Obama called Friday for boosting so-called "smart gun" technology - and setting new requirements for manufacturers

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:06:00 -0000 (UTC), betweentheeyes

Post by betweentheeyes
Obama called Friday for boosting so-called "smart gun" technology -
and setting new requirements for manufacturers
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/29/obama-calls-for-
boosting-smart-gun-tech-setting-new-requirements.html
The President, completely ignorant of the free market, sticks his
governmental nose where it most certainly doesn't belong.
"As part of the effort to promote their use, the administration is
pursuing requirements that manufacturers would have to meet for law
enforcement agencies to consider purchasing guns with that
technology."
Obama just made a whole bunch of LEO pissed off.
Good for you Barack. Your legacy will live on.

I think he's got a GREAT idea, this "boosting" business.

Depending on who you talk to, the greatest gun salesmen in the world
are either himself or the NRA. Maybe they should get together?

Klaus Schadenfreude

2016-04-30 14:34:03 UTC

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:06:00 -0000 (UTC), betweentheeyes

It's funny to hear Obama and the other liberals screech about "smart
guns" when THEY are directly responsible for gun accidents.

THEY are the ones who promoted gun sales, scaring Americans to fill
their homes with more and more guns.

THEY are the ones who are afraid to talk about actual gun safety.

THEY are the ones who use anecdotes and news stories to "prove" their
point.

If firearms manufacturers can be held legally responsible for a
gangster robbing a liquor store, Obama can certainly be held
personally responsible for creating the atmosphere of fear and
uncertainty that resulted in the purchase of MILLIONS of more
firearms, and the resulting accidents.

NOW they want Americans to buy even MORE guns-- "smart guns"-- that
don't even exist.

WHY is it the only people who WANT "smart guns" are the people who
have no guns?

Cops certainly don't want them:

James O. Pasco Jr., executive director of the National Fraternal Order
of Police, which has more than 330,000 members, said in a telephone
interview that he was glad to see that the plan announced by the White
House did not mandate the testing of smart-gun technology by law
enforcement agencies.

Obama has tried to "study" the issue but what has he come up with?

January 5, 2016:
In a statement, the White House explained that the agencies have been
asked to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that
would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use
of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Those
findings will then be provided to the president in 90 days in the form
of a report that the White House said should contain a strategy for
the real-world deployment of smart gun technology.

The 90 days has come and gone. Obviously, they got nothing.

==========LIBERAL'S WET DREAM =================

Government sponsored "smart gun" technology is developed.
"Dumb guns" are "bought back" and made illegal for possession by
anyone not an agent of the government, Secret Service, military, law
enforcement, etc.
"Smart guns" are easily traced and detected by the new Obama Gun
Detector Van now roaming the streets of your town.

==========LIBERAL'S WET DREAM =================

FACT: If people wanted "smart guns," we'd have them.

They don't, so we don't.

RD Sandman

2016-04-30 14:47:01 UTC

One of the things I wanted for some of those "safety" ideas was for law
enforcement and the military to be the test beds. If the technology is
good enough for on duty police officers and combat troops, I would be a lot
more in favor of it than if they were excused like they normally are.
--
RD (The Sandman)

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too much
while ten bullets in the possession of mother protecting
her children may not be enough.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas

2016-05-01 14:13:53 UTC

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to many
laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

Klaus Schadenfreude

2016-05-01 14:23:40 UTC

On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:53 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to many
laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

This is what they're after. Just like California now deems which
handguns are 'safe" and which are not.

Scout

2016-05-01 18:23:43 UTC

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:53 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to many
laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

This is what they're after. Just like California now deems which
handguns are 'safe" and which are not.

So tell me, if a California approved handgun is used in a mass
shooting....should the families of the victims sue California for approving
those guns?

Best part is federal law doesn't shield them from being sued due to criminal
misuse by a 3rd party.

Klaus Schadenfreude

2016-05-01 20:19:22 UTC

On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:23:43 -0400, "Scout"

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:53 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to many
laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

This is what they're after. Just like California now deems which
handguns are 'safe" and which are not.

So tell me, if a California approved handgun is used in a mass
shooting....should the families of the victims sue California for approving
those guns?
Best part is federal law doesn't shield them from being sued due to criminal
misuse by a 3rd party.

Ordinarily, no, but since they like to mix "gun safety" and "gun
violence" as the same thing, in this case I would say yes, they have a
great deal of responsibility. :)

Scout

2016-05-02 00:38:19 UTC

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:23:43 -0400, "Scout"

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:53 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to many
laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

This is what they're after. Just like California now deems which
handguns are 'safe" and which are not.

So tell me, if a California approved handgun is used in a mass
shooting....should the families of the victims sue California for approving
those guns?
Best part is federal law doesn't shield them from being sued due to criminal
misuse by a 3rd party.

Ordinarily, no, but since they like to mix "gun safety" and "gun
violence" as the same thing, in this case I would say yes, they have a
great deal of responsibility. :)

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but then California is hardly your
ordinary state. After all the other 49 states don't require you to submit
samples to the State to see if they meet the state's safety standards.....

I can only wonder when the relatives of those victims of California's mass
shootings will realize that they have a great chance to make serious $$$
from the state of California, and the best part is because of California's
own attitudes they shouldn't possibly consider contest being held liable.

Klaus Schadenfreude

2016-05-02 13:36:26 UTC

On Sun, 1 May 2016 20:38:19 -0400, "Scout"

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:23:43 -0400, "Scout"

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:53 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to many
laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

This is what they're after. Just like California now deems which
handguns are 'safe" and which are not.

So tell me, if a California approved handgun is used in a mass
shooting....should the families of the victims sue California for approving
those guns?
Best part is federal law doesn't shield them from being sued due to criminal
misuse by a 3rd party.

Ordinarily, no, but since they like to mix "gun safety" and "gun
violence" as the same thing, in this case I would say yes, they have a
great deal of responsibility. :)

Very true. It's difficult to discuss unless one talks about it in the
context that California is an "ordinary" state, though.

Post by Scout
I can only wonder when the relatives of those victims of California's mass
shootings will realize that they have a great chance to make serious $$$
from the state of California, and the best part is because of California's
own attitudes they shouldn't possibly consider contest being held liable.

If you can sue Starbucks for $5 million for too much ice, those
lawsuits will be coming.

RD Sandman

2016-05-02 16:59:44 UTC

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:53 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

Post by betweentheeyes
Obama called Friday for boosting so-called "smart gun" technology
- and setting new requirements for manufacturers
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/29/obama-calls-for-
boosting-smart-gun-tech-setting-new-requirements.html
The President, completely ignorant of the free market, sticks his
governmental nose where it most certainly doesn't belong.
"As part of the effort to promote their use, the administration is
pursuing requirements that manufacturers would have to meet for
law enforcement agencies to consider purchasing guns with that
technology."
Obama just made a whole bunch of LEO pissed off.
Good for you Barack. Your legacy will live on.

I would not be in favor of being REQUIRED to use it. There is far to
many laws where the government is teliing us what to do.

This is what they're after. Just like California now deems which
handguns are 'safe" and which are not.

So tell me, if a California approved handgun is used in a mass
shooting....should the families of the victims sue California for
approving those guns?
Best part is federal law doesn't shield them from being sued due to
criminal misuse by a 3rd party.

Nor does it prevent them from suing the manufacturere for defective
design or errors in manufacturing. That is true no matter what Hillary
claims.
--
RD (The Sandman)

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too much
while ten bullets in the possession of mother protecting
her children may not be enough.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

RD Sandman

2016-05-01 16:08:11 UTC