Obama's Latest Efforts to reduce gun violence

[longbarrel]

What, you think Obama's pro gun or something and everybody's just giving him a raw deal with all the 'unjustified' criticism?

Not at all. But in 2008 all I heard from a lot of people was "He is going to take your guns! You know that right?" If you hear it enough from your close friends and families, you start to believe it. The news said it. The radio said it. Magazines said it. The internet said it. The gun lobby said it. Certain congressmen said it. Cable talk shows said it. My neighbors, co-workers, family, friends, said it. Guys at the gas station said it. People at the local diner said it. Vendors at shows said it. People at church said it. Even some police officers I know, said it. That is all I'm trying to say.

 

[jbombelli]

Not at all. But in 2008 all I heard from a lot of people was "He is going to take your guns! You know that right?" If you hear it enough from your close friends and families, you start to believe it. The news said it. The radio said it. Magazines said it. The internet said it. The gun lobby said it. Certain congressmen said it. Cable talk shows said it. My neighbors, co-workers, family, friends, said it. Guys at the gas station said it. People at the local diner said it. Vendors at shows said it. People at church said it. Even some police officers I know, said it. That is all I'm trying to say.

He has a history of saying it. The only thing that stopped him was Congress.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let's be honest here. Obama hasn't "taken" any guns from anyone that I know of. He has forbidden import of American rifles, made by Americans, in America, from a foreign power (an ally), for which Americans would pay to obtain, with the false claim that gangs were using them. Really? Gangs are using M1 Garands and/or Carbines? Hmmm

He has signed a couple of laws into place that expanded our ability to exercise our rights. If we believe that Reagan was anti-gun because of the Hughes Amendment in FOPA, then by extension, we must believe Obama to be pro-gun for "allowing" guns in Federal park lands. I don't think anyone realistically believes the latter, and none should the former.

Obama, back in his days in the Illinois legislature, opined that a community should be able to ban guns within its own borders, even if doing so would criminalize the man whose case was before the court, due to his having shot a home invader. I'm too lazy to look this up, but as I recall, even with an active home invasion, Barry didn't think the homeowner should be able to fight back with lethal force.

Would he take the guns from our hands if he could? Of course. That he has not means only one thing to me: He has no balls for a real fight with Congress, let alone with a home invader of his own.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Smart guns are utter nonsense.

Keith from PAGunBlog parallels my thoughts: Tech Crunch on Smart Guns | Shall Not Be Questioned

 

[Plague421]

Smart guns are utter nonsense.

Keith from PAGunBlog parallels my thoughts: Tech Crunch on Smart Guns | Shall Not Be Questioned

Nice article!

I noticed in the comments that user Matt brings up a good point.

Matt:
My understanding of ATF interpretation is any gun with an electronically controlled trigger under software control lacking mechanical and approved stops to prevent full-auto fire is, by default, a machine gun.
If the mere possibility of a software update being applied to a control mechanism to allow more than one shot to be fired is even possible, even if never created or used, you have built a machine gun.

What if a law were passed requiring that guns be fitted with these electronic triggers, but manufacturers are "persuaded" or forced to not develop a way to prevent modification of the electronics/software.
That would be a nice little loophole to prevent gun sales now wouldn't it? Sure, you can buy a gun, but it has to have the electronic trigger control safety. Because it has this electronic control, which allows the possibility for legal/illegal modification, you would be forced to conform to the ATF machine gun laws.

It's a conspiracy!

 

[seedubs1]

Welp.....sounds like he listened to the general consensus of gun owners. I remember hearing a lot of "I won't get one until LEO and the .mil use it."

The other question is basically a math question.....How many lives will it save vs. how many lives will it end. In LEO hands, it would end the issue of a cop getting his weapon taken and being murdered with his own gun. Is that number greater than the number of cops that will die due to malfunctions? I don't know the numbers, but it's something to think about, and my initial thought is that it'll likely save more cops than it'll kill.

I also don't know the projected failure rate, but my guess is that they'll drive it to a 6s or better level as it'll be a 10 on the FMEA for "Effect" since the failure would lead to potential life threatening situations for LEO. It won't be 1/500. It'll be more like 1/1,000,000 at the most .

Honestly, I'm all for having LEO and the .mil adopt smart gun technology. But I don't want it for any of mine.

The poor cops will be the Guinea pigs. Guns are machines designed with durability and reliability in mind. So what is going to be the allowed failure rate before these things are foced on our boys in blue. Ok, say 1/500 is tolerable? Tell that to the widow.

 

[actaeon277]

Welp.....sounds like he listened to the general consensus of gun owners. I remember hearing a lot of "I won't get one until LEO and the .mil use it."

The other question is basically a math question.....How many lives will it save vs. how many lives will it end. In LEO hands, it would end the issue of a cop getting his weapon taken and being murdered with his own gun. Is that number greater than the number of cops that will die due to malfunctions? I don't know the numbers, but it's something to think about, and my initial thought is that it'll likely save more cops than it'll kill.

I also don't know the projected failure rate, but my guess is that they'll drive it to a 6s or better level as it'll be a 10 on the FMEA for "Effect" since the failure would lead to potential life threatening situations for LEO. It won't be 1/500. It'll be more like 1/1,000,000 at the most .

Honestly, I'm all for having LEO and the .mil adopt smart gun technology. But I don't want it for any of mine.

Didn't the company itself try a demonstration that was a Spectacular Failure, with their "experts" on hand?

 

[actaeon277]

Welp.....sounds like he listened to the general consensus of gun owners. I remember hearing a lot of "I won't get one until LEO and the .mil use it."

The other question is basically a math question.....How many lives will it save vs. how many lives will it end. In LEO hands, it would end the issue of a cop getting his weapon taken and being murdered with his own gun. Is that number greater than the number of cops that will die due to malfunctions? I don't know the numbers, but it's something to think about, and my initial thought is that it'll likely save more cops than it'll kill.

I also don't know the projected failure rate, but my guess is that they'll drive it to a 6s or better level as it'll be a 10 on the FMEA for "Effect" since the failure would lead to potential life threatening situations for LEO. It won't be 1/500. It'll be more like 1/1,000,000 at the most .

Honestly, I'm all for having LEO and the .mil adopt smart gun technology. But I don't want it for any of mine.

And what's he going to do if the LEOs say "NO"?

 

[Bill of Rights]

And what's he going to do if the LEOs say "NO"?

or to paraphrase the quote commonly attributed to Pres. Andrew Jackson, "Mr. Obama has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"