|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Why Don't We Have Life-Saving Smart Guns Yet?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://www.keepandarms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For decades inventors have been trying to make guns that can be fired only by their owners, without sacrificing reliability. Stuffy industry types call them personalized weapons, but everyone else just calls them smart guns.
Most smart-gun prototypes so far have depended on biometrics (voice, palm, or fingerprint scans) to verify the owner, but none have made it to production. With the possibility of sweat or blood blocking a sensor, dependability remains a concern.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(9/9/2015)
|
Two reasons. They're not life saving. And the people that buy guns don't want them.
The police don't want them. The military doesn't want them. Hunters don't want them. Civilians don't want them.
The only people that want them are the anti gun liberals that won't buy them anyway. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/9/2015)
|
| Because they are STINK!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
