the weapons used to protect ourselves the other is street smarts. The police are there to take the report.

That's usually the case. Happily, there are sometimes exceptions.

Back in the days before direct deposit of paychecks was commonplace, the Secret Service issued a bi-weekly paycheck, which most agents took to the bank to deposit.

An agent friend of mine was standing in line in the bank when the man in front of him drew a gun and pushed a note to the cashier. He was robbing the bank!

My friend took no action in the bank, but followed the robber outside. The agent then announced himself as a federal agent and ordered the robber to surrender.

The robber began to run away and the agent fired an (unauthorized) "warning shot" into the air. The shot struck an overhead street light, raining broken glass down on the robber, who then surrendered.

Sometimes you are in the right place at the right time.

[Cedwards38]

Why would the NRA "blast" the gun shop owner? Isn't their real issue with people who might want to purchase such a weapon? Adults can decide if they want one of those or not without the NRA getting involved!

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

Why would the NRA "blast" the gun shop owner? Isn't their real issue with people who might want to purchase such a weapon? Adults can decide if they want one of those or not without the NRA getting involved!

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.

[buggyone]

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.

Steve,
I fail to see how smart gun technology is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The smart technology would be required on new purchases and not on existing ones in your home, office, car, pocket, or wheelchair side compartment.

Has your (or NRA) theory of violation of 2nd Amendment been taken to the US Supreme Court for their interpretation?

The "pressure" on the store owner included threats of burning his store and of killing him. Please tell me you do not agree with that and that the cowards who threatened the owner are criminals.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Steve,
I fail to see how smart gun technology is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The smart technology would be required on new purchases and not on existing ones in your home, office, car, pocket, or wheelchair side compartment.

Has your (or NRA) theory of violation of 2nd Amendment been taken to the US Supreme Court for their interpretation?

The "pressure" on the store owner included threats of burning his store and of killing him. Please tell me you do not agree with that and that the cowards who threatened the owner are criminals.

The 2nd amendment does not allow for control of what kind of guns Americans are allowed to own.

The alleged threats of violence were NOT from the NRA. Regardless, I do not condone such threats.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by upstate

Let's not forget Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and Rhode Island.

Take Illinois out as they have passed a new concealed carry law.

[Carl in Tampa]

So, Buggyone:

Which of the unproven "smart gun" technologies do you like:

1. RFID
2. Ultrasonic
3. Biometric with Fingerprint
4. Biometric, with palmprint, grip strength, etc.
5. Magnetic
6. Some combination of the above with a PIN number.

And which system do you prefer:

a. Physical block
b. Electronic relay block
c. Physical activator
d. Electronic relay activator

And what activation methodology:

w. Ring.
x. Bracelet or watch.
y. Ultrasonic emitter.
z. Physical (under the skin) implant.

And would you want a system which permits a single activation to turn on, having the gun work for anyone who it is handed to after activation or would you want it to require reactivation after each use? Either method can be implemented.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Don't just say "whatever works" because none of these and no combination of these systems is proven reliable enough for law enforcement or personal self defense use.

As part of the development process, specific goals should include a system that:

* Is impervious to external magnetic fields.
* Is impervious to external RF signals.
* Works both while bare handed and while wearing gloves.
* Works in extreme heat and extreme cold, both of which could deactivate batteries.
* Works if dropped in water, snow, sand, mud or dirt.
* Works if the pistol is drenched in blood.
* Works with either hand, in case the opposite hand or arm is wounded.
* Can't be defeated by simply disassembling the gun and removing or modifying the device that is inhibiting firing.

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

Again, I assure you that whatever system one man can develop another man can defeat. That's why the profession of safe cracking still exists, and explains the incredible success of computer hackers even against the United States Department of Defense.

By now I hope you see that your energy in promoting "Smart guns" would better be utilized by urging gun owners to utilize gun locks and gun safes to keep their firearms secure.


.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

So, Buggyone:

Which of the unproven "smart gun" technologies do you like:

1. RFID
2. Ultrasonic
3. Biometric with Fingerprint
4. Biometric, with palmprint, grip strength, etc.
5. Magnetic
6. Some combination of the above with a PIN number.

And which system do you prefer:

a. Physical block
b. Electronic relay block
c. Physical activator
d. Electronic relay activator

And what activation methodology:

w. Ring.
x. Bracelet or watch.
y. Ultrasonic emitter.
z. Physical (under the skin) implant.

And would you want a system which permits a single activation to turn on, having the gun work for anyone who it is handed to after activation or would you want it to require reactivation after each use? Either method can be implemented.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Don't just say "whatever works" because none of these and no combination of these systems is proven reliable enough for law enforcement or personal self defense use.

As part of the development process, specific goals should include a system that:

* Is impervious to external magnetic fields.
* Is impervious to external RF signals.
* Works both while bare handed and while wearing gloves.
* Works in extreme heat and extreme cold, both of which could deactivate batteries.
* Works if dropped in water, snow, sand, mud or dirt.
* Works if the pistol is drenched in blood.
* Works with either hand, in case the opposite hand or arm is wounded.
* Can't be defeated by simply disassembling the gun and removing or modifying the device that is inhibiting firing.

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

Again, I assure you that whatever system one man can develop another man can defeat. That's why the profession of safe cracking still exists, and explains the incredible success of computer hackers even against the United States Department of Defense.

By now I hope you see that your energy in promoting "Smart guns" would better be utilized by urging gun owners to utilize gun locks and gun safes to keep their firearms secure.


.

Whatever

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

The 2nd amendment does not allow for control of what kind of guns Americans are allowed to own.

The alleged threats of violence were NOT from the NRA. Regardless, I do not condone such threats.

Check the National Firearms Act of 1936 and you will see some controls on types of guns allowed.

[DaleMN]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Whatever

[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.

As was clearly explained earlier in this thread, 90 days is not the same as 3 years. The NJ law takes 3 years for implementation. It also absolutely and completely does NOT require ALL "gun owners to use such smart technology within 90 days" It very simply limits future sales of new guns to those with whatever smart technology has been authorized by the AG. There is a clear definition of the degree of reliability required for listing. The gun must fire with the same reliability as a non-smart gun. You gun owners can certainly attest that every weapon has a failure to fire rate. So the argument about my smart gun is not going to fire as reliably as my stupid gun fires is moot as such a gun does not fit the requirement to be sold. My bold

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=144757&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advqu ery=2C%3a39-1%20%20Definitions&headingswithhits=on&infobase=st atutes.nfo&rank=&record={1A38}&softpage=Doc_Frame_ Pg42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=34&y=12&zz=
2C:39-1 dd

"Personalized handgun" means a handgun which incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits its operational use and which cannot be readily deactivated, so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user. ... No make or model of a handgun shall be deemed to be a "personalized handgun" unless the Attorney General has determined, through testing or other reasonable means, that the handgun meets any reliability standards that the manufacturer may require for its commercially available handguns that are not personalized or, if the manufacturer has no such reliability standards, the handgun meets the reliability standards generally used in the industry for commercially available handguns.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Steve,
I fail to see how smart gun technology is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The smart technology would be required on new purchases and not on existing ones in your home, office, car, pocket, or wheelchair side compartment.

Has your (or NRA) theory of violation of 2nd Amendment been taken to the US Supreme Court for their interpretation?

The "pressure" on the store owner included threats of burning his store and of killing him. Please tell me you do not agree with that and that the cowards who threatened the owner are criminals.

Smart gun technology one will never work well, and two solves nothing. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

Smart gun technology one will never work well, and two solves nothing. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As for the technology never working well or solving nothing, that is left for the experts.