General Discussion

SQUEE

(1,320 posts)

91. No.. it is because some states have a provision

Sun May 4, 2014, 08:11 PM

May 2014

REQUIRING an unproven, overly expensive technology to become the only option for any handguns sold in those states, that is why some of us are leery. This tech is far from new tech, there have been numerous designs in this vein, none have proven reliable enough to bring to market.. It is far from a silver bullet to stop deaths, and considering the amount of dumb guns out there that will be grandfathered, it is not a "threat" to ownership in general, but it is an imposition to new owners.

Now as for the idiots threatening her, I have no use for bullies, and believe they should be prosecuted to fullest extent, the irony alone of them losing their gun rights makes me giggle, but having proven they are not capable of rational thought it is best hey been banned from ownership.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sorry, I have to start a gun thread. Only to call out lunatics. [View all] Recursion May 2014 OP

The same lunatics who are gun nuts are also heavily misogynistic. chrisa May 2014 #1

I agree. aikoaiko May 2014 #2

Hey, fair enough, not everyone wants one, but I do Recursion May 2014 #3

Again I agree. There are too many idiots among us. aikoaiko May 2014 #6

No one deserves these kind of threats. Even on-line threats Eleanors38 May 2014 #24

No excuse for stalking and harassment JJChambers May 2014 #4

it was unlocked Duckhunter935 May 2014 #11

so leaving a post unlocked means the host agrees with its point of view? CreekDog May 2014 #36

You whine a lot! nt Logical May 2014 #37

Well, the reason for the stalking and harassment is because gun advocates are afraid that DanTex May 2014 #18

Clearly, the "locking" technology is defective in GD! Eleanors38 May 2014 #25

LOL, so technology can land jets and soon will be driving cars but..... Logical May 2014 #32

Have you? JJChambers May 2014 #39

The main issue is extreme gun owners will not let anyone even try to create this technology.... Logical May 2014 #47

Exactly, this isn't about whether the technology is of use to a particular person. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #87

Granted, it wouldn't be suitable for every situation Prophet 451 May 2014 #43

Very thoughtful post, thanks Recursion ucrdem May 2014 #5

I agree that the NRA's extremism is the biggest threat to RKBA. The backlash ... Scuba May 2014 #7

I am glad to see at least one pro-gun advocate here call out NRA and LaPierre*. hlthe2b May 2014 #8

Two DashOneBravo May 2014 #19

And many more. Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #22

Three, I am pro guns and hate the NRA! Nt Logical May 2014 #34

four nt Duckhunter935 May 2014 #48

Lots - probably the vast majority - of pro-2A DUers have nothing to do Codeine May 2014 #38

The vast majority of the "Gungeon Gang" Jenoch May 2014 #41

I'm not sure why anyone would be threatened by this. . pipoman May 2014 #9

The S&W lock was a simple device that offered some advantage to certain handgun owners. ... spin May 2014 #16

I have one with a lock, pipoman May 2014 #31

I own several revolvers with the lock but use them for target shooting. ... spin May 2014 #44

Threats are too far and Duckhunter935 May 2014 #10

Guns in GD DashOneBravo May 2014 #51

not whining Duckhunter935 May 2014 #52

Well.... DashOneBravo May 2014 #77

No Duckhunter935 May 2014 #78

I read this morning that a gun shop owner in MD also..... Bonhomme Richard May 2014 #12

Fuckin' A, Recursion sofa king May 2014 #13

Yeah, there's really no way around that, is there? Recursion May 2014 #14

and mostly everyone here too is ignoring that part of the story. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #53

"I realize there's a more-or-less-matorium on these," Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #15

Well, here's why it's happening. DanTex May 2014 #17

No.. it is because some states have a provision SQUEE May 2014 #91

reliability standards Make7 May 2014 #92

And again the determining factor... SQUEE May 2014 #93

You don't think an independent agency could prove the state's determination faulty? Make7 May 2014 #94

Independent agency? possible, yes SQUEE May 2014 #95

The issue is a study in hyperpartisan intransigence. rrneck May 2014 #20

"It's a novelty item that only serious gun enthusiasts with lots of cash will buy." uncle ray May 2014 #26

Nicely put. The UDT issue isn't a biggy in itself, but it can be Eleanors38 May 2014 #27

Of course! "Both sides" are to blame... DanTex May 2014 #33

Yes. ntt rrneck May 2014 #35

So... Democrats didn't spend tons of political capital creating the definition of "assault weapon".. krispos42 May 2014 #56

Great post with a lot of valid points. (n/t) spin May 2014 #45

Thanks, Recursion. Paladin May 2014 #21

Might want to take look at "your side," too, Paladin. Eleanors38 May 2014 #28

How many death threats have you ever received from "my side", Eleanors38? Paladin May 2014 #30

plenty of wishing for ill-fortune and rapid extinction... Eleanors38 May 2014 #64

As I thought. (nt) Paladin May 2014 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author LeftishBrit May 2014 #23

Very good post sarisataka May 2014 #29

Well said. WilliamPitt May 2014 #40

This baffles me Prophet 451 May 2014 #42

One downside is Murphy's Law ... spin May 2014 #46

lets hope the cops Duckhunter935 May 2014 #49

That's easy DashOneBravo May 2014 #50

Yes, that seems like a good testbed Prophet 451 May 2014 #58

There is a downside... reliability krispos42 May 2014 #54

OK, to take those in order Prophet 451 May 2014 #57

I expect that as the technology gets better, it will become less of an issue, too krispos42 May 2014 #66

Well, DashOneBravo May 2014 #59

That would be so sad that gun fanciers could not buy the "guns they are comfortable with." Hoyt May 2014 #82

*yawn* krispos42 May 2014 #83

How do you cheaply backfit it to existing guns hack89 May 2014 #71

Good question Prophet 451 May 2014 #74

It's threads like this ... Trajan May 2014 #55

Why don't you contact the Ads & ask them to close it? Eleanors38 May 2014 #65

Pretty unreasonable to broad brush millions of people for allegations of a handful of crimes Taitertots May 2014 #60

"...if you don�t want our gun, don�t buy it. It�s not for everyone." Make7 May 2014 #62

Two key points... Taitertots May 2014 #63

There is existing legislation mandating "smart guns"? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #68

Yes Taitertots May 2014 #69

You do understand what the word "could" means, right? Make7 May 2014 #73

There is legislation. Regardless of your opinions about the matter. It effects millions of people. Taitertots May 2014 #75

A law that hasn't gone into effect to ban the sale of non-"smart guns" affects people how? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #85

Stop being willfully obtuse Taitertots May 2014 #86

So you can't explain it? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #88

I can. Why should I? It is obvious and you are being willfully obtuse (n/t) Taitertots May 2014 #89

Why do you want to deny millions of people the opportunity to buy safer guns? Make7 May 2014 #90

I'm for the second amendment being what it's actually written to be for AcertainLiz May 2014 #61

No where in the Bill of Rights is there any reference to Eleanors38 May 2014 #67

You are out of step with both the president and our party platform hack89 May 2014 #72

So I could keep my milspec Duckhunter935 May 2014 #76

This is not a war zone, believe it or not. Hoyt May 2014 #79

The only coherent post, up to this point. ronnie624 May 2014 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author oneofthe99 May 2014 #70

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #84