On Eric Holder and those not-so-smart guns that make government control freaks and their cronies in the business world drool.
Share or Bookmark
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, April 9th, 2014 at 5:14 pm and is filed under Guns and Gun Rights.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Good article, Claire. A few practical objections to smart-guns have been raised in my mind, but you listed some I hadn’t thought about. (E.g. that a scab, scar or blood [or grease or simple dirt] could affect finger/palm-prints.)
I should think it’d be obvious by now that the harder they [gun-controllers] bear down on gun-owners, the more resistance they inspire. And it should be obvious, too, that pieces of paper do not make a law workable. This applies to every issue, not just guns; but I guess if you’re determined to control large-scale and have no effective way to do it, ignoring reality is the only way to proceed.
I’m most upset about the “crass crony capitalism”. While admittedly some companies are just out to make money, there are some (such as the California gun shop) who are in a position to understand the ramifications, and should know better than be sucked in.
Has anyone used one of those computers with a fingerprint login mechanism? If so, you know how well they work (NOT!), and that’s under optimal conditions. But on a gun, when you’re in extreme circumstances and are scared, shaky and sweaty? No thanks. Field test it with police and get back to us on how it works.
Ellendra — Thanks! I’d been casually watching the Bundy Ranch mess but hadn’t heard that development. Sounds like the Weaver standoff 21 years later. Hope nobody dies.
Matt, another, Laird — Gloves. Good point. And yeah, something as simple as sweaty hands could do it. (And whose hands wouldn’t be sweating under the circumstances?)
Perhaps the exalted Attorney Generals’ personal security team should be the first test group. For about a decade. Followed by all Federal agents that are armed, and all police departments as well. After they demonstrate just how great they are then I might be interested in taking a look… Not.
I’m hoping it doesn’t turn out like Weaver/Waco either. But I’m afraid it might actually turn out worse. People all over the country are on edge, there’s this undercurrent of hostility everywhere. We’re living in a powderkeg, and it wouldn’t take much to set it off. The Bundy Ranch could do it.
I don’t see this one going anywhere. Let the politicians masturbate about the idea, I’m not losing any sleep over it. Hell, even if they could pull it off, it might just generate more gun sales, particularly to moms… The more gun owners the better.
April 9th, 2014
Good article, Claire. A few practical objections to smart-guns have been raised in my mind, but you listed some I hadn’t thought about. (E.g. that a scab, scar or blood [or grease or simple dirt] could affect finger/palm-prints.)
I should think it’d be obvious by now that the harder they [gun-controllers] bear down on gun-owners, the more resistance they inspire. And it should be obvious, too, that pieces of paper do not make a law workable. This applies to every issue, not just guns; but I guess if you’re determined to control large-scale and have no effective way to do it, ignoring reality is the only way to proceed.
I’m most upset about the “crass crony capitalism”. While admittedly some companies are just out to make money, there are some (such as the California gun shop) who are in a position to understand the ramifications, and should know better than be sucked in.
April 9th, 2014
“crass crony capitalism”
The word you’re looking for is “mercantilism“. ((…he said pedantly, and then strolled away nonchalantly.)
April 10th, 2014
Has anyone used one of those computers with a fingerprint login mechanism? If so, you know how well they work (NOT!), and that’s under optimal conditions. But on a gun, when you’re in extreme circumstances and are scared, shaky and sweaty? No thanks. Field test it with police and get back to us on how it works.
April 10th, 2014
I like he wants to “regulate” folks use of something the 2nd Amendment states should be unregulated.
April 10th, 2014
Probably works great with gloves on at 18 below zero.
April 10th, 2014
Possible flashpoint in progress: http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/expect-to-see-a-band-of-soldiers-militia-members-arrive-at-nevada-ranch/
April 10th, 2014
Smart guns are a great idea. Every federal agent ought to have them.
April 10th, 2014
Ellendra — Thanks! I’d been casually watching the Bundy Ranch mess but hadn’t heard that development. Sounds like the Weaver standoff 21 years later. Hope nobody dies.
Matt, another, Laird — Gloves. Good point. And yeah, something as simple as sweaty hands could do it. (And whose hands wouldn’t be sweating under the circumstances?)
April 10th, 2014
Perhaps the exalted Attorney Generals’ personal security team should be the first test group. For about a decade. Followed by all Federal agents that are armed, and all police departments as well. After they demonstrate just how great they are then I might be interested in taking a look… Not.
April 10th, 2014
I’m hoping it doesn’t turn out like Weaver/Waco either. But I’m afraid it might actually turn out worse. People all over the country are on edge, there’s this undercurrent of hostility everywhere. We’re living in a powderkeg, and it wouldn’t take much to set it off. The Bundy Ranch could do it.
April 11th, 2014
I don’t see this one going anywhere. Let the politicians masturbate about the idea, I’m not losing any sleep over it. Hell, even if they could pull it off, it might just generate more gun sales, particularly to moms… The more gun owners the better.