|
|
|
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:
Gun debate could mean new focus on vets' safety device
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Their offering is a biometric trigger lock named the Guardian, which bolts onto a handgun and uses a fingerprint scanner to cover the weapon trigger. The pair have spent years tweaking the device's weight, opening speed and secondary release systems, all from the perspective of "someone who handles firearms and may need to use them at a moment's notice."
According to Barido, the lock would allow gun owners quick access for self-defense while preventing children or thieves from using the weapon. It's still in developmental phase, but the pair hope to make it available for sale later this year. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(1/7/2016)
|
| Rapist in window, I need my gun, Oh **** the battery is dead or Obama shut off the micro chip. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
