Gun that killed 3-year-old... (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

If Clifford is right and at least some children's lives can be saved- then your position here, Icon, seems wholly unreasonable.

And if children were forced to wear helmets 24 hours a day, lives would be saved. You're unreasonable if you don't agree. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!!??!

Timschochet?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

If Clifford is right and at least some children's lives can be saved- then your position here, Icon, seems wholly unreasonable.

And if children were forced to wear helmets 24 hours a day, lives would be saved. You're unreasonable if you don't agree. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!!??!

Timschochet?

I retract my comment.

With this new evidence, bubbles seem to be the way to go. Statistically speaking, it will save more lives.

 

[Spanky267]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

 

[[icon]]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

 

[The Commish]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

 

[Spanky267]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

 

[Spanky267]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

 

[timschochet]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

 

[timschochet]

I have a question for Commish/Tim/Clifford/etc... It's an obviously flawed hypothetical so spare me the act of tearing it apart. However, taken as it is, I would like you guys to answer this.

Would you support the deployment of this RFID chip into automobiles in a manner where the seatbelt wouldn't tension and the airbag wouldn't deploy in an accident unless it detected the RFID chip?

Bump... I noticed that the RFID guys won't touch this with a 10ft pole.

> "It's PERFECTLY reliable"

> "Reliable enough to trust YOUR life with it?"

> (Crickets)

I asked a question to you which you failed to answer: what would be the benefit of this in an automobile?

If the benefit outweighed the cost, I would be for it. In the case of guns, it seems to outweigh the cost, your concern of an .001% chance of failure notwithstanding.

 

[timschochet]

If Clifford is right and at least some children's lives can be saved- then your position here, Icon, seems wholly unreasonable.

And if children were forced to wear helmets 24 hours a day, lives would be saved. You're unreasonable if you don't agree. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!!??!

Timschochet?

So because I might be in favor of a proposed safety mechanism on guns that could save the lives of a few children, that is analogous in your mind to me proposing people live in bubbles? Again, I don't want to insult you Icon, because you seem like a pretty smart guy, but it's a thoughtless response.

 

[timschochet]

Spanky, you're certainly free to believe that gun registration would violate your right to privacy and your 2nd Amendment rights. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. If I take your logic to it's full extent, the government would not have the right to make ANY restriction on your ability to own any kind of ordnance whatsoever. If you wanted to build a nuclear bomb in your backyard, the government would not have the right to stop you- they can't even investigate, as it would violate your right to privacy.

We cannot have a completely free, anarchic society. Our protection depends on some limitations for the purpose of security. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not these limitations provide too much of an infringement on our civil liberties. Because we remain essentially a libertarian society, the bar for this is pretty low, but even so, universal gun registration fails to come close to meeting it.

 

[Schlzm]

Spanky, you're certainly free to believe that gun registration would violate your right to privacy and your 2nd Amendment rights. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. If I take your logic to it's full extent, the government would not have the right to make ANY restriction on your ability to own any kind of ordnance whatsoever. If you wanted to build a nuclear bomb in your backyard, the government would not have the right to stop you- they can't even investigate, as it would violate your right to privacy.

We cannot have a completely free, anarchic society. Our protection depends on some limitations for the purpose of security. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not these limitations provide too much of an infringement on our civil liberties. Because we remain essentially a libertarian society, the bar for this is pretty low, but even so, universal gun registration fails to come close to meeting it.

Gun registration would not have saved this childs life. Schlzm

 

[StrikeS2k]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

No, you don't. To have an assembly maybe. An individual can go most public places and spout off all they want without getting any kind or permit or registering with anyone.

 

[timschochet]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

No, you don't. To have an assembly maybe. An individual can go most public places and spout off all they want without getting any kind or permit or registering with anyone.

Not sure where you're living. But I've seen cops drag people away or chase them away for yelling too loudly. (Or even loitering.)

 

[timschochet]

Spanky, you're certainly free to believe that gun registration would violate your right to privacy and your 2nd Amendment rights. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. If I take your logic to it's full extent, the government would not have the right to make ANY restriction on your ability to own any kind of ordnance whatsoever. If you wanted to build a nuclear bomb in your backyard, the government would not have the right to stop you- they can't even investigate, as it would violate your right to privacy.

We cannot have a completely free, anarchic society. Our protection depends on some limitations for the purpose of security. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not these limitations provide too much of an infringement on our civil liberties. Because we remain essentially a libertarian society, the bar for this is pretty low, but even so, universal gun registration fails to come close to meeting it.

Gun registration would not have saved this childs life.Schlzm

NO it would not. But I believe that it would help reduce gun deaths significantly, as it has in most parts of the world where it has been enacted.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

No, you don't. To have an assembly maybe. An individual can go most public places and spout off all they want without getting any kind or permit or registering with anyone.

Not sure where you're living. But I've seen cops drag people away or chase them away for yelling too loudly. (Or even loitering.)

Sure you have. And they were black I'm sure. And then you had lunch with them in the park.

 

[Schlzm]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

No, you don't. To have an assembly maybe. An individual can go most public places and spout off all they want without getting any kind or permit or registering with anyone.

Not sure where you're living. But I've seen cops drag people away or chase them away for yelling too loudly. (Or even loitering.)

It's impossible to loiter in public space so if this is happening it is a gross violation of their rights. However where you live personal freedoms aren't exactly high priority. As to your response to me. Registration only works in reducing deaths because it is also enacted side-by-side with massive sweeping restrictions and seizures. Also found this little nugget, https://www.google.com/#q=chinese%20knife%20attack%20deaths. Easy correlation that less guns = less gun related deaths. It doesn't mean less deaths though.

Schlzm

ETA: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Chaka]

Are you okay with gun owners and would-be gun owners going through the same hoops as car owners and would-be car owners?

If not then I don't see why you would use cars as a point of comparison. If cars were not registered and tracked up the ying-yang (as they are) and drivers not licensed and insured (as they are) then I likely would be in favor of holding the car owner responsible for what happened if they were stolen.

Also if not, why not? (please don't respond if it's going to be more stuff about the government taking everyone's guns that argument is nothing more than a red herring).

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

That's nice. So are you in favor of having the same registration and training requirements for gun owners as car drivers?

If so, why?

If not, why not? Is it your because of your constitutional argument? If you think it was a perfect document to begin with then I suggest you re-read it thoroughly.

 

[Chaka]

I have a question for Commish/Tim/Clifford/etc... It's an obviously flawed hypothetical so spare me the act of tearing it apart. However, taken as it is, I would like you guys to answer this.

Would you support the deployment of this RFID chip into automobiles in a manner where the seatbelt wouldn't tension and the airbag wouldn't deploy in an accident unless it detected the RFID chip?

Bump... I noticed that the RFID guys won't touch this with a 10ft pole.

> "It's PERFECTLY reliable"

> "Reliable enough to trust YOUR life with it?"

> (Crickets)

I think the crickets are because it is a very weird argument.

If you want to play the car vs guns games then I will say "Yes if you agree to go through the same licensing, registration & insurance requirements that car drivers do then I will roll the dice with RFID chips in my car to allow the seat belt to function."

Your turn.

 

[The Commish]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote?

ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

 

[msommer]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote?

ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

When guns jamb, you can clear the jamb quickly and continue to fire, If the safety fails to unlock, you can not fire.. right? Bad analogy...

 

[The Commish]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote?

ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

 

[Chaka]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

When guns jamb, you can clear the jamb quickly and continue to fire, If the safety fails to unlock, you can not fire.. right? Bad analogy...

Gun threads are the place where bad analogies come to die so deal with it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

No, you don't. To have an assembly maybe. An individual can go most public places and spout off all they want without getting any kind or permit or registering with anyone.

Not sure where you're living. But I've seen cops drag people away or chase them away for yelling too loudly. (Or even loitering.)

That's only if they have brown skin..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Spanky, you're certainly free to believe that gun registration would violate your right to privacy and your 2nd Amendment rights. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. If I take your logic to it's full extent, the government would not have the right to make ANY restriction on your ability to own any kind of ordnance whatsoever. If you wanted to build a nuclear bomb in your backyard, the government would not have the right to stop you- they can't even investigate, as it would violate your right to privacy.

We cannot have a completely free, anarchic society. Our protection depends on some limitations for the purpose of security. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not these limitations provide too much of an infringement on our civil liberties. Because we remain essentially a libertarian society, the bar for this is pretty low, but even so, universal gun registration fails to come close to meeting it.

Gun registration would not have saved this childs life.Schlzm

NO it would not. But I believe that it would help reduce gun deaths significantly, as it has in most parts of the world where it has been enacted.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

When guns jamb, you can clear the jamb quickly and continue to fire, If the safety fails to unlock, you can not fire.. right? Bad analogy...

Gun threads are the place where bad analogies come to die so deal with it.

fair enough

 

[Spanky267]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

In most places you do.

You can show up on a street corner anywhere in american and start spouting off at the mouth. You might need a permit to have a large event somewhere. But I see street corner preachers on occassion and I dont see anyone running them off or asking for their permit.

 

[The Commish]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote?

ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

bump

 

[Spanky267]

Are you okay with gun owners and would-be gun owners going through the same hoops as car owners and would-be car owners?

If not then I don't see why you would use cars as a point of comparison. If cars were not registered and tracked up the ying-yang (as they are) and drivers not licensed and insured (as they are) then I likely would be in favor of holding the car owner responsible for what happened if they were stolen.

Also if not, why not? (please don't respond if it's going to be more stuff about the government taking everyone's guns that argument is nothing more than a red herring).

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

That's nice. So are you in favor of having the same registration and training requirements for gun owners as car drivers?

If so, why?

If not, why not? Is it your because of your constitutional argument? If you think it was a perfect document to begin with then I suggest you re-read it thoroughly.

I am not in favor of such regulation. The ability to drive a motor vehicle is not required to function in society and the failure to obtain a drivers license is not an infringement of your civil rights. Driving a motor vehicle is optional. Its pay to play.

I oppose the registration of firearms. The government, be it federal, state or local has no right to that information. If I am not a convicted felon who hasnt had his civil rights restored then it is lawful for me to own firearms. The government doesnt need to know what types or how many. The government doesnt need to know what I have in my home if those items are legal to be owned.

I recognize that the Constitution is not a perfect document. But the Bill of Rights is the contract that guarantees that certain rights should not be ceded by the people to the federal government. The right to defense of person and property is one of those. Would you give up your right not to self incriminate? Would you be happy if the federal government could search you or your things without a warrant. Or if the federal government could quarter soldiers in your home against your will? Would you be so quick to have your 3rd, 4th and 5th amendment rights curtailed or regulated?

 

[Spanky267]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote?

ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

I dont consider registering to vote to be an infringement of ones rights. As long as you are 18 and arent a convicted felon who hasnt had their rights restored you can and should be able to vote. Registration costs nothing.

Also, there are numerous methods I can use to purchase a gun. Private sale, local retail ffl's and internet purchase with shipment to my local ffl for pick up. In all cases the government doesnt get or retain information on me. They get a background check done. But they dont get to keep the results if I pass. The ffl, if one is involved keeps a record of the transaction but only shares it with authorities if its learned that the weapon is involved in a crime.

 

[Spanky267]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.


Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote?

ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

My point is that the government doesnt need to be in possession of information on what types or quantities of firearms that I own. The government has a way to get that information if it needs it to investigate a crime. But it shouldnt own that data. When it owns it then that data can be abused. Look at what the government has done to people forming groups and asking for tax exemption from the IRS. You dont think there is the potential for some over zealous bureaucrat to abuse that registry were it to exist?

 

[timschochet]

Spanky, are you okay with having a Social Security number? With the government knowing how much you pay in taxes? What kind of cars you drive? Does the census taker bother you?

 

[The Commish]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote? ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

My point is that the government doesnt need to be in possession of information on what types or quantities of firearms that I own. The government has a way to get that information if it needs it to investigate a crime. But it shouldnt own that data. When it owns it then that data can be abused. Look at what the government has done to people forming groups and asking for tax exemption from the IRS. You dont think there is the potential for some over zealous bureaucrat to abuse that registry were it to exist?

It's a minor inconvenience to them today (at best) if they really wanted the information. You acknowledge that they can get it if they want, so I don't really see the point of the stump speeches against giving them the information. Just doesn't make sense to me. That's all. My curious why you hold the double standard of collecting information on a person you sell to, but the government shouldn't.

 

[Spanky267]

Spanky, are you okay with having a Social Security number? With the government knowing how much you pay in taxes? What kind of cars you drive? Does the census taker bother you?

I wish I didnt have a social security number. I wish I didnt have to pay income taxes to the government, but I do and since that is the current law of the land then I guess they have a right to know. If I wanted to avoid it I guess I could give up working. The Federal government has no idea what kind of cars I drive. The state government does and I have no problem with that. If I didnt want them to know that about me I would give up auto ownership and ride the bus. Dont confuse what the federal government can do with what states can do. I think it would be more reasonable if we confined our debate to either state or federal restrictions on gun ownership. Or at least make clear which one you are talking about.

 

[Spanky267]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote? ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

My point is that the government doesnt need to be in possession of information on what types or quantities of firearms that I own. The government has a way to get that information if it needs it to investigate a crime. But it shouldnt own that data. When it owns it then that data can be abused. Look at what the government has done to people forming groups and asking for tax exemption from the IRS. You dont think there is the potential for some over zealous bureaucrat to abuse that registry were it to exist?

It's a minor inconvenience to them today (at best) if they really wanted the information. You acknowledge that they can get it if they want, so I don't really see the point of the stump speeches against giving them the information. Just doesn't make sense to me. That's all. My curious why you hold the double standard of collecting information on a person you sell to, but the government shouldn't.

The government cant get that information from an FFL unless they are investigating a crime. The FFL has to maintain it because the law demands it. I am fine with that law and fine with a private business maintaining the records rather than the federal government. If the private business misuses that data then they risk jeopardizing their business. I can assure you that no FFL is going to jeopardize his business by abusing the records of firearm purchases. Also those are paper records, they arent stored in a database.

If the government had the information then it would be in a searchable database. I just dont want the government having that info about me. The government doesnt need to know if I won one gun or ten. The government already has information on the ownership of certain types of guns as described by the National Firearms Act. These are shortbarrelled rifles, rifles with barrels less that 16", as well as automatic weapons.I can understand why those might want to be tracked. I think the Short Barrel Rifle registration is kind of silly since its not an automatic weapon. But I'm not really arguing to change that law.

 

[Clifford]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

1. Did not answer the question

2. If you had read anything you would know that this is not a fact. It is a misconception.

 

[The Commish]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote? ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

My point is that the government doesnt need to be in possession of information on what types or quantities of firearms that I own. The government has a way to get that information if it needs it to investigate a crime. But it shouldnt own that data. When it owns it then that data can be abused. Look at what the government has done to people forming groups and asking for tax exemption from the IRS. You dont think there is the potential for some over zealous bureaucrat to abuse that registry were it to exist?

It's a minor inconvenience to them today (at best) if they really wanted the information. You acknowledge that they can get it if they want, so I don't really see the point of the stump speeches against giving them the information. Just doesn't make sense to me. That's all. My curious why you hold the double standard of collecting information on a person you sell to, but the government shouldn't.

The government cant get that information from an FFL unless they are investigating a crime. The FFL has to maintain it because the law demands it. I am fine with that law and fine with a private business maintaining the records rather than the federal government. If the private business misuses that data then they risk jeopardizing their business. I can assure you that no FFL is going to jeopardize his business by abusing the records of firearm purchases. Also those are paper records, they arent stored in a database.

If the government had the information then it would be in a searchable database. I just dont want the government having that info about me. The government doesnt need to know if I won one gun or ten. The government already has information on the ownership of certain types of guns as described by the National Firearms Act. These are shortbarrelled rifles, rifles with barrels less that 16", as well as automatic weapons.I can understand why those might want to be tracked. I think the Short Barrel Rifle registration is kind of silly since its not an automatic weapon. But I'm not really arguing to change that law.

After everything that's come out in recent months with regard to our government spying on us, you still maintain this?

ETA: Am I to understand that you're ok with registering with the state, just not the federal gov't? What if all 50 states shared their data with one another? (again, asking not to fish but understand the line you're drawing)

 

[Clifford]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.

Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

 

[Schlzm]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

1. Did not answer the question2. If you had read anything you would know that this is not a fact. It is a misconception.

1: Your hyperbole regarding firearms being exempt from safety regulations isn't worth answering directly.2: Maybe if you re-read what you typed you would see I was responding to you. Under your own circumstances I am 100% against that technology.

Schlzm

 

[Clifford]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

1. Did not answer the question2. If you had read anything you would know that this is not a fact. It is a misconception.

1: Your hyperbole regarding firearms being exempt from safety regulations isn't worth answering directly.2: Maybe if you re-read what you typed you would see I was responding to you. Under your own circumstances I am 100% against that technology.

Schlzm

1. You don't know what hyperbole is, obviously. Also, standards are not the same as regulations. Please buy a dictionary.

2. Such technology allows adding extra users. However if you are against your gun not being able to be fired by a child or stranger, then I have nothing for you.

 

[Schlzm]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

1. Did not answer the question2. If you had read anything you would know that this is not a fact. It is a misconception.

1: Your hyperbole regarding firearms being exempt from safety regulations isn't worth answering directly.2: Maybe if you re-read what you typed you would see I was responding to you. Under your own circumstances I am 100% against that technology.

Schlzm

1. You don't know what hyperbole is, obviously. Also, standards are not the same as regulations. Please buy a dictionary.2. Such technology allows adding extra users. However if you are against your gun not being able to be fired by a child or stranger, then I have nothing for you.

If you want to be the specifity police on me then you need to correct yourself as well. Regulations tend to drive standards in the context of this discussion. Also I guess I was being generous when I used hyperbole in regards to what you wrote since it seems impossible to exagerate on a subject you clearly have little knowledge about. You were making the request for opinions on what you wrote, I gave them. If you want to move the goal posts I've got nothing for you, if you want to make a clarification then we can keep talking. Otherwise keep making wild assumptions and accusations based on your hysterical and panicky lack of understanding of the subject matter based on a blind one sided zeal. Please buy some zanax.Schlzm

 

[Spanky267]

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

Is this because you consider the registration process (be it you or your weapon) an infringement on owning the weapon?

I believe that the registration of guns in an infringement of my right to privacy and a hinderance to my exercise of my 2nd amendment right. I dont have to get permission or register to stand on a street corner and spout nonsense all day. I dont have to register with the government to not have them search my home without a warrant. I dont have to register with the government to exercise my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. I am willing to submit to a background check to make sure that I am not a felon or mentally ill.

Dare I ask your thoughts on registering to vote? ETA: I'd like to also know the "privacy" angle as well. How do you get your guns where there aren't other people involved? Internet?

Don't think NSA is down...

While true, it really wasn't my point. Spanky already pointed to how gun sales are traced from the manufacturer to the seller to the buyer and he also said if he sold a gun he'd be getting the person's license number etc. My genuine question is, if all that's true, why is the infringement on privacy line drawn at registration of the gun? It doesn't seem logical to me and I'm trying to understand his reasoning.

My point is that the government doesnt need to be in possession of information on what types or quantities of firearms that I own. The government has a way to get that information if it needs it to investigate a crime. But it shouldnt own that data. When it owns it then that data can be abused. Look at what the government has done to people forming groups and asking for tax exemption from the IRS. You dont think there is the potential for some over zealous bureaucrat to abuse that registry were it to exist?

It's a minor inconvenience to them today (at best) if they really wanted the information. You acknowledge that they can get it if they want, so I don't really see the point of the stump speeches against giving them the information. Just doesn't make sense to me. That's all. My curious why you hold the double standard of collecting information on a person you sell to, but the government shouldn't.

The government cant get that information from an FFL unless they are investigating a crime. The FFL has to maintain it because the law demands it. I am fine with that law and fine with a private business maintaining the records rather than the federal government. If the private business misuses that data then they risk jeopardizing their business. I can assure you that no FFL is going to jeopardize his business by abusing the records of firearm purchases. Also those are paper records, they arent stored in a database.

If the government had the information then it would be in a searchable database. I just dont want the government having that info about me. The government doesnt need to know if I won one gun or ten. The government already has information on the ownership of certain types of guns as described by the National Firearms Act. These are shortbarrelled rifles, rifles with barrels less that 16", as well as automatic weapons.I can understand why those might want to be tracked. I think the Short Barrel Rifle registration is kind of silly since its not an automatic weapon. But I'm not really arguing to change that law.

After everything that's come out in recent months with regard to our government spying on us, you still maintain this?

ETA: Am I to understand that you're ok with registering with the state, just not the federal gov't? What if all 50 states shared their data with one another? (again, asking not to fish but understand the line you're drawing)

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.

I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

 

[The Commish]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

 

[Spanky267]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.

Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.

I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

 

[Spanky267]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

 

[Clifford]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

1. Did not answer the question2. If you had read anything you would know that this is not a fact. It is a misconception.

1: Your hyperbole regarding firearms being exempt from safety regulations isn't worth answering directly.2: Maybe if you re-read what you typed you would see I was responding to you. Under your own circumstances I am 100% against that technology.

Schlzm

1. You don't know what hyperbole is, obviously. Also, standards are not the same as regulations. Please buy a dictionary.2. Such technology allows adding extra users. However if you are against your gun not being able to be fired by a child or stranger, then I have nothing for you.

If you want to be the specifity police on me then you need to correct yourself as well. Regulations tend to drive standards in the context of this discussion. Also I guess I was being generous when I used hyperbole in regards to what you wrote since it seems impossible to exagerate on a subject you clearly have little knowledge about. You were making the request for opinions on what you wrote, I gave them. If you want to move the goal posts I've got nothing for you, if you want to make a clarification then we can keep talking. Otherwise keep making wild assumptions and accusations based on your hysterical and panicky lack of understanding of the subject matter based on a blind one sided zeal. Please buy some zanax.Schlzm

I am the only person who has posted a single link about the viability of the tech. Denigrating an argument by ignoring a it's merits and attacking its proponent is nothing new. If you would like to post anything to actually advance an opposing argument or POV be my guest. I'm sorry you can't use words accurately. I still don't know your objection to #2.

A regulation is a rule to be followed. A standard is a manufacturing standard which must be met in irder to sell a product in a certain market. They are not automatically linked nor do they necessarily have any kind of causal relationship.

I'm sorry that you think using specific terms to address specific subjects is "panicky" and requires Xanax.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

 

[Schlzm]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

1. Did not answer the question2. If you had read anything you would know that this is not a fact. It is a misconception.

1: Your hyperbole regarding firearms being exempt from safety regulations isn't worth answering directly.2: Maybe if you re-read what you typed you would see I was responding to you. Under your own circumstances I am 100% against that technology.

Schlzm

1. You don't know what hyperbole is, obviously. Also, standards are not the same as regulations. Please buy a dictionary.2. Such technology allows adding extra users. However if you are against your gun not being able to be fired by a child or stranger, then I have nothing for you.

If you want to be the specifity police on me then you need to correct yourself as well. Regulations tend to drive standards in the context of this discussion. Also I guess I was being generous when I used hyperbole in regards to what you wrote since it seems impossible to exagerate on a subject you clearly have little knowledge about. You were making the request for opinions on what you wrote, I gave them. If you want to move the goal posts I've got nothing for you, if you want to make a clarification then we can keep talking. Otherwise keep making wild assumptions and accusations based on your hysterical and panicky lack of understanding of the subject matter based on a blind one sided zeal. Please buy some zanax.Schlzm

I am the only person who has posted a single link about the viability of the tech. Denigrating an argument by ignoring a it's merits and attacking its proponent is nothing new. If you would like to post anything to actually advance an opposing argument or POV be my guest. I'm sorry you can't use words accurately. I still don't know your objection to #2.

A regulation is a rule to be followed. A standard is a manufacturing standard which must be met in irder to sell a product in a certain market. They are not automatically linked nor do they necessarily have any kind of causal relationship.

I'm sorry that you think using specific terms to address specific subjects is "panicky" and requires Xanax.

I've never spoken against the tech as a potential area for manufacturers to explore, however have provided insight into why many will not want to use it as has multiple others, to which you replied with hyperbole ignorant hysterics about the occassional jam. Also don't get hurt about my responding to you in the exact same fashion you have to me, once again zanax.By your own above definition standards are rules, IE a specific thing/action/regulation/etc... that needs to be followed in order to accomplish a specific end. Also what "standards" aren't being followed by forearms manufacturers? That a series of specific and uniform safeing mechanisms be in place? Like what? You be specific beyond the electronic firecontrol systems.

Honestly if you only care about enticing manufacturers to offer this technology to consumers then we have nothing to argue about. I haven't seen that though. Also zanax if you are going to flip your lid over how I have used words and terms but you are going to completely and willfully ignore how I addressed what you specifically wrote above about "only the owner being able to fire a weapon". No riders or caveats were provided so I addressed specifically what you wrote.

Schlzm