Slashdot Mirror
Obama Orders Feds To Study Smart Gun Technology (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Today U.S. President Barack Obama rolled out a set of executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence. The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers. There are also a number of measures dedicated to making background checks more foolproof and universal. Less controversial but more on-topic for Slashdot is that Obama is requiring the departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to investigate smart gun technology. This can include RFID chips, fingerprint scanners, and other bits of technology. Their goal will be to "explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." The new gun measures include a proposal for a $500 million investment into providing care for people with serious mental illnesses.
I'll bet my life on a smart gun working as soon as law enforcement (and, for that matter, the Secret Service) is confident enough in them to use them too.
"The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers."
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
They're both exaggerating, extremely. The only thing Obama did was to emphasize already existing law/regulation. It has long been the case that anyone who is "in the business" of selling guns (i.e. regularly for profit) must have a Federal Firearms License, and do background checks on those they sell to. It's never mattered where the guns were sold, it's based solely on whether the seller is doing it as a business. What Obama did changes nothing, except perhaps serve notice that they'll be paying more attention to enforcing existing law/regulation.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
TFS says "explore". Importantly, it also says "other". Rather than hysterical shrieking designed to encourage doing nothing, maybe you could suggest alternative approaches.
Because "nothing" is no longer an option.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
The primary objection to this package is that it reveals how far the US Constitution has drifted from its moorings; there's no way this sort of decision should be being made by the President.
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.
Nod. Ok, let's field test them with patrol officers, (because officers having their gun taken and used against them is apparently a real thing) and then gradually make them a requirement for all branches of government. When the secret service adopts them, (according to the news, a secret service agent lost his gun just recently) I'll be right behind.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
So I take it you would be in favor of doing nothing, rather than something,
Yes. Doing nothing is always preferable to doing something harmful just to be able to say "we did something".
Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
Now, are we going to have background checks on all newspaper editors? Require training to prove they aren't incompetent or a threat to others? Will you apply the same laws to speech, religion and assembly as you would to self defense?
The 2nd Amendment *isn't* any different than the others - and if you want to limit it, please, let's apply strict scrutiny, shall we?
* compelling government interest
* narrowly tailored
* least restrictive means
It's called a gun lock... every responsible owner has one for each gun or rifle they have. Gun lockers/safes are good options, too.
One of the major points in the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller was over trigger-locks - Heller, the allegedly "responsible gun owner" didn't want to use a trigger lock, which DC required. SCOTUS held by a narrow majority that the requirement was unconstitutional because it made it "impossible" to use the gun for self-defense.
Let me see - something like 90% of the American population want tighte controls on guns - certainly a solid majority. The President wants to do the right thing, morally and democratically, by introducing some really quite moderate steps to control gun availability. But somehow this is impossible, because one industry, the arms manufaturers, holds the whole country to ransom by paying politicians to oppose anything, however minor, reasonable or even symbolic, that looks like it was against their financial interests. And the really, really amazing thing is - these people and their bought politicians are not rounded up and put on trial for corruption. In all other industrialised countries in the world, what Americans call lobbying, would be called by its right name: corruption.
I won't ask why, and I won't try to argue with people; I know my comments will be attacked wildly and irrationally and I will be called 'troll' and other nice things. It doesn't matter, but I think it is important that people - in this case Americans - with sane, moderate views let their opinions be heards and felt, and that they don't allow the gun extremists to bully them into silence.