Here is the Fraternal Order of Police Legislative Advocacy Center Executive Director on the subject of “smart guns”:
“In a combat situation, a shooting situation, there’s real confusion and chaos. It’s not like TV… Often times they’re very close quarters. We want a police officer to be able to take any gun, his partner’s gun, a criminal’s gun, any gun, and use that gun to his advantage. If he is in a scuffle, and he gets a criminal’s weapon and it’s useless to him, we’ve got a safety problem.”
Gun manufacturers are already refusing to sell to law enforcement agencies over NRA gun nutter rights. What a surprise. Once again the “no, no, no!” crowd halts sales and testing and cries, "why isn’t it already being tested/used???
Not so - there are lower courts. Each branch of government must make the determination of constitutionality. There is a framework for such decisions, with SCOTUS being the last in line.
:rolleyes: Riiiiight. How convenient for you that ordinary, everyday, rank-and-file citizens have soooo much disposable income, such that they can sue entire states willy-nilly and pay teams of lawyers for years in order to litigate bad laws all the way to the Supreme Court.
If only there was some large, national level, gun rights organization, that had the capability to do that, in every state of the union that passes POS gun control legislation…
There’s nothing wrong with a group, be it the NRA or any other, to lawfully express their “Rights”. They are your Rights, too. If you don’t like those Rights, change them by due process. Ad hominem attacks don’t address the issue in a constructive way. Repeal the Amendment.
The “no, no, no” is for retail sales (since that is what the New Jersey law would use as a trigger to mandate only smart gun sales). Not for sales to law enforcement. So, you’re wrong again.
Well, you do have one large organization that serves the interests of gun manufacturers and dupes millions of rubes into giving it donations. They’d prefer to keep the money rather than spend it on lawyers, though. They love cases like this, it generates new members.
I thought we (SDMB) were labelling anti-gun folks as gun grabbers and pro-gun folks were gun nuts. /shrug
“Those who fully understand that the NRA is a coalition of loons, gulls, rubes and swallows which fronts for an industry lobby don’t belong to that organization and actively oppose it.”
So, how do you read this sentence to say anything other than saying that the NRA is a front for the gun lobby? Your claim that people are gulls rests on the notion that the NRA is not actually a gun rights group, they are simply a gun lobby that has fooled their members into supporting what they think is a gun rights group.
These smart guns cost about $2000 each. So you are creating a fairly high cost barrier to exericising the second amendment right.
They fire a pretty light round (.22 lr) so they are not really effective for self defense. So you are not giving people access to effective self defense.
The .22 lr is also a rimfire so it tends to misfire and jam a lot more frequently than a centerfire pistol. This is not a desirable feature in a self defense gun.
The technology may not be reliable or sturdy enough for defensive use so even if you could buy a $200 smart gun that came in .45 acp it might not provide effective self defense.
All of these flaws are perfectly acceptable for flabby suburban dudes who are at a firing range (which is where these guns are meant to be used), they are not really acceptable flaws in a self defense gun.
I think he is mistaking sovereign power and police powers for terrorism.
Gun grabbers don’t know enough about gun laws to pull that sort of crap. How many times did we have to tell the gun grabbers on the board that the assault weapons ban had nothing to do with machine guns?
I accept it as given that this guy was threatened by some assholes until somebody provides some evidence otherwise.
He’s already said he won’t sell the guns.
I wouldn’t buy one until the courts declared smart gun laws unconstitutional.
Hrmm. Seems like i made the same mistake this gun store owner did. I thought the hymen had been broken already.
Then you challenge the constitutionality of the smart gun law. The only thing worse than a democratically elected legislature violating the rights of the people is when an unelected group of people violate rights.
I’m going to have to remember this particular line of reasoning the next time we are debating coercive action by the state versus coercive action by individuals in a free society.
Well, he claims he didn’t know.
That is what he was upset by but he was horrified to learn that he might have been the one to trigger the NJ law. He made a compelling argument that smart guns would be good for gun rights because safety features in general have led to more and more people feeling comfortable enough to own a gun. And there is nothing like owning a gun to make you realize that they aren’t instruments of evil any more than my chainsaw or my powerwasher.
As a liberal (I would probably be called liberal anywhere outside of SDMB) gun-owner, I would like to point out that Terr does not own a gun but he is on your side of the political divide. If that makes you rethink your support of modern day conservatism, then clean up those scales and call me when you get to Damascus. If it changes your perception of gun nuts, I will just reiterate, Terr is not a gun nut, he doesn’t own guns and seems to value guns and gun rights as at a conceptual level rather than a practical level and if there was ever a practically driven right in the constitution, its the right to bear arms.
I think conservatives should kick out lukewarm conservatives like Bricker, Bob Bennett, George HW Bush, Reagan, Bob Dole and John McCain. The Democrats will sety up a small table for them at the far corner of the tent next to the pro-life Democrats.
There are youtube videos of this gun shop testifying at the Maryland legislature and there is no doubt in my mind that they would not do anything to advance the cause of gun grabbers anywhere.
Or, pass smart gun laws, deal with the death threats and move on. Which we will, while the NRA types cry “no, no, no!” That’s kind of a pattern with them.
I oppose all gun regulation. Because people who propose it will never stop and are ultimately not trustworthy when it comes to gun laws. That’s why stupid shit like background checks fails to pass. What would make sense in a vacuum is really just a first step for gun control advocates.
That’s why people take the stance of no compromise ever. The gun control advocates claim they are for “common sense” but never actually concede anything. They must think every single gun law out there is a good one - like the ones that prohibit you from buying a pistol in brown but say it’s okay in black. Common sense!
Buy you go on ahead and keep playing patty-cake with yourself in the mirror; eventually you’ll get it right.
Fuck’s sake, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Silly laws are what you get when you kick away your seat at the table and cry “no, no, no!”
It’s just a slippery slope. If we let gays get married, dogs and cats will get married! If we pass laws favoring safer guns we’ll ban and confiscate all guns and Hitler!
I mean, there are a few hundred million firearms out there already. Even if the number of new firearms sold in the U.S. each year is drastically reduced, you’ve still got this legacy supply of guns out there. It isn’t like they’re going away. Hell, even if some hypothetical futuristic liberal totalitarian government of the gun nuts’ bullshit nightmares came into existence, how is this government even going to find all those guns? You wrap 'em in plastic along with some packets of that stuff that sucks up the moisture, put 'em in a wood box, bury the box in the north 40 or out in the woods someplace, and come back and get 'em when the revolution starts.
Seriously, you guys have been telling us gun control supporters that that’s one of the reasons why gun control is useless: too many guns already out there for it to make a difference. I’ve been hearing it here at the Dope since the very first gun control threads I’ve been in, and there are a hell of a lot more guns out there now than there were then, thanks to Obama paranoia. So it would seem to me that the approach of “giv[ing] anti-gun lawmakers intent on obtaining total bans on firearms a much smaller target to control, intimidate, legislate, litigate, etc.” would be rather futile.
Except it’s not a slippery slope. It’s only a slippery slope fallacy if one step doesn’t logically lead to the next. In this case, specifically NJ, this law will ban all sales of all handguns that don’t have this tech once there is one for retail sale.
In CA, right now, all new semi automatic handguns are required to have a tech that doesn’t exist anywhere.
Perhaps if gun control advocates actually conceded anything they’d get more traction. But as it stands now, there’s no reason to compromise because the cause of gun rights is winning. It’s not us that need to compromise. You can pretend to be the reasonable one with so called common sense laws, but you’re the one bringing up Hitler. Think about that for a moment.
No, it is your fault because your answer to everything is “no, no, no!”
Hey, California would probably like to mandate all new cars being electric or hybrid or hydrogen or something, and sometimes they pass laws mandating x% of cars being x, by the year x. Sometimes they have to back off. Ooh, democracy.
And that’s why gun nutters will continue to shoot up schools and Timothy McVeighs will continue to blow up day care centers and why the rest of us will act like grownups and make smart guns and if you don’t want to buy them, by all means move to Somalia.