Armatix Smart Gun

[45ACP]

I think armed people with paranoid fantasies that authority is out to get them are dangerous in general. The last thing I want is some mild altercation or a backfiring truck to get some psycho high on vision stew of John Wayne and Ruby Ridge to start firing.

Yeah that's a good thing to be scared of since it happens so regularly.

Maybe all these "gun-nuts" aren't so nuts after all? Have you even considered that possibility?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Fixed for you :icon_chee

So you think those rights should be infringed on. Odd. That seems to contradict other posts you've made.

 

[45ACP]

So you think those rights should be infringed on. Odd. That seems to contradict other posts you've made.

I'll take "double negatives" for $500, Alex.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So you think those rights should be infringed on. Odd. That seems to contradict other posts you've made.

Grammar error noted and fixed. A small error, certainly not as big as confusing "clips" and "magazines", and then refusing to acknowledge a distinction when the differences are pointed out, but a small mistake none-the-less.

Thank you much.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Yeah that's a good thing to be scared of since it happens so regularly.

Maybe all these "gun-nuts" aren't so nuts after all? Have you even considered that possibility?

Yeah, Scrody and Spamking had me considering it, but then I read your posts, and Byron's, and RIP's. WhatI conclude is that many gun owners are sane and relatively safe, and probably nothing to worry about. And then there are a minority (a loud, outspoken minority) who are crazy as hell, paranoid to the bone, and just looking for an excuse to start shooting and justify their vigilante/anarcho-libertarian fantasies. Yeah, right now they're just running around in the boonies ranting about Nancy Pelosi, but every once in a while one does something like blow up the Federal building in OK City, or start sending bombs through the mail, or drive to Nevada to shoot BLM agents. Of coures the likelihood of this happening is low, but it's scary because crazy people are inherently unpredictable. Guys like the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Wade Page, and Christopher Dorner came out of that virulently anti-government pro-gun ultra right wing movement, in fact almost all domestic terrorists for the past 50 years have come from that small, deranged segment of society.

So are most pro-gun people crazy? No. But most domestic terrorists and mass killers in the US are emphatically pro-gun and ultra right wing. So yes, I do think they're more dangerous than the average person and the more extreme they are the more dangerous they're likely to be. Most sharks never attack humans, but if you see one you're going to get the hell away because you know they have the capability to do immense harm and there's really no upside to engaging with them. Same with extreme right wing gun nuts.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Grammar error noted and fixed. A small error, certainly not as big as confusing "clips" and "magazines", and then refusing to acknowledge a distinction when the differences are pointed out, but a small mistake none-the-less.

Thank you much.

Well since you "fixed" it, I found the writing amusing.

As for clips and magazines, it is a technical distinction with little practical distinction in terms of policy discussion (i.e. the point of the thread you're referencing). Also, I readily acknowledged I misused the term out of apathy at the time. Then and now I oppose bans on high capacity clips icon_chee). Anyway, with those two terms, everyone knows what you mean. In contrast, the distinction between assault weapons and assault rifles is important because the former is a meaningless aesthetic categorization.

 

[Byron Carter]

Well since you "fixed" it, I found the writing amusing.

As for clips and magazines, it is a technical distinction with little practical distinction in terms of policy discussion (i.e. the point of the thread you're referencing). Also, I readily acknowledged I misused the term out of apathy at the time. Then and now I oppose bans on high capacity clips icon_chee). Anyway, with those two terms, everyone knows what you mean. In contrast, the distinction between assault weapons and assault rifles is important because the former is a meaningless aesthetic categorization.

Well that settles it. Ignoring you.

If you still can't even admit you were wrong and use proper terminology in a civil discussion, I have nothing left to say to you.

I strongly advise any other pro 2nd people to just ignore you as well, and to stop wasting time with a deliberate troll.

 

[Protectandserve]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that person no longer be a suspect at that point? lol

Oh no, when the media report comes out about joe public helping me while the suspect was kicking my ass it will say something like "Over zealous gun nut attacks man who was allegedly assaulting officer." So I'll stick with suspect.

As for infringements, I'm okay with felons and those convicted of domestic violence being banned for life from gun ownership. Pretty sure most other gun owners are too.

 

[Byron Carter]

Oh no, when the media report comes out about joe public helping me while the suspect was kicking my ass it will say something like "Over zealous gun nut attacks man who was allegedly assaulting officer." So I'll stick with suspect.

As for infringements, I'm okay with felons and those convicted of domestic violence being banned for life from gun ownership. Pretty sure most other gun owners are too.

I have two issues with it.

"Banned for life from gun ownership" would imply it's a privilege. It's not a privilege, it's an inherent and natural right. If a person is free, I.e., not on probation or parole and not in jail/prison, you have no right to take away their rights.


Do we ban people who get DUI's from drinking? Do we tell them they're no longer allowed to consume alcohol? Only very rarely do we even take their license to drive away, which IS a privilege.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I have two issues with it.

"Banned for life from gun ownership" would imply it's a privilege. It's not a privilege, it's an inherent and natural right. If a person is free, I.e., not on probation or parole and not in jail/prison, you have no right to take away their rights.


Do we ban people who get DUI's from drinking? Do we tell them they're no longer allowed to consume alcohol? Only very rarely do we even take their license to drive away, which IS a privilege.

It's a natural right to own a device that didn't exist until the 16th century? Wow you're so wise.

 

[Protectandserve]

^My issue with it is the majority of people coming out of prison are not reformed, they are worse than when they entered. This is from my experience of arresting repeat offenders.

Additionally, DA's are extremely lazy and not giving people full sentences, allowing ridiculous plea bargains and ignoring past histories of violence during sentencing.

It makes no sense to me to allow someone who was convicted or armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or the like to own a firearm.

Also it is relatively easy to not go out and commit felonies if you want to continue to own firearms.

 

[Byron Carter]

^My issue with it is the majority of people coming out of prison are not reformed, they are worse than when they entered. This is from my experience of arresting repeat offenders.

Additionally, DA's are extremely lazy and not giving people full sentences, allowing ridiculous plea bargains and ignoring past histories of violence during sentencing.

It makes no sense to me to allow someone who was convicted or armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or the like to own a firearm.

Also it is relatively easy to not go out and commit felonies if you want to continue to own firearms.

But this is what I have an issue with.

We don't allow people their natural rights. It's outside of our control.

Furthermore, criminals are going to be criminals. For the same reason gun control doesn't work (even if it were the right thing to do). If a criminal wants a gun, he's going to get one, regardless of the restriction placed upon him.

Also, this hurts people who have been wrongfully convicted. How many men get false charges against them for domestic violence?

You risk disarming GOOD people, and accomplishing nothing really.

 

[Byron Carter]

It's a natural right to own a device that didn't exist until the 16th century? Wow you're so wise.

It's a natural right to protect yourself.

Firearms are our means to accomplish this.

 

[Protectandserve]

But this is what I have an issue with.

We don't allow people their natural rights. It's outside of our control.

Furthermore, criminals are going to be criminals. For the same reason gun control doesn't work (even if it were the right thing to do). If a criminal wants a gun, he's going to get one, regardless of the restriction placed upon him.

Also, this hurts people who have been wrongfully convicted. How many men get false charges against them for domestic violence?

You risk disarming GOOD people, and accomplishing nothing really.

I have arrested a lot of people for domestic violence. I can't remember the last one who went to trial and got convicted. It is hard to get convicted if you didn't do it, in most states. Contrary to most beliefs, we don't just show up and arrest the dude because wife says he smacked her. The amount of people prevented from owning a firearm do to wrongful charges of DV is very low.

The felon in possession of a firearm section is a good bargaining chip when trying to get confessions on other crimes such as robbery or assault. Also the ability to arrest felons solely on possession of a firearm is a good way to get dangerous people off the street.

I agree criminals are gonna criminal but that doesn't mean the law should change to accommodate that. I really have no sympathy for felons loosing certain rights, the right to own a firearm or vote among them.

I believe there are a ton of other infringements on the 2nd that should be addressed before attempting to change the restrictions on felons and those convicted of DV.

 

[Uchi Mata]

It's a natural right to protect yourself.

Firearms are our means to accomplish this.

Then why don't you also have a natural right to nuclear weapons?

Free speech is a natural right, but's illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and it's illegal to threaten to kill people.

We restrict rights all the time for the good of society as a whole. I agree that whenever we do this it should be done carefully and err on the side of more freedom, but not letting people with a history of criminal violence buy dangerous weapons seems like a reasonable restriction to me. It's not as if they've done nothing to deserve the restriction of that right. I just see it as a continuation of the criminal justice process.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Free speech is a natural right, but's illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and it's illegal to threaten to kill people.

Not being able to use the word "fire" to recklessly cause panic isn't a restriction on free speech any more than not being allowed to fire your rifle straight up into the air is a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

Locking one up for merely uttering certain words would be akin to locking someone up for possessing a certain gun.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Not being able to use the word "fire" to recklessly cause panic isn't a restriction on free speech any more than not being allowed to fire your rifle straight up into the air is a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

Locking one up for merely uttering certain words would be akin to locking someone up for possessing a certain gun.

The comment was about taking away the right of felons to buy weapons. Context is key here.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The comment was about taking away the right of felons to buy weapons. Context is key here.

I guess I missed how that equates to telling lies in a reckless attempt to cause mayhem.

 

[oldshadow]

I have two issues with it.

"Banned for life from gun ownership" would imply it's a privilege. It's not a privilege, it's an inherent and natural right. If a person is free, I.e., not on probation or parole and not in jail/prison, you have no right to take away their rights.


Do we ban people who get DUI's from drinking? Do we tell them they're no longer allowed to consume alcohol? Only very rarely do we even take their license to drive away, which IS a privilege.

Voting is a right we also remove for life with due process.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I guess I missed how that equates to telling lies in a reckless attempt to cause mayhem.

Because we're not talking about locking someone up for possessing a 'certain' gun. We're talking about whether or not felons deserve the right to buy guns having had that right removed via due process due to their own actions. Byron thinks it's a natural right than can't be infringed, I pointed out that we limit natural rights for public safety all the time and shouting 'fire' in a theater was an example. Clear now?