|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Why Don't We Have Life-Saving Smart Guns Yet?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://www.keepandarms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For decades inventors have been trying to make guns that can be fired only by their owners, without sacrificing reliability. Stuffy industry types call them personalized weapons, but everyone else just calls them smart guns.
Most smart-gun prototypes so far have depended on biometrics (voice, palm, or fingerprint scans) to verify the owner, but none have made it to production. With the possibility of sweat or blood blocking a sensor, dependability remains a concern.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(9/9/2015)
|
Two reasons. They're not life saving. And the people that buy guns don't want them.
The police don't want them. The military doesn't want them. Hunters don't want them. Civilians don't want them.
The only people that want them are the anti gun liberals that won't buy them anyway. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/9/2015)
|
| Because they are STINK!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
