If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   The Department of Justice wants to explore electronic bracelets for gun owners. Some people have a problem with this   (opposingviews.com) divider line 456
    More: Obvious, Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder, DOJ, gun owners, GPS tracking unit, Biden  
•       •       •

6164 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2014 at 1:35 PM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



456 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-08 11:42:36 AM
Even I can see that's a stupid, expensive and tyrannous idea. Maybe gun dealers and concerned citizens should buy lots of the guns already made in case they somehow push this through, just to keep them available for responsible people to buy.
 
2014-04-08 11:44:30 AM
They won't try to "grandfather in" a law making sale & possession of unbugged weapons illegal, will they? That would really be upsetting.
 
2014-04-08 11:47:19 AM
Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"
 
2014-04-08 12:22:43 PM
Such technology would include GPS trackers ...


Whaddaya mean, "would"?? I can't imagine how a GPS tracker might make a gun safer so and there are obvious reasons why they shouldn't and won't be implemented. If Opposing Views' Allison Geller says these "would" even be considered, I'd like to see a little more context before I believe that. I suspect either lazy journalism or fearmongering, here.


The NRA has already spoken out against electronic bracelets and similar technology, writing last year: "We are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire."


Sounds reasonable. But suppose they got to the point where they were inexpensive and reliable -- would that be okay?
 
2014-04-08 12:53:58 PM

The One True TheDavid: Maybe gun dealers and concerned citizens should buy lots of the guns already made


They're way ahead of you.
 
2014-04-08 12:54:45 PM

James!: Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"


Well, even you have to admit that this is a tad bit much.
 
2014-04-08 12:57:51 PM

James!: Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"


Yeah, because no state could possibly mandate their use, right?  And even if they did, the police would fall under the same requirements, so we have nothing to worry about.
 
2014-04-08 12:58:30 PM

cman: James!: Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"

Well, even you have to admit that this is a tad bit much.


No, to people like him, it's not.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-08 01:02:33 PM
dittybopper:

Well, even you have to admit that this is a tad bit much.

No, to people like him, it's not.


Not to sane people.  There was even a gun like that made but the gun nuts decided that it was evil mind controls or something
 
2014-04-08 01:07:13 PM

dittybopper: cman: James!: Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"

Well, even you have to admit that this is a tad bit much.

No, to people like him, it's not.


I realize you come from a place of extreme paranoia, but I would hope you could discern the difference between interest in smart gun technology and an Orwellian hellscape.
 
2014-04-08 01:12:48 PM
Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.
 
2014-04-08 01:14:12 PM
First of all, I think TFA is really badly wrong about something, to wit:

Such technology would include GPS trackers and fingerprint sensors that would make gun owners and their weapons easier to track.

How they get that (tracking guns and gun owners via GPS) from this statement by Eric Holder:

"I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe," he told the budget subcommittee.

"By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon."


I have no idea.  Holder is talking about technologies that only allow an authorized person to fire the weapon*.  He's not talking about actually tracking the guns like he failed to do in Fast and Furious.

Whoever wrote the article is an idiot.  If you got to the link to the Free Beacon article, there is a paragraph near the end that says "others have suggested" GPS tracking and RFID chips in guns,  but TFA links him to the idea.

Not that I think Holder is a true believer in the Second Amendment, I know otherwise.  Just it's not right putting words in the mouth of the man that he didn't say.

*Which isn't the same as "lawfully in possession":  I could give one of my guns to my wife, and she might not be 'authorized' by the system but she's still in lawful possession.
 
2014-04-08 01:15:57 PM

vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.


Technically, the items gun sellers sell are not defective. Taking life is what they are designed to do. Gun owners, however, thats a different story...
 
2014-04-08 01:17:23 PM

dittybopper: First of all, I think TFA is really badly wrong about something, to wit:

Such technology would include GPS trackers and fingerprint sensors that would make gun owners and their weapons easier to track.

How they get that (tracking guns and gun owners via GPS) from this statement by Eric Holder:

"I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe," he told the budget subcommittee.

"By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon."

I have no idea.  Holder is talking about technologies that only allow an authorized person to fire the weapon*.  He's not talking about actually tracking the guns like he failed to do in Fast and Furious.

Whoever wrote the article is an idiot.  If you got to the link to the Free Beacon article, there is a paragraph near the end that says "others have suggested" GPS tracking and RFID chips in guns,  but TFA links him to the idea.

Not that I think Holder is a true believer in the Second Amendment, I know otherwise.  Just it's not right putting words in the mouth of the man that he didn't say.

*Which isn't the same as "lawfully in possession":  I could give one of my guns to my wife, and she might not be 'authorized' by the system but she's still in lawful possession.


Hey look, you came to the same conclusion for which you insulted me.  Isn't that funny.
 
2014-04-08 01:20:04 PM
nice blog, shiatbird
 
2014-04-08 01:20:18 PM

James!: dittybopper: cman: James!: Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"

Well, even you have to admit that this is a tad bit much.

No, to people like him, it's not.

I realize you come from a place of extreme paranoia, but I would hope you could discern the difference between interest in smart gun technology and an Orwellian hellscape.


I have no problem with it being voluntary.  You want to buy a gun with a chip in it that recognizes your fingerprint or a bracelet or a ring that you're wearing, well, not my cup of tea, but have at it.

What I have a problem with is the possibility that it will be made mandatory.

What if every single new car sold today had to have an ignition interlock device by law?  And that you were forbidden to disable it.  Would you be OK with having to prove to your car that you're not drunk every time you need to go get groceries or pick up the kids from school?

It's the same thing.

Oh, and what if that law didn't apply to police officers?  Why?  Because they are law officers and need the car to start 100% of the time.  But you don't, because you are a lowly civilian.
 
2014-04-08 01:21:44 PM

dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: cman: James!: Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"

Well, even you have to admit that this is a tad bit much.

No, to people like him, it's not.

I realize you come from a place of extreme paranoia, but I would hope you could discern the difference between interest in smart gun technology and an Orwellian hellscape.

I have no problem with it being voluntary.  You want to buy a gun with a chip in it that recognizes your fingerprint or a bracelet or a ring that you're wearing, well, not my cup of tea, but have at it.

What I have a problem with is the possibility that it will be made mandatory.

What if every single new car sold today had to have an ignition interlock device by law?  And that you were forbidden to disable it.  Would you be OK with having to prove to your car that you're not drunk every time you need to go get groceries or pick up the kids from school?

It's the same thing.

Oh, and what if that law didn't apply to police officers?  Why?  Because they are law officers and need the car to start 100% of the time.  But you don't, because you are a lowly civilian.


What if a law was passed where hypothetical slippery slope arguments about legal issues were made illegal?
 
2014-04-08 01:23:54 PM
Seems reasonable, after all, the federal law enforcement agencies under Holder's DOJ all use biometrically secure firearms. Right? right? I can't even take this story seriously until I see it from a source other than OV or free bacon.

vpb: Not to sane people.  There was even a gun like that made but the gun nuts decided that it was evil mind controls or something


No we crapped on it because it was a .22 pistol that cost like $1500 and gun control tards were acting like it was the do-all firearm of the future.
 
2014-04-08 01:23:56 PM
I'd have thought a cock ring would have been more appropriate.
 
2014-04-08 01:26:51 PM

James!: Hey look, you came to the same conclusion for which you insulted me.  Isn't that funny.


Yeah, because this is how you win friends and influence people:

Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"

Might seem nice enough to you, because you look down on those people.

Had you stopped, thought about it, and presented your views in a non-insulting manner, I'd be in complete agreement with you about the "GPS tracking" aspect of it.

But you decided to go the other way.  Because it makes you feel superior.
 
2014-04-08 01:27:55 PM

dittybopper: James!: Hey look, you came to the same conclusion for which you insulted me.  Isn't that funny.

Yeah, because this is how you win friends and influence people:

Follow the trail of paranoia from "we're looking into technological security devices that gun owners could use" to "THEY"RE GONNA PUT A MICROCHIP IN YOUR GUNBRAIN!!"

Might seem nice enough to you, because you look down on those people.

Had you stopped, thought about it, and presented your views in a non-insulting manner, I'd be in complete agreement with you about the "GPS tracking" aspect of it.

But you decided to go the other way.  Because it makes you feel superior.


I wasn't trying to make friends.  I was trying to make fun of an article that pulled out the jump to conclusions mat and landed on 1984.
 
2014-04-08 01:27:55 PM
NON OV LINK

ffs we were ov free for months STOP GREENLIGHTING THEIR CRAP
 
2014-04-08 01:28:26 PM

The One True TheDavid: Even I can see that's a stupid, expensive and tyrannous idea.


Then you understand why major firearm prohibition advocates favor the idea.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-08 01:29:08 PM
dittybopper:

I have no problem with it being voluntary.  You want to buy a gun with a chip in it that recognizes your fingerprint or a bracelet or a ring that you're wearing, well, not my cup of tea, but have at it.

What I have a problem with is the possibility that it will be made mandatory.

What if every single new car sold today had to have an ignition interlock device by law?  And that you were forbidden to disable it.  Would you be OK with having to prove to your car that you're not drunk every time you need to go get groceries or pick up the kids from school?

It's the same thing.

Oh, and what if that law didn't apply to police officers?  Why?  Because they are law officers and need the car to start 100% of the time.  But you don't, because you are a lowly civilian.


As long as the victims families can sue you for negligence when your arsenal gets stolen and used in crimes then there is no reason it couldn't be voluntary.
 
2014-04-08 01:29:29 PM

James!: What if a law was passed where hypothetical slippery slope arguments about legal issues were made illegal?


It's not a slippery slope if it's already the law in at least one state, that all guns sold will be required to have this.

Also, slippery slopes do indeed exist in the real world.  They are a logical fallacy, but we don't live on the planet Vulcan.

For quite an intelligent article about how slippery slopes actually work, see:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf
 
2014-04-08 01:30:46 PM

vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.


I agree; firearm retailers who cannot psychically and infallibly predict the future criminal use of a firearm that is lawfully sold should be liable for their lack of clairvoyance, just as liquor store owners who sell alcohol to a sober adult should be liable if that adult later becomes intoxicated and causes injury with a motor vehicle.
 
2014-04-08 01:31:51 PM

James!: What if a law was passed where hypothetical slippery slope arguments about legal issues were made illegal?


god only knows what sort of legislation that could lead to in the future
 
2014-04-08 01:33:43 PM

vpb: As long as the victims families can sue you for negligence when your arsenal gets stolen and used in crimes then there is no reason it couldn't be voluntary.


OK, I counter this with:

1. Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
2. National concealed carry.
3. Federal pre-emption of magazine size limits.

Deal?

I mean, you're asking me to give up something (traditional style guns to avoid being sued if someone *STEALS* my gun), so what do I get back?

Don't you want to compromise?
 
2014-04-08 01:34:19 PM

Dimensio: vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.

I agree; firearm retailers who cannot psychically and infallibly predict the future criminal use of a firearm that is lawfully sold should be liable for their lack of clairvoyance, just as liquor store owners who sell alcohol to a sober adult should be liable if that adult later becomes intoxicated and causes injury with a motor vehicle.


Along with the car dealership, and the manufacturer.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-08 01:37:06 PM
dittybopper:
For quite an intelligent article about how slippery slopes actually work, see:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf


Well, it's an example of how some people think a slippery slope fallacy is an intelligent article.
 
2014-04-08 01:37:35 PM

dittybopper: Dimensio: vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.

I agree; firearm retailers who cannot psychically and infallibly predict the future criminal use of a firearm that is lawfully sold should be liable for their lack of clairvoyance, just as liquor store owners who sell alcohol to a sober adult should be liable if that adult later becomes intoxicated and causes injury with a motor vehicle.

Along with the car dealership, and the manufacturer.


Vehicle manufacturers should be liable simply for making and manufacturing race cars.

Back on topic: for a proper comparison, mandatory breathalyzers on all automobiles are simply a common sense measure.
 
2014-04-08 01:38:09 PM

dittybopper: Dimensio: vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.

I agree; firearm retailers who cannot psychically and infallibly predict the future criminal use of a firearm that is lawfully sold should be liable for their lack of clairvoyance, just as liquor store owners who sell alcohol to a sober adult should be liable if that adult later becomes intoxicated and causes injury with a motor vehicle.

Along with the car dealership, and the manufacturer.


What about the lady at the DMV that gave me my license to drive? It was only a renewal though...maybe we go all the way back to the guy who gave me my driving test? Maybe get them to pay for any speeding tickets I get...they should have precognitive abilities at least equal to a private FFL.

This game is fun.
 
2014-04-08 01:38:30 PM
I'd say if someone wants an RFID chip in their gun so only they can use it that's exactly the kind of thing the government should be helping out with.

On the other hand you have the kinds of folks who started hitting their passports with hammers to keep from being tracked by black helicopters.
 
2014-04-08 01:38:44 PM
The only thing that will keep people safe is if these idiots are off the streets entirely.  No electronic bracelet is going to help, unless it can somehow leap off their wrist and catch a speeding bullet going in the opposite direction.  Lock em up, see how long they love their stupid little hobby then.
 
2014-04-08 01:39:41 PM

Dimensio: vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.

I agree; firearm retailers who cannot psychically and infallibly predict the future criminal use of a firearm that is lawfully sold should be liable for their lack of clairvoyance, just as liquor store owners who sell alcohol to a sober adult should be liable if that adult later becomes intoxicated and causes injury with a motor vehicle.


Partially liable, perhaps. Maybe a fine or something. I would be okay for liquor store owners too.
We have no problem with them profiting off the sale, they should be held accountable when the products they sell are used to kill people.
 
2014-04-08 01:41:07 PM

dittybopper: He's not talking about actually tracking the guns like he failed to do in Fast and Furious


Yawn.

Seriously, this shiat again?

It was a non-story stemming from the fact that the ATF had two options: one, tell the owner to make the legal sale and track the guns as best they could, or two, have the straw purchaser make his legal sale elsewhere and have no tracking.


Frankly I wouldn't by bothered by people saying the ATF sucks and failed at their jobs even if it weren't true, except that it is the talking point of the exact same people who want the ATF to have less enforcement power in the first place, and occurred in a state that goes out of its way to be the most friendly by far to straw purchasers. This is the perfect example of the conservative plan, "step 1: do our best to make something fail. Step 2: watch it perform poorly. Step 3: accuse it of being bad so we can cut it more".
 
2014-04-08 01:41:26 PM

dittybopper: What I have a problem with is the possibility that it will be made mandatory.


I have a problem with it, period.

What if I want to take a friend to the range?

What if I need to pass one of my guns to someone else in an emergency/disaster situation?

What if I'm injured and my fingerprints won't register because of blood? Hell, what if my hands are dirty.

You want me to wear a bracelet that identifies me as a gun owner? Why not just paint a target on my back? What about an armband with a Star of David on it? Yeah, I went there.

It's bullshiat.
 
2014-04-08 01:41:41 PM

vernonFL: Dimensio: vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.

I agree; firearm retailers who cannot psychically and infallibly predict the future criminal use of a firearm that is lawfully sold should be liable for their lack of clairvoyance, just as liquor store owners who sell alcohol to a sober adult should be liable if that adult later becomes intoxicated and causes injury with a motor vehicle.

Partially liable, perhaps. Maybe a fine or something. I would be okay for liquor store owners too.
We have no problem with them profiting off the sale, they should be held accountable when the products they sell are used to kill people.


As I said: I agree. Sellers of a legal product who break absolutely no laws when selling that legal product should be liable when the purchaser of the product uses the product to commit a crime that the seller could not possibly have predicted in advance. This should be true of all products, not merely firearms and alcoholic beverages. If a computer is used to commit identity theft and credit card fraud, then the seller of the computer should bear liability.
 
2014-04-08 01:41:45 PM

Dimensio: Vehicle manufacturers should be liable simply for making and manufacturing race cars.


I read that, it was funny. I like how the Airbus A380 is included as a "race car"
Glad my AMG Benz was left off the list. I would hate to see it pulled.
 
2014-04-08 01:42:14 PM

James!: I realize you come from a place of extreme paranoia, but I would hope you could discern the difference between interest in smart gun technology and an Orwellian hellscape.


Sort of like the difference between interest in metadata collection technology and an orwellian hellscape?
 
2014-04-08 01:42:15 PM

dittybopper: Also, slippery slopes do indeed exist in the real world.


It's only a slippery slope if you don't like it. Otherwise it's just a common sense progression.
 
2014-04-08 01:42:20 PM

dittybopper: But you decided to go the other way. Because it makes you feel superior.


So you base your beliefs on whether people are nice to you or not, as opposed to a belief's independent empirical and/or logical and/or moral components, support, or ramifications? Well aren't you just precious.
 
2014-04-08 01:43:56 PM

Calmamity: You want me to wear a bracelet that identifies me as a gun owner? Why not just paint a target on my back?


Why are you afraid to have a target on your back? Don't you have a gun to protect you?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-08 01:44:37 PM
dittybopper:

I mean, you're asking me to give up something (traditional style guns to avoid being sued if someone *STEALS* my gun), so what do I get back?

Don't you want to compromise?


No, I don't want to compromise.  No one should have to give you anything to keep you from endangering people and more than they should have to bribe you to keep you from robbing banks or murdering people.

If you are compromising public safety by failing to secure weapons that are designed to kill, then you should be held fully responsible for the result.  If you aren't responsible enough to be trusted with weapons then you shouldn't be allowed to have them.
 
2014-04-08 01:44:56 PM

vernonFL: Yeah, that is a stupid idea.

A better idea is to make gun owners and gun sellers partially civilly and criminally responsible if their weapons are used in crimes.


So if I steal your car and run someone down with it, you go to jail?
 
2014-04-08 01:45:03 PM
Ah another retarded gun control attempt that will only make owning guns harder for normal people, while not affecting criminals. Talking about guns with special communicators that won't fire unless owner is using. Good luck getting those to sell for one thing, and also criminals will still always have access to normal guns. They are only successful in keeping guns out of the hands of normal law abiding people while criminals still will always have their regular guns. It's almost like thes people don't think before they act.
 
2014-04-08 01:45:17 PM

The One True TheDavid: concerned citizens should buy lots of the guns


The real reason articles like this get printed, posted, and passed around.

phaseolus: Sounds reasonable. But suppose they got to the point where they were inexpensive and reliable -- would that be okaytotally sweet?


Very yes.  It'd be like Shadowrun!
 
2014-04-08 01:45:44 PM
I think we need to explore jail for a few politicians first.
 
2014-04-08 01:45:50 PM

Calmamity: You want me to wear a bracelet that identifies me as a gun owner? Why not just paint a target on my back?


Doesn't the fact that you have a gun on you identify you as a gun owner?
 
2014-04-08 01:47:18 PM
This sounds like a WONDERFUL technology! Though since it is expensive, we should first require anyone involved in law enforcement to be the first ones to use the technology, THEN require the regular civilians to use it.
 
Displayed 50 of 456 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report