|
|
|
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:
teebonicus
(6/19/2015)
|
"Smart technology – using fingerprint recognition, hand biometrics, coded locks or other features to make sure a gun can be fired only by its owner – could be used to prevent many of those casualties."
It can also be remotely disabled by EMP.
In other words, the government will have an "off" switch to disable your gun.
No thanks. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(6/19/2015)
|
Kinda hard to make a 'persuasive argument' when you start with a falsehood; "gun shops won't sell them". Dealers of anything stock what their customers buy. Doing otherwise is economic suicide. That includes firearms. Since the advent of the microprocessor there have been numerous 'electronically-controlled' - long and short - firearms put on the market. Some by major manufacturers. None have been an economic success. And even this writer underlines the uncertainity of the concept with his "might". Quality firearms are too expensive an investment for the majority of buyers to plunge on a WAG.
But there is one ready market where the safety, reliability and practicability of this concept can be demonstrated; police issue. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
