Slashdot Mirror
"Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."
And again, gun nuts show they are the last people that should be trusted to be responsible with anything.
People who threaten to murder other people should be locked up and denied their precious access to guns.
Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.
Why are the people harassing this woman not on trial? Enjoy exercising your 2nd amendment rights when you have a felony on your record, assholes. Hahahaha!
"The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia. You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not say anything about the arms being for a militia, do you not read English?
You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.
I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal.
I sincerely hope that if you ever have occasion to regret your irresponsibility, that there is someone smarter than you at hand who is prepared to defend your life.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but do you gun nuts flip your shit this easily over mandatory gun safeties? You know, that switch on the gun that keeps it from firing just like this watch? I know, I know, it's substantially different. But in the vast majority of the ludicrously rare scenarios that you guys keep on dreaming up, someone fumbling around with the safety would do the exact same thing.
Jesus....
I don't think we can let the government disarm the populace. The "personal safety" and "hunting sport" aspects of the debate fall flat with me. It's a matter of sovereignty and the fact that government needs to worry about an armed uprising. We're NOWHERE near needing that sort of conflict, despite how many preppers and tea-partiers think it is. But the potential has to be there. And so I believe in the 2nd amendment (specifically we need to be able to have powerful long-arms, secure encryption, and powerful optics. A wide-spread sniper campaign by the populace would still disrupt enough of the country that the government would be toppled. Although that might be less true in the near future with total surveillance.)
So anyway, wooo gun-rights. But the sheer retardedness of the people who also hold this idea really turns me off and makes me re-evaluate my stance.
Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.
They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."
The Admin and the Engineer
Completely wrong. Fight it. With everything you've got. Because otherwise gun-hating pacifists will soon force only those "safe" (meaning non-functioning) guns to be legal.
Grishnakh, are you generally anti-gun? Is there any reason a gun-owner or a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should consider you relevant?