Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46
General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 04:02:33 PM »
And here I thought that was what made it a joke...

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 03:44:15 PM »
I suppose the words being meaningless is a step up from them being either a badge of honor if you toe the party line or a slur if you are referring to the opposition.

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 15, 2016, 03:30:17 PM »
Maybe repealing Obamacare is progressive and maintaining it is conservative.  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 02:39:04 PM »
MY comment, was a barb at all the anti-Obama crowd (I rank you among them).  Part of his immigration policy (or at least a frequent criticism of it) is to just choose not to aggressively enforce laws.  It was an example of dark humor, and I thought another way to illustrate that this situation really can be used as a lightning rod for pretty much any topic either directly or by pointing out hypocrisy.

However, you instead interpret it (despite my totally contrary qualifying lead sentence) as a call to act with all haste and against logic to storm the gates.  Suggesting not only that I think it's a good plan but that I somehow suggested they were legally obliged to do just that.

So rather than dignifying that with the usual "Pete, you are putting words in my mouth" that others seem to favor, I decided to be a smartass in my reply.

Does that sufficiently explain things and squeeze every attempt at wittiness or humor out of the conversation?

To be even less fun, Pete, you seem to WANT any liberal leaning individual to demonstrate the bloodlust you are talking about.  I agree that it exists but you are acting like you want to paint the whole party with that brush and it's disturbing.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 02:17:58 PM »
That a riddle Pete?  A joke?

I don't know.   What laws?

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 02:01:05 PM »
While I think "wait them out" is a good plan, choosing not to enforce some laws seems to generate a lot of criticism for a certain high profile someone.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 01:45:35 PM »
Too late.  :P

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 15, 2016, 01:40:09 PM »
All morality is situational.  It does however have a lot of mass.  It isn't shifted easily or quickly, but it's far from immutable or absolute.

It only moves in a positive direction with extended periods of contentment.  The idea that we somehow became more enlightened during or post the Geneva convention would be laughable if not so sad.

We avoid atrocities because we don't need them to attain our goals.  Because we want shame or the threat of allied reprisal to shied us from falling victim to those atrocities.  And because it's valuable domesticly and among our allies to paint ourselves as "good guys".

Good auto corrects as google?  Suspicious android phone, very suspicious. ..

General Comments / So about this moon shot...
« on: January 14, 2016, 04:09:35 PM »
Got around to reading the SotU address transcript and found the "Let's cure cancer" call interesting.  Is there any substance to it?  Can Obama do anything significant / tangible beyond just cheer-leading this goal?  I think it's a fantastic goal but...

Does the threat of cancer killing people equate to the cold war "threat" that gave us a sense of urgency to get our asses to the moon that fast?  The space race was... an actual race.  Then there is the whole question of if the reason we haven't already gotten around to it really is a lack of motivation / dedication / funding?  If it requires more funding is there a slight chance this speech represents a turning point?

Was this just something inspirational to toss out there because it's a non-partisan goal no sane person would oppose? (though they may not choose to allocate additional budget to)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 14, 2016, 03:03:55 PM »
It wouldn't.  That's because two sides see it through different lenses.

If the feds went in guns blazing and took these guys out would it be "police/government brutality"?  Would it be justice?  Would it be proof that we are living under tyranny already?

If school kids get murdered by someone wielding a gun is it a time for gun control changes?  Time to address mental health?  Time to abandon gun-free sacrifice zones?

People reach the conclusions that do NOT conflict with their beliefs if there is room to do so.  There's usually room to do so...  At least if you don't pick at it too long.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 14, 2016, 12:12:33 PM »
I agree that these men will face charges.  I agree that a "just add guns" directive will make a mess of things. 

I'm not articulating the point I'm trying to get across well at all. 

I think the overwhelming majority of people are not deep thinkers.  They react to narratives.  Race, religion, guns, mistrust of the government are all in the forefront here.  Any agenda you want to push, this situation gave you a leaver. 

Show us an actual comparable that was handled differently, rather than a vague 'everyone knows' its handled differently assertion.
  I'm uncertain turns into everyone knows?  :)  "Actual comparable" would require I read your mind and give you two examples that fit YOUR criteria as you may dismiss two that just fit mine.

Would it even matter if I had one or a dozen instances?  How many Goldilocks zone comparisons would it take to be statistically relevant?  I don't have ANY by the way, nor am I inclined to look for them.  If you think everyone get's a fair shake on how their protesting is reacted to, fine.  I'm glad to hear it.  I think the more of us who believe that (no matter what the truth is) the better off we will be as a country.  It will BECOME reality if it's not already true.   

It's not like we can discuss how a particular protest "would be better served to present their message" without creating a *censored*storm.  :) 

In this political climate we like our opponents evil or stupid or crazy and anything which contradicts an adopted narrative is dangerous.  I see this as a gray area.  If others can not only fit it into their narrative but also believe that the country at large can do the same, then I hope your optimism rubs off on me.  Or if it's not optimism but partisan tunnel-vision then I guess at least things won't get worse.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 14, 2016, 11:50:29 AM »
I don't think you are wrong, but that means that words are more likely to instigate a violent response than guns?  Again, I think that's true (for a lot of reasons) and I think that realizing this is blowing a lot of minds.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 14, 2016, 09:46:11 AM »
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST.  Bloodthirsty bastardy claims that it would be "point and shoot" rather than "wait and see" if "a bunch of black people, filled with rage and armed to the teeth" had taken a fed building and challenged authorities.
I take it by your tone and adjective choice, you feel the statement is absurd?

I am uncertain myself.  I don’t think it’s a given that it would be “point and shoot” but  I think the odds of it tipping that way are significantly higher.  If they were claiming Islamic motivation, higher yet.

My larger point (scattered in my rambling) was that if you believe that what I say is wrong, WHY?  IMO the answer is… guns.  So if the answer is guns, then what conclusions do an advocate to peaceful protesting, racial equality and who is against guns reach?  As someone who advocates the right to carry a firearm for defense and keep one in your home I don’t fit this description so I can only speculate.

I think this line of thinking makes a certain group of people question their entrenched beliefs and ideals.  When that happens people either become more receptive to new points of view, or lose their damn minds…  (or they just try to reel in the person diving too far down the hypothetical rabbit holes)

Robinson's arguments literally have the same function as the programming of a suicide bomber.  This sort of gibberish feeds on the desperation of angry blacks in the same way that Fox News feeds on fear of white suburbia.
This is exactly one of the points I was trying to make.  It’s not Ammon and crew that is the threat, it’s what seeing their actions and the reaction to them and what it makes others THINK and DO as a result that is the problem.  The situation pushes a lot of buttons all at once.  The situation isn’t all that physically dangerous, it’s a catalyst for trouble down the road.  I think you are approaching this line of thinking (unless it really is totally absurd and I’m the kook) as TOO rational.  Put on your less informed social media “I only read the headlines” hat.  Now try again.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 09:45:30 PM »
Folks that don't take that into consideration and babble about double standards are either being obtuse or suffer from pathological inhumanity.
You can occasionally learn something being obtuse or temporarily shedding your humanity.  Attempting to view or force human behavior constantly into some ideal of "humane" and relying on "common sense" can easily lead you astray as well.  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 04:49:19 PM »
Are they newbies because they are asking a question with an obvious answer? 

Also I would suggest that there are few bloodthirsty calls for equality through shootout.  The opposite is the goal actually.  That if you can restrain the urge to "do something" to "handle the situation" when it comes to guys like this, then you can certainly keep your cool in the face of an urban unarmed protest.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 02:30:49 PM »
Well then I'm glad I make a poor hypothetical crazy person.  I would think that such actions when viewed through the lens of mistrust of the government, the other party, those at the other end of the economic spectrum or of another race would cause more instances like what happened to Pete. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong. 

I suppose if it was easy to anticipate what thought process and what influences may trigger people to violence we'd be a lot better at stopping it.  I'm not advocating what you use as an example Seriati.  I'm pointing out that there may be those who fail to acknowledges such distinctions.  You know, like a crazy person who tries to solve their problem or push their agenda through armed violence...

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 01:52:41 PM »
"When we consider sending in armed troops, whether a group has stated violent goals is   should be less relevant that whether people are in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious harm." 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 12:36:37 PM »
Let's say you are an anti-gun liberal.  You are appalled at protests against police brutality being branded unfairly (or ruined by a few outliers) as riots and met with sometimes harsh opposition.

Suddenly there is an armed occupation of federal land by a bunch of non-minority people.  They are treated with caution if not respect.  Suddenly you are confronted with a problem.  You have what COULD be proof that being armed DOES prevent mistreatment and DOES get you the attention you may want without instantly devolving into horrific bloodshed.  That flies in the face of your ideals.

That these "nut job religious zealots" may be pointing out a truth that people want desperately to reject IS important.  It may cause people to do seemingly irrational things like asking for the issue to be forced and risk violence just to resolve it quickly.  It may cause people to consider that when respect fails to protect you that the ability to threaten may be almost as useful. 

This would loose people to your (the anti-gun, peaceful protest liberal) ideals and potentially spark violence or give others the excuse to use violence on the larger group.  This is terrifying and all because some jackasses are camping out where they shouldn't be and antagonizing the feds for publicity? 

I'm not saying we should take a "wait and see" approach when dealing with groups who's stated goals is the death of innocent American's .  I'm not saying we should rush in and kill all these occupiers because they dared to mix guns and religion.

I'm saying that one of the (as I see it) ugliest arguments for the need to have guns is to protect you from our law enforcement or federal government is NOT as nuts as we would like to think.  That a group who the overwhelming majority thinks are misguided or dangerous criminals are "teaching us" that ugliness about ourselves... well it sucks.

Oh and if they said that they were claiming this as a beachhead for their own American caliphate because Allah told them to... they'd already be dead.  It wouldn't matter if there was nobody out there for them to hurt Pete.  (and I'd be just fine with that)

Pretending we don't have double standards has as much a corrupting effect on our country as the double standards we acknowledge. 

General Comments / Re: Dem filibuster for Audit the Fed
« on: January 13, 2016, 12:04:15 PM »
Part of me likes the "leave us alone and let us do our job without you messing it up" stance.  The other part hates anyone who says "just trust us."

General Comments / Re: Dem filibuster for Audit the Fed
« on: January 13, 2016, 10:49:35 AM »
Is this JUST oversight?  The link doesn't mention any additional teeth given to force their hand.  If it's just a peak at the books it seems an odd thing to oppose.  If it costs a lot to do I suppose I could see opposition.  Not the partisan breakdown shown here, but some...  Good on Sanders for voting the issue not the partisanship game.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 10:43:37 AM »
I'm in no way advocating violence against them.  I'm with Pete that a simple supply blockade or cutting power and waiting them out is the best plan.  Inconveniencing a few snowshoe hike or cross country skiing aficionados seems like a small price to pay to avoid violence. 

My point is that an unarmed protest in an urban setting is more likely to face a use of force than an armed protest in a rural one.  That sends a dangerous message.

And yes there is a double standard.  I don't even think it's "wrong" there is a double standard for some of the reasons you list.  A lot of people however are made very uncomfortable when faced with double standards like that.  While prudent in many eyes it DOES fly in the face of our inward facing propaganda. 

I don't worry about this group who are on what amounts to a camp-out.  I worry about the impact it has on the wider public when they make us face our own hypocrisy.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 13, 2016, 10:17:21 AM »
This is a group of white armed men who are going largely unopposed and facing no use of force for doing something far more inflammatory than non-white, unarmed people have have had the use of force justified against them.  (ignoring how shakily or wrongly justified)  Toss in the armed people using religious justifications and it's no big secret that if the holy book was a different one it wouldn't matter how remote that location was.  There would be a tactical team picking them off in a matter of hours not days.

That is a HUGE issue symbolically even if it is a tiny blip as a threat to innocent lives.  It forces into the spotlight so many hypocrisies that it makes people deeply unsettled. 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 10:38:56 PM »
Wasn't this whole thing plan B?  Haven't been following close but I thought the ranchers declined their assistance.  Then the locals (the ones the feds are unjustly stealing land from) asked them to take a hike as well. 

Theses guys seem to be (or are being framed as?) a group trying to make a scene / provoke a confrontation and any excuse will do; as long as uncle Sam is the bad guy.

General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 04:32:00 PM »
Agreed, but it is an interesting point  when faced with impassioned demands that we "must act now!"  There is no reason to accept current gun violence or deaths.  Acting as if this is some new problem and every new incident MUST be the straw that broke the camel's back and action is surely REQUIRED now!?!

The push-back against this argument / plea should make it obvious by now that it is ineffective.  It doesn't change minds, it galvanizes the opposition.  Until people face the fundamental argument (as I see it anyhow) that gun rights is an embodiment of a philosophy of self determination, you aren't going to get anywhere.

When faced with a world that is seen as threatening and unsafe you get one of two reactions.  "Help!  Someone protect me!" and "Don't you dare impede my ability to protect myself!"  The gap between these two is not insurmountable.  Compromise IS possible.  At least until you treat the opposite reaction to your own as alien, irrational or idiotic.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 03:45:43 PM »
You think Americans with their handguns could stand and fight the modern US Army?
So how would this play out?  Protest (possibly violent but not necessarily) that are disruptive to the economy or the operation of the government take place.  Local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to apply force to stop it.  National guard is considered but the armed forces are through some series of events deemed a more expedient or prudent response.

Scenario A has the citizens armed.  Scenario B takes place long enough after a gun banning that most have disarmed and those who didn't are not likely hid them at home rather than carry them on their person.

Scenario B asks the enlisted to intimidate people, use some muscle or the THREAT of weapon use to disperse a crowd or apprehend people.  Heck even an extreme case of shooting a violent protester would be enough to scatter an unarmed crowd.  They may find it distasteful but if they reason their C.O. has given a "lawful" order to do this they are (IMO) likely to comply. 

Scenario A asks the enlisted to use tactics almost certain to spark violence and gunfire.  They will then be forced with treating the entire crowd as combatants even though it's almost certainly only a fraction of them are both armed and prepared to instigate hostility or even resist with guns.  So now they must decide.  Do they follow the orders "knowing" it will result in a loss of life?  That's a lot different than breaking up an unarmed protest and having a worst case scenario of MAYBE having to shoot someone who "crosses the line".

I'm not one for the "to resist our government's oppression" argument for firearms but you can't ague against that opinion with a simple "do you really think you could win?" question.  Well at least until we are an all drone force where a small number of operators are projecting the power and troop moral becomes irreverent.

We would devolve into a civil war and fractured military long before we had an "army vs. citizens" conflict.  Well unless we unleash Skynet first.  :P

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 01:45:49 PM »
I think police brutality is the type of relevant tyranny today.  When the cost of abusing power is potentially death rather than suspension without pay or just more paperwork, are we sure being armed doesn't prevent tyranny? 

That said, if a cop wanted to whip my ass for kicks, he could pull me over, I must announce I am armed to stay in good legal standing for retaining my CPL.  He can then disarm me, then choose to whip my ass...  So does it really prevent anything?  Probably not.

While one can argue how bad it COULD get if we were totally helpless and disarmed when facing our government the truth is we are already at such a ridiculous disadvantage as to make the point purely academic. (IMO anyway)

Hell if I saw someone holding a uniformed officer at gun point, without knowing anything about what lead up to that point, I would still endeavor to aid the officer...  Programmed by the man and the man doesn't even sign my pay checks!

For me, gun ownership, if it relates to the founding of this country at all, is the ideal that we determine our own fates.  That we don't count on others to protect us, we do so ourselves and as a community.  Law enforcement and "the government" is an extension of our community not a threatening outside influence.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 12:51:05 PM »
You brought it up, not me.  But learning that Chewbacca may be a Jesus figure was worth it.  This requires some reevaluation of one of my favorite series of movies...

And I've stated before I give people a harder time the closer they are to my political opinions.  Wouldn't want to get lazy bashing the obviously wrong all the time opposition.  :P

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 12:35:21 PM »
His "Christian" name?  Was he baptized with it or something?  I got to admit, more than being disrespectful, I just don't get the nickname at all.  How you get from Barack to Barry just confuses me.  It's like Bill from William.  If you hate your "full name" and want to shorten it to... whatever so be it.  But shortening it for someone else, when it doesn't make sense?  That just bugs me for no good reason I suppose.  :P

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 12:10:35 PM »
Al is always willing to engage me endlessly with respect to the use of the word "Barry".  Perhaps that too is a matter of higher importance to Al than actual gun deaths.

Got to admit it bugs me as well.  I just choose to ignore it (until now).  I'm glad AI gives you the irritated response you seem to crave when you use your pet name.  We all got to get our kicks somewhere.

General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 12:05:38 PM »
Don't have time to research it now.  Quick info I saw (from 2012ish) was that gun injuries was going up and gun homicides was still on the decline.  Without knowing more about the numbers that could just speaks to the effectiveness of our trauma surgeons and response times of ambulances. 

I thought in general crime was going down.  Including gun crime.  There's too much data lumped into the same pot to make a lot of sense out of it.  Though that does make it easier to pull out "evidence" to suit whatever point you are trying to make. 

I sometimes wonder if it's not both sides which are hesitant to see solid studies done on gun violence and gun ownership.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 11:45:39 AM »
Pete given the tone of some of your criticism of the guy, it's easy to see why many people wouldn't be inclined to even attempt to defend him to you.  How someone opposes a person or position has a lot to do with the willingness of anyone to engage.  A failure to do so should not be read as an inability to provide a defense.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 12, 2016, 11:15:31 AM »
Years of stagnation then bursts of frenzied activity as one side nails down all the power at once and pushes their agenda or rolls back the gains of their opponents?

Wonderful...  :( 
Wish I could disagree.

General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 11:11:31 AM »
Is it any wonder that gun violence has mushroomed under this admin?
  It has?  Or we just talking the high profile mass shootings?

I got to say I enjoy the inference that we need to trust or respect or even like our politicians.  I just like mine mostly predictable.

General Comments / Re: let's cut the crap on gun control
« on: January 12, 2016, 10:06:06 AM »
Because as pointed out in the other gun thread, the current tactics are to villainize the opposition.  You are either an unbalanced conspiracy theorists pro gun nut job or you are a gun grabbing tyrant trying to soften up the nation before your brutal oppression begins.

Getting funding for expanded ATF resources and staff and enforcing existing laws even if successful would be just more status quo and not sexy enough to motivate voters.  Any political capital spent is always measured in its ability to motivate or expand your voter base or shrink and suppress that of your opposition.  Enforcing existing laws does neither of these.  In this regard, NOT funding these resources and staffing works towards the "smaller government" or "fiscal responsibility" narratives for the republican side.  This DOES motivate their voter base.

Think more cynically and politics makes a lot more sense.  :(

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 06:30:41 PM »
Kinda like that uncomfortable feeling you get when you see how peaceful everything is and how respectful an open carry protest or "occupation" is compared to how some of the unarmed ones go...

Ya, it's likely built upon mutual fear of the crap hitting the fan but... it seems to insure good behavior on both sides. 
Accept when it doesn't...

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:08:29 PM »
I don't think so, but it is a very high percentage of gun related deaths that get trotted out.  I think it's MOST deaths actually. 

That is a "problem" worth looking into.  I would like to say it should be divorced from the subject of gun control but if you were of the opinion that "saving lives" is the goal, it would be silly to ignore suicide by guns.

Focusing entirely on gun crime and crime prevention and self defense and accident prevention would be my preference.  When someone wants to check out I think our primary concern is eliminating or minimizing harm they do to others in the process. 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 04:05:51 PM »
OK, S.M.A. is pretty cool stuff.  Not sure if it's the answer to this puzzle but glad I looked it up.  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:46:48 PM »
I'm totally unfamiliar with "shape memory alloy-based components" or how they apply to the topic.
DGR sounds interesting in concept. 

Power is clearly a concern here, too. But advances in microprocessor technology and battery storage that have been driven by smartphones and portable electronics remove this issue as a showstopper. Motion detection and wake-up software can reduce battery drain during storage. Integrating the power supply to the ammunition clip and even charging by mechanical cycling are all ways to address power loss as a mode of failure.
Not a fan of this handwaving statement.  Some numbers (in hours or days between recharge) would be useful / more convincing.

The electronics failure being lower than mechanical failure is good to know.  Though that I assume falls to quality and cost of components.

The recognition rates for fingerprint detectors have been claimed to be as high as 99.99 percent (1 in 10,000 failure rate).
If this is possible, why the sweet *censored* is this tech NEVER USED ANYWHERE?  My failure rate on any device I've used is more like 10-20%.  :(

Thanks for the link

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:19:28 PM »
But if a "stunner" could drop a perpetrator reliably and as or more swiftly than a barbaric slug thrower would we want our cops to have both?  I mean, why allow anyone the option of ending a life outside of the courts if we still had the death penalty? 

Apologies if this is a distraction from the main topic.  :P

Granted you couldn't do all the nifty TV and movie (and occasional reality) tricks like shooting off locks or door hinges for breech entries with a stunner...

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:00:15 PM »
That's why I like a plug in safe which is also a charging station.  It would meet that criteria. 

Actually I think "smart guns" is a "dumb idea".  But if you were set on it, I think this would be the way to go about it.

The one that teases my brain is what happens when we get the technology to have our blaster/phaser/sound emitting device able to "set for stun"?  Once that tech is reliable and affordable how does the debate turn?

Then rather than lethal defense we are talking about the threat of death as a deterring effect on aggression.  We must decide if the benefits of saved lives even in self defense is worth the risk such an invention would be to those who would use it to facilitate theft/kidnapping/rape?  I suppose tazers already brought a lot of that to reality... 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:48:53 PM »
How do you envision this working?  This requires some actuator to work.  Unless you are going full electronic firing (which is also already existing tech though never used to my knowledge in a handgun) 

Now maybe someone has plans for a kinetic powered or watch battery system but this is going to require some juice the way I see it.  Also, it would want (IMO) a visual indicator that it was functioning / paired. 

I always envisioned this as unique RFID short range detector.  Probably grip activated.  Then on detection of the paired watch/ring/implant it would disengage the (mechanical) safety. 

An electric firing system would make the electric safety easier to implement but I know little about the power required to ignite a charge or the cost per round of ammunition built for such a system.

You've got me interested again and maybe I'll look up the latest innovations in this regard.  The last time I did so (a couple of years ago) they were pipe dreams or prone to failure.  Also worth noting, law enforcement also rejected the concept and demand to be exempted to any legislation regarding its requirement.

I'm glad at least you are focusing on the most realistic approach to smart guns over say the biometric scanning / fingerprint reader options.  (Though a magnetic ring; fully mechanical may have merit.  But more easy to defeat/spoof) 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:23:56 PM »
Now selling a gun like that (when reliable) where the safe is the charging station...  You may have a market there.  That said, the cost becomes an issue.  Is the "right to self defense" (or however you want to state it) something only those of a certain economic level are entitled to?  Could we / should we subsidize this technology?  Tax credits?  /shrug 

High bar:  Get police to adopt this.
Lower bar:  Get federal law enforcement officers to adopt this.
Executive decision?:  Get your secret service detail to adopt this.

I'd accept any of these and then would adopt it myself if affordable.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:21:20 PM »
The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
By anyone who wants a gun for self defense or for law enforcement or military work.  Or even from any non gun user who has forgotten to plug in their phone overnight and realizes that going without calls is probably less serious than drawing a weapon when a deadly situation occurs and having nothing happen...

Also, the delicate components tend to not work so well beyond say a .22 cal.  Though I haven't researched actual studies on electronic component durability.  That was just something I read in a few places without citation.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:44:02 PM »
That was my point on the gun safe.  If safeguarding your child from a gun related accident or death is not enough motivation, WTF good will a fine or extra year in jail do to motivate them?

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:19:33 PM »
Workshops where rather than rejecting a proposal the other side asks, "OK, we'll lets say you get exactly what you just asked for.  What result do you anticipate?"

Then have a discussion pointing out flaws if any in their expectations and go over why you oppose them as presented.

"Common sense", on a divisive issue in politics, is more often than not grounded in ignorance.

For example I find magazine size restrictions perplexing.  Take a group of legislators to a range.  Have an inexperienced non-gun user fire and do a magazine swap.  Have a moderately proficient user do it.  Have a practiced user do it.  Then ask them, if they still feel that a restriction of magazine size would save lives.

For those against assault weapons present them with a comparable hunting rifle and ask them if they feel the differences are significant enough to require special laws for this subset of firearms.

For laws which are reactive rather than proactive (such as gun safes) ask if they accept that people will break them and if the goal is to save children's lives when dealing with unsecured guns, what they are more likely to achieve is increasing punishment on a parent who is already dealing with an injured or lost child.  (Yes, IS an acceptable answer, but I feel the question should be asked.)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:14:36 PM »
I'm all for a law requiring that a 3D printed gun be given a unique serial number then be registered.  Not that we live in the CSI world depicted on TV but you also can't apply the same expectations/rules on uncontrolled (unapproved?) manufacturing materials/processes. 

You could ban them outright, but again if 3D printing becomes some wave of the future, then you will then either have to play catch-up, or the "anti-gun" crowd would stall those measures as an end run on banning the new standard.  No clue how much of that is nonsense or the future...

I'm not saying we should do nothing but the easier something is to do behind closed doors the less effective it is to regulate.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you should lower your expectations. 

If someone ONLY wanted a handgun, that they expected to need to fire only a very limited amount of shots (1 or 2) to defend against home intrusion, how do you convince them that they should obey the law and NOT make a 3D gun if they couldn't afford a manufactured one?  Or convince someone who already is prohibited from owning a legal gun that it doesn't make sense to avoid the risk of buying a gun on the street?    If they are only going to use it in a life or death defensive situation, the risk of, "oh no, I'll get in trouble!" doesn't mean a lot.

I rate this along with the gun safe legislation.  It's not a BAD idea, it's just not going to amount to much beyond an additional fine/time on top of other charges.

how far would "our side" have to change before they sat down in good faith?
Being well informed on the mechanics and logistics of weapons and their ownership as well as making proposals that would have significant impact on stated goals would be a good start.  Then comes the hard (impossible?) ones.  Acknowledging that someone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.  Acknowledging that firearm collection and range shooting is a hobby / sport to some.  Acknowledging that a one size fits all solution may not work when considering rural/wilderness residents compared to urban residents. 

Then you need to convince some that any concessions are well meaning and reasonable on their own and not just a "what we could get push through or trick the other side into accepting because we can't achieve a full ban... yet."  That is already impossible for SOME on the other side.  For others, the tactics used in the name of reason or responsibility that fall short is poisoning more against you.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:25:01 PM »
No I don't think they have the manpower at present.  The question would be (one of those we don't like asking) is if the cost for that staffing pays off in a reduction of gun violence, gun accidents or gun suicides.  (I believe the answer is NO, but I'm not a researcher.)

3D printing with a serial number and forcing them to get a FFL is all well and good but it falls into the "unenforceable" laws.  It's not a BAD idea, but I am skeptical it will have any impact.  Beyond that, I'm not sure where it falls on a buyer's rights argument.  If it was for your own use, is it more like buying a weapon or is it worthy of the scrutiny a re-seller or gunsmith warrants?  I'm inclined to make them illegal, but we don't have a firm grasp on the ubiquitousness or reliability of 3D printed goods moving forward.

The opposition to research is the worst part in my eyes NH.  It's not like the NRA couldn't fund their own research if they feel the research of others is bogus/flawed.

"Good faith" must be earned.  To this day most people seem to think assault weapons = fully automatic machine guns without realizing those are already restricted to the point of de facto ban.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:15:46 PM »
NM, re-read and it is clear you meant private sellers.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:08:51 PM »
Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?
  Can you explain this part?  From the private or licensed seller?

General Comments / Re: Who do you trust with the nuclear launch codes?
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:06:05 PM »
When it comes to private individuals or businesses I think we should expect them to operate in the gray areas.  Businesses in fact we should expect them to be RIGHT up to the edge at all times.

When it comes to our government thought.  I don't think it's entirely naive to expect them to avoid actions that are obviously going to be illegal as soon as the mechanisms of law catch up.  Our parties have differing goals and interpretations of what our country SHOULD be as well as a very large overlap.  Acting against those ideals because it's TECHNICALLY not yet illegal is something we should punish them for in an effort to discourage that behavior. 

"Truth justice and the American way" should be more than catchy propaganda and bumper sticker fodder.  All governments play outside the rules now and then, but the closer we hold to our (stated) ideals the better, when it comes to the global community, as well as domestic moral.  That's not to say some calculate a loss of moral and the apathy that brings doesn't play into the plans of some.  It just seems, to me, to be a risky play and very short term thinking.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46