|
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:
This Smart Gun Could Save Lives
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Guns kill more than 30,000 Americans every year, far more than in any other developed country. While lawmakers and activists battle it out over legislative solutions, some are trying a different approach: integrating smart technology into guns. In this episode of "The Spark," Bloomberg follows 21-year-old inventor and entrepreneur Kai Kloepfer, who's created a "smart" handgun that could save thousands of lives.
|
Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/11/2018)
|
The answer was no. The answer IS no. The answer will ALWAYS be no.
The more complicated a thing gets, the more it is likely to fail.
And that's just the beginning. Integrating electronic tech into firearms provides the government the means to disable them at will.
Not only no, but HELL no. |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/11/2018)
|
It could kill too.
Bad guy busts in, you grab gun ... battery is dead, gun doesn't work, good guy dies. Battery dies... gun works through default ...bad guy steals it. Or steals gun, removes battery and gun now works.
Or, wounded good guy grabs gun to defend himself. He has bloody hands so smart gun won't read fingerprints. Need a longer list? I don't. |
Comment by:
jac
(7/11/2018)
|
Good opportunity for NJ and California to show their support for this technology and mandate that their police departments replace their side arms with smart guns. |
|
|
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) |
|
|