|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
kangpc
(1/16/2017)
|
| I'm usually not in favor of "cops only" laws, but in the case of "smart guns" I think they should be available only to cops. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/16/2017)
|
No it doesn't fire like any other weapon. From the article:
"Kloepfer said his gun is “relatively reliable.”
Relatively reliable doesn't make the grade. When you need a firearm, you don't want "relatively" reliable.
I have had one misfire with a center fire cartridge in my life out of in excess of 10,000 cartridges. That is a reliability rate of 99.99 percent.
Talk to me about smart gun reliability when you reach 99.99% reliability. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
