|
|
|
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:
'Smart Guns' Show Promises but Face Hurdles
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Smartphones are locked with a pass code, and some with a fingerprint sensor. But guns, left loaded and ready to fire, can be used by children who accidentally stumble upon them or thieves who steal them. Wouldn’t using “smart guns” — firearms that don’t work without electronic confirmation of ownership — make communities safer?
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(3/23/2016)
|
| 200 years of gun manufacturing refinement has made modern firearms reliable when needed for the masses. It appears gun banners are searching for a way to undo that. The only problem we have is liberal politicians refuse to do their jobs of providing security for the law abiding. They force states to import a population known to oppose Americans and predestined to violence. They neglect to enforce gun violence laws so predators roam the cities. Then blame lawful gun owners. Why think they just want us to be safer? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
