It is not that the NRA don't believe in the technology they simply believe that the problem is "relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded." this is a judgment call not based on the technology but on the NRA's perception of what is significant or needed. How would it be an never ending proposition? The proposition is to invest expertise and money into developing this technology so that it becomes affordable to all people who want to own firearms. and as I pointed out the laws you are talking about are only in place in less than 20 states and as far as I am aware they are enforced in those states that have them. What about the other 32 states where no such laws exist? It takes no more than a few seconds for a criminal to kill you, a safe like this pretty much defeats the object of the idea of firearms for protection where as having the gun "handy" leaves it open for unintentional misuse, I know you will say that it should be the responsibility of the gun owner to teach their children not to touch or "play" with firearms .. however how do you teach this to a four year old, or even a teenager who believes they have everything under control. A fingerprint recognition system would render the firearm useless to all except the person the firearm is 'tagged' to, if you have children who also shoot then the firearm they use can be 'tagged' to them and locked away in a safe when they are not using it under supervision. This pretty much eliminates the risk of unintentional misuse but does not infringe on any persons right to own and bear firearms. This would also not create any new type of database as many states already take fingerprints when issuing driving licensees, and any law abiding citizen should have no fear of that.
Oh come off it, you cherry pick a single statement and focus on it as if it is the main point, yet you ignore everything else. You must consider any and all things that create a database concerning citizens as tyrannical then. Do you consider medical records as tyrannical, would you like for them not to exist so that doctors have no record of any pre-existing medical problems that may dictate the treatment you receive .. Do you really think your medical records cannot and are not used by the state (and that includes both political ideologies). I am not advocating creating a new database simply to track gun owners, this is just using the existing systems that are already accepted by the majority of US citizens. Not only does that save time but also money, as a Republican you should appreciate the money saving part. Now how about debating the main points made?
Your right that all states should have laws that prosecute gun owners that leave gun accessible to unsupervised children that end up shooting themselves or someone. I have yet to see a prosecution of a parent that lost a child because of their negligence. Courts feel they have suffered enough. I still don't see where it is the NRAs responsibility to subsidize manufacturers R&D. The NRA is not a corporation. It is an organization that is funded by its members. You don't need to preach to me about self defense. I'm a certified NRA firearms instructor. I train people to get their CCWs.
I don't think I am preaching to you, neither was I aware of your credentials. If that is the way it came over then it was not intentional on my part. Is not the NRA part funded from the firearm industry, Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson. The NRA also made $20.9 million about 10 percent of its revenue from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990. Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.
The "never ending" side of the prop. is that the law is already in place to register all "smart" guns. The NRA can't be expected to support anything that runs contrary to their principles. Your whole list of NRA resources only indicates that the entire firearms industry is interested in preserving the 2A. That's the SOLE purpose of the NRA. Your list of funding only indicates that this is what it takes to be an active presence in American politics. If the NRA was to fund any research into anything, they would be obligated to fund research into MANY things, against the wishes of their supporters. It would be the same as asking the AARP to manufacture walking canes. That's simply not what they do. As for kids and guns... The truth of that matter is that there are far too many people making babies who are not the least bit qualified to raise them. I received my first firearm at age 4, and there began my firearms education. You are welcome to guess how many people I have killed, or even endangered due to negligence or other irresponsibility.
That's really the main issue with gun rights in America. If America had different demographics, the gun problems would be only a tiny fraction of what they are.
And that's only part of why it makes no sense whatsoever to compare America to "other industrialized nations". From the second that the CONUS was ratified, the US became the ONLY example of America in history. It remains so to this second. Even with our unqualified parents and the social parasites that they spawn, America is the utmost best example of Government in all history. Still, it doesn't mean we should stop here...
the only point you made that stood out was the one I indicated. You have no idea of the impact of those words. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc have used that line to justify all the laws they passed. If you were a good Nazi, you followed the law and turned in your neighbor for suspicious activities, even though he may not be doing anything. There isn't one thing that doesn't have some sort of legal status. For example, some idiot in Congress tried to pass a federal law to prohibit gardens. The back yard gardens. He has re-introduced it three times and getting ready to do it again. To be honest, there are two phrases that really bother me: 1) If you're not hiding anything, allow me to check your home 2) If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. Those are "soft" words of tyranny. Allow us in your hope to check to make sure you aren't breaking any laws. BTW, can we search your car. It really isn't a question. Yep, those are the soft words of tyranny. and yes, it is illegal to create a data base for gun owners. Who is to say the next guy isn't going to be worse than Obie? That will use that "list" to confiscate.....hell, Obie has made it quite clear that citizens should not be able to own guns.
All I see above ^ is slippery slope fallacies and conspiracy theories. I actually thought we could have had a decent debate here without the usual propaganda infecting it .. obviously I was wrong.
the point we are totally at odds over is gun control. It violates our Rights to have infringements on any Right, much less the 2nd A. A registration data base has been used against citizens world wide. It has been used to confiscate any real means of self-defense. There is no way to keep a weapon of any kind out of the hands that would seek to murder anyone. With out suspending the 4th A, there is no way to go door to door and check on "safety"issues. Once the thief has his foot in the door, the only way to keep the rest of him out is to shoot the foot. "We only want away to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals" is a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) line. The crims wont register (*)(*)(*)(*) with anyone. And the only ones that will obey any law are those who cannot think for themselves. Serious debate? I doubt it. Your end is contrary to the Bill of Rights and for me there is no further "compromise".................... You have to ask yourself, seriously, how many Americans would register their guns? Just 'cuz you ask pretty please? and just WFT is the propaganda I am stating? The truth?
When gun control measures were passed in 1934, 1968, 1986, and the 1990's people kept saying "Nobody wants to take your guns. We just want to compromise." This "compromise" was taking some of our rights and assuring us we can keep everything else. Then a little more "compromise" takes more rights and more "compromise" takes more rights. This slippery slope is more than just a fallacy. It can be followed in our legal history. But this time demanding to ban all semi automatics, creating a national database registry, mandatory background checks on private transfers, and whatever other bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you're demanding will definitely be the last time they harass us to give up our rights. All those other times they kept coming back for more but this time they really mean it. That is until my deer rifle becomes a sniper rifle, or my Mossberg 500 becomes a military grade combat shotgun or whatever other garbage people like Shannon Watts want's to brand it as to terrify people into thinking my guns will walk out of the safe and kill them in their sleep on Christmas.
Utter bobbins! For example, the US has a long history of gun control. What we have is people using the "slippery slope" to avoid rational debate.
Is this a question? Are you seriously telling me you don't know the long history of gun control in the US ( originally based on the dastardly Brits)? Alternately, can't you make sense?
And now people want to ban regular rifles and like Obama said during the debates, handguns too. Our original freedom to own guns came from the Brits but they became a more authoritarian State, that slippery slope you know.
Gun control is the norm. Always has been. The "slippery slope" grunt is just grunt. Any one suggesting otherwise is grunting. Are you grunting?
Always will be for governments that fear their own people. That is what authoritarian governments do, control the people. You live it and love it.
NRA and the sheep behind it are the most authoritarian types going. Your argument is repulsive for its ignorance.
Sheep like you that think others will protect you always seem to feel very full of themselves and think they are somehow superior. It is funny that you think a freely joined organization that supports rights is 'authoritarian'. Just goes to show how brainwashed you have become.
That you try the "no, my daddy is bigger than yours" tells me that you haven't got an argument. I'm an individual. I have researched the evidence independently of all pressure groups. I know what is says. It makes you look like a fool. Will you react like rational economic man? No. Because you and most of your NRA ilk are sheep. You couldn't be more anti-American
You've always known none of the evidence and you never will. Its people like you that make this forum worthless
LOL there was never an argument to begin with, you are wrong. Your research was hashed and spit out long ago...retreading the same tired disproven argument makes you look the fool twice over. Good night!
