What's wrong with smart guns?

[BULLDOG]

BREAKING: Smart Gun Maker Filed Patent for Remote Kill Switch BREAKING: Smart Gun Maker Filed Patent for Remote Kill Switch - The Truth About Guns

SO?

RRead the post...thats so

I can't look at your ass and read your mind. Make your point.

Point is alrdy made.....if youre to stupid or lazy to read I dont repeat myself for idiots

Sure you do. You repeat the same right wing crap every day. Can't back any of i up, or even explain it, but repeating crap is what you do.

 

[westwall]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Care to bet? Opening your chute while still in the airplane will cause the plane to crash usually taking all aboard down with it. It's happened more than once.

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

 

[Pogo]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Care to bet? Opening your chute while still in the airplane will cause the plane to crash usually taking all aboard down with it. It's happened more than once.

 

[westwall]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.

 

[westwall]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Care to bet? Opening your chute while still in the airplane will cause the plane to crash usually taking all aboard down with it. It's happened more than once.

And yet factual, which blew your lame ass point out of the water. So who is the lame one? Oh yeah...it's YOU!

 

[BULLDOG]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?

 

[Brain357]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

You have some proof of that claim?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What's wrong with smart guns?

Not smart to have one. Too much potential for failure, and they can be disabled by authorities, making them essentially a gun ban tool.

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.

Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.

Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.

 

[westwall]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

 

[westwall]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.

Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.

Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.

"KEEP AND BEAR". Learn to read jack ass.

 

[Pogo]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

Another false comparison.

You could need the car to get to a hospital because you're bleeding to death. A home invader is prolly just after money.

 

[Brain357]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.

Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.

Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.

"KEEP AND BEAR". Learn to read jack ass.

Wtf? How do I need to "own" in order to "keep" OR "bear"?

Speako Englishee?

 

[Manonthestreet]

They can be turned off by the govt.......ooops

 

[westwall]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

You have some proof of that claim?

He ridiculed manufacturer Armatix's claim that it could determine, with 90 percent accuracy, whether a gun was being held by a person wearing a watch meant to pair with the firearm. And he took aim at its claimed ability to only fire when pointed at its target.


Video: 'Smart guns' are a dumb, dangerous idea, assemblyman tells gun supporters

 

[westwall]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.

Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.

Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.

"KEEP AND BEAR". Learn to read jack ass.

Wtf? How do I need to "own" in order to "keep" OR "bear"?

Speako Englishee?

I do. Clearly you don't.

 

[Michelle420]

smart guns could be manipulated remotely

 

[westwall]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.

BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.

The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.