APP - proximity bracelets for gun owners

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.
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. :)
Click to expand...
If someone has their heart set on becoming criminal and harming another laws will not hamper them. Thats why they are criminals. But see if there is and proof in this pudding, put it on the market and see if anyone buys it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
are you the fake libertarian that I hear capt billy talk about all the time?
Click to expand...


Nope, you would be another member of the fake libertarian, actually conservative, circlejerk. As is with the others, you clearly don't know the first thing about actual libertarian doctrine. I assumed USF's silly idea was meant somewhat "tongue in cheek," but your praise of it shows a disdain for liberty and esteem for the same tired partisan knee jerk reaction that libertarians should easily transcend.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I am not an 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.
Click to expand...

Then let's expand it to only those who don't want anyone to own a gun and think guns are evil.
 
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.

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?
Click to expand...

Where did I say surgery?
What makes you think a criminal would get the chip implanted, in the first place?
 
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...

You used the parking lot.
DAMN IT; mine was in a darkened alley. :D
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then let's expand it to only those who don't want anyone to own a gun and think guns are evil.
Click to expand...

How about we place a chip in everyone that does not want anyone to do illegal drugs. If it detects any drugs it will alert the police to come arrest them. Everyone else can enjoy as much as they like.

We can do the same for abortion, prostitution, gambling, etc.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where did I say surgery?
What makes you think a criminal would get the chip implanted, in the first place?
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
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...

How would you implant the chip without an incision? Unless, they legally own a gun your "plan" would require it.

Your plan is actually worse for the problem you claim dooms the bracelet. If someone with a gun gets shot another could retrieve their gun and bracelet or fire the gun with the bracelet held close. But your chips would make that less effective. Obviously, your reason for rejecting the bracelet is nonsense.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
How would you implant the chip without an incision? Unless, they legally own a gun your "plan" would require it.

Your plan is actually worse for the problem you claim dooms the bracelet. If someone with a gun gets shot another could retrieve their gun and bracelet or fire the gun with the bracelet held close. But your chips would make that less effective. Obviously, your reason for rejecting the bracelet is nonsense.
Click to expand...


His reason for rejecting the bracelet idea is that a LIBERAL suggested it.

And he absolutely WILL NOT get behind an idea proposed by a Liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top