The football thing was because it's the Patriots. If another team had gotten caught doing that it would have been a minor scandal, but the Pats win a lot and cheat a lot.
No, I just pay attention. If that's NOT the goal then only other option is that every anti-gun politician is absurdly incompetent. Which is, of course, an option as well.
If you honestly believe that the push for smart guns from the Feds isn't going to turn into a push to mandate it then you haven't really been paying attention.
I suppose that's true. ABS particularly, would be interesting to see an analysis as to what was most effective, but that information would probably be hard to collect.
It's simple. We'd never be able to agree. The anti-gun people usually have literally no idea what they're talking about, running purely off of propaganda and Hollywood knowledge about guns, and many actively want large-scale restrictions far beyond what's useful for preventing crimes. As a result any alteration of the 2A would be unacceptable to them if it wasn't retardedly designed and overly restrictive. Meanwhile many pro-gun people have been radicalized the OTHER direction due to the idiocy on display from the Left. So they would insist on any changes being made in a LESS restrictive manner.
End game is one side loses, most likely the antis given the way Constitutional Amendments work, and goes home terribly unhappy. The Amendment system works well for areas where people generally agree, but poorly for highly contentious ideas.
Because when it "works" there it'll spread. Simple as that. The Feds could pass a NJ type law and claim that they aren't infringing, you're still ALLOWED to buy guns, it's just now there's only 4 models approved for sale and they're all $2k or more.
Also: Try to remove the REASON for people being criminals, alleviate the effects of poverty and treat drugs as a health issue instead of a criminal issue.
Spot on. There's also the other things that have been brought up, cost and reliability, but this is a big part of it too. One thing that can never be forgotten is that none of these laws are the end-game. None of these are what anti-gun people WANT, they WANT you not be able to own guns, so that is ALWAYS the end game that you have to be watching for.
The reliability issue will never be solved because the things they're using are not 100% reliable. Fingerprint scanning tech is old now, but still fucks up frequently.
Because with a minimum of training it's not necessary. If your gun is used against you it's probably because you didn't secure it, or you didn't USE it before it was taken. If your kid shoots you it's because you didn't secure your gun, or didn't teach them proper handling. "Smart" gun tech is a band-aid for failed training that will drive up costs and lower reliability with no benefit that couldn't be achieved with some basic training.
I'm not sure what your comment about using them against cops is about, "smart" gun tech doesn't do anything about that.
Any citation for your claims about burning stores or issuing death threats?
Of course they will. That's the goal, it's ALWAYS the goal. Their purpose is to make it too expensive and unfun to own guns so that people stop buying them.
Not the previous poster, but I have to ask, did she actually try to pull the trigger before he grabbed it? Anti-gun people make a lot of hay out of people having their guns stolen and used against them, but I personally question how often that's simply because the person wielding the gun didn't pull the trigger. Drawing a gun is like going all-in on a poker hand, if you're bluffing and the other person calls the bluff you're fucked.
That's one of the reasons I'd like to see licensing become a thing, provided it could be kept out of the hands of that anti-gun people, proper training and an explanation of exactly what you're doing when you draw a gun for self defense would likely eliminate a lot of those issues.
Modern cars are safer, but not because of their computers. They are safer because of extra airbags, crumple zones and improved seat belts. Their computers just mean that when they fail you can't fix them yourself anymore.
The weapons they have aren't much better than the ones we have, and it's not the "military-grade" stuff that's gonna get stolen and used here anyway, it's pistols. Handguns make up 80+% of homicides, rifles make up about 1%. Pistols are pistols, you can buy a Beretta that is literally identical to the ones the military uses with no trouble.
It's got nothing to do with guns being stolen from the government, it's just an attempt to make owning guns more expensive so that less people choose to do it. Same as Cali's efforts to ban online ammo sales and the current meme of requiring insurance like a car.
Slashdot Mirror
Shit, you can get an AR upper in .50 BMG. They make EVERYTHING for the 15.
The football thing was because it's the Patriots. If another team had gotten caught doing that it would have been a minor scandal, but the Pats win a lot and cheat a lot.
We ARE taking in refugees. perhaps not quite as many as the Euro countries, but we most definitely are getting many of them.
No, I just pay attention. If that's NOT the goal then only other option is that every anti-gun politician is absurdly incompetent. Which is, of course, an option as well.
Agreed. The Constitution shouldn't be changed based on the whims of a slim majority.
There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
If you honestly believe that the push for smart guns from the Feds isn't going to turn into a push to mandate it then you haven't really been paying attention.
Of of course. There's no 100% fix, but we can do a damn good job of it with some work. But we can't get to that point because "Guns r bad mmmkay"
I suppose that's true. ABS particularly, would be interesting to see an analysis as to what was most effective, but that information would probably be hard to collect.
Then why should it be forced on us now?
I really loved the tears during his announcement. It was a wonderful touch.
Agreed, the abuses of the Executive branch on their power have been pretty significant and need to be reigned in.
It's simple. We'd never be able to agree. The anti-gun people usually have literally no idea what they're talking about, running purely off of propaganda and Hollywood knowledge about guns, and many actively want large-scale restrictions far beyond what's useful for preventing crimes. As a result any alteration of the 2A would be unacceptable to them if it wasn't retardedly designed and overly restrictive. Meanwhile many pro-gun people have been radicalized the OTHER direction due to the idiocy on display from the Left. So they would insist on any changes being made in a LESS restrictive manner.
End game is one side loses, most likely the antis given the way Constitutional Amendments work, and goes home terribly unhappy. The Amendment system works well for areas where people generally agree, but poorly for highly contentious ideas.
Because when it "works" there it'll spread. Simple as that. The Feds could pass a NJ type law and claim that they aren't infringing, you're still ALLOWED to buy guns, it's just now there's only 4 models approved for sale and they're all $2k or more.
Also: Try to remove the REASON for people being criminals, alleviate the effects of poverty and treat drugs as a health issue instead of a criminal issue.
Spot on. There's also the other things that have been brought up, cost and reliability, but this is a big part of it too. One thing that can never be forgotten is that none of these laws are the end-game. None of these are what anti-gun people WANT, they WANT you not be able to own guns, so that is ALWAYS the end game that you have to be watching for.
The reliability issue will never be solved because the things they're using are not 100% reliable. Fingerprint scanning tech is old now, but still fucks up frequently.
Because with a minimum of training it's not necessary. If your gun is used against you it's probably because you didn't secure it, or you didn't USE it before it was taken. If your kid shoots you it's because you didn't secure your gun, or didn't teach them proper handling. "Smart" gun tech is a band-aid for failed training that will drive up costs and lower reliability with no benefit that couldn't be achieved with some basic training.
I'm not sure what your comment about using them against cops is about, "smart" gun tech doesn't do anything about that.
Any citation for your claims about burning stores or issuing death threats?
We don't have to "accept it", it'll be pushed along anyway. The only solution is to stock up on everything you want NOW.
Of course they will. That's the goal, it's ALWAYS the goal. Their purpose is to make it too expensive and unfun to own guns so that people stop buying them.
Not the previous poster, but I have to ask, did she actually try to pull the trigger before he grabbed it? Anti-gun people make a lot of hay out of people having their guns stolen and used against them, but I personally question how often that's simply because the person wielding the gun didn't pull the trigger. Drawing a gun is like going all-in on a poker hand, if you're bluffing and the other person calls the bluff you're fucked.
That's one of the reasons I'd like to see licensing become a thing, provided it could be kept out of the hands of that anti-gun people, proper training and an explanation of exactly what you're doing when you draw a gun for self defense would likely eliminate a lot of those issues.
A lot of them even exempt FORMER LEOs.
Modern cars are safer, but not because of their computers. They are safer because of extra airbags, crumple zones and improved seat belts. Their computers just mean that when they fail you can't fix them yourself anymore.
The weapons they have aren't much better than the ones we have, and it's not the "military-grade" stuff that's gonna get stolen and used here anyway, it's pistols. Handguns make up 80+% of homicides, rifles make up about 1%. Pistols are pistols, you can buy a Beretta that is literally identical to the ones the military uses with no trouble.
It's got nothing to do with guns being stolen from the government, it's just an attempt to make owning guns more expensive so that less people choose to do it. Same as Cali's efforts to ban online ammo sales and the current meme of requiring insurance like a car.
Nah, then the cops will get an exemption and be allowed to carry regular guns, but the rest of the populace won't.