Holder wants to explore gun tracking bracelets

[spamking]

Oh boy . . .

"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, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis," Holder said.

Right . . . we'll never ever use something like this to completely disable your legally purchased guns . . .

 

[SleepyBoy]

Every time the FEDs try to introduce some type of impractical and highly intrusive gun measure, it has the opposite effect. It scares people into record sales.

Sometimes I think the Democrats work for the gun companies because they are the main driver of sales across the country.

Here is a great mostly impartial discussion about guns backed by facts, statistics and history.

 

[OldGoat]

Maybe he should use that to find the guns the Feds sold to the cartels. We have dimwits and malevolent people running this country.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Every time the FEDs try to introduce some type of impractical and highly intrusive gun measure, it has the opposite effect. It scares people into record sales.

Sometimes I think the Democrats work for the gun companies because they are the main driver of sales across the country.

I think what actually happens is that gun lobbyists misinterpret or deliberately misinterpret stuff like this and then ignorant Southerners get pissed and/or afraid and go out and buy more guns and send checks to the GOP. So things pretty much work exactly as intended.

 

[Broken arrow]

Im going to buy another gun this weekend. Preferably, sans transmitting bracelet

 

[tkotom]

You'll just see a lot of massacres preceded by a maniac cutting off the thumb of the gun's owner.

 

[45ACP]

I think what actually happens is that gun lobbyists misinterpret or deliberately misinterpret stuff like this and then ignorant Southerners get pissed and/or afraid and go out and buy more guns and send checks to the GOP. So things pretty much work exactly as intended.

LOL. Yup, it's just all them ignorant southerners buying up all the guns, that must be it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

LOL. Yup, it's just all them ignorant southerners buying up all the guns, that must be it.

Oh, sorry, small-town Pennsylvanians, too.

Seriously, does anyone actually believe there is anything to this story? We get thousands of these kinds of stories from the right-wing media, and they *never* turn out to even be a proposal, much less an actual law. It's amazing that people keep lapping it up. I understand suspicion when you hear info that goes against what you believe, but I don't understand failing to learn from (a *lot of*) experience the way today's delusional right does. When I find out I'm lied to, the way right-wingers constantly are by the right-wing media, I tend to get upset and become less trusting of the source, but you guys just get mad at people who give you correct info.

 

[45ACP]

Oh, sorry, small-town Pennsylvanians, too.

You really are such a nice guy, Jack. (I'm actually from NJ, part of the reason I fled to PA was the asinine gun laws in that state)

Seriously, does anyone actually believe there is anything to this story? We get thousands of these kinds of stories from the right-wing media, and they *never* turn out to even be a proposal, much less an actual law.

Never? You are truly delusional. Let's see a few examples of what you're talking about other than the one in the OP.

We get it that since you're not a 2nd amendment advocate you're ignorant to the fact that there is indeed a concerted effort by the political left to demonize guns and gun owners and put as many restrictions on them as possible.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You really are such a nice guy, Jack. (I'm actually from NJ, part of the reason I fled to PA was the asinine gun laws in that state)

Honestly, the thought of moving because of gun laws sounds insane to me. Like, it's just unfathomable.

Never? You are truly delusional. Let's see a few examples of what you're talking about other than the one in the OP.

Never is right. Want to make a bet that this one never actually reaches the proposal state?

We get it that since you're not a 2nd amendment advocate you're ignorant to the fact that there is indeed a concerted effort by the political left to demonize guns and gun owners and put as many restrictions on them as possible.

I don't really care about the 2nd amendment, correct. I don't oppose it; I just consider it a pretty irrelevant issue (especially given that there is no *real* disagreement about it) that's just used as a distraction by politicians to get ignorant people to vote against their economic interests. And, no, you're totally just buying political propaganda there. Trust me, the "political left" doesn't give two shits about guns and gun owners.

 

[__Big_D__]

Oh, sorry, small-town Pennsylvanians, too.

Haha. Nice

 

[IDL]

The bracelets actually look pretty cool. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind wearing them

 

[UpaLoompa]

This is regularly talked about in science fiction and even contemporary action movies. I don't see a major problem if we're talking strictly about law enforcement. Of course I also think it is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't really care about the 2nd amendment, correct. I don't oppose it; I just consider it a pretty irrelevant issue (especially given that there is no *real* disagreement about it) that's just used as a distraction by politicians to get ignorant people to vote against their economic interests. And, no, you're totally just buying political propaganda there. Trust me, the "political left" doesn't give two shits about guns and gun owners.

This I disagree with. I think there are many on the left who view gun control as a very important and very major issue. Increased gun control and "safety" is regularly a major part of the party's platform. Importantly, however, there's enough of a divide on the issue between rural and urban democrats that it is all effectively neutralized.

 

[45ACP]

Honestly, the thought of moving because of gun laws sounds insane to me. Like, it's just unfathomable.

Of course it is. Because you're close-minded.

You don't think restricting one's ability to effectively defend your family and loved ones is a fair reason to move? It's not like that was my only reason either, which I mentioned, but whatever.

Never is right. Want to make a bet that this one never actually reaches the proposal state?

I don't believe this particular one will, no, but that's irrelevant. You said there are thousands of articles like this and they *never* turn out to even be proposals. Let's see some others.

I don't really care about the 2nd amendment, correct. I don't oppose it; I just consider it a pretty irrelevant issue (especially given that there is no *real* disagreement about it) that's just used as a distraction by politicians to get ignorant people to vote against their economic interests. And, no, you're totally just buying political propaganda there. Trust me, the "political left" doesn't give two shits about guns and gun owners.

LOL. "Trust me." As if you're the authority. Sounds just like the politicians who promise they're not trying to take guns away while saying things like this:

"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.

"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, 12/9/93.

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.

"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 5, 1999.

You're right, those people totally don't give a shit at all.

Then there's this:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html

 

[45ACP]

Haha. Nice

Well, except that Allentown is the third largest city in the state, likely with a significantly higher population than the backwoods mountain town you probably live in.

Shit, Billy Joel even wrote a song about it. Doofus.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This I disagree with. I think there are many on the left who view gun control as a very important and very major issue. Increased gun control and "safety" is regularly a major part of the party's platform. Importantly, however, there's enough of a divide on the issue between rural and urban democrats that it is all effectively neutralized.

Here's the party platform on guns:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

And the GOP:

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents.

In terms of substance, there's very little difference. It's just a symbolic issue for the right, and Republican politicians and the right-wing media jumps on and exaggerates anything that Democrats say about guns for fundraising/team-building purposes.

 

[45ACP]

Here's the party platform on guns:



And the GOP:



In terms of substance, there's very little difference. It's just a symbolic issue for the right, and Republican politicians and the right-wing media jumps on and exaggerates anything that Democrats say about guns for fundraising/team-building purposes.

There's no significant difference there? LOL you're a Hack with a capital H.

 

[johnsmithbattle]

There's no significant difference there? LOL you're a Hack with a capital H.

Don't even bother replying to him. He is a completely delusional leftist soldier. I can't imagine what the guy is like away from a computer. I can't imagine he spews his shit in a public environment.

 

[afrdzak]

Of course it is. Because you're close-minded.

You don't think restricting one's ability to effectively defend your family and loved ones is a fair reason to move? It's not like that was my only reason either, which I mentioned, but whatever.



I don't believe this particular one will, no, but that's irrelevant. You said there are thousands of articles like this and they *never* turn out to even be proposals. Let's see some others.



LOL. "Trust me." As if you're the authority. Sounds just like the politicians who promise they're not trying to take guns away while saying things like this:

"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.

"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, 12/9/93.

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.

"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 5, 1999.

You're right, those people totally don't give a shit at all.

Then there's this:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html

There is certainly a small minority that would like to disarm everyone. But it is just that...a small minority with no chance of making that reality.

Also, you might want to consider using examples from this millennium.