Pretty much impossible to implement. Adding an electronic device like this to a gun would require some sort of secure transmission device (like a cellular unit) which would require a battery, and the battery would need to be kept charged. On top of this, it would need some sort of device to disable the mechanical functions of the gun, which would require a significant charge to the battery. Anything that wouldn't interfere with normal use of the gun but could mechanically disable it could easily be removed (many guns are disassembled to some extent for cleaning and maintenance) and there would be a lot of potential for both malfunction and abuse. This is not at all realistic.

What's the matter with an ordinary electronic lock? Battery runs out, who cares. Power is required to open it, not lock it. Someone must make trigger locks like that.

Because the premise behind why the second amendment exists is so that should the government turn against the rights and liberties of the people and become a totalitarian regime, the people could fight their way out of that oppression and return the control of government to the people. Though this sounds outlandish, it's not in theory. The founders of the US government were so fearful of an overbearing federal government that they created many safeguards against the government becoming an authoritative tyranny.

More importantly though, Second Amendment supporters believe that fundamental to Liberty is the ability to protect oneself against those that would infringe on their rights. The ability to own a gun - of any kind - is simply a method of protecting oneself, especially in rural areas of the country where police can take upwards of thirty or forty minutes to arrive at a scene.

Anyone who thinks the writers of the Second Amendment were considering assault rifles and machine guns when they wrote what they had in mind is deluding themselves. And I can guarantee you that if the US government became a "tyranny", a bunch of hicks wouldn't stand a chance against its military, so yeah, it is outlandish, to anyone with common sense.

Just your classic black ops falseflag operation. Nothing but a staged event to use to push gun control.

^ There needs to be an equivalent of Poe for this kind of lunacy...

The framers of the constitution left no limits on what guns a citizen could carry because they believed that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same weapons that the military was able to arm themselves with. Now, obviously citizens can't arm themselves with airplanes and bombs, but the US army is not dedicated to protecting the government, like so many other countries, it is dedicated to protecting the rights of the people, and because of this, should the US government, during a revolution in which 40% of the US population with guns, order the military to fire on it's own citizens, I expect that it's generals and it's servicemen would refuse. They would be firing at their own friends, own fathers and brothers. We have a volunteer army in our country, not a hired army.

Additionally, many of the people who are proponents of the second amendment are not "hicks" as you say. Many of these individuals are veterans and strong believers in the reasons the constitution was written to begin with. We have a total military of 1.12 million soldiers. They would stand no chance against the massive numbers of American citizens who would rise up against the tyrannical government they would be willing to topple.

I don't believe it would ever come to this of course, I'm just giving some of the reasons why we see such backlash against gun control in America and some of the reasons why I don't believe there should be restrictions on gun ownership in America. We are a unique country in the story behind our Constitution and how truly fearful the Framers were of a Statist government.

Fixed for reality.

And why do you say that? I bet you think the government and the news would never lie to you.

If you're joking, which I hope you are, you've somehow managed to acquire a pretty tasteless sense of humor.

I'm not really joking I wasn't saying that is what she thinks I was trying to ask her if that was the case. To be honest a lot of people in the United States think the way I mentioned and I find it very sad. Why can't anyone think for themselves?


Morrigan of course they didn't know machine guns and assualt rifles and the like would be invented but you can't prove it nor can you convince me into thinking that they though guns would stop evolving.

Do you honestly think the military would go en masse to the owners of 300 million guns, and turn their guns to enforce a clearly unconstitutional assault in violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendment? Not only is what you're proposing just as batshit as Alex Jones propagating the nonsense that this was some type of false flag, but thinking that the military has any authority to enforce a decree by the government without probable cause by virtue of your offended sensibilities is incredibly startling. But then again this is the federal government we're talking about, they could easily just make up some new order ad hoc and then enforce it Andrew Jackson-style.

How is that kool-aid folks?

An armed militia will not be able to do fucking shit to stop the government if it comes down to it. The guys with cruise missiles, drones and strike bombers aren't going to be stopped by your gun club and their AR-15s.


Hahaha, yeah, sure.


Remember the Civil War?

Beautiful strawman Napero, I honestly expected a lot more from you given the fact you've reiterated twice, that as long as we do "our thing" and don't ship our supposedly backwards ways overseas, you would't care? You're right in fact the initiation of force by the government is far more evil than a man such as Adam Lanza who is clearly demented and fucked up in the head who goes and commits his crime, yes it's evil, but what excuse is there to go into some village in Yemen and slaughter an entire town block killing tens of untold humans to get one "terrorist". I repeat Adam Lanza is insane yes, but at least some degree we can make sense of his actions given the fact he suffered from Aspergers and perhaps other unnamed maladies that have yet to be revealed. It's a tragedy in every sense, but what excuse can be made for something you so glibly call "collateral damage".



We are not really in charge of our policy with regards to drones, we don't know anything about the intel required to determine where a potential target is, how Obama makes the determination to drop the payload on the termination without consideration for "collateral damage", and more importantly who is on his kill list. It's just a natural progression in terms of pursuing autonomous machines over humans, the Pentagon is going to spend more on these as opposed to fighter jets and troops

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world ... d=all&_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... 89836.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/pentagon- ... NKZ5m_olRI (An outline of the Military's changes)

The Civil War is a completely different situation because states seceded from the Union. See Verac's statement below.

The point is as Veracs states, the US Military would not fight it's own citizens. We see how much uproar there has been on Obama using Drone strikes to kill American citizens in other countries... what makes you think the outcry wouldn't be even stronger in the case of the US Army using cruise missiles on it's own people. No one would support such an order.

Okay, whatever you reckon, buddy.

Comparing the Civil war to a theoretical mass-theft of guns to prior to the ratification of 13th amendment is insane, not only were the massively less firearms then but the morale to defend the union at all costs for Lincoln was significant enough propaganda combined with the ample resources of the Non-Confederate states enough to stifle any rebellion the Confederacy was able to mount.

To reiterate the statement, you have not clearly identified any sort of causation as to what grounds the military would attack law abiding citizens who maintain their guns against a decree that defies the amendments I listed. How can you compare the fervor to maintain the union at all cost, end slavery, and quell Southern rebellion to army men who are losing their veterans benefits, are massively underpaid, and going into the homes of the people they know and initiating violent force to those who are simply defending their property?

Just saying that it's stupid to think the army wouldn't fire on American citizens if the government told them to; they've done it before.

^I whole heartedly agree.

They wouldn't attack the citizens they are sworn to protect to the point which would be required to remove guns from every citizen that owns one. It would literally be impossible to go around to every single household that owns a gun and try to take them from their owners hands.

I think you're entirely too idealistic here. Agents of the government have shot unarmed civilians before for lesser reasons.

The military and police officers have been running drills to train for an operation like this.

You completely disregard how powerful the influence of authority is on an individual, and a group's actions on individuals. I'm not making anything up, there's a large body of scientifically supported data saying that people will follow orders regardless of the morality of the actions. I speak mainly about Milgram's obedience experiment which shows that people will follow orders disregarding morality provided that an authority figure is legitimate and overbearing enough. This study was done in response to Nazi war crimes and the Nuremberg Trials, where a majority of SS officers said they were "following orders".

There's no need to think that cultural upbringing makes a difference, and that average American citizens are different to Nazi German militia because they're evil Nazis who've been brainwashed by propaganda. It works the same way. It happened that way in the 1940s and in the early 60s, and it'll continue for as long as humans are humans.

In this case, you place too much trust in your military thinking that it won't open fire on its own citizens. Take a look at political revolutions, upheavals and unrests in the past 200 years and you'll see that the military of the time and place didn't hesitate one second to shoot and possibly kill insurgents. If the US government is overbearing enough, which it is, the military will follow absent-mindedly.

This is entirely accurate, and it's a shame that this motivation for preserving the 2nd Amendment always takes the back seat to the other issue of people being able to defend themselves. Granted with technology today, you could arm a lot of citizens with machine guns and we would still be crushed by military forces. But it's still scary to think about how many people are willing to throw away their ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, and don't understand the potential bloodshed that may be required in a revolution, should one occur someday.

Oh yee of little faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
not even twenty years ago...

Veracs and orion - the military would never attack us!
Veracs and orion next post - we need to have enough arms to defend ourselves from the government and its military!

Ummm.... wut.



Again just saying, but if the drone strikes are anything like operations in Afghanistan it'd take pretty damn good reason to fire a missile. Also they're not autonomous machines being, you know, human controlled.

How about we up the ante to some unarmed students?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

This seems to hinge on the same basic utopian premise that Communism has crumbled under, time and time again. That people will be idealistic enough not fall for their base urges, greed, vindictiveness, aggression... all your dream world would ensure is that whoever has the biggest stick gets to sit on the big chair.

There was also this infamous incident in 1932. Not demonstrating students or hippies this time, but veterans!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

You're also a unique country in that you consistently break records as far as deaths by firearms.

This romanticized idea that a bunch of inebriated rednecks are going to magically understand political issues, get up their out-of-shape asses and "save the country" against a tyrannical government with firearms is just a fantasy. They would be crushed down by the military and cry like infants. Everybody knows it. You know it too. Against a modern force (especially the most powerful military in the world) there is only one type of resistance that proves to be remotely effective. Ironically, it's the one being used by these people that gun-loving hicks hate so much: terrorism. Blow up people and strategic places... blow up shit, cut down supply roads, poison food and water and so on and meanwhile, work on propaganda and hope it turns more and more people to your cause.

Guns would have nothing to do with a potentially successful overthrowing of a United States government in the 21 st century.

The reason nutjobs are allowed to buy automatic guns has fuck-all to do with the constitution. Citizens are allowed to buy such weapons because their government doesn't give a shit about its citizen. The US government is for sale. And currently, powerful lobbies such as the NRA are buying. Weapons are good business. Fear is an awesome marketing tool. We're selling guns to Joe the shmuck. And Bob the shmuck better buy a gun too in case Joe blows a fuse! And this fear and paranoia trickles down until more and more insane stuff is being sold.



And your other solution wouldn't work either, even if we lived in a fantasy world where a bunch of drunkards can resist the most powerful military in the world:



You see, when the government takes away your freedom, there's no big "reveal". It's not like one day you're gonna elect a guy and he will appear like Darth Vader and demand you bow down. A government will slowly eliminate adversaries. For instance, you might end up with an undeserving criminal record. And then you don't get to have a gun. Or maybe that randomized "check" you propose is rigged. Or hey, maybe that guy the government doesn't like is considered "mentally handicapped"!

Newsflash: your government is already taking away your rights! And ironically, it happens even faster when the party gun-lovers support is in charge. Lying to its citizens, pulling crap like the Patriot Act.

Citizens need more than guns to protect themselves. They need knowledge! They need to process information about real world issues and speak up.

Maybe that's another reason the government is happy about guns. Because while CNN is spending hours and hours perversely covering the aftermath of some school shooting, real actual world issues that concern us aren't even mentioned.

Haha, so true.

The whole thing about owning guns is kind of ridiculous. I've never heard a story where someone has successfully fended off an attack because they owned a gun on the news.

I think this thread got really off topic. Gun control won't stop crazy people. Like banning drugs doesn't stop drug dealers, banning prostitution doesn't stop prostitutes from getting around and banning gambling stop gambling.

And banning guns is going to stop people from owning guns?

Riffs I think you underestimate the power of a civilian army which, would actually be very similar to the terrorist methods used against our military in the Middle East. No civilian army is simply going to go and attack bases and shit... they are going to engage in a covert-war which they would win out of necessity.

Whatever. I already know that almost everyone on this site has the exact opposite political viewpoints as me, and that's fine. I'm going to believe in them anyway because part of the problems the USA has encountered is that there are so few elected officials that actually stick to the ideals they campaign on. I want an idealistic leader that actually believes in something greater than money and power but instead all we get are corrupted and weak willed fools that can be bought and sold...

Sandy hook and Aurora shooting foretold in new Batman movie :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8nTZKpmtlQ

I'm sure it's just a coincidence!

Actually, that same technology was already developed by a (now defunct, I think) company called Metal Storm more than a decade ago. They had an electronic "law enforcement" pistol with several security features like fingerprint ID, card swiping and some other shit, Judge Dredd style. It's also the deadliest pistol ever made.

The saddest part of all of this talk about Newtown, besides being completely tasteless at this point in the media, is that these events have actually driven guns sales to staggering record numbers again and truly show the rest of the world, how f’ed up the US as a whole has become.

Talk of arming teachers is abound and is another sad and very disturbing idea widely publicized and floating around with many different law makers. It’s being backed in the state of Virginia, by Gov. McDonnell and other legislators, as well as many others within the US. I couldn't imagine most of my former teachers wielding guns in a high pressure situation. Shooting an inanimate target versus taking out a living, breathing and very determined mad gunman are two completely different balls of wax. Most people would fold like a house of cards under that kind of pressure, it’s proven to be difficult even for professionals. These are teachers they are talking about, not trained mercenaries. I am not sure I would want a mercenary teaching my kids. Competent armed guards or possibly police officers would be a completely different story than armed teachers. The American solution is just throwing more guns at the problem.

Besides the lunacy already mentioned comes the harsh reality that this country has already crawled down the rabbit hole too far and for way too long. There is no way of tracking who has what weapon at this point anymore. When guns bought by politicians end up in Cartel hands you know something is wrong. Who sold what weapon to whom is long out of the window, so not even proper weapons oversight would work at this point. The knowledge that guns are on the street and no one knows who has what, drives these sales even more. Keeping up with the Jones they say.

So who's to blame for this absolute careless treating of dangerous goods in the public’s hands? Well it’s complicated but three fold. First and foremost the gun lobby (the NRA) and their big business gun associate from around the world. These people give a rat’s ass about public safety, just don't hinder the sale of guns by any means possible as it will hurt the P&L. It's never been about any individual rights it's about greed plan and simple. To reach their goal, the NRA has brain washed the public into thinking any oversight is taking away of the 2nd Amendment right and leaving people in danger. “Don't give an inch is their motto”, and their tactic is pure fear mongering, ideas of which are clearly on display even in this thread. Those hypocrites try to, of course, teach responsible gun ownership on the private level, but heaven forbid the government tried to regulate the sale, safe keeping, and selling and purchasing of a gun beyond the very weak initial back ground checks in place currently. Regulate a potentially dangerous item, who’d thought of such a thing, but millions of drivers have no problem with the licensing, registration, and safety inspection of their vehicle, something we all use day to day. Checking safe gun ownership is too much to ask though.

Thirdly comes the just as ridiculous vehement anti-gun lobby and the governments knee jerk reaction. Their ideas are just as laughable and even more counterproductive at this point in the game. Ban semi-auto rifles is their knee jerk reaction to events like the one from last week. However these weapons are used in a only a fraction of the crimes committed throughout the country, but now they are again the main focus of banning talks. Instead of all this past talk of banning this and banning that, there should have been steps taken early to oversee clearly who is buying what and who has what, and promoting safety. The core of the anti-gun government wing is pretty powerless at this point due to its own corruption and it's pro gun counterpart being tied to the gun lobby. The sad reality is now that gun sales to people who have no business owning a gun in the 1st place will continue sky rocketing, along with murders from weapons that fell into the street due to theft from legal owners will continue increasing. All guns were legal at one time right. There are no illegal gun factories operating and selling to Americans.

These are sad facts that America now has to face and owe up to, for the years of irresponsible gun culture. Now we are at the brink of a fully armed society, because no real action was ever taken in the past to control the situation or teach the public before it snow balled to where we are now. The damage is done, there is no going back, there is no Switzerland or other mystical gun policy around the corner, only more bloodshed.

I remember that company, I think they were on Future Weapons at some point...they're ridiculously awesome.

So the WBC (of course) is planning on picketing the vigils held for the victims. And Anonymous hasn't taken too kindly to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB3wSK0Xi58 (be forewarned, the last little segment is really loud, so turn down your headphones)

Guns aren't going to be taken away any time soon. The idea of needing to use force for a change is a part of a violent culture that tends to divide into factions that are "with us or against us" on both sides. The idea that there is a "right" action that can solve problem, partially or completely, tends to fixate on one issue rather than diversifying solutions, or providing significant attention to problems that aren't as easy to see in black and white.

What else can we do to help people with mental illnesses? Institutionally, we can make better care available and train people to better understand them, but that isn't a complete solution. If we talk about these as much as gun laws are talked about after mass killings, people would understand them better and it would lessen the aggravation of the problem. This is something where you don't need to "take action" like gun laws, where there isn't a political battlefront to fight, which is why it is harder to understand. As people grow up, they spend 13 years in a public school system, a fairly rigid social structure where there are many circumstances out of their control, and authority can't have a full grasp on everything that happens, though they are often complicit in mistreatment. That's 13 years where mental illnesses develop and might be aggravated, but it's also 13 years where hundreds of people have a chance to reach out form a bond that is something to hold onto when they feel hopeless. The shooter in Newtown was autistic - something that often isolates people in youth because other adolescents don't know that they're like them, they just have a much harder time saying it. If we had 24/7 news coverage on all fronts talking about how "those people" are the problem with aggravating mental illnesses and making it painful to admit and seek treatment, and we have this solution but they refuse to stop, simply having that amount of awareness would be a great benefit towards mentally ill people by reducing the stigma against them. Instead, the nation talks about guns guns guns, while awareness of anything seems to be an issue confined to ribbon-shaped bumper magnets.

Neither providing mental healthcare, both better and wider, nor trying to facilitate understanding about mental health problems is the mainstream sentiment. There is very little force to be wielded by the average person, while one could support getting rid of all guns or arming everyone as a solution that could be pointed to the next time something like this happens, it isn't quick nor is it outwardly visible - it's harder to grasp than flipping a lightswitch. It doesn't give a feeling that you personally contributed to a unified action. Trying to target mass murders to stop them is a shot in the dark and most of them will hit the wrong target. Diminishing motives by reaching out is a cultural change that needs to be long-term and requires dedication and understanding that it is the right thing to do. In the aftermath of events like this, quite the opposite happens - anger is taken out on innocent people as I described here:

http://jacobbacharach.wordpress.com/201 ... he-affair/

I don't often post links to blogs and do copy-paste arguments but 'ol IOZ has been one of my favorite blawggers forever and now that he's returned, he came back just in time to have a take on this and it is pretty fantastic. Very, very different than anything you'll be likely to read, but then it wouldn't be IOZ if it wasn't.