I support the second amendment...unless it's a %^&$ing smartgun

[Subby]

Maryland dealer, under pressure from gun-rights activists, drops plan to sell smart gun - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-dealer-will-defy-gun-rights-advocates-by-selling-nations-first-smart-gun/2014/05/01/564efa48-d14d-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html)
A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun — even after a California gun store removed the weapon from its shelves to placate angry gun-rights activists — backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats.

Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, a store known for its custom assault rifles, had said earlier this week that offering the Armatix iP1 handgun was a “really tough decision” after what happened to the Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles. Oak Tree was lambasted by gun owners and National Rifle Association members who fear the new technology will be mandated and will encroach on Second Amendment rights.

Electronic chips in the gun communicate with a watch that can be bought separately. The gun cannot be fired without the watch.
Are hardcore supporters of the second amendment just delaying the inevitable when they protest the sale of smart guns? At some point these are going on sale somewhere, right?

I kind of agree with the store owner in a weird way. You want to be able to buy any kind of gun? Then why are you keeping me from buying *this* gun? I realize that once one is sold, a NJ law will kick in mandating all gun sales be smart guns - although I don't know how that stands up to a legal challenge.

Anyway - pretty interesting, particularly from a technological perspective.

[cartman]

I wonder how much longer it is going to be until gun safes and trigger locks are deemed to be infringing on 2nd Amendment rights.

[molson]

Seems like a business decision rather some patriotic gesture or constitutional argument.

[sterlingice]

Seems like a business decision rather some patriotic gesture or constitutional argument.

By the owner not offering it? "after enduring a day of protests and death threats" doesn't sound like a business decision

SI

[CU Tiger]

I wonder how much longer it is going to be until gun safes and trigger locks are deemed to be infringing on 2nd Amendment rights.


I guess it depends.

Do the gunsafes and trigger locks you speak of include the ability to remotely lock their rightful owners out through electronic signal? If so id sya they infringe pretty heavily.

[molson]

By the owner not offering it? "after enduring a day of protests and death threats" doesn't sound like a business decision

SI

Oh ya, I think I had that backwards and failed to read effectively (you'd think I'd have the hang of it by now).

[Subby]

I guess it depends.

Do the gunsafes and trigger locks you speak of include the ability to remotely lock their rightful owners out through electronic signal? If so id sya they infringe pretty heavily.
LOOKOUT ONSTAR!

[Easy Mac]

I guess it depends.

Do the gunsafes and trigger locks you speak of include the ability to remotely lock their rightful owners out through electronic signal? If so id sya they infringe pretty heavily.

I don't see mention of electronics in the constitution.

Stupid founders... how could they not think this far ahead...

[CU Tiger]

I don't see mention of electronics in the constitution.

Stupid founders... how could they not think this far ahead...


Come on.
Dont be obtuse.

There is legislation that has been introduced in the House (and failed) twice to REQUIRE this technology on all new guns purchased.

Its not even a slippery slope from this technology being on the market to being required.

[CU Tiger]

LOOKOUT ONSTAR!


I am sorry. When did GM advertise "One of the great features is the ability for law enforcement selectively disable your car."

Yes I know they can do that but they were at least smart enough not to make it their advertising campaign.

And a key to the entire 2nd ammendment is the well regulated militia and free state part. The enitre premise of a federal government being able to disarm all its citizens effortlessly is kind of against the spirit of it, don't ya think.

[RainMaker]

I am shocked that they are hypocrites. Just shocked.

[Subby]

And a key to the entire 2nd ammendment is the well regulated militia and free state part. The enitre premise of a federal government being able to disarm all its citizens effortlessly is kind of against the spirit of it, don't ya think.
You are taking some pretty big leaps there. The federal government is not some monolithic rights taker that can disable all of the planes and guns and cars with the push of a button. I wish it was that efficient.

[Butter]

I am sorry. When did GM advertise "One of the great features is the ability for law enforcement selectively disable your car."

Yes I know they can do that but they were at least smart enough not to make it their advertising campaign.

But the government can do it as part of a punitive action, i.e. built-in breathalyzers for repeat DUI offenders. However, driving is not a Constitutionally protected right, so I am not sure about the precedent here.

[cartman]

But the government can do it as part of a punitive action, i.e. built-in breathalyzers for repeat DUI offenders. However, driving is not a Constitutionally protected right, so I am not sure about the precedent here.

They already ban people convicted of certain crimes from owning firearms.

[CU Tiger]

You are taking some pretty big leaps there. The federal government is not some monolithic rights taker that can disable all of the planes and guns and cars with the push of a button. I wish it was that efficient.


That is precisiely the issue here, inmy opinion.
Part of the precipice of this technology is a centralized database registered and owned by the ATF.

Literally eye in the sky disables the weapon.

Take it a step further from our benevolent government so many trust more than I.

Let's say we find ourselves in serious war and we have enemy soldiers on American Soil. Whats to stop a cyber hack from disarming a large portion of society should this technology become widespread.


But the government can do it as part of a punitive action, i.e. built-in breathalyzers for repeat DUI offenders. However, driving is not a Constitutionally protected right, so I am not sure about the precedent here.

Right. So you would be ok with goiverment mandating On Star in all new vehicles. Even given its not a constitutional right, you still would be Ok with that being a mandate?

They already ban people convicted of certain crimes from owning firearms.

Taking away a right WITH CAUSE is not an issue, so far as I am concerned. taking it away on a lark is a much greater issue.

[cartman]

Taking away a right WITH CAUSE is not an issue, so far as I am concerned. taking it away on a lark is a much greater issue.

But just because the possibility exists doesn't make it unconstitutional. If there was a way to electronically block these devices from functioning, that in itself isn't unconstitutional. There are many things that exist that have the ability to impede other constitutional rights.

[CU Tiger]

But just because the possibility exists doesn't make it unconstitutional. If there was a way to electronically block these devices from functioning, that in itself isn't unconstitutional. There are many things that exist that have the ability to impede other constitutional rights.


understood and agreed.

I am not arguing that these devices should be illegal.
I am trying to say (albeit poorly) that one can be Pro 2A and anti smart gun and not be hypocritical.

[Lathum]

understood and agreed.

I am not arguing that these devices should be illegal.
I am trying to say (albeit poorly) that one can be Pro 2A and anti smart gun and not be hypocritical.

Disagree. All the pro gun owners yell from the skies about how responsible they are. Well if that's so true they shouldn't need to worry abou this technology.

[The Jackal]

wtf is a smart gun

[albionmoonlight]

I see both sides of this issue.

But, man, a LOT of damage is done in our inner cities by criminals with stolen guns. If we have the technology to make those guns useless, that is a really really good thing.

[Subby]

I wouldn't support the technology if there was a global kill switch. I think we can have them without that.

[CU Tiger]

I see both sides of this issue.

But, man, a LOT of damage is done in our inner cities by criminals with stolen guns. If we have the technology to make those guns useless, that is a really really good thing.

Beause when you steal the gun you wouldnt steal the "watch"?

[CU Tiger]

Disagree. All the pro gun owners yell from the skies about how responsible they are. Well if that's so true they shouldn't need to worry abou this technology.

Huh


It's 2AM someone just kicked in my door. My pistol is on the nightstand beside my bed. I grab it as the burglar walks into my room. When it gets 12" away from the "watch/bracelet" it wont fire....


This isnt about responsible gun ownership this is about surrendering your right to use your firearm to a third party....

That doesnt even consider a dead battery rendering the "e-key" dead and you gun a handy rock to throw at someone.

[CU Tiger]

I see I am in the super minority amongst this community. I respect that. And I feel very strongly about 2A issues. In fact forced to choose, I'd willingly surrender every other right granted by the bill of rights before the right to bear arms.

It is what makes all the other rights enforceable to the people.

That said I a never likely to convince someone whom firearms arent an integral part of their life to share my views.

The only material posessions in this world I cherish are all guns. Nearly every fond memory I have of family involves guns and outdoor sporting activities of some sort. I have a gun on my person every day of my life.

I live in a very rural area. The nearest police station is 20 miles away and we have 1 county deputy assigned to about a 25mile radius near where I live. I cant count on others to protect me. I do it myself.

Again its an essential part of my existence. For those here who have met me IRL rest assured I was armed when we met. Wherever we were.

With that I'll bow out before this goes down a path I dont feel like engaging.

[RainMaker]

So you are for the right to bear arms but not if it comes with an optional accessory that some might use for their own safety.

[Lathum]

I see I am in the super minority amongst this community. I respect that. And I feel very strongly about 2A issues. In fact forced to choose, I'd willingly surrender every other right granted by the bill of rights before the right to bear arms.

It is what makes all the other rights enforceable to the people.



Do you honestly think if the government wanted to turn us into North Korea you and everyone else in this country who owns a gun, smart or not, would have any power to stop it?

[Drake]

I don't understand pistols for home defense.

I mean, that's why God invented the short-barrel 12-gauge pump shotgun. Even fits in the nightstand (if you've got a big nightstand).

ETA: I don't worry about smartgun technology. An 18 year old kid figured out how to write software that brought the music industry to its knees twenty years ago. How long would it really take to circumvent a smartgun chip in the event that it *did* become mandated?

[Drake]

dola...

For the record, if guns became universally illegal tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them. They're not part of my day-to-day life, so I wouldn't really notice their absence -- well, except for the fact that I'd have two clear afternoons a year where I wouldn't have to take out my shotgun and clean it.

[Shepp]

What I don't understand is that there are already laws in place against injuring or killing someone, with a gun or any other weapon. The penalties for committing these crimes, in some places, includes death. If these laws don't deter someone from committing assault or murder, what makes anyone think that outlawing the individual weapon would be any more effective?

[chadritt]

because there are places, with admittedly different histories of gun glorification, where its worked quite well?

[Shepp]

Outlawing guns has eliminated assault and murder? Where has this happened?

[chadritt]

Well if you want to reduce assault and murder to zero then no, if you want to talk about helping then its a different story.

[Shepp]

How big of a reduction counts as "helping"? If I had made up my mind that I am going to kill someone, despite the possible penalty of death here in GA. Why would a 1 to 5 year prison sentence for illegally possessing a weapon deter me?

[larrymcg421]

How big of a reduction counts as "helping"? If I had made up my mind that I am going to kill someone, despite the possible penalty of death here in GA. Why would a 1 to 5 year prison sentence for illegally possessing a weapon deter me?

Well if the death penalty isn't going to stop you from murdering someone, then no penalty will, so let's get rid of all penalties for murder.

[chadritt]

Lets put it this way: Im from GA, my whole family is from GA...except my father and his family who now live in Australia where they used to have guns until they basically got rid of them with strict regulation. They feel quite adamant about the fact my little brother is MUCH safer where he is now to the point my father can no longer believe we dont attempt what they did. Nobodys saying all guns went away, nobodys saying all assault went away, what they ARE saying is that reducing the guns on the streets has been proven to keep people safer. Since you feel like just making it about gun deaths then you should acknowledge that there are one third as many gun deaths there as there were roughly ten years ago, if you go back to the 70s its almost one fourth. From 1990 to 2011, the stats i have on hand, homicide rates in total dropped to less than half.

[EagleFan]

If the gun nuts don't want a smart gun, don't f*cking buy a smart gun. Simple solution.

Also, the government is not going to turn into an oppressive dictatorship; no matter how loud the conspiracy lunatics are.

[Shepp]

Well if the death penalty isn't going to stop you from murdering someone, then no penalty will, so let's get rid of all penalties for murder.

You're missing my point. I am not saying that we shouldn't have any laws. I'm saying that adding additional laws, that overlap with existing laws, isn't going to give you any better results than just sticking with the original laws.

[EagleFan]

22 injured in knife attack at Franklin Regional High School - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/westmoreland/2014/04/09/Multiple-stabbings-reported-at-Franklin-Regional-High-School/stories/201404090148)

Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre)

So just what difference does it make if someone can get their hands on guns easily? A dozen futures snuffed out.

[CU Tiger]

Lets put it this way: Im from GA, my whole family is from GA...except my father and his family who now live in Australia where they used to have guns until they basically got rid of them with strict regulation. They feel quite adamant about the fact my little brother is MUCH safer where he is now to the point my father can no longer believe we dont attempt what they did. Nobodys saying all guns went away, nobodys saying all assault went away, what they ARE saying is that reducing the guns on the streets has been proven to keep people safer. Since you feel like just making it about gun deaths then you should acknowledge that there are one third as many gun deaths there as there were roughly ten years ago, if you go back to the 70s its almost one fourth. From 1990 to 2011, the stats i have on hand, homicide rates in total dropped to less than half.

You are aware that US statistics follow a similar pattern (though not as dramatic) during the same time line, right?

[Shepp]

You are aware that US statistics follow a similar pattern (though not as dramatic) during the same time line, right?

Actually the decline in the murder rate in the USA since 1990 is as dramatic:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/516d7862ecad04cc47000003-1200/-so-do-both-the-violent-crime-and-murder-rate-violence-peaked-when-gun-ownership-peaked-in-the-1970s-and-early-1980s.jpg

[miked]

I see I am in the super minority amongst this community. I respect that. And I feel very strongly about 2A issues. In fact forced to choose, I'd willingly surrender every other right granted by the bill of rights before the right to bear arms.

It is what makes all the other rights enforceable to the people.

That said I a never likely to convince someone whom firearms arent an integral part of their life to share my views.

The only material posessions in this world I cherish are all guns. Nearly every fond memory I have of family involves guns and outdoor sporting activities of some sort. I have a gun on my person every day of my life.

I live in a very rural area. The nearest police station is 20 miles away and we have 1 county deputy assigned to about a 25mile radius near where I live. I cant count on others to protect me. I do it myself.

Again its an essential part of my existence. For those here who have met me IRL rest assured I was armed when we met. Wherever we were.

With that I'll bow out before this goes down a path I dont feel like engaging.

Free speech and voting aren't quite as useful as a pistol?

[Dutch]

I see both sides of this issue.

But, man, a LOT of damage is done in our inner cities by criminals with stolen guns. If we have the technology to make those guns useless, that is a really really good thing.

Also, could you imagine if the watch had built-in GPS that sends the location of the owner and the gun back to the FBI or city police? That would be very helpful in proactive law enforcement. If a guy who lives predominately in the southeast side of town suddenly crosses the railroad tracks with his gun, we could send a car over to either arrest, survey, or at least do a search and seizure....drug checks, whatever. Why not? The technology exists, after all, to do it. Think of the lives we could save by strictly enforcing strong laws against ourselves.

[Lathum]

Also, could you imagine if the watch had built-in GPS that sends the location of the owner and the gun back to the FBI or city police? That would be very helpful in proactive law enforcement. If a guy who lives predominately in the southeast side of town suddenly crosses the railroad tracks with his gun, we could send a car over to either arrest, survey, or at least do a search and seizure....drug checks, whatever. Why not? The technology exists, after all, to do it. Think of the lives we could save by strictly enforcing strong laws against ourselves.

I would be very against this and I am all for more government involvement when it comes to gun ownership. This presumes someone is guilty when they could have been going to visit their cousin.

[molson]

To see the perspective of the gun side here, imagine a proposal that the government puts microchips into every citizen so we can track where they are at all times. That's about what some of the the broader smart-gun tracking ideas feel like to them. If you don't have guns, don't value them, don't value the right to own then, then of course, who cares if and how then guns are tracked. But if they're a part of your life, then it starts to get scary. To them, it sounds like the equivalent of when someone might say, "well hey, if you don't have drugs in your car, then who cares if the police search it?" You don't have to agree with the perspective yourself, but I think if the gun control side makes the effort to try to understand that other perspective, there's a better chance at compromises.

[sterlingice]

To see the perspective of the gun side here, imagine a proposal that the government puts microchips into every citizen so we can track where they are at all times. That's about what some of the the broader smart-gun tracking ideas feel like to them. If you don't have guns, don't value them, don't value the right to own then, then of course, who cares if and how then guns are tracked. But if they're a part of your life, then it starts to get scary. To them, it sounds like the equivalent of when someone might say, "well hey, if you don't have drugs in your car, then who cares if the police search it?" You don't have to agree with the perspective yourself, but I think if the gun control side makes the effort to try to understand that other perspective, there's a better chance at compromises.

I really wish we could see the firmware specs and guarantee that it had no tracking capability. Actually, we should be able to tell if it has a transmitter or not by taking it apart. I don't support something that has a GPS or transmitter in it. But I do support it strongly if it is just a simple logic chip that checks your fingerprint or whatever before you can fire it. I don't have a gun, don't think I'll ever own a gun, but I also share the concerns of those who want something where you can tell where a gun is at all time or can disable it at any time.

SI

[JPhillips]

To see the perspective of the gun side here, imagine a proposal that the government puts microchips into every citizen so we can track where they are at all times. That's about what some of the the broader smart-gun tracking ideas feel like to them. If you don't have guns, don't value them, don't value the right to own then, then of course, who cares if and how then guns are tracked. But if they're a part of your life, then it starts to get scary. To them, it sounds like the equivalent of when someone might say, "well hey, if you don't have drugs in your car, then who cares if the police search it?" You don't have to agree with the perspective yourself, but I think if the gun control side makes the effort to try to understand that other perspective, there's a better chance at compromises.

I would be very much opposed to a government mandated kill switch, but this isn't that. If a company wants to make these guns and another company wants to sell them, and individuals want to buy them, they should be free to do so.

The logic of the fear of this gun has to go something like this:

If this company sells these,

People will buy them,

When people buy them they will become popular,

When they are popular lots of gun stores will sell them,

When lots of gun stores sell them the government will mandate the technology,

When the technology is mandated the government will create a universal kill switch,

When the kill switch is created the government will become tyrannical,

When the government becomes tyrannical the people will rise up in opposition,

But they can't rise up because this gun shop started selling this gun.


We're nowhere close to that point and there is no reason to believe we will ever get to that point. Hell, we can't even get background checks at gun shows, but we really need to fear the government getting the power to control all guns?

I doubt this gun would sell much anyway, so why all the paranoid fuss?

[Dutch]

I would be very against this and I am all for more government involvement when it comes to gun ownership. This presumes someone is guilty when they could have been going to visit their cousin.

You would not be in favor of saving thousands of lives every year?

[EagleFan]

Do you people not have f*cking phones? Worried about being tracked by having a gun...

[larrymcg421]

I'll make it known that I don't support the government using precogs to arrest people before they commit a crime.

[molson]

Do you people not have f*cking phones? Worried about being tracked by having a gun...

I think a lot of people are concerned these days about the government collecting data from their email and phone activities. If you value that technology, it's a problem.. If you value gun ownership, then such theoretical tracking or data collection (and I understand this is at the more theoretical end at this point) would also be a problem. In this instance, the extra dynamic is that so many people just don't like or look down upon people who value their gun rights, so I think a lot of them WANT those people to be tracked, regardless of criminal activity.

[Dutch]

I'll make it known that I don't support the government using precogs to arrest people before they commit a crime.

Okay, cool, but what about for citizens with criminal records or mental issues? Those on probation, maybe? We can add in baby steps to make this more palatable if you want.

[molson]

I doubt this gun would sell much anyway, so why all the paranoid fuss?

It's not likely we get to a gun ban or gps gun tracking/kill switches any time soon. So in that sense it's definitely paranoia, but a lot of people do support those things, so I can understand why gun owners see that as the end goal. I don't know how prevalent those views are, but a few posters express them in every gun control thread here. And I'm sure I lot of other people hold those things as the ideal, but are strategic enough to know that the only gun control measure you should ever publicly support is the next one, not one 10 steps from now.

[molson]

Also, could you imagine if the watch had built-in GPS that sends the location of the owner and the gun back to the FBI or city police? That would be very helpful in proactive law enforcement. If a guy who lives predominately in the southeast side of town suddenly crosses the railroad tracks with his gun, we could send a car over to either arrest, survey, or at least do a search and seizure....drug checks, whatever. Why not? The technology exists, after all, to do it. Think of the lives we could save by strictly enforcing strong laws against ourselves.

That sounds scary. But I kind of appreciate the consistency of attacking crime with both a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment AND a loose interpretation of the 4th Amendment. It seems like the more common view is that crime is really bad, and we need to scale back gun rights to fight it but, in all other contexts - rights are more important that security. (I love how that Ben Franklin quote about liberty and security can be used by the NRA to defend gun rights, and by others to defend the Fourth Amendment) That's just so shallow and transparent to me. I think so don't care about gun rights because they don't use gun rights. They care about other rights because they do use them and might be impacted personally. It's like an old man who's never been on a computer being a staunch NSA proponent because he finds computers creepy and weird. That being said, I do think the 2nd Amendment permits a ton of gun regulation, more than we have, and I think there's plenty of reasonable arguments for more. I think you have to be a little more sympathetic and understanding to the other side to make progress though, like Bill Clinton was in the 90s. ("We want to ban assault weapons, but it's not because we look down on you and want to control you, we really do just want to battle crime, and to prove it, we'll also fund tens of thousands of new policeman, increase minimum sentences for federal crimes, build new prisons, etc.) The tricky part is that latter stuff is harder to swallow in an era of rapidly declining crime. But you have to give up something. "Compromise" isn't, "I want to heavily regulate guns, but I'll settle for regulating them slightly less".

[EagleFan]

Gun owners don't do logic well. It would only be gun owners BUYING these guns, thus the whole gun owner thing. If you don't want that technology... DON't F*CKING BUY IT!!!! It's not going to continue to exist if it's not making money, companies aren't in the business for the hell of it.

[Dutch]

It's not likely we get to a gun ban or gps gun tracking/kill switches any time soon. So in that sense it's definitely paranoia, but a lot of people do support those things, so I can understand why gun owners see that as the end goal. I don't know how prevalent those views are, but a few posters express them in every gun control thread here. And I'm sure I lot of other people hold those things as the ideal, but are strategic enough to know that the only gun control measure you should ever publicly support is the next one, not one 10 steps from now.

I think they express those views because history has shown time and time again that governments sometimes mutate into something different than what they were. Obviously that won't ever happen in America. So tracking guns should be okay here.

[JPhillips]

It's not likely we get to a gun ban or gps gun tracking/kill switches any time soon. So in that sense it's definitely paranoia, but a lot of people do support those things, so I can understand why gun owners see that as the end goal. I don't know how prevalent those views are, but a few posters express them in every gun control thread here. And I'm sure I lot of other people hold those things as the ideal, but are strategic enough to know that the only gun control measure you should ever publicly support is the next one, not one 10 steps from now.

Do you really want to go down a path where the view of small minorities justifies any extremism? Surely you'd agree the extremist gun control position is a small minority and wields basically no power, right? Saying we can't allow anything that a five or ten percent chunk of the population may abuse at some indeterminate point in the future would mean that basically nothing new can ever be sold.

[sterlingice]

Do you really want to go down a path where the view of small minorities justifies any extremism? Surely you'd agree the extremist gun control position is a small minority and wields basically no power, right? Saying we can't allow anything that a five or ten percent chunk of the population may abuse at some indeterminate point in the future would mean that basically nothing new can ever be sold.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of paths we go down, depending on the amount of damage it can do. For instance, nukes and biological agents- we're all pretty much in agreement that those should be illegal for the general populace (i.e. not military or doctors studying diseases). Not many people would use those wrongly but the ones that would could do a lot of damage.

SI

[sterlingice]

I think they express those views because history has shown time and time again that governments sometimes mutate into something different than what they were. Obviously that won't ever happen in America. So tracking guns should be okay here.

I think another thing that history has also shown time and time again is that we rarely reach the bottom of every perceived slippery slope or every worst case scenario.

SI

[Dutch]

I think another thing that history has also shown time and time again is that we rarely reach the bottom of every perceived slippery slope or every worst case scenario.

SI

Agreed, we cannot predict the future or the end goals of unstated end goals. History only allows us to be more weary. Are you at least allowing us that much?

[sterlingice]

Agreed, we cannot predict the future or the end goals of unstated end goals. History only allows us to be more weary. Are you at least allowing us that much?

If you had only asked for that much, it would have been perfectly reasonable. But it sounded like asking for a mile when given an inch and the compromise point between the two is much closer to two inches than a half mile because of how absurd the opening bid was.

SI