quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I have to wonder about the credibility of the link in the OP. I suspect the article is exaggerated. The smart gun concept came about because of the problem of cops getting shot with their own guns but most of them don't like the idea. Functional reliability is absolute priority for a defense weapon. No one wants this crap on their gun.

I have to admit when I clicked on the link, I thought it said Lalaland instead of liberaland. Now my question is do they know they are missing an l.

Of course the lunatic fringe denies anything that makes them look like terrorists.....That`s job one.


So what else is new.....?

Looking at all your threads along with the hyperbole and vicious attacks on the right, what else is new ? If ya wanna talk about lunatic fringe, just look at some of the crap you link to and post including this thread too. Though it's good to know we can be put on moderation and then be allowed to come back with a new account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I have to wonder about the credibility of the link in the OP. I suspect the article is exaggerated. The smart gun concept came about because of the problem of cops getting shot with their own guns but most of them don't like the idea. Functional reliability is absolute priority for a defense weapon. No one wants this crap on their gun.

I have to admit when I clicked on the link, I thought it said Lalaland instead of liberaland. Now my question is do they know they are missing an l.

Of course the lunatic fringe denies anything that makes them look like terrorists.....That`s job one.


So what else is new.....?

Looking at all your threads along with the hyperbole and vicious attacks on the right, what else is new ? If ya wanna talk about lunatic fringe, just look at some of the crap you link to and post including this thread too. Though it's good to know we can be put on moderation and then be allowed to come back with a new account.

I didn't realize misreading a word put me on the lunitic fringe, but I stopped trying to understand his logic when he was still 59. I suppose I could ask what was supposed to be denied, but he would just spout more gopee this and geopee that, so why bother.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
What goes around comes around. When the libs in New York published the home addresses of gun owners back in January, they opened the door to this sort of nonsense. Now it's biting libs in the ass and all they do is cry.
Boo fucking hoo...
-SD-

The problem, is, though, it was wrong when the Lib's in NY did it, and it's wrong now.

I think it's interesting that the gun can only be shot by the owner of the gun. While that might result in difficulties in teaching your kid how to shoot the gun, it certainly does help prevent someone from using a gun that was stolen.

I have to wonder how that's done and if it can be used to allow others to be acceptable users. And, if it's sold, is there a way to remove the previous owner and add the new owner? Is this something that can be controlled remotely (if so, how do you prevent the government from "shutting off" everyone's smart guns?)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

What goes around comes around. When the libs in New York published the home addresses of gun owners back in January, they opened the door to this sort of nonsense. Now it's biting libs in the ass and all they do is cry.

Boo fucking hoo...

-SD-

Do you know this woman' politics? She is the CEO of a gun company. Not a position well known for attracting liberals. She is trying to bring a safer gun to market and that merits stalking and harassment? Since when?

Let's see, she's apparently a nanny-stater that thinks she can save everyone from those terrible gun owners if only there was a way to make them non-functional in the event that they are used in a way that's not approved by the manufacturer...

I'd say her politics are pretty clear.

And I'd say it merits stalking and harassment since January, when the liberals thought it was such a great idea to publish gun owners names so they could be stalked and harassed. The libs made it acceptable to publish the information of people with different political beliefs, so I'd say she deserves being harassed as much as you all thought gun owners deserved to be harassed earlier this year.

Someone with different politics published her name and number. The people responded. There is no difference.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

--FR--

Unless this lady is pushing to have all firearms converted to this type of technology, or if she is pushing to have all new weapons sold to have this technology, then anyone pestering her in any fashion is just stupid (not that they ever should anyway). Very few gun owners would put up with this kind of technology. It would be next to worthless for home defense, and just a huge pain in the ass for the everyday target shooter. The only place I can see where this might be of some use is for on-the-street self-defense. But even there, while it might keep someone from taking the gun and using it on you, it also prevents you from being able to use the gun in your off hand if your preferred hand becomes injured...unless you also have the time to move the "watch" with the chip to your other hand. I see almost no merit in what the lady is pushing...so let her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
What goes around comes around. When the libs in New York published the home addresses of gun owners back in January, they opened the door to this sort of nonsense. Now it's biting libs in the ass and all they do is cry.
Boo fucking hoo...
-SD-

The problem, is, though, it was wrong when the Lib's in NY did it, and it's wrong now.
I think it's interesting that the gun can only be shot by the owner of the gun. While that might result in difficulties in teaching your kid how to shoot the gun, it certainly does help prevent someone from using a gun that was stolen.
I have to wonder how that's done and if it can be used to allow others to be acceptable users. And, if it's sold, is there a way to remove the previous owner and add the new owner? Is this something that can be controlled remotely (if so, how do you prevent the government from "shutting off" everyone's smart guns?)?

There is a wristwatch that comes with the gun. The watch has an RFID which activates the gun when it is close to it, i.e. when held in the hand near the watch. So you could get additional watches and there is no way to remotely shut it off.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: igor2003

--FR--

Unless this lady is pushing to have all firearms converted to this type of technology, or if she is pushing to have all new weapons sold to have this technology,

No where do we find that to be the case.
No argument there. That's why I said to do so would be kind of stupid. Understand?

Very few gun owners would put up with this kind of technology.

What are your qualifications to speak for most gun owners?
Simple common sense. I live in a gun state. I know a LOT of gun owners. I don't know of any of them that would put up with the kind of nonsense that would go along with this kind of technology. What are YOUR qualifications to question my opinion?

It would be next to worthless for home defense, and just a huge pain in the ass for the everyday target shooter.

You simply pick it up and shoot it like any other pistol.
If wearing a wristwatch is too big a deal then this is probably not a weapon for you.
This technology is for those who want to make sure that their stolen gun wont be used to kill someone. It is not a panacea for a non-existant problem.
Did you watch the video accompanying the OP link? You first have to strap the watch onto which ever hand you are going to shoot with. You then enter the PIN number. You hope the batteries in both the gun and watch have a charge. When the man in the video took the gun for his second turn at shooting (after it didn't work for the woman) it looked like he then had to press some more buttons before he could shoot again. This is not "simply pick it up and shoot".

The only place I can see where this might be of some use is for on-the-street self-defense. But even there, while it might keep someone from taking the gun and using it on you, it also prevents you from being able to use the gun in your off hand if your preferred hand becomes injured...unless you also have the time to move the "watch" with the chip to your other hand.

The chances of this sort of "ramboesque" situation is plausable in a crime thrillers but not in real life.
What are your credentials to determine that this is "ramboesque"? Seems to me that anyone wanting the weapon for self defense is going to want to be able to use it in any even slightly foreseeable circumstance. For me, I would want a weapon available at a moments notice, under any possible circumstance. Did you know that the watch is programmable? You can set it to be active for a certain length of time. Let's say you set it for 4 hours. You run a little late getting home and at 4 hours and 5 minutes you get assailed. You draw the gun, and oops, it doesn't work.

I see almost no merit in what the lady is pushing.

Thus far they seem to be making payroll.
Do they? I didn't see any financial statements about the company. If you have proof, then please present it. And even if they are...so what? I didn't say there would be NO market, did I? What I said is that I see no merit in it. If you want to argue, then don't move the goal posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: OwnerFiftyNine

Just more of your vitriolic guilt by association crap on this post and the others. At least other liberal posters try to use some kind of logic and structure their postings in a civilized manner. What the fuck do all those political assinations have to do with trying to prove your point ? You really mean to tell me can't do any better than that ??

quote:

I think it's interesting that the gun can only be shot by the owner of the gun. While that might result in difficulties in teaching your kid how to shoot the gun, it certainly does help prevent someone from using a gun that was stolen.