TexasCHLforum.com

If only this indeed were the case (a quote from the AG regarding his discussions with "technology people" about making guns "safe"):

"It's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis," Holder said.

Taking it at face-value, if Americans agreed to go along with the technology proposals for "safe" guns, would the liberals/gun control crowd back off on their attacks on the Second Amendment?

In my mind it is simply another attempt to chip-away at our rights by making guns no longer accessible to law-abiding citizens that cannot afford a "smart-weapon".

No way, almost all latest mass murders in US passed a criminal background check and in case of Connecticut the weapons were even registered. So, you can assume any one of those were able to get the firearm, with an electronic lock, Id-ed to them. Those proposed "safety" measures are pointless in those cases. I guess it helps when a kid just found his dead weapon. However, in those cases, the weapon should have been locked up in a safe.

No more reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. No more. Not one more inch.

Anygunanywhere

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... bracelets/

And this technology would just be a setup for ultimate control. What happens when the government then needs the ability to have a "kill-switch" (pun-intended) on those guns to remotely disable them...in the case of rioting or some other disastrous event? Then they have the gun control they want. You can have your guns, but we can turn them off whenever we "need" to. What's worse, is that the remote disable can be portable, so cops/military can have operable guns (the "non-safe" kind), while they disable all the others around them. Who wouldn't agree to keep the LEO's safe like that (/sarcasm)?

I don't know. Can we get a bracelet for each member of the Justice Dept. and particularly the BATFE so that guns won't get into the wrong hands illegally?

anygunanywhere wrote:No more reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. No more. Not one more inch.

Anygunanywhere

200%

In my mind it is simply another attempt to chip-away at our rights by making guns no longer accessible to law-abiding citizens that cannot afford a "smart-weapon".

I think we can all agree sometimes it is important to judge the message first, by the messenger. Its one thing if someone like Abbott or Wayne LePierre brings up the issue and talks about exciting new technologies. Its another when someone with an avowed desire to eliminate the Second Amendment brings it up...

Scenario:
*Thumbprint safes now required. Firearms must be stored in them.
*Then: You must certify you have such and such safe to purchase a firearm. Its part of your background check.
*Then: Because of X incident we really should have inspections to make sure you have such and such safe and will consent to random inspection as a requirement for purchases.

I do believe thats not far off from Canada now (if at all).

anygunanywhere wrote:No more reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. No more. Not one more inch.

Anygunanywhere

Not one inch, nope nope nope. Not another millimeter.

Additionally I think this is supposed to prevent future fast and furious type bits soooooooo............ Mexican drug runners are going to get bracelets before they run guns for the US DOJ?!? This guy is a special sort of stupid.

Holder is the one who should be wearing an ankle bracelet, not law abiding gun owners!

misterlarry wrote:Holder is the one who should be wearing an ankle bracelet, not law abiding gun owners!

Never mind the anklet, get him a pair of connecting bracelets, connecting anklets, and a orange jumpsuit. He has committed more evil and illegal acts than any AG I can remember in recent history.

mamabearCali wrote:

misterlarry wrote:Holder is the one who should be wearing an ankle bracelet, not law abiding gun owners!

Never mind the anklet, get him a pair of connecting bracelets, connecting anklets, and a orange jumpsuit. He has committed more evil and illegal acts than any AG I can remember in recent history.

How about a neck bracelet. Think, "Wild Wild West".

If the Secret Service and all other federal law enforcement that fall under DOJ go to the bracelets or fingerprint requirements I might think about it. Nope, I like what I have.

Pawpaw wrote:How about a neck bracelet. Think, "Wild Wild West".

You mean one of these?


Works for me. Who gets to hold the switch?

mamabearCali wrote: This guy is a special sort of stupid.

I like your way with words but I think you're way off base. This guy is a special sort of evil. He's not stupid and his intent is clear.

Larry

anygunanywhere wrote:No more reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. No more. Not one more inch.
Anygunanywhere

I hear you, but if we have many more public shootings and it will roll down hill. And politically, opponents will say that pro-gun lobby won't negotiate in good faith.
You won't get a chance to weigh in on "reasonable" restrictions. You'll get stuck with all the unreasonable ones.... Mark my words, more shootings = more restrictions.