I think you’re calling me a gynecologist 
So because of some law that he can’t control, through no fault of his own, you are trying to limit his rights on what he can do? Why are you limiting his 2nd Amendment rights? What business is it of his that some state somewhere else makes a stupid law? :rolleyes:
Obviously, because his buying that gun will directly lead to violating the Second Amendment rights of all gun owners in that state. Hasn’t that been made clear in this thread?
Now that I’ve read the thread, I have the following to contribute:
Sapsuckers are classified as “aquatic waterfowl”?
Having tasted kimchee*, I’d have to say that allowing it to go stale could only improve the flavor.
It appears that, as of 2012, communicating a threat is not against the law in Maryland. I have been unable to find information to suggest that this situation has been updated.
- It was a dare.** I know that kimchee isn’t actually made out of food.***
** FTR, I don’t get that drunk any more, unless I am alone. No more “dares” for ME, nosiree!
*** It’s made out of compost, which doesn’t count as being food, even if the source material did originate as a foodstuff.
First, I’m sorry for your loss. You truly have my sympathy and condolences.
Secondly, I apologize for the insensitive use of language. No loved one is a negligible statistic to their friends and family. I, and others, do need to remember that these stats aren’t just numbers; that there’s names, faces, and families attached to them.
Lastly, I do stand behind the overall concept I was attempting to convey, however insensitively.
C’mon in; the water’s fine! 
I’ve gone on the record here before, saying I have no problem with anything Bone suggested, at least in theory. I’m conservatively cautious about its actual implementation, but willing to give it a go.
My problem is the “give an inch/take a mile” types in the gun control lobby who aren’t going to be satisfied with this compromise (the same way they aren’t satisfied with the last 80 years worth of compromises) and come back for more. And more. And yet more.
It’s not a slippery slope fallacy if it’s recorded, documented history.
Then someone gets to challenge the law in court. Hasn’t that been made clear in this thread?
So now you’re saying that because of what may happen to other people, this one guy should have his rights taken away? You people really like punishing everyone for what one person does, don’t you? 
That’s why I wish we could get rid of the NRA on the one side, and the loonier Mothers Against Everything on the other side. There is a large center who are okay with guns, but our current guns for everyone with no accountability has got to go. I understand the fear of “give an inch, take a mile,” but I also understand the pretend compromises like ineffectual background checks system that encourages straw buying by destroying the records after 24 hours and the people who verify the BG checks are deliberately understaffed and states don’t even bother updating the system with the information it needs to work. Then gun advocates say “see, it doesn’t work! No regulations!” Both sides have reasons for not wanting to give an inch.
You kinda have it reversed. Everyone will get punished for what that one person does. And it’s “you people” that passed that law.
I accept your apology. The incident I mentioned happened 52 years ago and it still hurts like hell. I idolized my older sister, and have long since forgiven my brother for what happened. It was my father’s negligence that caused this tragedy, and I cannot help but wonder if this technology, has it existed then, could have prevented it.
It’s helpful for us to be reminded that 30k deaths from this, and 30k deaths from that aren’t just numbers. We are talking about real people and their loved ones. It’s too easy to say it’s a reasonable price to pay for liberty. We can work together and put men on the moon, we can work together and work out reasonable gun regs.
And I’m also very sorry for your loss.
No, because you haven’t provided any evidence of a Second Amendment violation other than your repeated assertions that it is. Where is the precedent?
Small “d” democracy does not trump the constitution.
In waht way would smart gun technology have prevented newtown?
In what way would it have stopped a fertilizer bomb?
Or are you just calling gun owners names again?
You mean like the logic of referencing a bombing in a conversation about smart guns?
There is no constitutional right to own and operate a car.
Besides, a seatbelt does not increase the cost of a car 900%; or make them less reliable; or limit their utility in any way. The smart gun technology increases the cost of a gun by 900%; makes them less reliable; and the smart gun technology in this case is currently limited to low caliber guns because the electronic components become even more unreliable with too much recoil.
I also look forward to the day when driving is a hobby like horseback riding. Something that you can have a passion for and that might help you get into college if you’re good at it.
Well, voters lected the politicans that passed the unconstitutional (IMO) law. Just like voters in other states elected politicians that passed unconstitutional anti-abortion rights.
But for the law, noone would be harassing the guy.
Frankly, before these sort of laws started popping up, gun control folks opposed smart guns because they thought it would icnrease gun ownership and create a false sense of security.
You can almost always disable the smart part of the gun by something as simple as dropping it into a bucket of water. Sometimes you need to disassemble the gun and remove the smart component.
Would you say the same about laws restricting access to abortions?
Cost will never go down enough to make them comparable to costs today but cost is not the only obstacle. Smart gun technology frequently cannot be used in small guns becasue the mechanism is too big or cannot be used in large guns because the mechanism is too fragile. There is not a smart gun technology out there that does not compromise reliability.
Mortgages and food are not constitutional rigts. Why do you keep comparing guns to things taht are not constitutionally protected.
Lets compare them to abortions. The cosntitution doesn’t say a goddam thing about abortions but we protect them under the constitution. Would it be ok for Texas to require abortions to be performed by ultrasonic lasers, which would reduce medical complications but increase the cost of abortions by 900% and occassionally fail to perform the abortion?
So what makes some of the members gulls?
See ultrasonic laser abortions above.
Just FYI, Terr doesn’t own a gun.
Which of those infringe of a constitutional right?
THIS!!! I support some types of gun regulation but the one argument from my more pro-gun friends that I cannot get around is this one. The gun grabbers do not show any interest in good faith dealings and theirn ultimate objective is to ban guns entirely. I keep telling them that a federal level gun ban is impossible and they keep telling me that I am underestimatig the human will.
If you only vote for pro-gun candidates, I suspect you don’t vote a whole lot
Just FYI but until these “smart gun only” laws started popping up, it was gun control groups that opposed smart guns because they would "only’ prevent a small number of deaths and would encourage more widespread gun ownership.
It used to be that gun manufacturer’s tried to market smart guns in the 1990’s and it just never took because of glaring reliability issues.
Imagine a gun that malfunctioned as frequently as the scanner at your supermarket checkout counter. Now imagine that in its normal operation you threw that scanner at the wall before each scan.
one day I hope they come up with reliable smart gun technology but right now its an expensive gimmick that soesn’t work very well.
Not everyone will be punished. Like some others said, what if they want to buy a smart gun? What if that’s the only gun they want to buy? You’re punishing him by attacking people that will sell to him. What you should be dealing with are those who made the law you disagree with, but you people take the easy way out and just threaten some innocent storeowner.
Gun owning, NRA member checking in…
I disagree with the store owner selling these guns. I think people should protest or picket or boycott him as much as they like. Smart guns are a bad idea for many reasons and most attempts at them are thinly veiled registration or banning schemes. He should have expected to get negative attention from gun owners since him selling these guns is a betrayal of sorts to his very customer base.
However, I condemn any threats of violence or arson that have been made. This is not helpful or necessary. Even if it’s just a couple of wackos that aren’t serious, this hurts the gun right cause more than anything the anti gun rights groups can do. Playing into the angry redneck stereotype just fans the flames of ignorance and fear that leads people to want to take away our second amendment rights.
Our domestic bomber terrorists are deep into the gun rights militia movement I think we can all agree is loony paranoid and dangerous. While guns rights advocates chant, “no, no, no” the crazies will continue to be crazy and society will react with gun laws that will probably overstep. Domestic terrorism will continue and that will fuel anti-gun hysteria and while you’re sitting there chanting “no to everything!” laws will get passed around you.
And yet cars are so much more important to people. So are smart phones and internet. It’s entirely possible the founding fathers weren’t omniscient gods who wisely set forth laws and guarantees that would eventually become irrelevant, or at least need updating.
Don’t dumb guns malfunction? When I was learning to use an M16 in the military one of the first things they teach you is how to clear a jam. They also emphasize cleaning and maintenance. It’s silly to expect a gun to work 100% reliably with no maintenance & care.
It’s a heckuva lot easier to pull a charging handle (M-16) or rack the slide of a pistol to clear a “jam” and get a gun back into action than it is to run diagnostics on an embedded chip built into the frame of the firearm, or to free up a stuck “magnet” or somesuch that’s blocking a smart gun from firing.
Which is why you don’t see LE or Military flocking to smart guns. And which is why smart guns (as is; future developments may change this) are not useful for home/self defense.
And that justifies their actions? :dubious:
Note: I’m not a “gun grabber”. I’m for the type of measures that Bone suggested. (Too bad there’s not a way to prevent stupid people from buying guns, but what can you do?) It’s a damned shame neither side seems to be willing to sit down and actually find a fucking middle ground.
Yep.
I must be one of the few that has never had to do that. I’ve been shooting since 1970. But compared to many active shooters, I’ve probably only shot 20-40,000 rounds. Mostly rifle and shotgun though. I would guess that I’ve only run 3000 through pistols and revolvers.
I hate the terms anti or pro gun. I’m neither. I happen to own 9 guns. All handed down to me by family members.
Could ‘smart’ guns get accepted, and usefull? Sure. Many (not all) hunters already depend on GPS and rangefinders. So does the military. But when push comes to shove, for the military, LEO’s and a homeowner that want’s a gun to function like they have for the last 100 years, untested technology on a simple machine that prevents it from firing is just not acceptable.
As it is, guns are tested to not fire when they should not. One test is a drop when in level one condition onto concrete. Ready to fire, safety off, cocked with a round in the chamber. I doupt that will dispel anyone that has a fear of guns, but do know, that guns are very, very safe from a mechanical standpoint.
With that said, the real safety for guns, SCUBA divers or dog owners or anything is the people that use them. Education is the key.
The NJ legislation that prevents any but smart guns to be sold when ONE unproven design gets available is very short sighted and speaks volumes about how little the people that drafted it know about guns, their legitimate uses and gun owners. To force that on the millions of very, very safe gun owners is going to get backlash. I don’t agree with that backlash, and think that those that did should be proscecuted. I also think that those that make laws should learn a little bit about what they are trying to legislate. See the AWB ban.
I have no desire to buy another gun. But as a computer programmer, I am interested in the tech. NJ shot everyone in the foot with that legislation because they don’t know anything about guns or gun owners.