Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

Posted by Soulskill on from the powered-by-the-cloud dept.

Lucas123 writes "U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass) is pushing a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include 'personalization technology' in their weapons. Tierney said he got the idea for The Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013 from the latest James Bond film, Skyfall. In it Bond escapes death when his handgun, which is equipped with technology that recognizes his fingerprints, becomes inoperable when a bad guy picks it up. 'This technology, however, isn't just for the movies — it's a reality,' Tierney said. Tierney pointed to a myriad of cases where the smart gun tech could prevent children from being harmed or killed in firearms accidents. Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, the official state association of the NRA, said he knows of no gun owners who would want smart gun technology on their weapons. Wallace said any technology that may impede the proper function of a weapon is a problem. He pointed to the fact that any integrated processor technology would also require a battery of some kind, which could pose a system failure if it lost power."

85 of 750 comments (clear)

  1. Movies are real! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lawmakers have been introducing these bills since at least the mid-90s, with Judge Dredd being the first movie I'm aware of directly tied to it.

    The tech was not then, and is not now, possible. They're MOVIES. That's not REALITY.

    Our elected officials are dumber than you could possibly imagine.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    1. Re:Movies are real! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      But. But.

      Instructional Videos!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Movies are real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its easy to make a trigger that doesn't fire when the wrong person holds it. Its harder to make one that also does fire all the time when you hold it.

    3. Re:Movies are real! by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Judge Dredd's gun 'executes' anybody else who tries to fire it. Are they going to implement that feature, too?

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Movies are real! by intermodal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Years ago, I took the attitude of "vote out the people you don't like", but came to the realization that if you do that by electing the other party, you just have to vote him back out in the next election. That's why I have almost exclusively come to exclude Democrats and Republicans from my voting selections. Every so often, an individual candidate changes my mind, but only a solid track record is sufficient for me to do it.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    5. Re:Movies are real! by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 3, Funny
      The technology would be better off if it had the opposite goal. Provide a 100% chance that the authorized firer can pull the trigger and then work on providing a > 0% chance that some unauthorized person cannot fire it. Even if the chance to prevent someone else from firing your weapon was low, say 25%, we would be better off than we are now.

      The only thing to worry about would be people becomming over-reliant on the technology and allowing anyone to access their weapon under the assumption that they couldn't fire it even if they tried. You could possibly end up with even more accidental or stolen gun shootings in that case.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    6. Re:Movies are real! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      FTFY; some of us wised up to that some time ago, and thus only vote for third parties (if at all).

      Is that working out as well for you as my one-man air-travel boycott is for me?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:Movies are real! by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just how do you propose you do that. The trouble isn't about false positives or negatives in the mechanism. The trouble is that there is any mechanism at all. As the article mentioned, any "smart" weapon requires a processor, memory, and a battery to power it. Chances are you're also going to be replacing a mechanical trigger with an electronic one, so all your existing ammunition is useless. You're disconnecting the trigger from a spring-loaded hammer, and thus introducing a new failure point in a previously robust, mechanical system.

    8. Re:Movies are real! by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless. Any policy driven technology adoption should be first forced upon the police and the military before it's forced on civilians. If a cop wouldn't want this technology then it's not something that anyone else should have forced on them either.

      Mandating that civilians can only own guns that don't work is just a transparent attempt to side step the law.

      Let cops and soldiers adopt this stuff first.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Movies are real! by gb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the non gun owning liberals who propose this legislation. By definition they know nothing about guns. They never owned one and don't know how they work. This is not flame bait but it truth.

      This is trivially not true.

      Not owning a gun now does not imply never having owned a gun and neither statements imply not knowing how they work let alone the even more general statement about knowing nothering about guns.

      I suspect the number of people who know nothing about guns (at least counting those people who would qualify to vote in most democracies if they were citizens) is very small. If you want to make an argument that those proposing such legislation lack sufficient knwledge of the subject to do so competantly then that's just fine but making wild statements that are trivial to disprove doesn't exactly lend credibility.

    10. Re:Movies are real! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Every time I watch Westworld, the first thing that goes through my mind when seeing that explanation is "richochet".

      The next thing that occurs to me is that bottles, chairs, and windows don't have any of those safeguards built into them. The same probably goes for the swords and lances in Roman and Medieval world.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Movies are real! by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The technology is technically possible. However, I have a few points to make:
      1. Guns are currently purely mechanical. Adding ANYTHING electronic into the firing system is going to lower reliability. Remember, the most common police weapon(Glock) doesn't even have a manual safety switch. The recognition system would have to work 99.999999% of the time in a fraction of a second.
      2. When fired, the firearm itself suffers a large shock. One 9mm handgun weighs 770 grams, fires a 7.45 gram projectile at 390 m/s. Laws of physics means that every time the handgun is fired it suffers a shock sufficient to move it back at 3.8 m/s, or 14 km/hour. That is NASTY to electronics, it's roughly equivalent to being hit with a hammer. It's mean to mechanical parts as well, but at least we've had hundreds of years of engineering to fix the issues.
      3. Perhaps most critical, police officers are much more likely to be killed by their own weapon after it's been taken from them. 26 officers over 10 years. (or have others killed with their weapon if taken from them). Despite this, police organizations(departments, unions, professional) will campaign hard and long to exempt themselves from any such gun legislation. I believe that New Jersey already has a smart gun requirement on the books - but no gun manufacturer makes a firearm that meets the standard.
      4. The common figuring is a lot like that of DRM - a 'smart gun' will stop a non-authorized person only on a tactical, immediate basis. Criminals will be able to bypass any protections on a long term scale(IE days) if they successfully steal the weapon, making any 'smart guns' of limited protection.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    12. Re:Movies are real! by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I suspect the number of people who know nothing about guns (at least counting those people who would qualify to vote in most democracies if they were citizens) is very small."

      I find the vast majority of the population knows nearly nothing about guns. For example, I encounter very few people who realize that "assault weapon" is not an actual type of gun but rather a 100% political buzzword with no definition. Also on the political front, very few seem to have caught on to the gimmick statistic of "gun crime" and why it is meaningless if gun legislation impacts it. The number who understand gun safety, have significant actual hours logged with a gun, and understand gun physics and basic gun mechanics amount to very small handful over the years and all of them gun owners. The number of people who think a semi-automatic rifle is military grade weaponry is staggering. The number who know what semi-automatic actually means is disheartening.

    13. Re:Movies are real! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the non gun owning liberals who propose this legislation.

      For the record, I'm a non-gun owning liberal (though I've fired a few handguns, rifles and shotguns and have some minimal training) and I think this kind of legislation is dumb.

      Firearms are tools with a specific function and purpose. They need to work when they're suppose to work and it's the owner's responsibility to ensure they're safe otherwise. If you have children in your house, lock up your guns/ammunition and teach your children firearm safety when they're able to understand. If you can't do these things and/or you cannot operate your own weapon safely, don't own/carry firearms or come to terms that you and or your child may become Darwin Award winners.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:Movies are real! by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      Just how do you propose you do that. The trouble isn't about false positives or negatives in the mechanism. The trouble is that there is any mechanism at all.

      Well, it's "fail open" vs "fail closed". What about a mechanism that disables the gun if it detects that an unauthorized person is trying to use it? If the mechanism is not operational (no power etc), the gun works as normal.

    15. Re:Movies are real! by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You willing to bet your liberty in a self-defense case on microcircuitry that is never checked or maintained, a lens that might be obstructed or smeared, and the assumption that if there isn't a perfect picture, you're hiding some kind of guilt?

      "Mr. Johnson, how do we know you didn't put your blood all over the end of that gun before your wife used it to murder a poor, helpless transient you two had lured to your home for deviant sex? There's no picture. You must be trying to hide something."

    16. Re:Movies are real! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      Every time there's been a demonstration of this sort of technology, it has failed. The one time it didn't, it was quickly revealed that the only reason it worked is because it had been disabled -- that is, it was just a regular gun going bang.

      Biometrics are great in a controlled environment, but you're talking about a gun. Maybe a rifle, maybe a handgun. Maybe it's a hunting rifle, and maybe it's covered in snow. Or sand. Or mud. Maybe the hand holding it is wearing a glove. Or is covered in sweat.
      It's not *reliable*. Making a gun *NOT* go bang, that's easy. Making it go bang every time you want it to, that's the hard part. Making it go bang every time you want it to, but *never* when you don't? That is impossible. Shit, even with some pretty clever mechanical safety mechanisms on guns, people still wind up getting shot accidentally. They could be made more robust, but then the gun would likely fail to function when needed.

      The solution then, is to use those mechanical safeties, but to not *rely* on them, because the gun might still go bang.

      This sort of tech, though? You can't use it but not rely on it -- if you are using it, you MUST rely on it, or else the gun WON'T go bang. Unless it does because of some sort of breakage or something, which can happen. That's why you never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.

      There was tech that involved bracelets or rings with RFID tags, but those were useless. Again, they didn't work when tested, and even if they had.. the purported purpose was to be for law enforcement, to prevent criminals from stealing their sidearms and using them against the cop (.. that's really a problem large enough to justify replacing millions and millions of dollars in sidearms apparently (it actually isnt.)). Except the tags either worked from too great a distance -- so that it wouldn't prevent the gun from firing if the ring was within a few feet -- or just didn't work 100% of the time because the distance was too small, and a little interference meant the cop pulling the trigger was in for a surprise.

      There was also a bill I believe around the early 00s out in California to require bullets to be microstamped *BY THE BARREL OF THE GUN THEY WERE SHOT FROM*. Yeah, the bill sponsors even had a company out there who had "perfected the technology" that everyone sane knew was impossible. Turns out the company was, in fact, impossible. Just an empty office in an industrial complex somewhere, nothing more. There wasn't ever any big investigation, it just sort of went away, but that's the kind of bullshit that goes on here. Politicians and their allies (fwiw i personally think that shell company was set up by the brady campaign /tinfoilhat) will create a fake company, have that fake company put out fake claims, and use those fake claims to de-facto ban guns because that fake technology doesn't exist. Eventually it would be sorted out, sure, but in the meanwhile NO GUNS FOR ANYONE!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    17. Re:Movies are real! by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 2

      What's your plan for when somebody is attacked and injured, and a stranger is trying to help them?

      All of a sudden, you've cursed a good samaritan with a highly evolved rock in a life-threatening situation.

      Before you pass this off as far-flung chance, quite a few police officers have been saved because of this exact scenario. And some victims they were attempting to help have lived this way after the responding officer was injured or killed.

    18. Re:Movies are real! by losfromla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      good thing you posted AC.
      None of the items in your "reasonable argument" stop gun violence. One of them mitigates the damage from gun violence (bulletproof vest) and the other substitutes one violence for another (gun-spotting automatic defense turrets). I am not entirely sure how you came to the brilliant idea that gun-spotting automatic defense turrets are "reasonable" though, if you are up to it, please explain how they are reasonable from a technology, cost, and political feasibility perspective. I myself wouldn't be too comfortable walking down a street with these automated snipers looking for gun-like objects on my person, etc. Bulletproof vests are reasonable? Like, we all put ours on in the morning when we wake up and wear them all day? Kids too? The same kids that get tired carrying their lunch box home from school?

      Dude! (I assume dude since we're on slashdot) I think you need to recalibrate your reasonableness meter.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    19. Re:Movies are real! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would defeat the purpose, as most people would just yank the batteries out immediately. Give me a tool that works reliably, that I can have confidence in -- and let *me* worry about keeping it safe. I don't want a tool that will PROBABLY work, hopefully, that I still have to worry about keeping safe anyway because it's a damned gun and if you're not worrying about keeping it safe you don't deserve to have it.

      Plus all this mess actually isn't trying to add anything to guns, it's all just gun prohibition in the disguise of technology that is not available or possible.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    20. Re:Movies are real! by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who the fuck said anything about some sort of whizbang electronically-ignited primers? Although that would probably be a pretty cool technology (if the primer required a signature that was tagged to a biometric property of the owner), that is not anything like what is being considered.

      That's the problem with the legislation...it doesn't consider the fact that unless you have a full "fire-by-wire" setup, it's essentially impossible to implement a "smart gun" without it being trivial to bypass.

      The integrated trigger safety on the various Glock handguns is a good example of how this would work, except that is purely mechanical, and this would be electronic. So, instead of a physical push of an extra lever to move a pin that blocks the trigger from being completely pulled (or possibly the firing pin from moving), there will be electronics, and they would have to be fairly seriously sophisticated. For example, unless the trigger is greatly enlarged, the sensor would have to be very small (less than 1/8" wide) and would have to deal with different positioning of the finger (since nobody is ever exactly the same on the grip), and should be able to accommodate at least two fingers in memory (for off-hand shooting).

      Regardless of how sophisticated the electronics are, the problem is that this sort of thing is easily disabled simply by removing whatever is doing the blocking, which completely bypasses the electronics. So, although this might keep a gun from being fired quickly after someone who isn't the owner gains possession, it won't stop a real criminal with long-term plans for the gun.

    21. Re:Movies are real! by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      That would defeat the purpose, as most people would just yank the batteries out immediately.

      Why? Also, how about making the batteries hard to remove (or disable the gun mechanically if the battery is not present)? The idea would be that 1) the kid may not be able to figure out how to do it and that 2) removing the batteries would take time so wold make the gun useless if it was taken from you by the attacker.
      Add a requirement to keep the batteries in the gun to the law and it will have the desired result - 100% chance that the owner can fire the gun and >0% chance that someone not authorized cannot fire the gun.

      Plus all this mess actually isn't trying to add anything to guns, it's all just gun prohibition in the disguise of technology that is not available or possible.

      Agree, but the technology is still interesting to think about and IMO would be useful if it would possible.

    22. Re:Movies are real! by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Thanks to party politics that isn't true. Individuals who have identified either a D or R affiliation actually have less activity in the reasoning centers of their brain and draw on memory centers the moment an issue is identified with either D or R or when they identify it as such.

      It's a psychological trick to get people to stop thinking. Once you get people into the us or them mentality you can manipulate them into views, justify horrible atrocities to other human beings, get them to hate people they know nothing about, and far far more. The current politicians don't have to be any more intelligent than the cattle. The system is already in place.

    23. Re:Movies are real! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interestingly enough, they (liberals) count suicide as a "gun crime", or "gun violence" or whatever, so they can vastly inflate the numbers of actual gun crimes. Some 60% of all gun deaths are suicide. Another interesting fact, suicides in the US, per capita, is very similar (statistical blip) to countries with strict gun controls, which only prove that suicidal people will kill themselves, regardless of method.

      All of this doesn't matter, because "guns are scary" (tm)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    24. Re:Movies are real! by intermodal · · Score: 2

      I agree, but I'm not so sure the guy you voted for being voted into office is really "winning" when you voted for what you perceived to be the lesser of two evils. Voting for evils is always a loss.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    25. Re:Movies are real! by boristdog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're boycotting air travel, you're missing out on the fun.

      ALWAYS opt out and ask for the free massage.
      Giggling and moaning while they pat you down is half the fun of air travel. Either the TSA agent "gets it" and has a laugh along with you, or it REALLY pisses them off, which can be even more fun. Bonus points for having an erection.

    26. Re:Movies are real! by cusco · · Score: 2

      Vast majority? You're being a bit excessive in your guesstimate, as anyone who has served in the military (a minority, but a very large minority) is acquainted with a variety of weapon types. Many of those know their weapons down to the level of being able to field strip and reassemble them. The family members of most of them have some knowledge, if only from hearing stories from the veterans.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    27. Re:Movies are real! by babblefrog · · Score: 2

      People keep saying this, but I don't see anybody linking to an example which works.

    28. Re:Movies are real! by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      You willing to bet your liberty in a (snip)

      No, he probably just looked up the statistics on the number of people that have been killed with their own gun. This is why police officers are trained to always keep their hand on their weapon during a traffic stop or during any other time when they're questioning someone who isn't in custody, and why once their gun has been drawn, they typically move away and don't holster it again until backup arrives and a second officer can approach and subdue. The risk is very real.

      self-defense case on microcircuitry that is never checked or maintained

      Your computer has tons of microcircuitry. Far more than this technology would require. If your life depended on being able to complete a call to the police using a VoIP product, do you think you could do it as fast as with a regular, land-line phone, assuming you had the software already installed and configured?

      The fact that something isn't checked or maintained is not an indictment against its reliability. Maintenance usually happens on a schedule -- days, weeks, years, even decades. You don't just assume your car is going to run out of oil because you haven't checked the oil since the last time you started it -- you know that as long as you check it every 7,000 miles, or whatever the manual says, you do not have to worry about that. Why would a gun be different?

      a lens that might be obstructed or smeared,

      You know, you're working this technology all crabbed. A police officer could be issued a gun with a RF component in it that operated around 800 MHz or so. At this frequency, the signal clings to a person's skin and clothing. A low-power, short-range transmitter, perhaps embedded in the officer's radio, could complete the circuit. Thus if the officer was not in physical contact with the gun, it wouldn't fire.

      Biometric identification isn't the only way of securing a weapon.

      and the assumption that if there isn't a perfect picture, you're hiding some kind of guilt?

      That's a social and legal problem, not a technical problem. Let's try and keep on topic here; This is a feasibility study, not an exhaustive analysis of "what if" scenarios...

      "Mr. Johnson, how do we know you didn't put your blood all over the end of that gun before your wife used it to murder a poor, helpless transient you two had lured to your home for deviant sex? There's no picture. You must be trying to hide something."

      Strike my last; ... not an exhaustive analysis of conspiracy theories.

      Now, as has become increasingly common on Slashdot (I miss the old days), nothing in what I've said is either for or against whatever political cause or position you're advocating. It is simply, and purely, an engineering analysis. What Congress is, or isn't doing, or whatever your political beliefs are, or even mine, are irrelevant here. This about answering IF we can do this with the technology available today, not should we do it.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    29. Re:Movies are real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Another interesting fact, suicides in the US, per capita, is very similar (statistical blip) to countries with strict gun controls, which only prove that suicidal people will kill themselves, regardless of method.

      that's not a fact, its what people call a lie. I am so sick and tired of you idiot fucktwads who no nothing about suicide say stupid shit like that.

      List of countries by suicide rate in suicides per 100,000 people per year:
      #25 France 14.7
      #34 USA 12.0
      #35 Sweden 11.9
      #36 Norway 11.9

      fuck fuck nigger shit cuntnozzle. I cussed a lot so these facts are now progressive.

    30. Re:Movies are real! by Kielistic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know I'm tempting the flame gods here but you never explained what was a lie. Per capita are the suicide rates not very similar? Are you claiming that suicide attempts are similar and with easier access to guns they are more often successful? Because the GP seemed to be claiming that suicides (I would interpret that as successful (bad wording?) ) occur at similar rates regardless of easy access to guns. Which is in direct opposition to your claim and your statistics don't actually have anything to do with that.

      Going off like a lose cannon does not help your argument.

    31. Re:Movies are real! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Biometric identification isn't the only way of securing a weapon."

      It's not even a good one.

      The problem is not that such identification technology is impossible. The problem is that it is impossible to make it that reliable with today's technology, while still being able to perform its security function (keeping the bad guys from using the gun). You can have one, or you can have the other, but so far -- despite several products that have been hyped -- nobody has come even close to doing both. You have to have both or it's worse than useless, because it will get good people killed.

      "A police officer could be issued a gun with a RF component in it that operated around 800 MHz or so. At this frequency, the signal clings to a person's skin and clothing. A low-power, short-range transmitter, perhaps embedded in the officer's radio, could complete the circuit. Thus if the officer was not in physical contact with the gun, it wouldn't fire."

      If it were that simple, it would be done already. For one thing, RF is FAR too easy to foil. People have been experimenting with that kind of technology for many years now, and not one has come even close to putting one on the market. Again, the main reason is maintaining reliability and security at the same time. One or the other is relatively easy. Both are not.

      "... nothing in what I've said is either for or against whatever political cause or position you're advocating. t is simply, and purely, an engineering analysis. "

      It's not even a good one.

      Sorry to have to say that, but in good conscience I have to say that. You ignored some rather gaping holes in the problem domain. But don't feel bad; even the makers of safes and other security equipment famously suffer from tunnel vision in that regard. For example: in recent years not one but many manufacturers of safes with electronic combination locks focused on the security of the electronic lock but paid little attention to the physcial locking mechanism. As a result, one security researcher produced a YouTube video of his 4-year-old, with no knowledge of the combination, opening some of them with ease.

      Security vulnerabilities surround everything we do. It behooves one to step back and look at the larger picture. We are not yet even close to the technology required to put reliable and secure "lockout" mechanisms on guns. At the moment it's still science fiction. Biometric identification is not the problem. The problem is making it absolutely reliable, while ALSO rejecting the unauthorized.

    32. Re:Movies are real! by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2

      Comes close: http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

    33. Re:Movies are real! by laird · · Score: 2

      I'm a liberal. And I was an NRA certified gun instructor, and I'm not anti-gun though I am certainly in favor of people keeping guns under control, and keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them. And I can certainly see why people would want guns to be shootable only by the owner. Gun manufacturers have been showing off guns like this for decades. The challenge is that for this to be effective, the large majority of guns would have to implement this sort of mechanism, because otherwise it's too easy to simply ignore the few "locked down" guns. So by passing a law requiring this sort of locking mechanism, it gives manufacturers the incentive to put these mechanisms in large scale production (rather than limited demo runs they've been doing), making the mechanisms lower cost and more reliable (because competition works).

      Objections to this idea sound a lot like the objections to seat belts and later airbags being mandatory in cars. Manufacturers claimed that it would make cars cost too much, would add too much complexity, would go off causing more accidents than they prevented, etc. In reality, of course, seat belts turned out to cost extremely little, be extremely reliable, and to overall save quite a few lives. So during the decades that the car companies fought the improvements in car safety, many thousands of people died or were injured who would not have been has the simply focused their efforts on implementing car safety instead of dragging their feet.

      Is this challenge a difficult one? Of course. But it wasn't easy to make airbags cheap and reliable. But that's what engineers should do - solve difficult problems to make people's lives better.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    34. Re:Movies are real! by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      the same argument applies not just to guns, but to every single dangerous tool or piece of machinery. the only reason guns get singled out is because there is, for what ever reason, LESS of a culture of safety with them than other tools. Stupid non gun owning tv directors and movie directors are just as much to blame. The majority of true accidents that arise from guns often occur because they are mishandled ... and often in a way EXACTLY as they mimic watching it on tv or in a movie.

  2. My thoughts on the matter by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • 1) The Democrats couldn't pass a less odious measure in a Democratic-controlled Senate. Good luck passing that in a Republican-controlled House.
    • 2) I'll happily put this on my own guns after the police have used it for five years on theirs, and have come to accept it as a reliable technology.
    • 3) All in all, Congressman Tierney did this, in all likelihood, to help solidify his re-election next year. Since he got the press he wanted, I congratulate him now on his impending victory.
    --
    Finding God in a Dog
    1. Re:My thoughts on the matter by fche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'll happily put this on my own guns after the police have used it for five years on theirs," ... or all persons protecting the good congressman.

    2. Re:My thoughts on the matter by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems to me that police need it more than private citizens, as they spend more time around criminals who are likely to try and grab the gun.

    3. Re:My thoughts on the matter by Aqualung812 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also a gun owner, and I completely agree with your point #2, without sarcasm.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    4. Re:My thoughts on the matter by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

      3) All in all, Congressman Tierney did this, in all likelihood, to help solidify his re-election next year. Since he got the press he wanted, I congratulate him now on his impending victory.

      He's from Massachusetts, home of the gerrymander. His district is just north of Boston. His seat is in no real threat.

      But you're right, this is just another pointless "feel-good" measure to prove to his constituents that he's "tough on crime." It's also a ploy to get Republicans to vote against it, allowing that stupid "mayors for gun control" PAC to run ads against them.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  3. DOA by chiefmojorising · · Score: 2

    There's no way this boneheaded bill will get past the Republican controlled House.

  4. A Better Idea by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths, and without the (un)intended side effect of rendering personal protection weapons useless by legislative fiat.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:A Better Idea by Artraze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for?

      We gave up on actually fucking teaching kids anything some time ago now.

    2. Re:A Better Idea by firewrought · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths

      While we're at it, can we get Hollywood celebrities to hold guns properly on film? Don't stick your finger into the trigger guard until you're ready to destroy something.

      Seriously. I understand that Hollywood movies aren't gun safety tutorials and that, for instance, Will Smith has to whip out his gun and use it to mock-threaten his daughter's boyfriend in Bad Boys 2, but if these celebrities kept their fingers pointed down the barrel instead of resting on the trigger, it might make a difference when some drunk dumbass decides to imitate them. Drives me nuts whenever I see this on film/TV.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    3. Re:A Better Idea by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the right will complain about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns are dangerous, and the left will scream apoplectic about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns could be safe.

      Bullshit. Gun Safety training would gain instant support among the right, as well as any thinking person.

      The younger the better. There are far too many stories about kids thinking they have a toy and killing a sibling, all caused by the big left wing no-no against teaching kids anything about guns, or even so much as drawing a picture of one in school. Its the whole security by obscurity argument all over again in the physical world.

      The right already knows guns are dangerous, and that every gun is treated like a loaded gun, and have been teaching this to their kids since they were old enough to walk. Its the delusional left who believe if we can just hide the existence of guns the whole problem will go away.

      I took gun safety courses in grade school. We fired .22 short single shot rifles IN the School Basement during gun safety class. (4th or 5th grade as I recall). Of course by this time it was old hat to me since I had been hunting with my parents for many years by that time.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:A Better Idea by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      While we're at it, can we get Hollywood celebrities to hold guns properly on film? Don't stick your finger into the trigger guard until you're ready to destroy something.

      I really do appreciate it when I see TV shows actually get this one right.

    5. Re:A Better Idea by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      so many gun owners are so lax about safety.

      Which, presumably, is why we have upwards of 10,000,000 accidental shootings every year.

      Oh, wait, we don't, do we?

      Note that the number of accidental shootings we have every year suggests that the number of "lax about safety" gun owners is less than 0.1%....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:A Better Idea by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I grew up in a house with many firearms that I had access to, I knew where they were and where the ammo was. I was never inclined to play with them. If I wanted to go out shooting, I'd let my dad know and we'd go out when we had time. I was given a .22 LR for Christmas when I was 6, but was told and knew that even though it is mine, I can only use it when my dad was around (my mom has shot, she's OK with guns, but she's not a gun person).

      Never had a problem, I was raised right.

      Hell, I was even bullied pretty hard in elementary school, and friendless since I lived in the wrong part of town to be going to that school. Getting even sure crossed my mind, but having been raised right and thinking things through I faced the endless escalation that may result, and wound up realizing that whatever happened I could kill any of these kids causing me problems. I didn't want to, obviously I never did, but there it was. A little kid realizing that they had the capability to use lethal force wantonly, and also realizing they had the responsibility to never do so except in the defense of life.

      It actually turned out well, having those guns where I could get to them. I did have to grab a shotgun one time when I was about 12, because some guys my idiot-asshole cousin owed money to found out we were related and came looking for him. They didn't believe he wasn't at my house and tried to just open the door and walk in to look for him, after I told them he wasn't here, and to leave, and closed the door on them (they're 17-18, what's some preteen gonnOH SHIT SHOTGUN!).
      One of the most terrifying moments of my life, honestly. Not that they might have meant me harm, or could have caused me harm -- that simply wasn't going to happen, and I was afraid of what I would need to do to make sure that wasn't going to happen.

      That somehow turned into a story, not sure how.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  5. Re:But I like guns! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already HAVE passed the point of sensible gun control. First point to make, violent crime is falling in this country, including crime where the criminal used a gun. Second point to make, perhaps if the government enforced the gun laws already on the books, we could determine which ones actually work, which ones should be repealed and whether there is any reason to create new ones.
    Since Obama took office, the percentage of violations of current background check laws which were prosecuted has fallen.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  6. Yet another ham-handed attempt to eliminate guns by Old+VMS+Junkie · · Score: 2

    Aside from the fact that the technology doesn't exist... What if I want to let a friend shoot my gun, for example when I was teaching someone to shoot? What if I wanted to try a friend's gun so I could see if I liked it? How about collectible guns? The last firearm I bought was a WWII vintage Finnish rifle. What if I wanted to buy a very-collectable WWII 1911? Would that be legal? It's just another blatant attempt to restrict my constitutional rights. If you want to pass gun control, amend the Constitution. Stop wasting our time with this kind of legislative theater.

  7. Cops will not like this by taustin · · Score: 2

    Police chiefs, who are politicians, will be in favor of this, because they think it's good politics. Police unions, representing working cops on the streets will be unalterably opposed to it, because even 99% isn't good enough when your life is on the line.

    1. Re:Cops will not like this by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because even 99% isn't good enough

      The Glock 17 9mm regularly used by police forces is rated at having less than 20 malfunctions in the first 10,000 rounds; that's 1/500... which is 99.8%

      So, you are correct that 99% isn't good enough, but 99.8% is.

      Thus if someone were to release a smart gun tech that kept its false negative rate (preventing legitimate fire rate) low enough that the gun retains its 99.8% effectiveness rating, then it would be good enough.

      Police unions, representing working cops on the streets will be unalterably opposed to it, because even 99% isn't good enough when your life is on the line.

      This old chestnut. "your life is on the line". Its life or death, and we have to do everything we can possibly do to ensure a positive outcome.

      That's why police have an annual proficiency review. Remember their life is on the line. A few hours once a year is good enough to ensure they are in top shape, right?

      And what's more that proficiency test has the very high standard of 70% to get a pass. Remember their life is on the line, or the life of their partner... or perhaps even your life. You want to know the gun he's holding is going to fire when he pulls the trigger right? That's paramount right? That he's proficient with the firearm, well, 70% is "pretty good" right?

      Funny how 99% isn't good enough for the gun, but 70% is good enough for the guy holding it.

  8. How about instead of more laws by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about instead of creating more stupid laws we start enforcing and prosecuting existing ones. It is sad when a child finds a loaded gun that isn't locked up and kills someone or themselves with it, so why not fucking prosecute the dumb shit parents for negligent homicide. I really don't believe in accidental shooting but I sure a hell believe in negligent shooting. Granted there probably is the 1 in 1,000,000 truly accidental discharge of a firearm (the gun went off and you weren't touching the trigger) that ends up shooting someone (off of a ricochet as you should be practicing muzzle control and have it point in a safe direction) but those are so rare that it isn't worth mentioning.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  9. Re:Flawed "Think of the Children" as usual by bmk67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trigger locks would do the same as this bill and would be cheap to retrofit, etc.

    This again?

    Are you aware of the significant safety hazards that retrofitted trigger locks present?

    To illustrate - take an ordinary revolver. Unload it, and install a trigger lock (the lock goes though the trigger guard, in front of the trigger). Yay, safety, right?

    Consider that there is NOTHING which prevents someone from loading such a weapon, and cocking the hammer. Oh, and by the way, you can't decock it without being able to access the trigger. You now have a weapon that is in an unsafe condition, that cannot be made safe, safely.

    Hope the guy who has to make it safe has cast-iron balls and stain-resistant underwear.

    Trigger locks are stupid and unsafe - a solution in search of a problem.

  10. One word against this idea: gloves ... in winter. by sehlat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cops in Minnesota in the dead of a winter snowstorm are just gonna LOVE this tech.

  11. Re:Terrific idea by twistofsin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My guns are reliable because they are simple mechanical devices. I think this is a horrible idea, no matter how it's implemented.

    Like a previous poster said, if law enforcement adopts the technology and it turns out to be extremely reliable I'll reconsider.

  12. Next steps by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

    So you want my guns to be "smart" and place a small computer of some sort in there. And in the event that that small computer has been rendered ineffective, my gun will no longer fire. Is this computer going to have Bluetooth or Wi-Fi? Is the government going to force manufacturers to install a backdoor so the government can decide when I can and cannot fire my weapon? What if my gun (and/or me) are electrocuted? What if there is an EMP? What if my house is struck by lightening and the electricity goes into my gun safe, rendering all of my guns useless? What if....

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  13. How many cops would this save? by jsepeta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No more criminals stealing service revolvers from cops and shooting them with their own weapons.

    Still shady dealers selling weapons without "smart" tech, or with overrideable tech.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  14. LET THE CHILDREN DIE ALREADY by dadelbunts · · Score: 3, Informative

    I for one and sick and tired of all these "protecting the children" bullshit scenarios. We have a population of 7 fucking billion, i think the children are doing ok. If a few die from having stupid parents that never taught them gun safety (or any other safety procedures for that matter) then w.e, ill chalk that up to darwinism and nothing of value was lost.

    1. Re:LET THE CHILDREN DIE ALREADY by dotHectate · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Parents are the most dangerous threat to children. I'm not even joking.

      --
      Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
  15. Re:Just wow by DadLeopard · · Score: 2

    Early training in the safe use and handling of firearms prevents "Accidents" later on in life!

  16. When people who've never seen it write the rules by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep, this is what happens when people who hate guns, and so have never touched a gun, probably never seen a gun, think they are gun experts and should be writing the rules and regulations about how they should be manufactured, sold, and used.

    I'm not a doctor or pharmacist, so I don't have any opinion on proper methods manufacture, store, or otherwise handle various classes of prescription drugs.
    I have no idea what regulations make sense. It would be STUPID of me to comment on how a pharmacy must be run since I don't know anything about the subject.

    Why is it that people who have no knowledge at all, people who don't know the difference between a machine gun and a pistol, want to decide on gun regulations?
    This is a fact - anti-gunners, including congress-critters, REGULARLY confuse an automatic (machine gun) with a semi-automatic (pistol). They claim to be
    trying to "ban automatic weapons" (machine guns), but their bill bans pistols and varmint guns, which are semi-automatic.

  17. A first by he-sk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm very much against guns but I find myself agreeing with the guy from the NRA on this issue.

    Also, it's pretty obvious that the gun in Skyfall only had this "feature" so it could be exploited in a (way too predictable and pretty lame) plot twist.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  18. Oh My by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 2

    Millions are spent every year in studies and consulting services, and the idea comes from a James Bond movie??!!! What's wrong with you people!!!!

  19. Re:But I like guns! by Old+VMS+Junkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Define "sensible". This bill is not "sensible" by any definition I can think of. How about forcing states to add their mental health records to the instant background check database? Less than 30 states currently do. God forbid we violate the privacy of fucking crazy people.

  20. My First Rifle by tekrat · · Score: 2

    Obviously you've never heard of the "My First Rifle" which is a company that makes real guns for kids. A 5 year old accidentally shot his 2yr old sister in Kentucky just recently, go look it up. It's a real .22 rifle, was loaded with bullets and everything. They even make 'em in pink for girls.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:My First Rifle by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Obviously you've never heard of the "My First Rifle" which is a company that makes real guns for kids. A 5 year old accidentally shot his 2yr old sister in Kentucky just recently, go look it up. It's a real .22 rifle, was loaded with bullets and everything. They even make 'em in pink for girls.

      So? Does that absolve the parents from responsibility of the actions of their charges (i.e., children)? Of course not, only a moron (or troll with an agenda) would ever even attempt to come to such a conclusion.

      My brother bought his son a 410/22 combo for his 6th birthday, but he doesn't just leave the fuckin' thing lying around where the kid can access it at any time. The difference between my anecdote and yours? The adult in mine isn't an irresponsible fucking idiot.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:My First Rifle by lgarner · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, those who decided the amendment was necessary were much smarter and more forward-thinking than you, and remembered some history.

  21. This needs to be field tested before it's law by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see so many opportunities for this going wrong, like if your hands are dirty. A large percentage of gun deaths are suicides and this would do nothing to stop that.

    How about we have the military filed test this first and then see about make it mandatory?

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  22. Re:Teach kids? Teach PARENTS! by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

    Hell, replace the handgun with anything dangerous a idiot parent might leave out or let a kid play with.

    Brian was about to head home for dinner, his best friend was playing in his mom's car and accidentally placed it in neutral causing it to run Brian over.

    Brian was about to head home for dinner, his best friend was playing with his mom's chef knife and accidentally stabbed Brian in the neck pretending to be a sword fighter.

    Brian was about to head home for dinner, his best friend was playing with his mom's matches and accidentally burned down the house killing Brian and his sleeping inattentive mother.

  23. Re:But I like guns! by x6060 · · Score: 2

    Someone who actually looked at numbers? I'm sorry I am going to have to ask you to leave as reason and logic is not allowed here on slashdot.

  24. So finance R&D and we can talk about it by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    You can't mandate a technology that doesn't exist or isn't practical. So invent it before you make it law.

    I think such a requirement if made into law should be found to violate the 2nd amendment. But I do want the option of such technology so what you could do is mandate the availably of the tech for all new firearm models. Kind of like requiring automobiles be made with seat belts but not requiring people to use them.

  25. Re:Just wow by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

    I disagree. I have been shooting from the time I was about 6. Moving from BB guns to 22 rifles to large bore rifles and handguns.

    It was a fun, educational, and enjoyable experience and provided me a means to connect with my parents/grandparents and kept me outdoors and engaged.

    Kids should be shooting, but in controlled and well supervised environments. I was taught to respect firearms and to understand their danger and their utility. That is what should be done.

    However, I do agree that parents who do not secure their firearms or let kids play with them like toys should be charged. I didn't have access to my guns as a kid unless my father got them out and I would have lost my privileges if I ever did anything more than pick it up, point it down range, fire, then put it back on the designated area.

  26. Common Laws and Common Sense by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have never owned, held or fired a gun, that also included my family and friends and NONE of us have seen a reason to do otherwise.

    That's part of the problem with this debate, indeed with our current system. That is, not that you personally are unfamiliar with guns and do not have a use for them. You have a life of your own and come from a different culture than I do, and I do not blame or begrudge you that. The problem with the debate is the demand that you and I should be able to come up with a uniform legal system which both of us find agreeable and neither of us find oppressive. You say, " A child never has to hold a gun for any reason". I grew up in a culture where not having guns around is unthinkable, where the chief means of ensuring gun safety is teaching children to respect them, where we never touched them without permission partly because we knew what they could do and partly because we knew with supervision we would be allowed. I was considered old enough to shoot a gun for the first time while I was still young enough that my grandfather stood behind me lest the kick should knock me down.

    Your experience is as alien to me as mine is to you. Put simply, lacking common experience we do not share and cannot share any notion of common sense. In practical terms, a country the size of ours is many different cultures, foreign to one another to a greater or lesser extent, all under one polity. I would have subsidiarity be a guiding principle in this debate. Common laws ought only to be made on a level where there is a shared common sense.

  27. Re:Double standards by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    Wallace said any technology that may impede the proper function of a weapon is a problem.

    DRM on movies and music = good, DRM on guns = bad?

    Jim Wallace is a spokesman for the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, not the MAFIAA.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  28. Re:Just wow by LF11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, that is foolish as fuck. People like you are why so many children die in gun accidents. Congratulations, you are part of the problem.

    Here is why: A majority of US households have guns. While many guns are stored safely, many are not. By failing to educate your children about gun safety, you make them susceptible to accidental death or injury when they play with real guns someone finds in a neighbor's house.

    The NRA puts out gun safety material for children which is quite appropriate. "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" Even if you can't stand guns, hate guns, and would never touch one or want one or use one, you owe it to your children to teach them this much.

    LF

  29. Re:When people who've never seen it write the rule by tragedy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that people who have no knowledge at all, people who don't know the difference between a machine gun and a pistol, want to decide on gun regulations?
    This is a fact - anti-gunners, including congress-critters, REGULARLY confuse an automatic (machine gun) with a semi-automatic (pistol).

    Why is it that in the past whenever I've confused a machine gun with a gun that's merely an automatic I've always been corrected and told that a machine gun is an automatic, but automatic doesn't mean machine gun? I've long come to the conclusion that guns are one of those subjects where, unless you're part of the club, you're always wrong because the actual facts and definitions dance in some mysterious pattern. It's like using some group's slang if you're not part of the group. Even if you get the meaning just right, you're still wrong.

  30. Ludicrous by cfalcon · · Score: 3

    "Lets take untested bullshit tech that causes a myriad of failures, and MANDATE IT ON ALL WEAPONS!!!"

    Also this will make guns super expensive.

    And nonfunctional.

    And EMP vulnerable.

    No, this idea is horrible. I'm sure there's some people who would like this on their guns, but for right now not even all police departments are on board (and they are the one group of people who would actually benefit, as police are sometimes attacked with their own weapons).

    This is such a ludicrous power grab. They are taking a virgin tech and trying to make it MANDATORY. Obviously, no one will allow this to go live, so then they'll go cry about how the "NRA is a bunch of villains who only care about the gun industry".

    Dirty, dirty politics at work. Bastards.

  31. Re:When people who've never seen it write the rule by Zordak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This particular guy is blowing smoke, but at least he's attempting to address a problem. That is already better than the hordes of people who apparently wish the rest of us would forget that every now and then someone goes bonkers and shoots up a bunch of elementary school kids.

    You have more faith in the DNC than I do. All I've seen them do is use tragedies to push their long-term political goal of ensuring that Americans do not have access to firearms. (They're not subtle about this goal, except when they're pushing gun laws. Then they pretend to have never said it.) None of the measures they have proposed would have done anything to prevent those tragedies, but they would have the effect of advancing the DNC's distinctly statist agenda of making people increasingly reliant on the State for everything from basic necessities to personal safety.

    (And please, no rants about how Republicans are evil and corrupt too. Yes, they are. But on this issue they happen to be coincidentally right.)

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  32. Re:Just wow by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2

    No it doesn't. The US leads the 1st world in gun violence by a massive majority. So I guess all other first world country's are a joke.

  33. Re:When people who've never seen it write the rule by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2

    The fact that the "every now and then someone goes bonkers and shoots up a bunch of elementary school kids" is such a big huge news item that goes on for weeks shows just how rare this event actually is and in the context of gun crime statistics is... well, insignificant. Sure it has a huge emotional impact because children, but as far as some huge epidemic, it is not. Legislation that affects an entire nation probably should not be made due to emotional knee-jerking. More often than not it does nothing to solve the actual problem but has related negative consequences also.

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  34. Re:Just wow by LF11 · · Score: 2

    And yet, violence is at a 40-year low, while levels of firearms ownership is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, many of those other "1st world countries" are experiencing continuing increases in crime rates (UK, most of Western Europe, Australia...).

    The facts speak for themselves. We can both spit numbers at each other all day long, but at the end of the day, nearly every major genocide in the last hundred years has been perpetrated on an unarmed population. Would that happen here? I don't know, talk to the Indians, I'm sure they would have an opinion on the matter.

  35. Re:When people who've never seen it write the rule by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 3
    This, of course, forgetting that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. People are happy to call the police when the shit hits the fan, but actually putting security with loaded guns in schools in the first place? That's just crazy/paranoid/expensive/dangerous!

    Also, this says absolutely nothing about the ridiculous number of inner cities kids that are killed with guns in their own neighborhoods every day, mostly young black kids killing other young black kids which sparks little-to-no outrage or knee-jerk legislation. So, do we really hate kids getting shot, or only certain groups of kids in certain locations?

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  36. Re:Hmm. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    A well regulated militia was designed for a time when there was no standing army. That's another reason why there is so much confusion over the wording, we live in a very different time, and having a well armed civilian militia ready to be conscripted into a military force (using their own weapons) was a necessity for national defense, not just individual liberty. As I've pointed out many times before, if China were to start an invasion of the US tomorrow, they would be repelled by the civilians in L.A. There are more guns in private hands in the LA area than in the hands of the Chinese military.

    That was the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, and why it was worded that way. "To defend our country in the absence of a standing army, we must allow the civilians to arm themselves to serve in the army when it is assembled". Yes, it was also discussed that the armed people could rise up, but it was never considered in a time when standing armies were the norm.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  37. Scary, scary, scary... by tranquilidad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To defend our country in the absence of a standing army, we must allow the civilians to arm themselves to serve in the army when it is assembled".

    This is one of the scarier statements I've read, "...we must allow the civilians to arm themselves...". The statement itself shows the low level of understanding of the U.S. Constitution in this country.

    The Bill of Rights gives zero, none, no rights to the people. There are no rights in the Bill of Rights that "allow civilians" to do something. It is just the opposite that is true. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights and you may get a better understanding that the Bill of Rights is not a grant from the government to the people but, rather, further restrictions on the national government placed there by the people.

    Too many people believe the 1st amendment gives them the right to free speech. It does not. The language of the 1st amendment is prohibitory on the national government, "Congress shall make no law..."

    The 2nd amendment is also a prohibition on the national government, "...shall not be infringed."

    The people gave permission to the government to have guns, not the other way around. The type of argument posited here scares me because it sounds like:

    "Well, the government gave us this right early on because of some specific issues we had related to having a standing army and since we no longer have those issues then the government can just take away the right. Let's just get rid of the 2nd amendment and we can all live in peace."

    To me, it's as if people believe the government was always there and decided to give us stuff: rights, schools, highways, fire departments, health care, police departments, etc., etc. The fact is that we decided to create a government in order to better manage those things we created. As this concept of government-as-benefactor grows people are losing sight of the liberty they have as individuals and turning to the government in a mother-may-I mode hoping upon hope the government grants them what they want.