# Squash the Stupidity



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

If you google "smart gun" the anti media is enjoying the story of a new technology offering a hand gun and watch that emits a signal making the gun usable only by the person wearing the watch, or using a code. The leftist anti gun community sees this as an opp to control guns, and one anti has already proposed federal laws to mandate it on all new guns in two years and all existing guns in 3. 

I don't care for the technology, but I don't oppose people buying it if they want. I do oppose any foolish mandate.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

The number one reason they will want this tech employed is so they can broadcast a signal and shut them all off.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

And mandate that all guns must have this technology to be legal.


----------



## Go2ndAmend (Apr 5, 2013)

Just another slip in the slippery slope to remove our ability to defend ourselves and become dependent on the government.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

The technology will be like the income tax. First it will be voluntary and then one day you'll wake up and it will be mandatory.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

If you need a watch (transmitter) and a code to fire it, then the government will have the means to make it inoperative. I could even see them using that as one of the reasons for pushing such a law through. I can hear it now "this way the police can be sure that if they go to someone's house they won't have to worry about someone shooting them", the selling point leaving the impression that ONLY criminals or those about to commit a criminal act would be affected. 

If you want one, fine. I could see wanting one if you are worried about small children getting access to your firearms. This way you wouldn't have to lock you guns in a safe or put a trigger lock on it. I don't have any children in my home so I don't lock up many of my guns, but if I did I might use such a system BUT only if it was MY choice, wasn't overly expensive, AND I could remove it from my firearms ANY time I wanted to, MYSELF.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

alterego said:


> The number one reason they will want this tech employed is so they can broadcast a signal and shut them all off.


Or make the weapon much more expensive, thus reducing the amount of people who can afford them.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

So, if there are bad guys breaking into your house and you are injured, your wife will be unable to pick up your gun and defend herself.
Elections have consequenses. If you only will vote for a cantidate that rigidly follows your own agenda be prepared for what follows. And don't bitch about it.
The Paulistas of the last two election come to mind.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

How about we test it out first, . . .

Make it mandatory use on all new's media photographer's cameras (still and motion) including those in the studios.

Make it mandatory for all teleprompters.

Make it madatory for all news microphones.

After a short 10 year test, . . . we can appoint a committee to put together a coalition of interested parties, who can make recommendations to a citizen's group panel.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

Ripon said:


> The leftist anti gun community sees this as an opp to control guns, and one anti has already proposed federal laws to mandate it on all new guns in two years and all existing guns in 3.


HAH. What new technology, especially in conjunction with the government, has rolled out inside of two years? I think they forgot the 0. I could see them getting organized enough in 20 years to figure out that this was a stupid idea.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

dannydefense said:


> HAH. What new technology, especially in conjunction with the government, has rolled out inside of two years? I think they forgot the 0. I could see them getting organized enough in 20 years to figure out that this was a stupid idea.


I think you give them too much credit, but they are not above mandating the implementation of technology that does not exist and then criminalizing the non-use of said non-existent technology.


----------



## Infidel (Dec 22, 2012)

Yeah but who's building a smart gun? I mean actually has one in production and is offering it for sale? This has been going on for years and quite frankly I can't believe they are still beating this dead horse. We've been hearing about smart gun technology since at least the 90's (and probably earlier than that) and as of yet it hasn't materialized. The technology has always been too fragile and doesn't work the way it's designed to. Quite honestly they can mandate anything they want but my guns will NOT be smart, I like being smarter than my guns.

-Infidel


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Here are some of the features as it stands now. One company makes it I believe it is Armatrix out oh Germany. The only model in production is a .22lr. The gun sells for $1400.00 and the watch for $400.00. So for 1800.00 you might get to defend yourself with a .22lr if it actually works.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

I think I read in a press release they have a .40 cal coming out this summer, still not worthy. I laughed at one media outlet suggesting it was "twice" the cost of a common .40 cal Glock - poor media can't get its numbers straigh - try 3x with the watch. In the past 48 hours a few political forums I participate on have had a serious uptick in gun control advocates suggesting "this is the future" and we need to "force" it. Good luck with that. I'm not retrofitting my old Colts.



retired guard said:


> Here are some of the features as it stands now. One company makes it I believe it is Armatrix out oh Germany. The only model in production is a .22lr. The gun sells for $1400.00 and the watch for $400.00. So for 1800.00 you might get to defend yourself with a .22lr if it actually works.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

That's what they are good at. Force.


----------



## StarPD45 (Nov 13, 2012)

They don't care if it works or not. It's just another notch in their belt of control.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Colt once tried to develop a similar product is it just a coincidence that the CEO at the time was out of academia and stated in an interview he was ashamed to work for firearms manufacturer?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Molon labe
(Come and take them)


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

I wouldn't mind a digital fingerprint ID as a safety feature as long as it met these criteria:

1) Could be programmed for multiple prints...meaning anyone I want to use my gun may use it.
2) Said programming didn't take longer than 5 seconds
3) The feature could be turned off/disengaged when ever I needed to (but ONLY by me)
4) It did not transmit anything to anyone (No blue-tooth) nor receive signals from any device (meaning EM shielded)
5) Could not be hacked or jammed
6) Could not be over-ridden....EVER
7) It was reliable 100% of the time...meaning no stoppages...EVER
8) Was weather and shock proof
9) Can work through gloves (I don't always shoot bare-handed)
10) Added no additional weight to the weapon
11) Required no power supply of any kind

If they could make something like that...I may be for it. Wait a minute!!! Come to think of it...all my weapons are already equipped with it. It's called MY FINGER!


----------



## topgun (Oct 2, 2013)

tango said:


> And mandate that all guns must have this technology to be legal.


All my guns that weren't lost in that terrible boating mishap, will then be deemed illegal.


----------



## Infidel (Dec 22, 2012)

Smokin04 said:


> I wouldn't mind a digital fingerprint ID as a safety feature as long as it met these criteria:
> 
> 1) Could be programmed for multiple prints...meaning anyone I want to use my gun may use it.
> 2) Said programming didn't take longer than 5 seconds
> ...


The issue I see with this is are you willing to be the guinea pig? I don't care how much testing they do on the system it's another component that can fail and with me being one of Murphy's favorite whipping boys it'll fail when I need it most. We can train ourselves to deal with just about any other failure possible short of a complete weapon failure which can be avoided with proper maintenance but a failure of a critical system when you need it most could and probably would be catastrophic.

-Infidel


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Infidel said:


> The issue I see with this is are you willing to be the guinea pig? I don't care how much testing they do on the system it's another component that can fail and with me being one of Murphy's favorite whipping boys it'll fail when I need it most. We can train ourselves to deal with just about any other failure possible short of a complete weapon failure which can be avoided with proper maintenance but a failure of a critical system when you need it most could and probably would be catastrophic.
> 
> -Infidel


Well no, I certainly wouldn't volunteer MY finger.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

a long time ago - back in the '90's a company in NH(Ithink) made a device that you installed on a S&W K Frame that made it impossible for a non owner to use it. It was made primarily for those folks that transported prisoners that should they get a guards gun away from him it would beworthless. Think it was called Magna something or other.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The only MANDATORY LAW that I want to see is when WE THE PEOPLE TALK THE DAMN POLITICIANS SHUT THE HELL UP AND LISTEN.

WE THE PEOPLE need to stop treating these elected government people as royalty. THEY WORK FOR US DAMNIT!


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

To rely on anything electronic to work when you need it to the most is just plain stupid to me. What happens if it gets wet, is subjected to heat, cold or high impact? Wouldn't bet my life on it in a million years.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

topgun said:


> All my guns that weren't lost in that terrible boating mishap, will then be deemed illegal.


I think I was out on the water near you on that day! Rough water, huge waves, the guns just slipped overboard and sank right away in extremely deep water?

These clowns are not concerned about people's Rights, nor are they concerned about the average citizen's safety. What they are concerned about is making it so expensive to own a firearm that most people can't afford them, and if they do the means to disable them. Now why would a politician or a person in power want to do that?


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

my gun range has taken it off the shelf. I was there last night. it was empty. seems to me they may have to have a huge ammo sale to make up for this faux pah! they are getting their asses kicked on facebook too

California store?s sale of smart guns prompts furious backlash - The Washington Post


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

heres a comment from a facebook poster:

Armatix lobbied their gun block into German law 2003. They wanted to sell 3,000,000 gun blocks, but sold only 5,000 - 100,000. Now they try to lobby it into "safe transport" into ATT. They also invented the "Smart Gun" and tried to lobby it into gun law - first in Switzerland, than in Germany and Austria. Fortunately they failed. But then they got "Skyfall" and now they want it in every gun law in the world. Hey, they made a loss of 11,000,000 € in 2012 in Germany. Do you really want to work with this company? I call them "gravedigger of gun industry" since 2009 and I fight against this company online since 2011.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

My boss has a BRAND new jeep trailhawk. He keeps the key fob in his pocket. The doors unlock when he gets close, so he was bragging about it. He showed me how you just push a button inside the Jeep, and it starts. He didn't like it when I said, "Wow, I wonder if it works with you rolled up in a rug, in the back seat?"


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

And, yes, its just another "little piece", making guns more expensive, more controllable, and "can be turned off". Nope, I wouldn't carry one if my life depended on it.


----------



## Blackcat (Nov 12, 2012)

A while back I saw a guy that had a small RFID implanted in his hand and he used it to control all sorts of stuff. Originally I was thinking of one and pairing it to a keyless ignition on my motorcycle. But this thread reminds me of another idea I wanted to try. Pairing one of those with one of my guns so that it only fires for me and locks for anybody else. Never got away with these ideas because my girlfriend is very much against RFID.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Blackcat said:


> A while back I saw a guy that had a small RFID implanted in his hand and he used it to control all sorts of stuff. Originally I was thinking of one and pairing it to a keyless ignition on my motorcycle. But this thread reminds me of another idea I wanted to try. Pairing one of those with one of my guns so that it only fires for me and locks for anybody else. Never got away with these ideas because my girlfriend is very much against RFID.


I agree with your girlfriend.

Would you rather have me steal your gun, or your gun and your hand?


----------

