APP - proximity bracelets for gun owners

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ould_wear_a_bracelet_to_use_their_weapon.html

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get past 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 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.

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, while at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

if these ideas are so 'common sense', why can't we test them with police officers first? isn't one of the arguments supposedly that cops are at higher risk of having their guns taken from them?
 
I suppose its an ok idea for people in situations where you have a need like cops prison guards etc. So make it available and see if anyone chooses to buy it. Similerly purposed tech has not done well but this may appeal. Only problem is if they take your weapon whats to stop them from taking your bracelet ?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ould_wear_a_bracelet_to_use_their_weapon.html



If these ideas are so 'common sense', why can't we test them with police officers first? isn't one of the arguments supposedly that cops are at higher risk of having their guns taken from them?
Click to expand...


If you can demonstrate that the police are having their guns stolen in greater numbers than the average citizen, then no problem.

Otherwise your suggestion is just another attempt at delaying any kind of meaningful gun regulation.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
If you can demonstrate that the police are having their guns stolen in greater numbers than the average citizen, then no problem.

Otherwise your suggestion is just another attempt at delaying any kind of meaningful gun regulation.
Click to expand...

or maybe you could demonstrate that civilians have their guns taken from them more than cops. I see more news stories about people being arrested, beaten, and sometimes killed because they tried to grab a cops gun. one would think that if the cops gun doesn't work when not in proximity to their bracelet, less people would be hurt or killed because the cop wouldn't need to worry about getting killed with their own gun.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
or maybe you could demonstrate that civilians have their guns taken from them more than cops. I see more news stories about people being arrested, beaten, and sometimes killed because they tried to grab a cops gun. one would think that if the cops gun doesn't work when not in proximity to their bracelet, less people would be hurt or killed because the cop wouldn't need to worry about getting killed with their own gun.
Click to expand...


It's common sense.

MORE civilians have MORE guns than the police.

Therefore it stands to reason MORE are being stolen from the average citizen than a Police Officer.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's common sense.

MORE civilians have MORE guns than the police.

Therefore it stands to reason MORE are being stolen from the average citizen than a Police Officer.
Click to expand...
the crux is having the weapon taken dirextly from the owner and the risk that it be immediatly turned on its former owner. That scenario is one that is a daily threat for cops at work.only occasional for the average Joe.
 
Celticguy said:
the crux is having the weapon taken dirextly from the owner and the risk that it be immediatly turned on its former owner. That scenario is one that is a daily threat for cops at work.only occasional for the average Joe.
Click to expand...

he didn't want to deal with that because he knew that would make me right. something he wants to avoid at all costs.
 
Celticguy said:
I suppose its an ok idea for people in situations where you have a need like cops prison guards etc. So make it available and see if anyone chooses to buy it. Similerly purposed tech has not done well but this may appeal. Only problem is if they take your weapon whats to stop them from taking your bracelet ?
Click to expand...

Now add in that there have instances where someone was shot and incapacitated and another person was able to retrieve the person's weapon and stop the criminal.
Plus; people don't usually wear bracelets, all the time, what are they supposed to do in the middle of the night.

Better idea.
Anyone who doesn't own a gun needs to have a chip implanted in both hands that will render a gun inactive, if they attempt to use it. :)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Now add in that there have instances where someone was shot and incapacitated and another person was able to retrieve the person's weapon and stop the criminal.

Better idea.
Anyone who doesn't own a gun needs to have a chip implanted in both hands that will render a gun inactive, if they attempt to use it. :)
Click to expand...

That's stupid.

Edit:
Sorry, did not realize this was APP.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
no, you really need to explain what your issue is with it. especially given the fact that nearly all of you liberals/anti-gunners are pro prior restraint.
Click to expand...

I am not anti gun.

No, the issue is obvious to anyone who is not involved in a circlejerk. His complaint about the bracelet was that the owner might be shot and then another person would not be able to pick up the gun for defense. His idea would suffer the same limitations for those that don't own guns.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
why should those who own a gun be burdened? I find that to be extremely offensive to libertarian principles and just as invasive.
Click to expand...


Because they want the gun. They are necessarily burdened in purchasing it. That is not offensive to libertarian principles rather it is in accordance with them. Your enjoyment of your second amendment rights do not imply any burden on others. It is a negative right not a positive one. Rights can't imply a burden on others and still be a justifiable right under libertarian principles.

The bracelets would not be nearly as invasive as usf's silly idea. His idea requires non gun owners to undergo a surgery whether they want to or not. The bracelet only ask those who CHOOSE to own a gun to wear an article. I am not saying it is justified but more so than usf's idea.

Further, his idea would be ineffective or making it effective would require even more invasive government. What would stop a criminal from having the chip removed?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Because they want the gun. They are necessarily burdened in purchasing it. That is not offensive to libertarian principles rather it is in accordance with them. Your enjoyment of your second amendment rights do not imply any burden on others. It is a negative right not a positive one. Rights can't imply a burden on others and still be a justifiable right under libertarian principles.
Click to expand...
I faced no burden when purchasing my handgun. The guy in the parking lot that I bought it from had no burden in selling it to me, so why is it Libertarian to require me to wear something to make it work?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I faced no burden when purchasing my handgun. The guy in the parking lot that I bought it from had no burden in selling it to me, so why is it Libertarian to require me to wear something to make it work?
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. You made an effort to find it. I assume you paid for it, didn't you? That burden belongs with you. Your right is a negative one. Since you are clearly unenlightened about real libertarian doctrine, that means the state may not prevent or interfere with your practice of the right. It does not mean they should burden others by forcing them to subsidize or take any other action for what would then be a positive right.

I did not say it was libertarian to make you wear anything. You quite, obviously, dropped the context of my statement to change the meaning. I said usf's idea was extremely offensive to libertarian principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top