The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[notdrunk]

Has the so called smart guns been mentioned on here? If not there was a gun owner in Maryland that was going to start carrying them until he got threats from <drum roll please> gun owners LOL!


http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/568...mart-guns-away

Your article explains the freak out: Some lawmakers are trying to impose restrictions on ownership using the development of new technologies as a cover.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...mart_guns.html

[trish]

The point here is free fuckin’ enterprise, are you for it? Andy Raymond, a gun dealer, simply added some smart guns to his stock. He thought he might turn a buck by selling a few of them...as he has every fucking right to do. And what does he get for his trouble? Death threats to his family. Evidently it’s not okay for an elected State government to pass a law, but it is honkey dory to enforce your personal point of view by illegal means.

If you don’t like New Jersey’s law, don’t fuckin’ go there. Or fight it by legal means e.g. protest, boycott etc. But you’re suggesting it’s perfectly fine to threaten the life of a man’s family just because he’s selling a legal product in a legal venue. You would sacrifice democracy and free enterprise rather than put in some time legally fighting a law that offends your manhood. Tell me you’re drunk.

[buttslinger]

NOT ONE MORE

https://act.everytown.org/act/notone...FVR5MgodQiAA9Q

Danke Shane, Goodbye Shane, I signed up and they thank you and you can forward to family and friends, thanks trish.

If you're an American see if you can go to the SEX OFFENDER LIST for your state, (maybe your name is there!!!)
Check out the faces. Thousands of them. Vacant Stares.
Something about one death a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic.
The gun-nuts consider themselves true Americans. I have much personal experience with THE BLIND SPOT. It is always directly in front of your face.

[notdrunk]

The point here is free fuckin’ enterprise, are you for it? Andy Raymond, a gun dealer, simply added some smart guns to his stock. He thought he might turn a buck by selling a few of them...as he has every fucking right to do. And what does he get for his trouble? Death threats to his family. Evidently it’s not okay for an elected State government to pass a law, but it is honkey dory to enforce your personal point of view by illegal means.

If you don’t like New Jersey’s law, don’t fuckin’ go there. Or fight it by legal means e.g. protest, boycott etc. But you’re suggesting it’s perfectly fine to threaten the life of a man’s family just because he’s selling a legal product in a legal venue. You would sacrifice democracy and free enterprise rather than put in some time legally fighting a law that offends your manhood. Tell me you’re drunk.

I am not suggesting anything. And, I am not defending people that make threats. I only pointed out why the response to the Armatix iP1 hasn't been receptive that much. David Kopel perfectly explains the situation in two articles that were posted back in May on the Washington Post's website. It isn't about being against free enterprise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...06/smart-guns/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...in-new-jersey/

[trish]

Yes, yes the response to the smart gun hasn't been receptive. There's a reason: "lawmakers are trying to impose restrictions on ownership using the development of new technologies as a cover. " Go ahead and not suggest away. LOL

[notdrunk]

Yes, yes the response to the smart gun hasn't been receptive. There's a reason: "lawmakers are trying to impose restrictions on ownership using the development of new technologies as a cover. " Go ahead and not suggest away. LOL

No, you accused me suggesting that it is okay to make death threats. I didn't make that suggestion.

[trish]

Please, continue to not suggest Andy's opposition had a reasonable motive for their lunatic reaction. Indeed, why not come right out and tell us their reaction was lunatic?

[Silcc69]

Your article explains the freak out: Some lawmakers are trying to impose restrictions on ownership using the development of new technologies as a cover.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...mart_guns.html

It's more of a loophole than anything else as it doesn't violate anybody's second amendment rights.

[notdrunk]

Please, continue to not suggest Andy's opposition had a reasonable motive for their lunatic reaction. Indeed, why not come right out and tell us their reaction was lunatic?

Not all the reactions fell on the side of lunatic. Additionally, my first point did say freak out which encompasses craziness too.

It's more of a loophole than anything else as it doesn't violate anybody's second amendment rights.

Only one handgun on the market that almost costs $2000 would run afoul the Heller ruling.

[trish]

Please continue to not suggest there's a rational reason to threaten a man's family. Then consider how numerous those crazies are. Andy received so many threatening letters, emails and comments from "freaked out" gun lunatics he decided to cave in and not put his stock of smart guns on the shelves. Should those lunatics even have guns? Should they be allowed to carry firearms hidden on their person? Should this group of "enthusiasts" be encouraged to stand their ground, risk killing someone or being killed rather than retreat to safety and spare the rest of us yet another shoot out? Should people prone to threaten a man's family for selling a legal item in a legal venue be allowed easy access to firearms? Who are they? Can we identify them before we sell them a firearm? What about the even larger group of enthusiasts who applaud their behavior? Can they be trusted with firearms? Here's a relevant thought by Joe Nocera

"But, of course, there is another way of thinking about this. Instead of focusing on making it harder for the mentally ill to get guns, maybe we should be making it harder to get guns, period. Something to consider before the next mass shooting." http://nyti.ms/1mLkaaD