[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles

Title: Senate Bill Forces Gun Owners to Buy “Smart Guns”
Source: freedomoutpost.com
URL Source: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/06/s ... -gun-owners-to-buy-smart-guns/
Published: Jun 22, 2015
Author: Tim Brown
Post Date: 2015-06-22 07:11:15 by CZ82
Ping List: *Bang List*     Subscribe to *Bang List*
Keywords: None
Views: 3045
Comments: 28

Senate Bill Forces Gun Owners to Buy “Smart Guns”

Tim Brown June 15, 2015

Communist Gun Grabbing Massachusetts Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren introduced legislation last week which is not only unconstitutional, but also a very dumb idea (pun intended). According to the bill, "anyone selling a handgun must retrofit it with personalization technology before that sale can be completed."

The "Handgun Trigger Safety Act" is touted as a means of gun safety. However, at its root, it is a bill that is unconstitutional due to the fact that the government has been given specific instructions not to infringe on the rights of the people when it comes to arms.

The legislation would mandate that within ten years, "anyone selling a handgun must retrofit it with personalization technology before that sale can be completed."

Furthermore, within five years of the bill becoming law, it would ban the "manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun."

Senator Markey issues a press release in which he stated, "The epidemic of gun violence in America is not preordained, it is preventable. In the 21st century, we should use research and advances in technology to our advantage and save lives from tragic and needless gun violence. These bills will keep guns out of the hands that of those who shouldn't have them and provide better information about what is causing gun violence and what can be done to prevent it. These are sensible proposals that everyone, regardless of political party or affiliation, should be able to support. I thank Rep. Maloney for her partnership on this effort, and I recommit to stopping the hemorrhaging of lives and spirit that gun violence causes for families in Massachusetts and across the country."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said, "Some would have us believe that the laws currently on the books are sufficient to address the tens of thousands of gun related deaths that occur each year. A few extremists even oppose basic public health research to help us understand why gun violence has reached epidemic proportions. They also oppose implementing new smart gun technologies that can help reduce the tragic number of accidental shooting deaths each year, many of which have taken the lives of young children. The majority of Americans support sensible steps to reduce the bloodshed in our streets, schools, churches and other public spaces. The bills I am introducing with Senator Markey today would help save lives and make our communities safer."

Maloney has no idea what she is talking about, or perhaps she does and this is just her sales pitch. However such actions will not result in safety, but probably will result in more dead people like Carol Bowne, who was stabbed to death in cold blood because New Jersey couldn't get her a gun permit within the allotted 30 days.

However, speaking of Maloney, she helped advance The Firearms Risk Protection Act, which would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Again, this is unconstitutional and does nothing to stop criminals. All of these measures are attempts at gun confiscation.

The legislation is absolutely ridiculous given a recent report about the chapter 11 restructuring of a smart gun company, which gun grabbing politicians, like Markey and Warren have endorsed.

Part of the issue is the cost and a lack of actually keeping criminals from obtaining weapons that can be used in the commission of a crime. As I have written previously:

To make matters worse, what criminal will acquire a gun that they have to deal with such restrictions? None, and that's the point. These guns will be marketed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

While the iP1 is a .22 caliber with a ridiculous price of $1,800 (one of many really, really bad marketing moves), the company is also attempting to produce the iP9, a 9mm version.

These types of guns are simply gun control in another form. I'm glad the company has had to file chapter 11. Now, let's hope they have to file chapter 13 bankruptcy.

There is not doubt in my mind that the American people will not stand for this in the same manner they didn't stand for Obama's gun grab following Sandy Hook, nor the backdoor attempt at violating the Second Amendment when the unconstitutional ATF sought to ban AR-15 ammunition.

Smart guns are a bad idea. Forcing people to buy smart guns is a really dumb idea.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/06/senate-bill-forces-gun-owners-to-buy-smart-guns/#7A7RtztHRgQseciH.99 Subscribe to *Bang List*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: CZ82 (#0)

If they were seriously interested in passing legislation to reduce the murder rate,they could eliminate at least 80 percent of the murders nationwide by outlawing black males between the ages of 14 and 40.

Odd how you never hear the Dims talking about this option,ain't it?

The truth is none of them really give a damn about murders or who gets murdered as long as it isn't anyone in their family or social circle. They only promote this crap for publicity purposes. It's advertising to their "customer base"/voter base that "I truly care about your safety and want to protect you". They do this in order to keep getting elected and because they know their voter base really IS stupid enough to take it at face value.

In some respects a gun confiscation scheme becoming law would be their worse nightmare come true because then they would have to find something else to whine about.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-22   9:01:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: CZ82 (#0)

" Smart guns are a bad idea. " Yes they are !

"Forcing people to buy smart guns is a really dumb idea. " Yes it is, and it is not going to happen. I will not buy one, and I do not know anyone that would. Would you? I didn't think so

We need to ban the idiots that come up with these goof ball ideas!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-06-22   13:59:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Stoner (#2)

" Smart guns are a bad idea. " Yes they are !

I can see instances where they might be useful.

For instance, a cop or security guard (or a citizen) would worry less that an assailant might take his gun and then shoot him with it, as in the Zimmerman case against Traybon. If the handgun security was tight enough, it would give robbers less incentive to steal guns (which are a top target for burglaries at present).

So...not entirely useless.

We have a lot of new tech coming online. You might be able to build a basic interlock very small and lightweight with a palm print reader built-in so others couldn't shoot your gun.

I'm not saying we must have them or force people to get them. And this current law is just stupid. But they could be useful. And tech is moving very quickly these days.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-22   20:35:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: TooConservative (#3)

" I can see instances where they might be useful. "

Well, maybe. But I am very confident with mine, and I damn sure do not want some idiot bureaucrat causing me to have to spend a big sum of money for some theoretical gizmo. If they want it, let them spend THEIR money.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-06-22   21:43:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Stoner (#4)

I was only speaking to whether some gun users might benefit from or want personalized guns. And whether we might see such guns in the next decade or so. Just because the current "smart guns" are insanely expensive and unworkable doesn't mean that will always be the case.

You would have some parents that would want them so as to preclude the kiddies from shooting themselves or each other. Also, you wouldn't need trigger locks or gun safes or whatnot to secure the weapons if they were personalized.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   1:10:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: sneakypete (#1)

If they were seriously interested in passing legislation to reduce the murder rate,they could eliminate at least 80 percent of the murders nationwide by outlawing black males between the ages of 14 and 40.

Har!

rlk  posted on  2015-06-23   1:16:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#3)

For instance, a cop or security guard (or a citizen) would worry less that an assailant might take his gun and then shoot him with it

In all honestly,that has never been a worry of mine.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-23   7:53:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Palmdale, also, sneakypete, GrandIsland (#7)

In all honestly,that has never been a worry of mine.

In the Zimmerman case, he said he pulled the gun and shot because he thought Traybon was going for his gun, intending to take it and shoot him with it.

In the Ferguson incident, the officer was initially struggling with Michael Brown for control of his own gun.

So, regardless of what you might worry about as a civvy, there may be reasons why other people might need or want a gun. And other reasons why PDs and others might want such a gun for their employees.

For instance, we have a lot of cop-shoots-some-schmo articles here. In how many of these was the risk of the perp grabbing the cop's gun a factor in their decision to shoot-before-the-assailant-grabs-your-gun? I'm not sure how we determine that but it has to play some role in a cop's decision making, especially if he is up against a physically capable assailant.

Even if "smart guns" were pricey, I think a lot of PDs might want this kind of gun for their officers. Because it only takes a fraction of a second and a little luck for a perp to make a play for a cop's gun.

Think about the case the Court just rejected on San Fran's requirement that handguns have to be kept in a lockbox or have a trigger lock when not in use. With smart guns, that case changes entirely because you're no longer pitting security against safety in gun possession.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   8:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TooConservative, Stone (#8) (Edited)

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   8:43:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: TooConservative, Stone (#8)

I'd rather chance my gun being taken from me than trust a "smart gun". I just don't trust them to go BANG, every time I pull the trigger.

I'm with Stone, bad idea and a slippery slope.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   8:43:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: GrandIsland (#10)

I'd rather chance my gun being taken from me than trust a "smart gun". I just don't trust them to go BANG, every time I pull the trigger.

I think there are PDs that would like the idea.

Of course, the technology would have to improve considerably and be pretty fool-proof.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   8:51:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TooConservative (#11) (Edited)

I think there are PDs that would like the idea.

TC, there are many PD Adminstrations that would equip their officers with a rubberband over the thumb and index finger to eliminate liability and to satisfy the scared libtard sheep... doesn't mean it's a good idea.

A smart gun would have to work on some kind of electricity source or battery... one more thing to fail or be compromised by some sort of device that will be made by some criminal asshole type ... like an EMP to disable guns.

Bad bad bad idea. It comes from the liberal crowd who often think bad deeds can be legislated away.... or solved. None of that will EVER be true.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   9:06:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)

A smart gun would have to work on some kind of electricity source or battery... one more thing to fail or be compromised by some sort of device that will be made by some criminal asshole type ... like an EMP to disable guns.

We'll see. Such guns are 5-10 years away.

The current crop of smart guns is a failure but they will eventually succeed. Only a matter of time.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   9:26:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative (#8)

In how many of these was the risk of the perp grabbing the cop's gun a factor in their decision to shoot-before-the-assailant-grabs-your-gun?

Beats me,but I do know that unlike the typical citizen,cops also have tazers and pepper spray they can resort to instead of just shooting.

I personally think police administrators and city mayors would want smart guns to help them avoid law suits. I have no idea why anyone else would want them.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-23   9:38:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: TooConservative (#11)

I think there are PDs that would like the idea.

I think there are PD administrators and city fathers who would like the idea.

I'm not so sure rank and file cops would be all that crazy about it,though.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-23   9:39:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: TooConservative (#13)

My Glocks or my revolvers scattered around my house and in my armory, never fail me... and if well maintained, never will fail me.

I'll stick with my plastic striker fired weapons. They seem to be very effective on those diaper head wearing, urine colored, 3rd world shitbag Muslim's that have started shit on our soil. WE AIN'T FRANCE. lol

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   9:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: GrandIsland (#16)

Okay. I guess my efforts to sell you a smart gun will be in vain.

I'm not terribly invested in the idea. Even so, technology has changed the world a lot but done little for the fundamental designs of firearms. Something new will come along in the next decade, whether you want to own it or not. Ten years ago, we wouldn't have anticipated the recent rise of 3d printed guns and components but now we have them all over the place.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   10:01:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: sneakypete (#15)

I think there are PD administrators and city fathers who would like the idea.

I'm not so sure rank and file cops would be all that crazy about it,though.

I agree on both.

The PD leaders and city councils will recognize that fewer lawsuits will mean they have more money to put actual cops on the street.

I think the PDs will be the first to adopt. The prices will be high and the manufacturers will have to convince the public that the smart guns are reliable. Equipping PDs with them will settle a lot of misgivings.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   10:03:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: TooConservative (#18)

I think the PDs will be the first to adopt. The prices will be high and the manufacturers will have to convince the public that the smart guns are reliable. Equipping PDs with them will settle a lot of misgivings.

Just remember, many PD's don't have the budgets to issue individual car carrying shotguns and AR's to each officer. So many departments just assign two long guns to each patrol car and officers share the cars through different shifts... potentially causing a car carried gun to be patrolled with by every officer in the department. So, program them all to EVERY officer?

You won't see this bullshit in your lifetime.... and forcing this ideal on LE as a "good idea" is a pathway for cocksuckers like Andrew Cuomo to push it on the general public.

As always, be wary about what you wish for.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   10:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: GrandIsland (#19)

forcing this ideal on LE as a "good idea" is a pathway for cocksuckers like Andrew Cuomo to push it on the general public.

Why do you think they are pushing it?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-23   10:46:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: GrandIsland (#19)

So, program them all to EVERY officer?

I think you could.

You might use an encrypted Bluetooth on a very high-gigahertz frequency that can only travel a matter of inches. Have a wristband to enable the handgun when it is less than 6 inches from the owner's wrist.

Even that much would eliminate a lot of mischief and it would be pretty jam-proof.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   10:53:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: sneakypete (#20) (Edited)

Why do you think they are pushing it?

Well, I'm a little concerned that TC might think this is a good idea for LE... and what does the average American think about this abomination, if TC himself is intrigued?

My point was, all you people that are constitutional minded, but think this is a swell idea for cops because you have disdain towards LE... are slicing your own throats. If it's a poor idea for the public, it's a poor idea for LE

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   10:56:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: TooConservative (#21)

Well, another reason I'm retired and no longer responsible training my people, ordering the ammo and armoring the vehicles.

I'll stick with my trustworthy guns... and if anyone thinks they will force me to swap them out with a libtarded abortion... they'll get all my bullets first. (And I have enough supplies to send a shit ton down range).

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   11:03:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: TooConservative, is PALMDALE back? (#8)

To: Palmdale

??????

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-23   11:23:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: GrandIsland (#22)

My point was, all you people that are constitutional minded, but think this is a swell idea for cops because you have disdain towards LE.

*I* don't think it is a "swell idea" for anyone. It adds another level of complication to gun handling for people who aren't used to handling guns,and the end result is going to be more accidental shootings and more shootings of innocent crime victims who MAY have been able to defend themselves if their gun hadn't malfunctioned.

Remember "magazine safeties"? They are probably responsible for more accidental shootings than any other factor because people who have only handled guns with them think semi-autos are unloaded when you pull the magazine out,and these bozos WILL pull the trigger to "prove it's unloaded".

NOTHING beats proper training and handling the same firearm every day.

I have less than zero interest in your beloved Glocks because I grew up shooting the Browning systems with thumb safeties,and don't even have to think about taking a safety off. In fact,under stress I might not be able to get a shot off with a Glock because I would be too busy searching for the safety with my thumb to pull the trigger.

Yeah,I do sometimes carry a DAO handgun for self-defense,but if I have to go into a questionable area for some reason,one of my 1911A1's is going to be on my belt,and you do NOT want me shooting at you with one of my old friends.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-23   11:58:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: TooConservative, GrandIsland (#21)

" You might use an encrypted Bluetooth on a very high-gigahertz frequency that can only travel a matter of inches. Have a wristband to enable the handgun when it is less than 6 inches from the owner's wrist.

Even that much would eliminate a lot of mischief and it would be pretty jam-proof. "

TC, your plan for a "smart gun" is a disaster waiting to happen. It violates the KISS principle.

I'll keep my "dumb guns", you can have the " smart guns "

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-06-23   15:03:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Stoner, TooConservative (#26)

TC, your plan for a "smart gun" is a disaster waiting to happen. It violates the KISS principle.

I'll keep my "dumb guns", you can have the " smart guns "

^^^^^^^^ What he said ^^^^^^^^

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-23   15:11:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: GrandIsland, Stoner (#27)

Darn, my dastardly plan to disarm 'Murica is foiled again. Darn you, Dudley Dolittle!

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-23   18:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com