# Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 3, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584 "2014-05-03T15:31:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/201 "2014-05-05T17:20:27Z")
The really fascinating element of this subject isn’t that there are brain-donors running around who’ll threaten violence to try to get what they want … we know there are too many of them out there. The interesting part of this event is that, rather than allow a new state-of-the-art weapon design to be offered to consumers, and to be tested under real life conditions, and be allowed to compete with traditional firearms in the marketplace, certain lawmakers decider to attempt to sneak around the 2nd Amendment by replacing “arms” with “just one kind of arm that has our approval … for now”. It’s such a blatant and shameless assault on the Constitution, it’s amazing these politicians have the nerve to attempt it. That’s frightening in a way. Next, they’ll be limiting freedom of assembly. > **[CBS News - Breaking news, 24/7 live streaming news & top stories](https://www.cbsnews.com/)** > > Watch CBS News live and get the latest, breaking news headlines of the day for national news and world news today. OOps, they just did. Maybe they think we’ll all be safer if we don’t gather in large groups. You know who else gathered in large groups in private homes. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/202 "2014-05-05T17:22:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > There is a law that makes it so that if you’re able to buy a smart gun, then no one will be able to buy anything BUT smart guns. With such a law, no, I don’t want to allow you to buy a smart gun. If there was no such law, sure, knock yourself out. That “smart gun” is actually not a bad idea, for some people. It would be useful keeping kids from playing with Mommy’s/Daddy’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. Since this is a neglible stat anyway, the benefit _(ETA: while real)_ is minimal. It would be useful for eliminating firearms obtained by theft from homes, cars, etc., provided the lawful owner keeps the secret decoder ring/bracelet stored seperately. It may help prevent accidental discharges/injuries, especially for gun handling during routine maintenance/cleaning when the owner “knows” :rolleyes: that the gun isn’t loaded. But only if said owner isn’t wearing the ring/bracelt/watch/etc. It won’t stop straw purchases. It won’t stop criminals who obtain guns through straw purchases; the “key” (whatever shape it comes in) will either be sold with the gun, or bought as a separate purchase, and then illegally transferred whole to the street criminal. It won’t stop suicides; the owner simply puts the ring/bracelet on, and then shoots themselves with their smart gun. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/203 "2014-05-05T17:26:20Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > It would be useful keeping kids from playing with Mommy’s/Daddy’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. Since this is a neglible stat anyway, the benefit _(ETA: while real)_ is minimal. > > It would be useful for eliminating firearms obtained by theft from homes, cars, etc., provided the lawful owner keeps the secret decoder ring/bracelet stored seperately. > > It may help prevent accidental discharges/injuries, especially for gun handling during routine maintenance/cleaning when the owner “knows” :rolleyes: that the gun isn’t loaded. But only if said owner isn’t wearing the ring/bracelt/watch/etc. > > It won’t stop straw purchases. It won’t stop criminals who obtain guns through straw purchases; the “key” (whatever shape it comes in) will either be sold with the gun, or bought as a separate purchase, and then illegally transferred whole to the street criminal. > > It won’t stop suicides; the owner simply puts the ring/bracelet on, and then shoots themselves with their smart gun. Must we dismiss it because it doesn’t solve _all_ problems? ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/204 "2014-05-05T17:29:24Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > It would be useful keeping kids from playing with Mommy’s/Daddy’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. Since this is a neglible stat anyway, the benefit _(ETA: while real)_ is minimal. > > It would be useful for eliminating firearms obtained by theft from homes, cars, etc., provided the lawful owner keeps the secret decoder ring/bracelet stored seperately. > > It may help prevent accidental discharges/injuries, especially for gun handling during routine maintenance/cleaning when the owner “knows” :rolleyes: that the gun isn’t loaded. But only if said owner isn’t wearing the ring/bracelt/watch/etc. > > It won’t stop straw purchases. It won’t stop criminals who obtain guns through straw purchases; the “key” (whatever shape it comes in) will either be sold with the gun, or bought as a separate purchase, and then illegally transferred whole to the street criminal. > > It won’t stop suicides; the owner simply puts the ring/bracelet on, and then shoots themselves with their smart gun. It won’t stop clever people from hacking the lock. They can unlock phones and bypass the chip protected cars’ security system. It won’t be but a few days before they solve the gun lock. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/205 "2014-05-05T17:34:22Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > It would be useful keeping kids from playing with Mommy’s/Daddy’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. Since this is a neglible stat anyway, the benefit _(ETA: while real)_ is minimal. Tell the parents that their child who was killed this way was neglible. > [@](#): > > It would be useful for eliminating firearms obtained by theft from homes, cars, etc., provided the lawful owner keeps the secret decoder ring/bracelet stored seperately. Seems like the logical way to store it. Or we could say “Waaaaaah! People could steal the guns AND the ring and we’re no better off!” > [@](#): > > It may help prevent accidental discharges/injuries, especially for gun handling during routine maintenance/cleaning when the owner “knows” that the gun isn’t loaded. But only if said owner isn’t wearing the ring/bracelt/watch/etc. Seems like most people would remove the ring while doing maintenance. Or we could say “Waaaaaaaah! If people don’t follow a common sense step the gun does no good!” > [@](#): > > It won’t stop straw purchases. It won’t stop criminals who obtain guns through straw purchases; the “key” (whatever shape it comes in) will either be sold with the gun, or bought as a separate purchase, and then illegally transferred whole to the street criminal. But you do have the criminals now tasked with keeping straight which keys go with which guns. Or we could say “Waaaaaaah! Crime will still happen!” > [@](#): > > It won’t stop suicides; the owner simply puts the ring/bracelet on, and then shoots themselves with their smart gun. In other words, “Waaaaaaaaah! It doesn’t stop suicide! It isn’t perfect in every way, so we can’t possibly make use of it!” ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/206 "2014-05-05T17:34:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Must we dismiss it because it doesn’t solve _all_ problems? This is what happens to the “no, no, no!” crowd. They claim they are all for common sense gun laws but in reality they flatly oppose all gun regulation. Every fetus should be issued a machine gun at birth. Earlier if they could manage it. So what happens? The world moves on. Society moves on and passes what seem to be common sense laws. Then the gun rights types cry about it. Well, they have a seat at the table. It’s a big seat too, but they stick with “no, no, no!” So we move on. Constitution doesn’t say what type of guns are allowed. Most of these constitutionalists don’t carry muskets. Gun technology changes and gets safer so if you want a gun, keep up. The fact they’re expensive is because they’re new and contain lots of tech progress. Wah. Constitution doesn’t say the free market can’t jack its prices up. Welcome to freedom. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/207 "2014-05-05T17:46:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Must we dismiss it because it doesn’t solve _all_ problems? Must we legislatively mandate changing an entire industry for negligible benefit? Especially since the technology is not only immature, but easily bypassed in most cases? This isn’t analogous to auto safety features like seat belts and air bags, safety glass and crumple zones, which have a scientifically proven (through crash testing and analysis of anatomically correct test dummies) positive net benefit for people. Smart Gun technology, while somewhat beneficial for the reasons I mentioned above, is still tenuous, and relies upon cause-and-effect assumptions which IMO are in most cases wrong, and at best, unproven. I have nothing personal against smart guns or the technology behind them. If it weren’t for NJ’s law, I’d say let people vote with their wallets. Even if I think it’s mostly useless for the reasons I mentioned above. But…as stated before, there are currently very few providers of smart guns, while there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of manufacturers of regular guns. If the U.S. (folllowing NJ’s example) mandated “smart guns only” via legislation, then that gives anti-gun lawmakers intent on obtaining total bans on firearms a much smaller target to control, intimidate, legislate, litigate, etc. So yes, we should dismiss/boycott smart guns _while enforced legislation of sole source/“smart gun only” is on the table._ The negligible benefit is not worth the risk to our rights. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/208 "2014-05-05T17:49:49Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon;17350117 Constitution doesn’t say what type of guns are allowed … Welcome to freedom.[/QUOTE] Well, I’d say the Constitution implies that the People may bear arms appropriate for the establishment of a “well regulated militia.” From what I’ve read, the new smart-gun doesn’t fulfill the roll of a militia weapon. It’s clearly not reasonable to replace the currently available weapons with experimental specialty guns that fill a small niche. This is simply a Constitutional issue, and it has nothing to do with hunting, or muskets, or anything except that Amendment 2 prohibits the State from infringing on the Right of the People to bear arms. Redefining arms doesn’t redefine the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/209 "2014-05-05T17:53:46Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Must we legislatively mandate changing an entire industry for negligible benefit If the U.S. (folllowing NJ’s example) mandated “smart guns only” via legislation, then that gives anti-gun lawmakers intent on obtaining total bans on firearms a much smaller target to control, intimidate, legislate, litigate, etc. But it _is_ just New Jersey for now, which means that if things go bad there because of this law the NRA and other pro-gun lobbyists will have actual data on hand to fight against it becoming a national standard. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/210 "2014-05-05T17:54:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Must we dismiss it because it doesn’t solve _all_ problems? > [@BobLibDem](#): > > In other words, “Waaaaaaaaah! It doesn’t stop suicide! It isn’t perfect in every way, so we can’t possibly make use of it!” More stupidity. No one is saying it “smart guns” may not be useful. But it is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment to mandate that ONLY “smart guns” may be sold. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/211 "2014-05-05T17:56:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > More stupidity. No one is saying it “smart guns” may not be useful. But it is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment to mandate that ONLY “smart guns” may be sold. That is for the SCOTUS and _only_ the SCOTUS to decide. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/212 "2014-05-05T17:57:03Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > Well, I’d say the Constitution implies that the People may bear arms appropriate for the establishment of a “well regulated militia.” From what I’ve read, the new smart-gun doesn’t fulfill the roll of a militia weapon. It’s clearly not reasonable to replace the currently available weapons with experimental specialty guns that fill a small niche. This is simply a Constitutional issue, and it has nothing to do with hunting, or muskets, or anything except that Amendment 2 prohibits the State from infringing on the Right of the People to bear arms. Redefining arms doesn’t redefine the Constitution. It’s like infringing on people’s right to buy and operate dangerous polluting cars. It sucks we can’t buy $500 dangerous cars, but thems the breaks. The fact this is religiously embedded into the constitution is an anachronism that needs updating. Why can’t militias use smart guns? It’s designed for police and military use. How is a militia different? The tech doesn’t work perfectly? Too bad, not all new technology is perfect. I’d recommend lobbying harder to make the tech better, not try to drag us back 240 years. That’s not going to work. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/213 "2014-05-05T17:57:17Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > More stupidity. No one is saying it “smart guns” may not be useful. But it is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment to mandate that ONLY “smart guns” may be sold. A more mature response from the gun nuts would be to take the state to court. But mature and gun nuts apparently cannot be used in the same sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/214 "2014-05-05T18:01:16Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > It’s designed for police and military use. It is? Can you point to one police dept. or some branch of military that uses “smart guns”? In fact, the New Jersey law explicitly excludes police from the mandate to use “smart guns”. Why do you think that is? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/215 "2014-05-05T18:02:39Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It is? Can you point to one police dept. or some branch of military that uses “smart guns”? “Designed for”. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/216 "2014-05-05T18:08:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But it _is_ just New Jersey for now, which means that if things go bad there because of this law the NRA and other pro-gun lobbyists will have actual data on hand to fight against it becoming a national standard. In a “grand strategy/this is chess not checkers” sense, and in light of recent favorable pro-rights ruling from even the 9th Circuit, it may indeed be ultimately beneficial to allow this POS legislation to play its course. But that’s “rolling dice,” not playing chess. And, I am not in the habit of tossing other people’s rights under the bus for expediency’s sake. _And,_ I categorically reject (as being unworthy even of discussion/debate) the argument that, “if it saves even _one_ life!” By that reasoning, we can ban/control anything and everything that represents even the slightest danger to _anyone’s_ health or life. The anti-gun crowd’s persistence on demonizing guns/villifying gun owners over gun deaths, while ignoring our government’s near total lack of enforcement of federal firearms laws, while ignoring gun deaths demographics/statistics, while ignoring the deaths that are orders of magnitude higher from other common sources, while conveniently overlooking, dismissing, or outright ignoring _any_ conceivable positive benfit of guns/gun ownership, is stupefying. And telling, of both their mindset, and ultimate agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/217 "2014-05-05T18:08:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “Designed for”. It’s “designed for” them. But they refuse to buy them and use them. Funny how that works. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/218 "2014-05-05T18:11:32Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > It’s like infringing on people’s right to buy and operate dangerous polluting cars. It sucks we can’t buy $500 dangerous cars, but thems the breaks. The fact this is religiously embedded into the constitution is an anachronism that needs updating. > > Why can’t militias use smart guns? It’s designed for police and military use. How is a militia different? The tech doesn’t work perfectly? Too bad, not all new technology is perfect. I’d recommend lobbying harder to make the tech better, not try to drag us back 240 years. That’s not going to work. Cars have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution isn’t a religious document. The obvious solution, if a sub-class of Americans fear firearms, is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If you can successfully do that, problem solved. I don’t have a problem with a push to amend the Constitution, or repeal existing amendments. If you’re an expert on the operation and abilities of the currently available smart guns, please provide a cite that the specific model gun potentially offered for sale at the store in question is currently in use in a militia, or slated to to be adopted for such use in it’s present form. I don’t bear arms, and I am not a firearms expert. My research suggests to me that the smart gun is a limited technology that isn’t originally intended by it’s designers to replace all other extant weapons. If the lawmakers wanted the smart gun to eclipse other weapons in the marketplace, they would allow it to be introduced as a new product without a legal booby-trap in place to outlaw other gun sales. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/219 "2014-05-05T18:15:10Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > …while ignoring our government’s near total lack of enforcement of federal firearms laws… [Yeah, about that…](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/) ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/220 "2014-05-05T18:15:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s “designed for” them.\*\* But they refuse to buy them and use them.\*\* Funny how that works. Because they don’t work. I don’t doubt that if smart guns were reliable, the police would be buying in droves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584.md?page=12)