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."
Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.
When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.
Thanks, but NO FUCKING THANKS.
Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!
Invaders must die
a gun that might not fire.
Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.
The criminal is surrounded by cops... no escape. The cops yell "slowly, take off your watch.... no, you don't have to put your gun down, but you HAVE TO REMOVE YOUR WATCH... NOW!"
Just mandate that the police force has to use it. Once it's been fully adopted and vetted, i'm sure us normal citizens would enjoy the chance to buy it.
Other than that, who cares?
Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.
The government could disable every firearm at will. That might take a backdoor into the gun or watch, but hey...
So... the turnabout is gun owners publishing the addresses... of ... a gun owner?
I don't think you know what "turnabout" means.(they eat their own because of paranoia)
For a long time I thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I kept my old Army service CZ for decades, and I kept replacing the barrel, as I was firing thousands upon thousands of rounds to 'keep my hand'.
Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.
I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch. I do not sleep with my watch, and I am not replacing my watch with another, for any reason. This is a stupid gimmick that will eventually screw a legitimate owner up. And I bet that if you give me two of these guns, the associated watches, and leave me alone with my PC, in my office at the plant, I'll have the gun 'unlocked' within a week.
No good deed goes unpunished...
Are you saying they're not trying?
... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)
"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. ” Andrew Cuomo
"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress
"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases." U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.
"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013
California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest.
“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013
Should I continue?
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Batteries... *click* you're dead. Done.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
FTFA:
"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.
Stop sellinfg them to idiots like this for a start.
If it is disrupted, it doesn't fire. End of story. If a robber is stupid enough to use such a gun, the robbery turns into a comedy sketch. End of story.
Cars and airplanes have been repeatedly "crippled" in the last decades, which made them incomparably safer and saved countless lives. Hell, even guns have locks for more than a century now. Should we outlaw gun locks? If not how do you decide which locks to allow and which not? Nanny state, anyone?
Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts.
> Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems
This story just shows how frighteningly many idiots are there in the US of A...
Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"Weapon Shops of Isher" (A.E.Van Vogt) or the Harry Harrison "Deathworld" novels.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
Not sure if you're American or not, so I'll try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.
Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed. There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution, which is notoriously hard to do (as it should be - capricious changes are painful, to say the least.) Any other route (including most attempts at federal "gun control" laws) is a circumvention of this process, and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent - after all, if you can circumvent one amendment, you can circumvent them all, and down that road lies fascism.
If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.
As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Should I continue?
Well that all depends. Did the person you plagarised this from actually write any more examples for you to pass off as your own research?
What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime? What if your gun is found by your kid and he harms himself or another with it?
Because these scenarios are statistically far more likely than any self-defense fantasy.
Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base. The NRA is an ultra-conservative fear promulgator first and a gun rights advocate maybe a distant 10th.
I will continue to fight for restrictions on guns that match our laws and rules for all other types of dangerous machinery and equipment. Mostly because gun advocacy groups themselves are dangerous and harmful to society and our country as a whole.
Find better champions of your cause.
We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?
Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.
These are all very good reason why you might not want to buy one of these weapons. None of them are good reasons why we should try and harass the company to not even produce these weapons. I don't own any guns, but if I felt like I needed to buy one, I would look into something like this. This seems like a wonderful product (assuming ti actually does work as advertised) but gun nuts are too busy screaming about "don't take my guns" to bother to even see the upside. I agree it is not a full replacement for standard guns and I don't think it should be legislated to be the only option, but that in no way means it shouldn't be available either.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Indeed. Gun legislation often is scoffed at because almost every time an exemption is put in for law enforcement. 10 round magazines for everyone . . . except cops.
Its hard to keep a straight face when these people are saying that "anything more than 10 rounds is good for nothing but mowing down crowds of people" while they insist that the police need to keep their hi-cap mags.
Bottom line is that most gun regs put a needless and artificial burden. I wouldn't accept an artificial and arbitrary limit on my computer of 1GB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive, and a single core 1Ghz processor to keep me from hacking, nor will I accept artificial magazine capacity limits, or "smart gun" technology on my guns to keep me from misusing it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative "
Again for those that aren't Americans, and apparently some that are... The above statement is WRONG. Local laws MAY NOT supersede the constitution.
"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 constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.
The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.
And if you think criminals are going to buy these guys, instead of getting a regular gun through illicit channels, you're smoking some SERIOUS ganja there.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
It still would have happened, but the only death would have been his.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.
What gets me is people who think the gun makes them a god. I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.
I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it. If it's not a war, a stealth infiltration, a closed-quarter invasion, or a defense against animals (bear), carrying a firearm is the absolute stupidest thing I can do.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
People can bitch about the technical merits or deficits of the technology all day long. But making personal threats against someone for trying to sell a product? That's fucking asinine and should not be accepted. Threatening to boycott a store that wants to stock and sell it? That's pretty stupid, too, since if the product is so fraught with shortcomings, people won't buy it.
I don't see anyone personally threatening to attack people at Samsung, or boycotting Best Buy, because they've released half-baked products.
And as for the "what if this is the only gun you can buy" counterargument: there are a few hundred million guns in the USofA, and the people that make them have considerable clout. The notion that suddenly all those other, conventional firearms will disappear, and that gun manufacturers will be forced to make only this type of gun, is delusional.
The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.
The Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and says that the prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. This was the proper decision, given the context of "the people" in the 2nd Amendment, and for that matter every other mention of "the people" in the document and its amendments.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Let me explain it to you: This company is not requiring you to turn in your non-smart gun and get theirs. They are selling their weapon which has enhanced firing protections. There have been previous guns which had physical firing protections before. This one is simply more high tech. The gun manufacturer believes that there is a market for their gun as there have been cases of children being accidentally shot when discovering their parents' firearm as well as weapons being stolen. So if you don't like their restrictions, DON'T BUY THEIR GUN. It's that simple. In your talk of freedom and rights, it is ironic that you are actually advocating for restrictions. Since it is a weapon that you don't like, no one else can buy it.
Second, I find it also amusing that you talk about irrational fear. Someone has posted this woman's phone and address on a forum. But she has nothing to fear, right? This is a veiled threat to her life simply because she works for a company that people don't like. So if I don't like the company you work for, I can post your whereabouts on the Internet? I can have people stalk you? Funny you don't seem to stand up against people who seem to be threatening others.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Attempting to grab his gun would activate it. That's not exactly in his best interest, is it?
Well for one thing, it would probably help accidental shootings, kids playing with guns, etc. Also, lots of the guns that criminals have are stolen from legitimate owners. This countermeasure increases the difficulty of theft, since you'd have to either steal the watch as well or else have the expertise to hack/circumvent the lock.
It's not a cure-all, but it generally makes unauthorized use more difficult, which is often what security is about.
the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).
But Senate supporters of the measure said they would apply whatever pressures they can muster on the House and called on constituents to write and call their representatives. "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come," said Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee.
surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.
Which is kinda scary. Destroy the life of a real person at no risk to themselves over hypothetical legal changes.
I also note the glee in the thread around her being an attractive woman, which makes me wonder how much masculine insecurity is playing a role.
it's not his own research because it's not true. nailed it: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Yeah, but things that happen frequently make for much less dramatic story telling then rare events.
It seems overly likely that this watch "smartgun" combo use some kind of near field communications. Whats to stop someone from jamming NFC like the asshat with the cell jammer they caught the other day?
I for one will probably not welcome our new NFC jamming overlords that will with the push of a button disable nearby Smart guns with a simple jamming transmitter.
Now that I'm thinking this through a Jamming device would prevent alot of police caused deaths. Might be a safer time to take up a life of crime.
Also possible that with an NFC hacking program on a Smartphone a criminal might be able to activate a smartgun stolen from a police officer.
This sounds like a brilliant plan. Almost needs a Florida tag on fark.
A milita is a contingent of citizens, who may be called upon to act against the "legitimate" government. Putting contol of the guns in the hands of the government completely undermines that most important of functions. Or did you forget the fact that the founders had just finished winning a blatantly illegal war against the "legitimate" government of the US colonies?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
gun nuts and good armed people are not really the same group.
To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.
Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime. People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.
I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it.
The firearm is for disparity of force scenarios, meaning you're attacked by someone stronger, or by multiple aggressors, or you're injured and can no longer effectively defend yourself. I would never say that you have to carry one, it's a personal decision, I just take issue with the people (not you, at least not in this post) that try to make that decision for me by telling me I can't carry.
I carry virtually everywhere it's legal to do so. The firearm is not the only tool in my toolbox, I've also got OC spray and unarmed training. I will run away if the option is available to me, before I use the firearm. The firearm is for a true kill or be killed scenario, which I sincerely hope to never find myself in.
Incidentally.....:
You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun...
If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost. I know that looks awesome when you see it in "Ultimate Fighting" on TV, but in the real world ground fighting is something you truly want to avoid.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To be technical, the text of the 2nd Amendment is:
Many people focus on the last two phrases in that sentence. Not so much attention is focused on the first two phrases, but IMO they're just as important as the last two. Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well. Most of you probably know the quote "With great power comes great responsibility." If you can't handle the great responsibility, well, responsibly then perhaps it's better you hold off wielding the great power until you can.
For instance, the person quoted in the summary as issuing a death threat directed at the employee? Yeah, IMO they're not handling the responsibility very well at all. I wouldn't have a problem with that person's gun or guns being placed out of their reach while they learn how to play well with others.
Honestly, while it seemed like you were agreeing with me, the words you used came together in a way I'd characterize, subjectively, as crazy.
So your argument consists of "I'm not competent enough to perform maintenance on a firearm".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"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." -- 2nd Amendment
I imagine back in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, and the country was mostly rural, and the army was mustered from the citizenry, this made perfect sense.
Today, we have standing armies. People are trained to shoot while in the military. You're not relying on people training themselves, or bringing their own weapons. Heck, the average person has a very hard and expensive time getting an automatic weapon, the type used in the military.
However, I think the Supreme Court reads this correctly. The 2nd Amendment says WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted, the WHY is not relevant to the situation today, but that's what the 2nd Amendment does pretty clearly say.
This is one of the problems with this discussion.
"Assault RIFLES" are already heavily restricted. These are the fully-automatic weapons.
"Assault WEAPONS" is a classification that was created for political reasons. It is based upon COSMETIC features of a weapon.
No. Because the difference is cosmetic. Not functionality.
Weapon A can be classified as an "assault weapon" and banned if it has a flash suppressor (along with other cosmetic features).
But if weapon A does not have a flash suppressor then it is not an "assault weapon" and is okay to sell.
The flash suppressor does NOTHING to change the functionality of the weapon.
Trivial as hell. I can build a jammer to disable all of these guns in a 100 foot radius easily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My personal opinion is that the second amendment is dated and no one should be allowed to personally own a gun. BUT, I'm aware that there's a huge collection of libertarians, rednecks, whatever who feel they need one. So changing the Constitution is out of the question. Anyone trying that will get the rednecks at their doorstep just like this person did. Either the South and most of the West will secede again, or they'll try to take over.
The problem with the US is that we're way bigger than we were in 1789, and have 300+ million we need to keep happy. We also have little need for an unorganized militia, although the more survivalist among us might disagree on that one. The reality is that gun use is very different in urban areas than it is in cities. In the country, people go shootin' at some food. In cities, they're used primarily in crimes and by the mentally ill to wreak havoc. This is why mayors ban handguns -- not because they think it'll do anything, but because they can't be seen as contributing to the problem.
Anecdotal example about differing opinons -- someone I know who grew up in an urban area moved out to a rural location. Over the years I've known him, he's gone full-on libertarian and is constantly railing against gun control. I have no idea what changed, but I guess it's the differing way guns are viewed. Country = useful tools, city = aids to criminal activity.
I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal. However, like I said, I realize we're stuck with this state of affairs. It does not make the gun lobby look good in the public eye when someone attempting to make gun ownership safer is threatened by a bunch of kooks. I don't see the anti-gun movement making death threats on gun owners. Even if the people making these threats are only a small sample of the pro-gun group, they sure make a bad impression.
I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
First off, I will give my standard libertarian disclaimer that I don't care what you do as long as you don't try to compel me to do what you think is best. So, fair enough you believe you have no use for a firearm anymore. Great, just don't try to prevent me from owning and using firearms for my own protection.
As for your anecdote, I would take the odds of potentially only stopping 2 out of 3 while defending my family with my firearm. Because, you know, home invaders aren't your typical burglars (cf. Wichita Massacre). Home invaders are more like rabid animals—normally burglars have a fear of being discovered. Home invaders, like rabid animals, somehow lack that fear and are willing to enter the home while people are present. Witnesses... something every criminal wants.
If someone forces their way into my home, their right to live is forfeit in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.
Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.
The irony of this is most amusing. Given that the story it's attached to is about some gun nuts stalking a woman for being a rep for a company selling a gun technology they don't approve of. Who's really attacking the messenger?
I would and have criticised others for cutting and pasting material and passing it off as their own in the comments under all sorts of topics. It's a dumb thing to do.
And "Elites"?! What a redneck numpty.
Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a variety of interests that benefit from this type of controversy. At both ends of the gun debate spectrum you get people riled up. That results in money. Anti gun groups can use this to say "See, there is a solution that keeps your gun in your hands but out of others." The gun industry and their lobbying groups gets to say "Look out; THEY"RE coming to get you guns. Buy now before it is too late..."
A problem gun manufacturers face is much of their market is already saturated and offers limited growth. So while they are reaching out to new markets such as women by offering guns designed to appeal to the; they also want to keep gun enthusiasts afraid of "what's coming" so they stock up in advance of the great gun grab.
Of course, a few nut cases cast all gun owners in a bad light. If a company wants to build a gun with an external cutoff, let them. If it sells there is a market if not then they go out of business. A fine libertarian solution to the problem without government intervention; but saying that don't create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Dollars) and thus is ignored because fear is the most important thing to drive the dollars.
Finally, I find it interesting that many folks who are staunch 1st amendment supporters want to keep criminals and those with mental problems from buying guns. Nowhere in the amendment does it say "...except felons and the mentally ill;" so they already implicitly accept that there are reasonable limits on weapons ownership. The question then becomes "what is reasonable?"
On a side, but related, Stand Your Ground is being used as a defense where a kid stabbed and killed another who had bullied him. Even though the dead kid was unarmed at the time the defense argues that their client was reasonably in fear of this life because of the previous actions.So know when someone threatens you does that give you a green light to later shoot them? Would the mere act of legally carrying a weapon be enough to justify standing your ground if the person made what appeared to be a treating move or said something that was threatening?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
but the interpretation you take as obviously incorrect was settled law for 70 years.
Actually, it wasn't, the Supreme Court had never ruled on it before. More to the point, if you look at the more than two hundred years of precedent in lower Courts (State and Federal), the State level 2nd Amendment equivalents written around the same time, and the writings of the Framers it's clear as day that the Amendment always referred to an individual right. The 'militia' argument is a losing one and we both know it.
A couple more reactionaries retiring or dying and being replaced by moderates or liberals will likely cause the court to return to the old interpretation
Be careful rooting against stare decisis for I think you'll find that Roe is in a lot more danger than Heller, and Roe is near and dear to the hearts of most of the anti-gun crowd.
You also might consider the political reality of the United States, where even traditionally blue States remain staunchly pro-gun. In fact, I can name only five States that are openly hostile towards guns (New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, and Maryland) and even in those States you'll find a solid consistency that's pro-gun (all of Upstate New York for example). In fact, I live in one of those States (New York) and have an unrestricted pistol license that allows me to carry a concealed firearm almost anywhere I deem it appropriate.
Best of luck with your dream of doing away with the 2nd Amendment when you can't even win the issue here in New York.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Or to be part of a 'well regulated' militia. Self-defense is not specified in the amendment.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Well said.
...abridging the freedom of speech...". It seems to me that my right to free speech is being "abridged" in that there's an effective ban on death threats, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. And yet, I don't really see people going on about the death of the Constitution with respect to this aspect. Of course, I happen to think that death threats should *not* be protected under free speech just as I think gun laws should, in some way, be reformed, but I suppose that's my opinion and all...
We even have restrictions on free speech, even though the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law
The problem is that we have a poison atmosphere where any discussion of reasonable regulation get's you thrown into one camp or another.
In particular, I am generally very pro-gun but I'm also in favor of more tightly regulating handguns. We already regulate the sawed-off version of shotguns, fully automatic rifles, etc. so I'm not sure why the suggestion that we treat handguns a bit more strictly elicits such a strong reaction. They are objectively the largest contributor to homocide in this country - it seems like a reasonable thing to discuss, anyway.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So what if all the privately-held weapons in the USA were of this type? do you think that someone (... some 3-letter acronym, maybe... ahem) might design a gun jamming system? What good is the right to bear arms if someone else can simply shut them off on you? Sorry, no go - at least from a mandated-use standpoint. Sure, I can see it being nice for some people who CHOOSE to use it, but not if it's mandated by law.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
You've just arrested and locked up every cop, the IRS, and half a dozen Federal agencies.
That sounds like a pretty good start to me. Can we find a way to include patent lawyers, or just lawyers in general, in that mix somehow?
"but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature."
I'm sorry, but that's the _only_ feature of this gun vis-a-vis a regular gun. The whole point is that it has to be "activated" by some specific method before it will work, in an attempt to verify that only the "right" person can use it. The details may differ, whether using a watch such as in this case or other proposed methods using fingerprints or other biometrics, but the fundamental concept is that the gun doesn't fire unless that condition is met.
Why in the world would you pay extra for a gun that checks your ID, but then decides to default to a fireable state even if you fail the ID check? If that's what you want you could just get a regular gun that doesn't bother checking your ID to begin with.
If you don't like the fundamental concept, don't buy the gun. If you don't like the idea of laws being passed in relation to this concept then write to your congressperson and/or vote for someone else. But complaining that the gun does exactly what it is designed to do is just dumb. (And needless to say, harassing and/or threatening employees of the company that sells them is just insane.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Keep in mind the events surrounding the birth of the USA. A bloody war had just be fought where the colonists had just driven off an oppressive government. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not just to be the army, it was to be an army that could revolt against the government if needed. The Constitution was, in fact, designed to place hard limits on the powers of the government, and to actually make it hard to accomplish anything (checks and balances).
Fortunately, our government is still fairly functional. Armed revolt is not needed currently, and I suspect that it will not be necessary in my lifetime. I certainly hope that it stays that way, but the fact that the citizens are armed should certainly help prevent the politicians from doing anything too unpopular. The implied thread of armed citizens helps keep the government in check.
Look at "Rancher Bundy." The government sent in guys with guns and lots of citizens showed up with their own guns. In the end, everybody went home and nobody got hurt. I am not saying that the rancher was right. What I am saying is that the government was wrong to send in hummers full of guys with M-16s and body armor. The way to go after this sort of issue is to take it to the courts. If they guy is wrong, make him pay a fine. Most farmers and ranchers get some money from the government (as far as I know, not being a farmer). You can attack those funds and penalize him in the wallet. That is MUCH better than sending a group of armed thugs.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Depends. Am I the dead homeowner, either of the dead burglars, the incarcerated burglar, or the tax payer who is paying to incarcerate the burglar? Come to think of it, I don't think it's better for any of those people.
You don't see posting someone's cell phone number or taking a picture of their P.O. Box as threatening?
The threat doesn't have to be explicit to still be a threat, as in the stereotypical Mafia line "Nice little restaurant you have here. Hate to see anything happen to it."
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
There is nothing in the world more useless than an unreliable firearm. When you need a gun, you need it very badly, and you need it right away. What you do NOT need is something that won't fire if its battery is dead.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Look up the term "stochastic terrorism."
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
It is not rational to fear all people who own guns.
If you own a gun, here are the things I know and suspect.
1.) All people who own guns own a gun, and nearly all own ammunition. This means that simply being around a gun owner or at a gun owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get shot accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the gun owner as it is fear of the gun itself.
2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.
3.) HARDLY ANY gun owners (and this includes police officers and members of the military) are sufficiently skilled to discharge a firearm in a crowded indoor situation with multiple panicked people and possibly a few assailants in such a way that they correctly identify and harm the assailants but do not harm the bystanders. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a military sniper they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when using a handgun.
4.) FAR MORE gun owners believe they fall into group 3 than actually do. This makes them a danger to others when they incorrectly gauge either the facts of the situation they are in (see #2) or their ability (see #3.)
5.) SOME gun owners believe guns are a good way to solve interpersonal problems besides those involving self-defense. These people WANT their ownership of a gun to be a form of intimidation to some individuals. I rationally consider these people to be a danger to everyone.
6.) MANY gun owners are responsible with their guns and how they are stored. They also understand the risks of discharging a firearm and the limits of their ability. For these individuals the increased risks come primarily from items 1 and 2, and not items 3-5.
My point is, it is perfectly rational to fear gun owners for the increased risks they bring to my personal safety. While I am most afraid of those who fall into group 5, all gun owners represent an increased risk to my safety.
That could actually be read two ways, and you are choosing to read it in the more sinister way. Perhaps that is warranted, but not by anything I have seen. I've seen no evidence anyone has harmed her or offered to harm her - and if I am wrong, if someone has done that, they should face consequences for that act. But what I do see is being done (and SHOULD be done) is that people are watching to see when she manages to get a distributor lined up, and informing said potential distributor of some context that might change their mind. People are mad about this and have every right to be concerned.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
It is not rational to fear all people who own guns.
Of course not, which is why next to nobody does fear everybody that owns a gun. How does it get lost on so many people that saying "I support stricter gun control" doesn't mean "I fear everybody that owns a gun and I want the government to take them all away?"
However, you may be able to say that a flash suppressor has no affect on the function of the weapon in a literal sense, but I'd argue it completely changes the weapon's intended use. A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
I haven't worn a watch for years. Not because of cell phones, but because the straps or where the strap mounts kept breaking on me.(a problem that I don;'t want to have with a gun when a Trayvon Martin type decides he doesn't like my looks.) But when I did wear one, like most right handed people, I wore it on my left wrist. This gun interlock supposedly has a 10 inch range. Why is no one commenting on that? I don't want a bunch of right handed people going around trying to aim guns and shooting with their left hands, and I doubt that many will want to change where they wear the watch (there are good reasons why a right hand person wears the watch on the left hand). I also have noticed that there is a wide range of tastes in watches. but I don't expect that variety of consumer options to be reflected in a device sold to be used as both a watch and a gun interlock. Of course, you don;tr have to buy this crap and wear a junky black plastic or rubber watch today, but if the liberal wackos who live to take away second amendment rights get their way, it will not be long before they get laws passed mandating this technology for anyone who wants to be able to protect themselves.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Fine and dandy. The problem is that legislatures (in this example, New Jersey) immediately picks up on this and requires the technology in every gun.
That's the problem, not the tech itself.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Cars are highly regulated and have many required safety features, though.
why wouldn't a responsible gun owner choose to operate his guns in safe manner, such as with an interlock so that only he can shoot them? would'nt you want to be responsible?
I'm uncomfortable when I'm around strangers who are armed. there's nothing irrational about that, it is a fact. Why do you insist 100% unfettered gun "do what you want" instead of meeting me in the middle?
Umm. The government has taken him to court, many times. The courts have ruled against Bundy repeatedly and demanded that he pay grazing fees and fines. He refuses to pay and says he doesn't recognize the authority of the US government. Washington and Hamilton (who I think count as Founders and had a good sense of the intended power of the government under the constitution) sent troops to Western PA to collect taxes on whiskey. Perhaps the government had other options that would have worked better, but the one they chose is well within the constitution and the history of this country.
Which Militia Act - 1792, 1795, 1862 or 1903? You see, the act of 1903 superseded all the previous acts and established the National Guard as the states' militias. If you are not a member of the National Guard then you aren't in a militia. These militia acts all dealt with the role and rights of states to create and regulate militias versus the role and rights of the Federal government in these matters. Try again.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Can anyone say "RFID jammer"..?
Not only will the pro-gun crowd say that a jammer could be used by government agencies to disable their weapons, but the bad guys could easily build a jammer for their own use to ensure their safety during commission of a crime. Imagine cops closing in with "smart guns". The bad guys flip on the jammer and cops can't do anything about it. Throw in the bad guys having traditional guns, and the cops have a serious problem on their hands. Same goes for home invasions.
I understand the idea behind smart guns, but this is a horrible idea. And as a gun owner, I'll never guy a smart gun. I've heard of fingerprint scanners being easily bypassed, as well. Unless you can tie it to DNA or something, I see no good way to produce a gun like this. And even then, it could likely be bypassed without much difficulty.
Bite my shiny metal ass!
Except that fully automatic AK-47s were already highly restricted. And they still are.
You might want to look at your usage of "gun nuts" in that statement.
Once you start labelling people who disagree with you as "nuts" it does not inspire confidence that you will be less "absolutist" in your goals.
They're also a hot button issue used by extreme left wing groups to rile up their base....
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....
No, you see the left calling for tougher safety regulations for the construction, sale, and use of automobiles. Think mirrors, seat belts, ABS, airbags, driving impairment laws, etc.
You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either; just restricting their construction, sale and use.
Of course, one significant difference which people don't tend to get is that there's no constitutional right to drive an automobile, especially on public roadways.
Having been robbed at gunpoint twice, I fully support legal gun ownership. Neither of the guns that have been held to my head were legally purchased, and I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.
Yes, I am now armed. CC permit and I do carry. I hope to never need it, but I'll be damned if you're gonna take it away from me.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
At least the autos are bringing a clear benefit to society. Guns, not so much. They are heavily restricted in most of Europe, and we do just fine.
I'll play devils advocate here.
Yes, I'm willing to bet the guns that were used against you were purchased legally at one point.
That said, I am not against gun ownership. However, I am for stricter controls on who can purchase weapons, especially the resale market. The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
If it's a bad idea or poorly implemented, let if fail for that reason.
If it fails as a product because the developer or potential distributers feels that their personal safety is being threatened, that is wrong. And yes, I would consider posting the location of her P.O. box as threatening. What else would the intent be?
Constitution for the most part limits only the federal goverment. So the initial statement is somewhat true. It is also somewhat false. The 14 amendment expanded the bill of rights to state and local goverments. (the amendement was passed after the civil war to legally end slavery) That includes the right to bear arms. That is why a Chicago gun law was recenty tossed.
Wrong, and here's why:
1.) All people who own guns own a gun, and nearly all own ammunition. This means that simply being around a gun owner or at a gun owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get shot accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the gun owner as it is fear of the gun itself.
This would only be true if said gun owner started taking his firearms out and handling them carelessly, which is so rare that you stand a better chance (by at least an order of magnitude) of being hit by a car driven recklessly (yet for some odd reason, no one is calling for a ban on automobiles.)
2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.
If you break into my house, yes - expect to be shot if it's dark, and held at gunpoint if it's daylight. If you are not an intruder, you have nothing to worry about. Under what condition do you expect to be mistaken for an intruder, anyway?
HARDLY ANY gun owners (and this includes police officers and members of the military) are sufficiently skilled to discharge a firearm in a crowded indoor situation with multiple panicked people and possibly a few assailants in such a way that they correctly identify and harm the assailants but do not harm the bystanders. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a military sniper they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when using a handgun.
Hardly any human being is sufficiently skilled to safely land a crippled airliner - and yet the odds of either happening are roughly the same, if not slightly in favor of the crippled airliner. Your point?
5.) SOME gun owners believe guns are a good way to solve interpersonal problems besides those involving self-defense. These people WANT their ownership of a gun to be a form of intimidation to some individuals. I rationally consider these people to be a danger to everyone.
Such people are promptly arrested/convicted for assault, brandishing a firearm, etc. They are only a danger once, and once only. After that they are, as convicted felons, no longer allowed to own such things.
Meanwhile, how many people commit DUI, reckless driving, blatant disregard for life/limb in their automobiles (see also the almost-daily police chases in LA), and assorted road rage incidents? Do you therefore also fear automobiles under the rational banner, or is it just that you fear something you have no familiarity with (considering that owning and using a firearm is replete with enforced gun safety demands at the gun range, classes required for hunting, classes/certifications required for concealed-carry permits, etc?)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
When I was in Arizona, a place known for permissive firearms laws, there were very few "rednecks waving their guns around as they please". By and large most armed Arizonans are reasonable people; most of the crime there (and it's really not that bad) is associated with cross-border smuggling (and specifically not "illegal immigrants", who are generally peaceful people). Yes, there are wackos like the Minutemen, but they're less bonkers and less prevalent than CNN would have you believe. If you want to talk about armed gangs harassing people out in the desert, there's one that overshadows all the rest: US Border Patrol.
If you want to see people "waving guns around" irresponsibly, look at what happens in inner cities (often places where guns are banned). People get shot in DC and Baltimore all the time by, essentially, kids exhibiting machismo.
Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.
Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.
And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.
Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:
We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.
http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel...
Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.
It a wonderful racket.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Go read the ruling in Heller and then come back.
There are pages of reasoned discussion as to what "arms" means.
Kids should be taught how to safely use tools. In my grandfathers day it wasn't unusual for the boys to bring their 22 rifles to school to put into the back wall of the classroom so they could shoot squirrel/rabbit/??? on the way home from school.
Contrast that with my daughter where if I accidentally pack a butter knife into her school lunchbox, she would get expelled from school. Frankly there were a lot fewer school shootings in my grandfather's day. Go figure.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles.
Bullshit, guns kill almost as many people in the USA as cars do:
Road deaths in 2010: 32,885
Gun deaths in 2010: 31,076
Whether this device is a good thing or not boils down to simple math, but the outcome is going to be different for different people.
Take prison guards. They normally go unarmed, because the probability a weapon will be taken and used against them is extremely high. This makes a handgun a net liability for them. A device like this might be a good thing for them, even if they occasionally forget to change the batteries. In fact, even if the device had an extremely high failure rate, say 1 in 5, it might still make sense *for them*.
On the other end of the scale there are big game hunters who carry a sidearm as a backup weapon. Since there is no chance a bear or lion will use their handgun against them, the device would have to have a zero percent failure rate before it made sense to even consider.
Then there are people in the middle, say process servers or people who carry cash, for whom being disarmed is a potential concern but not necessarily an overriding one. For them whether a particular smart gun makes sense depends (a) on their particular situation and (b) on the performance of the specific smart gun model in tests. There's likely to be no one-size-fits-all decision that covers all users and all models of gun.
Critics of smart guns demand certainty: "Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty," says one [citation]. Clearly this is an irrational position, given that non-smart guns don't have anything near 100% reliability. Feeding mechanisms jam and cartridges misfire. This is to say nothing of the most unreliable component in any self-defense shooting scenario: the user. The user can miss, hit an innocent bystander, or even fatally shoot himself.
A device like this could well make a great deal of sense to some users while making absolutely no sense at all for others. Insofar as people are free to use lethal weapons for self defense, they should be free to choose the weapon that fits their needs best.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....
To legally use an automobile in most of the US, you need a state-issued license that has training and testing requirements, a state-tracked title to the car, a state-tracked registration for the car, clearly viewable identification tags, and usually safety gear (seatbelt, airbags, crumple zones, etc), insurance and a key. To legally use a gun in most locations, you need a gun and ammo. All these requirements were legislated into existence by "leftist" politicians over the loud protests by the right, usually claiming that they would destroy the automotive industry.
A firearm IS a safety device in and of itself.
To add another 'feature' to impede in the ability of a safety device to function properly is insane.
Imagine if the brakes on your car had such a 'feature.' Need to slam on your brakes? Ooops, you were reaching your right arm out to grab your coffee, watch now out of range, no brakes.
Now imagine the same thing, but in a mugging. You and your attacker go to the ground, including your gun. You manage to reach it with your off-hand. Oops, no bang--your watch was on your other hand. Or, to go with their scenario, the bad guy gets the gun. You grab his wrist, trying to push the gun out of your face--oops, you just stuck your watch within 10 inches of it...bang, you're dead.
If I can't fight them, they'll take my gun away.
I don't think you understand the criminal mindset. You're not dealing with a United States Navy Seal. You're dealing with an untrained lowlife scumbag who's looking for the easiest mark he can find. The vast majority of defensive gun uses end with a simple display, not the actual use of deadly force.
More to the point, any competent self-defense instructor will teach you how to avoid being disarmed. If you think you're getting my firearm away from me you're in for a rude surprise.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The word 'for' isn't there. What are you reading? I mean this is simple stuff, you say it says FOR, FOR isn't there. Thus I am proven right.
You may continue to go fuck yourself.
You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars. You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license. SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase. You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.
You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.
The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
Many people focus on the last two phrases in that sentence. Not so much attention is focused on the first two phrases, but IMO they're just as important as the last two. Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well.
Let's change the language of the 2nd amendment you quoted to an issue that's less inflammatory:
A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Okay. Suppose you read that. Are you seriously going to tell me that the only reason to let people read books is to vote properly? Let the government ban book ownership and readership for kids under 18 -- after all, they can't vote, so why should we let them read? If you aren't registered to vote, you are subject to raids of your home to remove all books. If you're not part of the "Electorate," why do you need them?
Or, if you read my altered version, would you conclude something more like: "The Founders thought it was important for all people to have the right to own and read books, and they particularly recognized how important it was to have an educated group of voters, so these books would facilitate that process. This wouldn't preclude other reasons for people to own and read books, only recognizing one of the most important ones."
Would that be a more fair interpretation?
A lot of people have arguments about what those first two clauses mean, and how they might restrict the last one. But I find my intuition about it is better if I actually change the topic to something else -- and in that case, it seems (to me) that the sentence is setting forth a general right, with the beginning providing one essential justification (though not necessarily implying it is the only one).
Well regulated in the language if that time meant well practiced. An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.
There are commonly used legal/medical avenues to declare a person unfit to make life-changing decisions for themselves, to declare guardianship by others, and to likewise screen out those that are a danger to themselves and others.
How else do you think there's a legal basis for taking away grandma's car keys when her driving is a danger to everyone else on the road?
As a gun owner, I would welcome having to take a screening along with my weapons safety and firearm training classes. Especially if it meant some of the loons out there would be weeded out from gun ownership.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted.
A magazine safety isn't for "gun grab" protection. It's to prevent a supposedly unloaded weapon from firing when there's still a round in the chamber. California requires it on new handguns. Prevents the "But I didn't know it was loaded" problem.
The U.S. Army often puts a barrel of sand outside mess halls and such in war zones. Entering the area, soldiers must unload their weapon, then try to fire it into the sand barrel. For a large mess hall, about once a day, on average, "bang".
When Col. Dave Hackworth was working on the Army's project to replace the 1911A1, he discovered that, over the Army's history of that weapon, it had killed more US troops through accidents than enemy. Sidearms are carried by troops who don't plan to use them. If you expect to need a weapon, you take something bigger. So the Army really wants sidearms that don't go off by accident.
They were probably just offended about how ugly the watch is.
They should have made it a stylish watch you can wear every day, and have several styles. Where it is an awesome watch that just happens to also unlock your gun.
As it is, it is an ugly watch you only wear when you want to shoot your gun, which mean's 99% of owners will actually store it with their gun.
A) Making it absolutely pointless.
B) Unless they shoot a lot, maybe a dead battery, making it also pretty pointless.
So bling it up already! :) (Seriously I've seen calculator watches from the 90's that looked better than that)
Serious question though, should people be allowed to privately own tanks with live shells? Where is the line drawn between allowing people to own dangerous items and items being too dangerous to be allowed widespread private ownership due to the potential on infringing on others' right to life?
I suspect you are trolling, but in the interest of rational debate I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
From a historical basis, the Constitution authorizes letters of marque and reprisal (Article I, section 8), which reinforces the notion that the framers were comfortable with the concept of heavy weaponry in private hands. Letters of marque, of course, were the basis that distinguished a warship owner as a privateer rather than a pirate. So... the founders were comfortable with private ownership of warships and cannons. Tanks with live shells can do less damage than a warship with rows of cannons, so I'm going to use logical induction to say they would consider that acceptable as well. Suffice it to say, I don't believe it's legitimate to infringe upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear modern firearms.
Practically speaking, though, the tank thing really isn't an issue. A modern battle tank costs millions, and I'm guessing the shells are in the tens of thousands, and the fuel for an M1 Abrams is quite expensive (it gets ~0.6 mpg). What would allowing private ownership of this tank do to threaten peace, in your opinion?
Besides, if someone *really* wants to inflict mayhem, they will build a Killdozer.
Wrong, and here's why:..
Those aren't really extreme points. Yet you're still arguing that he's wrong. Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun? Because in that case you're the one that's wrong. Gun statistics are often hard to come by because the NRA tries to de-fund any organization that tries to collect them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in the news cases where people have accidentally been shot by a gun in their own home, or accidentally shot someone else thinking they are an intruder. That brings the chance up to > 0%.
Guns are dangerous tools, designed to be dangerous and injure people. If you disagree, then you should DEFINITELY NOT be allowed to handle them because you'll probably end up killing someone. It's not comparable to automobiles that, while dangerous, are designed with safety in mind and useful for transporting people.
Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead
Use a car for its intended purpose = someone ends up at the grocery store
There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.
"A well regulated milita being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Personally, using a plain english reading of this, I say that "shall not be infringed" places a bar on how hard the government can make it.
That being said, I'm mostly fine with felons & the mentally ill being barred from possessing firearms. Personally, the furthest I'd go would be some sort of 'gun transfer permit' that is essentially free, that you need to show in order to receive a firearm. No records necessary, it's for lending and selling, etc... You go to the range and want to rent a firearm? Show the permit. Going hunting with a buddy's firearm? Show the permit. Buying? Show the permit. Done. They can't use it to prove that you have firearms for confiscation purposes, and it makes for an easy method for private sellers to determine that you're an allowed person.
Right now there's a substantial group of individuals who won't sell any firearms out of their collection* to anybody without a CCW.
*IE They're NOT a dealer. They're probably selling weapon X in order to be able to afford weapon Y, and a private 'split the difference' sale gets them far more money than involving a dealer.
I don't read AC A human right
I just scrolled down past 600 messages and not one I stopped at was worth reading.
Now, that is the Slashdot I know and love.
Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.
You've successfully wrested a gun from his control and he's going to kick your ass?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Because the evil gub'mint could also render the gun useless with their special Freedom-Destroying-Rays, and then force everyone to drink tea and other evil things.
Really, you need to learn how to think like an American to understand them.
The militia as the word was defined at the time meant every able bodied man.
Still is, as a matter of fact. The only term in that sentence whose meaning has changed in the last 250+ years is "well-regulated."
"Arms" is still a generic term for "armaments," "State" still refers to the individual states, and "The People" still refers to individuals. Amazing that certain "well-educated liberals" don't know that. Guess they should have studied harder.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
At least the autos are bringing a clear benefit to society. Guns, not so much. They are heavily restricted in most of Europe, and we do just fine.
You do just fine... except for the occasional genocide and periodic continental war where millions and millions of people die. Pretty sure that is not a good trade off.
An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.
I remember reading some stories about clocks and watches were only allowed to be marked 'regulated' if they met requirements in accuracy of telling the time, rather strict ones for the time.
Back in the 18th century it was common to have to reset your clock/watch every day. A regulated one you'd only have to adjust by a minute or so.
I don't read AC A human right
I'd venture to say people are just as unlikely to clean and oil their gun and install fresh ammunition..
Au contraire! Every year, thousands (thousands!) of good responsible gun owners unintentionally shoot themselves or their buddies in the hand, or foot, or ass, or crotch, or head (that last one seldom turns out well!).
In about 2/3 of those cases, guess what they were doing? Wait for it.... they were CLEANING THEIR GUN AND IT JUST WENT OFF! So there are gun cleaners everywhere, I tell you, and my hat is off to them, having the courage to clean their gun when it is (apparently) such a risky activity.
Jay
Tthe Supreme Court has ruled on it twice.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446
Everything since then as been pretty much Lies and fear spread by the PR company that runs the NRA.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Of which ~20,000 were suicides. Oh, I'm sorry did logic ruin your talking point?
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? is the idea of research and changing a narrative based on facts foreign to you?
The PR company that sets talking point for conservative have been spreading that law, but that doesn't excuse you of the fact that you swallow it with out verification. You are being a bad thinker, shame on you.
Here is the definition of the time:
well-regulated (adj.)
1709 (Shaftsbury), from well (adv.) + past participle of regulate (v.).
regulate (v.)
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
well (adv.)
"in a satisfactory manner," Old English wel "abundantly, very, very much; indeed, to be sure; with good reason; nearly, for the most part," from Proto-Germanic *welo- (cognates: Old Saxon wela, Old Norse vel, Old Frisian wel, Dutch wel, Old High German wela, German wohl, Gothic waila "well"), from PIE root *wel- (2) "to wish, will" (cognates: Sanskrit prati varam "at will," Old Church Slavonic vole "well," Welsh gwell "better," Latin velle "to wish, will," Old English willan "to wish;" see will (v.)).
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You fail to understand either of those cases. Cruikshank was a reference to natural law rights, "neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". Further, limiting the applicability of the 2nd Amendment the Federal Government was a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, one which the McDonald ruling later rectified.
Miller doesn't mean what you think it means either. More to the point, it was incorrectly decided, because the weapons in question (short barrel shotguns) were in common use by the military of the day, which was the criteria that SCOTUS used to determine whether or not a particular type of weapon could be regulated. If you're opposed to the right to keep and bear arms you should be leery of citing that precedent, because applying it today would undermine the so-called assault weapon bans so desired by the anti-rights crowd. Common military use? Check. Useful to the militia? Check.
You also fail to acknowledge the political reality of the United States, where gun rights remain popular, and all of the enthusiasm is on the pro-RKBA side of the fence. Few people will base their vote on gun control, but millions regularly base it on gun rights. You couldn't even get UBCs through the United States Senate, because nobody trusts the motivation of the people (Feinstein, Schemer, et. al) who were pushing them, with good reason if you look at what their political allies have done in their home states.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You either support this law or are against it.
Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?
You cannot refer to the constitution and pretend it doesn't apply to all.
The reason you were distinguishing between the insane/criminals, and the rest, is that you know this law describers a privilege, and not a right.
You don't have a right to drive a car. It is a privilege that you must earn by passing a test. And you can't drive the car everywhere.
The second amendment has been mislabeled a Right, and not a privilege, which is why people are so confused about it..
A privilege can be revoke easily. A right is something that can never be revoked. You will always have a right to a fair trial , no matter how many times you've been to jail.
I claim that the second amendment does not belong in the constitution. It is no longer relevant. The founding fathers opened for the constitution being changed. Creation of the 2nd amendment was situational, based on recent events. They thought they codl prevent saem from happening agains by putting it in the constitution as a right. They din't really elaborate much on that. If the same brains had been writing a constitution in 2014, they might have had an amendment describing the right to live free from the perils of private guns.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?
Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
They're being deprived of the liberty to own firearms via the due process of law - IE a court trial. I'm really not happy with anything less, and even then in the case of the mentally ill they should have their case periodically reviewed, and in the case of criminals they should be able to have their rights restored after getting off of parole at the latest. If they can't be trusted after their parole ends, they shouldn't be out anyways.
Even then, as you say - you still have rights no matter how badly you've acted. A felon still has the right to a fair trial for his second offense, etc... Heck, he still has the right to defend himself against attack.
I don't read AC A human right
Your answers are fine, but your post demonstrates one of the key problems with many gun advocates.
There are responsible gun owners like you out there... but your answers completely fail to acknowledge the ample proof that there are large numbers of *irresponsible* gun owners as well (e.g., how many Americans died as a direct result of guns in the US last year?).
Your airliner analogy confuses me. America has had numerous shootings, and very few airliner accidents, and even less that would have required someone other than a pilot to land a plane. Doesn't this prove that the odds are extremely stacked towards gun violence?
Equally, the comparison to automobiles is a bit of red herring too. Though we don't ban them, we do MANY things to ensure improve the safety of automobiles. For example, relatively strict licensing, safety features in cars, breathlizer ignitions, etc. Obviously, we do the same for guns... so stalemate.
A rational person *should* fear danger from automobiles, and do their best to avoid automobiles. After all, you don't play on the freeways do you? In the same way, a rational person *should* understand that you can only suffer a gun-related incident if there are guns in your immediate vicinity.
The fundamental perspective that I find is often missing from pro-gun arguments is any discussion about how many times a DOMESTIC CITIZEN with a gun has done something positive for society, vs. how many times a domestic citizen with a gun has done something negative for society. A car is used by millions of people for many useful things. Yes, deaths result from ownership and operation, but it is clear that society has net gain in spite of the down sides. I haven't yet seen compelling evidence to suggest that large numbers of gun owners leads to a corresponding improvement in my own quality of life.
I'm curious, how did you know that the guns that they used were illegally purchased? Were the assailants both caught and convinced of illegal possession of firearms? Did you manage to look at and remember the serial numbers or something? This just smacks highly of a hypothetical anecdote; not that you weren't robbed, but that your assertion relating this to gun control holds any water.
That aside, how exactly how those weapons were procured? Were they stolen? If so, from whom? Wouldn't it have been nice if there were some law mandating that the person from whom the guns were stolen had to keep them stored safely so that maybe they wouldn't have been stolen? Wouldn't it be nice if the guns were registered so that when the police recovered them, they could track them back to the original owner and possibly take away his permit so that he doesn't let even more guns flow into the hands of assailants? Would it be nice to have a law mandating that all gun owners prove their proficiency in the safety and use of firearms, like a driver license but for gun owners, so that maybe the original owner would have been more responsible?
Or maybe the guns were bought at a gun show, where in many places you can buy firearms without so much as even showing an ID. CNN recently did a segment in which they sent a reporter out to some gun shows to do precisely that, and he was extremely successful. Wouldn't it be nice if we had universal background checks to makes sure that even when Bob sells a gun to Steve, we have some assurance that Steve hasn't recently been convicted of mugging BronsCon in a parking lot? Or to keep Steve from just going to a gun show and buying military-grade weaponry?
Even most liberals I know aren't against "legal gun ownership." All we want are some common sense laws to ensure that the people who are buying guns are mentally competent and aren't violent criminals, that people who own guns are proficient in their safety and use, and that when guns are used for crimes, they can be tracked back to find out where they're coming from so that, hopefully, the flow of guns into the hands of lawbreakers can be stopped. If you really are a responsible gun owner, you should support these laws too.
When right-wing gun nuts and the NRA oppose things like universal background checks, training and/or testing to obtain a license, registration, and bans on military-grade weaponry, it makes people like me EXTREMELY skeptical that all you're interested in is being able to protect yourself. None of those laws would prevent you from doing so, unless you're not mentally competent, a convicted criminal, grossly irresponsible, or you think you might have reason to shoot up an elementary school someday. And if that's the case, to be blunt, yeah, I don't think you should be able to own guns.
And please, don't start with the "first step to confiscation" bullshit. We require no less to legally drive an automobile; in fact, there are thousands more regulations on that activity. Yet somehow for more than a century, we've managed to keep the government from confiscating all of our cars, go figure.