Here they come again (gun control).

[Wayne]

The first step in coming for your guns Lee. Are you ready?

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/he ... fm?id=4771

 

[ltstanfo]

Wayne,

I saw this posted on Drudge this morning. I love how he has it covered and yet it's strangely absent from the mainstream press (for now anyway).

This is politics at its... ahem.... "best". IMO the Democrats are (desperately) seeking any distraction for what is being perceived by many (including myself) as their poor performance with the economy so they are bringing out a perennial favorite of the left, gun control, in the hopes of making traction with their increasingly unhappy base.

Given the recent attempts at gun control and the corresponding results near elections, I suspect this is nothing more than "lip service" but it will be interesting to see what comes of the hearings. I'm just waiting for the NRA to call asking for my donation. My checkbook is ready. :-D

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[cecilia]

I looked up "firearms in commerce" because I have no {bleep} idea what that means.

I still don't. :roll:

there's sites that complain that there's no info about this and they make it sound like there's a huge conspiracy. oy

frankly, i think this is politicians just pushing paper around. they like to do that :mrgreen:

 

[Wayne]

I looked up "firearms in commerce" because I have no {bleep} idea what that means.

The federal regulations regarding weapons sales. (gun registration)

 

[cecilia]

I looked up "firearms in commerce" because I have no {bleep} idea what that means.

The federal regulations regarding weapons sales. (gun registration)

well there should be regulations, but why are they changing them?

or are they?

 

[ltstanfo]

I looked up "firearms in commerce" because I have no {bleep} idea what that means.

The federal regulations regarding weapons sales. (gun registration)

well there should be regulations, but why are they changing them?

or are they?

That's the real question C. Like I posted previously, I suspect the Democrats are trying to play to their base and gain some favor for the upcoming elections, given their (currently) poor poll numbers. What surprises me is that this particular topic is being discussed so close to elections. This will either blow up in their face or it might be the proverbial "October surprise" (though I suspect the former based on recent political history).

We'll know soon enough what game is being played.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[cecilia]

I had a thought (OH OH!! :roflmao: )

registering guns - at least in my mind - is so society knows responsible people are holding these guns.

so everyone with an unregistered gun(s) is NOT responsible by default.

what if a legal gun owner had a 'Lo-Jack' device on their gun(s) so that if they were stolen they could have the police locate them???

ok, this is just as excuse to have a cool gadget. but that's me :mrgreen:

 

[ilwrath]

what if a legal gun owner had a 'Lo-Jack' device on their gun(s) so that if they were stolen they could have the police locate them???

Ugh... Let's not have this idea.

Lo-Jack doesn't really work on cars, anymore. The only chance you have is if the car was stolen by a joyrider and left abandoned a few miles later. If the car was stolen by someone who wants to strip it, re-VIN it, or otherwise turn a profit, the Lo-Jack will likely be found and disabled before you notice the car missing.

And that is with the device hidden inside something as complex as a car. On something as simple as a gun, it's not exactly going to blend in. And, even if you were somehow too stupid to find it and remove it quickly, you can instantly disable it by just tossing the gun into a microwave and closing the door (no signal in or out = no tracking).

The devices would cost a fortune and be completely useless for actually catching criminals. So, actually, in hindsight, it sounds exactly like a device our government would be in favor of, if they could mandate that Northrop-Grumman manufactures them, and XE installs them.

Now, to come back around to the speculation about the politics behind introducing a gun control bill right now. I agree with Ltstanfo. It's a TERRIBLE idea! People have been pushed and pushed enough. It just doesn't make any sense to play with fire(arms) when you don't need to. I think that any major tightening of gun restrictions would swing any remaining moderates away from the Democrats. (And I suspect they've lost a lot of them, already. I know I'm going to vote for every Independent I can.)

 

[cecilia]

well, I used the "LO-jack" as an idea, not necessarily the exact technology.

you list good points for anyone wanting to develop the idea, however.

obviously, whatever is used to track the gun has to be within the body not attached. maybe even THE BODY entirely. oooooo

and putting a gun in a microwave is fine by me because it means it's not being used to shoot someone. :mrgreen:

anyway, this is a fun thought experiment and maybe someday I'll find a way to see it happen

 

[Robert]

I suspect the Democrats* are trying to play to their base and gain some favor for the upcoming elections

:roflmao:

I suspect that the pope wears a jaggy bunnet too.





* Applies equally to almost every political party, ever.

 

[ltstanfo]

well, I used the "LO-jack" as an idea, not necessarily the exact technology...

Actually C, the gun industry has been trying for over a decade to make a smart gun (ie the so called "signature gun"). The problem has always been that any device they come up with to limit the firearm's use to the legal owner can be overcome by other technology. One of the neatest ideas they had (back in the late 90s) was to match a gun to a ring worn by the legal owner to a specific pistol. The ring transmitted (over very short distance) a unique signal that was recognized by the pistol and permitted the weapon to be fired. Without the ring, the gun would not function (firing pin). Neat as the idea was, I think you can see how the technology was a dead end. Perhaps one day the so called "signature gun" will truly come about but for now, its limited to the realm of James Bond.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

I suspect the Democrats* are trying to play to their base and gain some favor for the upcoming elections

:roflmao:

I suspect that the pope wears a jaggy bunnet too.

* Applies equally to almost every political party, ever.

Yeah, I know it is pretty obvious but needless to say, there are more than just a few who don't see it. To be honest, I am expecting the Democrats to try this exact political maneuver if Obama gets a second term. I am surprised however that they are willing to test the political waters with this "trial balloon" so close to the mid term elections. It will be interesting to see what transpires...

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

well, I used the "LO-jack" as an idea, not necessarily the exact technology...

Actually C, the gun industry has been trying for over a decade to make a smart gun (ie the so called "signature gun"). The problem has always been that any device they come up with to limit the firearm's use to the legal owner can be overcome by other technology. One of the neatest ideas they had (back in the late 90s) was to match a gun to a ring worn by the legal owner to a specific pistol. The ring transmitted (over very short distance) a unique signal that was recognized by the pistol and permitted the weapon to be fired. Without the ring, the gun would not function (firing pin). Neat as the idea was, I think you can see how the technology was a dead end. Perhaps one day the so called "signature gun" will truly come about but for now, its limited to the realm of James Bond.

Ya, when you steal the gun, chop the owners hand off too so you can take the ring with you. Hmmm... Maybe not such a good idea.

 

[cecilia]

well, I used the "LO-jack" as an idea, not necessarily the exact technology...

Actually C, the gun industry has been trying for over a decade to make a smart gun (ie the so called "signature gun"). The problem has always been that any device they come up with to limit the firearm's use to the legal owner can be overcome by other technology. One of the neatest ideas they had (back in the late 90s) was to match a gun to a ring worn by the legal owner to a specific pistol. The ring transmitted (over very short distance) a unique signal that was recognized by the pistol and permitted the weapon to be fired. Without the ring, the gun would not function (firing pin). Neat as the idea was, I think you can see how the technology was a dead end. Perhaps one day the so called "signature gun" will truly come about but for now, its limited to the realm of James Bond.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

fascinating!

instead of a ring - which can obviously be "borrowed", derp!
how about injecting a chip in the owners body. I believe people have their dogs injected with identifying chips. or something like that. I haven't bothered to research this - so it's just off the top of my head right now.

frankly, I think various methods should be worked on, so the owner of the gun has choices - thus making it more difficult for thieves to overcome because the criminal doesn't know WHICH technique he would have to compromise.

and if there is one thing I know about criminals is that they will take the easier mark over the more difficult one.

and I think it's obvious that we live in the Age of Star Trek where there are many devices that were fantasies a few decades ago and are now ubiquitous.

During the 1964 NY Worlds Fair the phone company showed video phones. wow, imagine seeing the person you were talking to!!!!

it took YEARS but we now have skype and virtually every laptop on sale has a web cam. And some cell phones have two cameras - one facing the front for use as a web cam.

I'm still waiting for The Car of The Future like the Jetsons but those hybrid Smart cars are really cute.

There's several cities around the world that are entirely GREEN.

it's only a matter of time and the willingness to figure it out before we can have Smart guns. because we sure have some DUMB people :mrgreen: and we need Something to be Smart.