Obama begins smart gun push, targeting cops
And the police are not too thrilled about being guinea pigs for the idea:
Police officers in general, federal officers in particular, shouldnt be asked to be the guinea pigs in evaluating a firearm that nobodys even seen yet, said James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. We have some very, very serious questions.
Smart guns are dumb.
April 28th, 2016 at 5:58 pm
These are the Flower Children of the 1960s after all. The Charles Manson/Jim Jones/Cas Sunstien generation. They might as well go all the way and test their dream of total disarmament on the cops. They already believe that trouble is caused by the presence of cops, and that the presence of weapons causes trouble, so it would only make sense either to eliminate all police or at least to disarm them. Replace their guns with bouquets, and their clubs with powder puffs. They could keep their cuffs, but only for B&D sex rituals. While they’re at it they could force cultural diversity and gender understanding on the police by making them all wear high heels and makeup.
Then “Peace” (meaning the absence of all opposition to evil) will ensue.
April 28th, 2016 at 6:20 pm
SMART = Tracking you.
April 28th, 2016 at 6:38 pm
Lyle, no quite right. They think guns in the hands of the Feds are the only good guns. Or else why did DHS arm up with 1.6 Billion rounds of ammo and thousands of “assault rifles”?
April 28th, 2016 at 7:20 pm
As far as I am concerned, that is the PERFECT place for them to start. Especially in Connecticut, New York, Colorado, or California.
Nobody deserves it more than the “Law Enforcement” in those sewers who enable the treason by their Masters. But then as long as that paycheck keeps comin’ in, the Blue Wall will do WHATEVER they are told.
April 28th, 2016 at 7:56 pm
“Smart Guns” means tracking you looking for an electronic signature and remote disable when the government wants it.
April 28th, 2016 at 8:07 pm
Police officers are second. The Secret Service really ought to be the first to be mandated to beta test “smart” guns.
When they get to the point of actually wanting them over the conventional kind we can move over to a mandatory police roll-out.
April 28th, 2016 at 8:30 pm
Google the phrase “iPhone fingerprint not working” and see what happens. I got 1.17 million hits.
April 28th, 2016 at 8:39 pm
If it’s such a great idea let the US Secret Service Presidential detail (who’s members have trouble with stolen guns) do it first….and show us.
April 28th, 2016 at 10:17 pm
Just to be clear, a “Smart Gun” does not have to be trackable, nor be able to be shut down by remote control. They MAY have those issues but they may not. It all depends on the design.
Having the police/military use them first sounds like a wonderful idea to me. If the performance of the technology sucks as much as I think it will they police/military will reject them.
Before I get flamed too much please remember I am not saying that I think smart guns are ready, nor should they be required (yes I know about New Jersey and I also know that the original author of the law is trying to get it cancelled). But for some people it may (or may not) be something that is desired and appropriate.
NukemJim
April 28th, 2016 at 11:27 pm
Barack “Lame Duck” Obama won’t go anywhere with this bill. Best he just go back to the golf course till they throw his ass out in Jan.
April 29th, 2016 at 12:12 am
“Smart guns are dumb.”
Just to be clear, ALL guns are dumb as a tool. Because, you know, they’re tools.
It’s the proponents of biometric gun operating systems that are dumb…so dumb in fact that THEY should be the guinea pigs. Especially since biometrics are moving past fingerprinting and going to eyeprinting recognition; look into the phone, atm camera, etc. and “blink”. Except in this case, you’d look down the bore. And if there’s a malf kablooie, well, one less dumbass trying to foist their own insecurities and inabilities on me.
April 29th, 2016 at 9:06 am
Eventually, a reliable and robust biometric identification system and/or remote activation/deactivation will be available for firearms. Sooner than anyone wants, probably.
The argument to be made against this is that such a “safety” system is dangerous, unnecessary, and totalitarian. If that very valid and real and logical argument does not work, there is much more than 2nd Amendment rights to worry about.
April 29th, 2016 at 11:10 am
Nukem Jim; remote tracking and shutdown (RTS) may not be part of all current “smart gun” programs, but it is the one and only motivation behind the technology whether you know it or not, or whether you’re on the deception side or the deceived side.
April 29th, 2016 at 11:24 am
mikee, I’m thinking that any such technology would/will be hacked within fifteen minutes of hitting the marketplace.
But yes. The President’s SS detail would be the ideal proving ground for such technology.
April 29th, 2016 at 12:05 pm
For those that were not around in the 1990s when this fraud was last tried: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/08/473581490/episode-694-the-gun-that-wouldnt-shoot
April 29th, 2016 at 7:08 pm
Much as car airbags were invented to protect people who won’t wear seatbelts (but they don’t, and if you aren’t wearing a seatbelt during a collision an airbag deployment very well may kill you), “Smart Guns” were thought up with the idea that they would prevent police officers from getting shot with their own guns – something that’s rare, but happens often enough to be troubling.
So what happened? Police officers, not wanting to be dependent on an unproven technology, got themselves exempted from laws mandating the use of “Smart gun” technology
Unintended consequences of bad engineering decisions. How many people now have been injured or killed by airbags? And how many people will die from malfunctioning “smart guns”?
Nobody cares. They MEAN well! And that’s all that matters.
April 30th, 2016 at 11:31 am
I’m with Mark Matis:
that is the PERFECT place for them to start. Especially in Connecticut, New York, Colorado, or California.
And Maryland, Illinois and Minnesota.
Any place that demands ‘”Mother may I” permission slips or waiting periods should be ground zero for Zero’s plans.
April 30th, 2016 at 11:36 am
Kevin, and after airbags had been mandated, so was seat belt usage.
April 30th, 2016 at 9:36 pm
Lyle,unless you have some data, citation or source that others can look at about this plot/plan regarding “smart guns” I think it might be better to state that
In my OPINION
“remote tracking and shutdown (RTS) may not be part of all current “smart gun” programs, but it is the one and only motivation behind the technology whether you know it or not, or whether you’re on the deception side or the deceived side.”
If you have data please share it with the rest of us.
Not saying RTS is not going to happen, not saying it is I have no clue.
I say again if you have some data/source/citation on this theory please share it.
May 1st, 2016 at 4:53 pm
“While technology is only getting better and more accessible — think fingerprint ID for unlocking an iPhone”
or think PPACA Federal healthcare marketplace website.
wait, let’s go back to unlocking an iPhone: if FBI (or the Israelis, under FBI contract) can unlock an iPhone, they sure as hell can lock a smart gun.
Only a fool would think the Feds are not consciously seeking this capability.
May 2nd, 2016 at 7:33 am
NukemJim, if I remember correctly, Armatix’s website touted that theirs could be made to fire only at approved targets on an approved range (via 2-factor authentication, with the user only having one of them). I have the link around somewhere. Armatix’s setup would also seem to be trivially easy to remotely jam.
So, the only “smart gun” actually developed so far is capable of remote shutdown, and their maker touts that they can also configure guns for selective activation. With a sample size of one, we have a remote-shutdown-capability rate of 100%.
May 2nd, 2016 at 4:21 pm
Look up Magna Trigger.
As stated a “smart gun” may or may not have tracking and remote shutdown. Could we please assess “smart guns” on what they actually do instead of what they may, possibly, perhaps do?
As stated I think that currently, with the exception of a Magna Trigger firearm, that none of the designs that I am aware of would pass muster for LEO’s or military. That does not mean that they may not in the future.
I understand that some people do not want them. That is great, I do not want a polymer or airweight .357. Why not ? Because I have tried them at the range and found they do not work for me. Before saying all “smart guns” do this or don’t do this could we look at the actual design, see if it might be OK and then have it tested? You know get some hard data on the subject prior to rejecting it?