Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets

"Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets"

Awwww, its nice to want.

That being said..........

NO! Just NO!

reply to post by HauntWok

There has been a marked decrease in gun related deaths in this country over the last 30 years.

THEREFORE, gun control laws WORK.

Not really. While there has been a marked decrease in violent crime and gun violence, a state by state study shows that the 10 years of the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban and Magazine ban that gun related murders increase in quantitatively tandem ways:

Applied Economics Letters- An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates(PDF)

by Mark Giusa Department of Economics, Quinnipiac University

Benevolent Heretic
Does anyone realize that these bracelets aren't "Tracking" devices. as the OP says? I didn't read the whole thread, but I found the video where Holder mentioned this. It's NOT a bracelet with tracking technology, it's a bracelet the user wears to prevent others from using the gun. In other words, the shooter must be wearing the gun or else it doesn't work.

Of course they realize this is not actually tracking technology, but rather safety technology to prevent, for example a child using his parents gun ...they just DONT CARE...

Lies are useful to those without a moral compass.

neo96

indigo5

So...I am having a hard time reconciling the headline with what he actually said?...which you seem to have omitted? Which is strange...an OP that chooses not to include the quote at the center of the topic?


Go figure.

Hell take it up with the article author.

Why? You are the one propagating an outright lie? You created the OP and are shouting about it...And you apparently know your headline is utter, complete, BS...but don't care?

Why again should anyone take you seriously?

reply to post by Indigo5


Nice!

Make the poster the topic.

When all else fails. Just like the epic failures of gun control laws.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get past those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe by making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

A cell phone is something a person might use that they talk to, and the government tracks, and reads it's text messages,

But who cares right !




But ya know,

According to ATS TC headlines are copied as is.

It has occurred to me that most people who love "freedom" are actually dictators at heart. We are now at a point in this nation where only one opinion matters, and that's yours. Everyone else is wrong and deserves to have their opinion taken away. It just amazes me.

The hatred of knowledge in this nation is just unbelievable. We have Marines chasing after American citizens with flags upside. All the name of I fought for that flag? So this marine decided that he himself could have freedom, but not the citizen? I mean we are f#@!ng out of control. The list could go on and on. Police shoot before they have positively identified the combatant? Seriously guys?

I'm tired of this gun debate. I really am. I'm ready for it. I'm ready to give them up. I'm ready to let the liberal, communist, fascist, dictatorship take charge. Everyone thinks its a fantasy and they just want your guns for our safety. Well.. You'll soon see.

You can ban guns all day long. People are still going to get guns and shoot places up.

Don't obfuscate the issue with the other amendments you care nothing about. You want your guns neo. I personally think it's reasonable. I think it's patriotic. And I think that it gives people who want to exercise their right to bear arms training they require.

Amendment II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Referenced from Cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu...

Lets break this down, like math. 1st it authorizes a "well regulated militia", then it authorizes "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and then its states "shall not be infringed." There is no requirement anywhere in there to be a part a "militia". Nor is there a stipulation that the right to bear arms hinges on being in a militia. National Guard and Army Reserves are not militia's BTW. They are full blown extensions of the United States Army which is a department of Defense(DOD) department.

^^ In reference to the quote above: The last thing I want is Adam Lanza with military training. Did you forget what Christopher Donner used his military training for?

reply to post by lobograndemalo

You can ban guns all day long. People are still going to get guns and shoot places up.

Yep one would think the antigunners would have learned something from the era of prohibition.

reply to post by neo96


The People: We want to explore anal tracking suppositories for government @ssholes ;-)

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by lobograndemalo


>oh woe is me.....


grow up premadonna... Rob Emanual is a f***ing idiot, this notion is entirely rediculous even when you dismiss neo96's lemon-yellow "journalism". Basically what was being proposed was a facy-new safety catch, that basically would be linked with a rfid-chip you'd wear in a bracelet, said rfid chip would ideally prevent other people who don't have the bracelet from using the gun.

Now this notion is impractical as Implementing it would be a massive pain in the ass, and probably wouldn't work all that well..

Now your issue with this stupid wedge issue being brought up again and again is shared by me, though I don't share your outlook on the issue itself (as it is an arguement that really is complex without a single right answer, highly subjective).

In any case, supposing a facist government does arrise, it's not really going to be anti-gun, if anything its going to rely on the right-wing whome are tired of moral degenerates and undesirables (welfare queens, entitled white feminist sluts); in addition to members of what we consider the left-wing whome see someone finally standing up to big-business, encouraging public works projects, and providing jobs for the working class. Facism is quite strongly based on nationalism, in the case of the US we see a lot of this sort of thing already, with jingonistic patriotism.

The benefits of a facist government will come after it's overthrown obviously, and it probably won't be by gun-owners, as they will be complicit in it along with everyone else, (it'd probably end in a manner similar to the end of Facist Spain did in the 1970's)

It will be a new beginning, and hopefully americans won't be as much of a bully to smaller countries. (instead china and brazil will be bullying smaller countries in our absence) and we will probably write a new constitution, and form the 3rd United States Of America (after the one of the articles of confederation, and the present constitution) that or the country will split up by economic/cultural regions, forming possibly a loose economic group resembling the eurozone.

We want to explore all you tyrants with rope bracelets around your necks... But that won't happen either! Keep pushing us elitists!

reply to post by Black_Fox


If it isn't RFID chips its a bracelet now ? Are these criminal politicians that afraid of us? They sure are, they have such a guilty conscience. Whenever they do something really bad and betray the people they come up with some legislation to disarm and or spy on us.





I got a better idea, we make politicians wear shock collars with a explosive device in them. So whenever Holder and his cronies say something stupid we can push a button and Zap ! And whenever they commit treason the collar will explode. Its only fair, i will wear my gun bracelet but they gotta put the collar on first

HauntWok
reply to post by neo96

 

That was 5 videos, and several news articles to prove the point. That was just a random sampling of the tens of thousands of articles and videos. I didn't even put in the videos where they actually SHOW the person killing themselves.

So when you say that most gun owners follow strict safety protocols. I just have to laugh. I'm amazed there's not even MORE of this stupidity happening.

There's two things that don't mix well at all. Guns and Alcohol. Mix those two with idiots who think that the Declaration of Independence is their personal licence to kill. And you get a cluster # of stupidity.

Let's not forget all the mass killings that have happened in this country over the years. PLEASE LET'S NOT FORGET THOSE! These things happen and they can't continue to be ignored.

IF you had "tens of thousands" of examples of poor gun ownership that would only make up a insignificant fraction of 300 million. Do the math, your argument is moot and invalid. If i show you tens of thousands of drunk driving accidents that would mean the majority of people on the road are inebriated and are on the verge of a horrific accident by your logic .

reply to post by DarthFazer

IF you had "tens of thousands" of examples of poor gun ownership that would only make up a insignificant fraction of 300 million. Do the math, your argument is moot and invalid. If i show you tens of thousands of drunk driving accidents that would mean the majority of people on the road are inebriated and are on the verge of a horrific accident by your logic .

Yes, the argument is indeed moot, but not invalid.

Indigo5
Of course they realize this is not actually tracking technology, but rather safety technology to prevent, for example a child using his parents gun ...they just DONT CARE...

Lies are useful to those without a moral compass.

When all else fails, smear the opposition. Got it.

As far as 'safety' is concerned, the $10 lock that is included with your new firearm purchase will afford you all the safety of some $1000 electronic bracelet (the Armatix IP1 bracelet alone using this is $1500) that may or may not be reliable. And where do you think most owners would store that stupid bracelet? With the gun.

reply to post by vor78


You hit the nail on the head.

This idea is indeed stupid. For exactly the reason you state. People will put the bracelets in the same shoe box they store the gun in.

But it's an idea.

HauntWok
reply to post by vor78

 

You hit the nail on the head.

This idea is indeed stupid. For exactly the reason you state. People will put the bracelets in the same shoe box they store the gun in.

But it's an idea.

Wrong.

Wrong on so many levels.

My firearms are stored in a safe.

My ammo is stored in another safe.

Betcha I'm not the only one that does this.

reply to post by HauntWok


Its an idea, but its the wrong one. All it does it burden the law-abiding gun owner with an expensive, potentially unreliable device that provides little more safety than a trigger lock.

I'm actually not against limited gun control, but I approach it from the other side. Instead of banning classes of firearms which tens of millions use responsibly, the laws need to be centered around preventing criminals and those with dangerous mental issues from possessing such things. Unfortunately, society seems more interested in blaming an inanimate object than it does the people who use them for ill-intent, and as long as that mentality exists, I think we're going to continue having problems.

I have only read some of the posts but I wanted to know does it goo on the gun or the person who owns the gun because if it goes on the person then it isn't a gun tracker at all, it is a person tracker plain and simple. Just another way to find you, not the weapon.

reply to post by HauntWok


The Declaration of independence doesn't give you the right, the Constitution suggests it is your duty.

reply to post by evc1shop


Both. The person has to wear a bracelet, which, in close proximity, sends a signal to the handgun that allows it to unlock and be used. I'm guessing that Holder got the idea from the Armatix IP1 I mentioned earlier. That's an $1800 pistol chambered in .22LR, anywhere from 5-6 times the cost of traditional .22 caliber handguns. I know there was a HUGE backlash from gun owners against the gun store out in California where they tested the market for that thing.

I'm not worried too much about this, to be quite honest. They can 'study' it all they want, but that's a far cry from passing a legislative mandate for it.