Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama Puts His Weight Behind Smart Gun Technology [View all]DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)129. Care to explain that Sir?
One of the reasons smart firearms don't work for an Infantry unit is because you may have to pick up someone else's weapon and fight with it.
And we are brothers. Black, yellow, brown, white ..
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If they worked the police would be using them as weapon retention is a big deal for them.
EX500rider
Apr 2016
#153
You went from arguing current gun technology wasn't reliable in all situations
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#94
That's a specific gun. Your claim wasn't about specific firearm reliability
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#101
Yes. But those are specific to that particular gun not the technology as whole
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#115
As long as we have weapons without wisdom there is no safety that will ever be adequate. n/t
jtuck004
Apr 2016
#3
We might not take gun fanciers' guns like other advanced countries, but sooner or later we will tell
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#5
Well, his problems aren't as bad as yours. Supposedly, he doesn't need a gun in his pants
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#20
His tail spends so much time between his legs that his inner thighs must be horribly chafed. NT
pablo_marmol
Apr 2016
#133
Well, your passion has helped put more gunz on the streets and in the hands of yahoos.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#22
If you're not willing to embrace new technology that makes guns safer FOR SOCIETY
KittyWampus
Apr 2016
#167
There is technology. However your fear of the boogeyman will not allow you to accept an already
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#180
I am sure George Zimmerman felt the same. Of course, my bet is you consider him a law-abiding
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#185
Company, your and Hack's love of gunz helps fund the gun industry, the NRA, militias, etc.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#178
I guess you missed the racist Bundy ranchers, just to mention one. Or, maybe you consider that
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#181
The fact you qualified annually does not impress. There is zero chance you'd be in that kind of
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#186
What obsession? You seem to take issue with people exercising their right
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#119
i take issue with people fetishizing guns and worshiping a version of the second amendment
La Lioness Priyanka
Apr 2016
#125
How many versions of the second amendment are there? And what constitutes
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#127
there is a version gun fetishists read and there is a version that RBG and I read
La Lioness Priyanka
Apr 2016
#156
wonder how quickly we would see a shift in gun attitudes if BLM advocated that all black men start
La Lioness Priyanka
Apr 2016
#126
There are well over 300,000,000 firearms in our nation without this technology. ...
spin
Apr 2016
#176
More of a success than doing nothing in the direction of smart guns. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#32
Then go do that too. But not if it is just a propaganda ploy to get them into the cult.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#37
I wouldn't care. I'd be glad it saved a life. Read my post carefully this time. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#40
Ridiculously excessively exercising their rights. Which makes it a cult.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#64
Reply to post #63 which is more reasonable than those cultists. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#100
You just like to argue. His reply to me refuted your argument. Go refute his argument.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#106
His reply wasn't relevant to the question I asked you about your statement
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#110
They may be douche bags. They may just be guys who are making a political
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#131
They're posing for a picture. Exercising the right to carry their guns in public
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#136
Oh, yeah, binary thinking strikes again. The perfect is the enemy of the good
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#62
Nonsense. It does not take away the choice/right of purchasing a usable or even useful gun. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#80
Ridiculous. That is like saying anti-lock brakes take away your choice
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#103
It's not illogical. Given the option to buy a proven technology with a long record
Press Virginia
Apr 2016
#82
Read the thread, sigh. Your issue has been dealt with extensively. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#188
It's no news you don't see the point. Reread the thread and try discussing the points
Bernardo de La Paz
May 2016
#198
It is not bogus it is a valid problem and one that will be extremely difficult to overcome. nt
cstanleytech
Apr 2016
#85
Requiring properly developed smart guns be the only guns for sale does not infringe rights.
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2016
#98
And if you are really progressive, you should put your weight behind the President on this. nt
Jitter65
Apr 2016
#11
I can believe that. There could be exceptions -- other biological traits that could be
JDPriestly
Apr 2016
#121
"But this would help prevent accidental gun deaths" Of which there are so few in reality..
EX500rider
Apr 2016
#154
Does that mean that the gun will be able to improve the intelligence of the gun owner?
LiberalArkie
Apr 2016
#19
Issue them to every FBI agent, and police officer, they can test them for 5 years
Travis_0004
Apr 2016
#58