Opinions expressed on the Whig Blog, in the Forums and in comments are those of the individual authors and do not necessarilly represent positions of the Modern Whig Party. The ability to post opinion pieces and comments is not restricted to Whig members (although blog entries are by invitation.) These items are not pre-screened but are subject to our Terms of Use. Please Contact Us if you have concerns about the content.

Smart handguns & fire arms = reduce/eliminate accidental use & misuse of guns

50 replies [Last post]
strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

Smart handguns & fire arms Technology allow a Personalized Gun use for each owner--------->> This gun is programmed to recognize only the owner or anyone whom the owner wishes to authorize ---> this gun relies on bio-metric sensors in the grip and trigger that can track a gun owner’s hand size, strength, and Dynamic grip style also known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition. This technology is currently introduced by New Jersey Institute of Technology team.

Results as described by the same team are:
--->Reduce the likelihood of unintentional injuries to children
--->Preventing teenage suicides and homicides.
--->Limit the violent acts committed by criminals using stolen guns.
--->Protect law enforcement officers from criminals grabbing their firearms during a struggle.
If chip failure occurs one of two things can happen:
For Civilian use, the gun will be set to not fire.
For Law enforcement use, the safety system will be bypassed, and the gun will be allowed to fire.

I think this technology with updating also the laws will be very beneficial for ALL THE PARTIES = for America, government, civilians, law enforcement, gun-rights groups like the NRA, anti gun-rights groups...

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

The issue is this. In the end, a gun has a purpose. As a Law Enforcement Officer, a gun is the last thing that stands between me and death. I want no "electronic interface" between myself and the ability to use a gun.

Besides, anything that can be programmed can be spoofed, or controlled remotely.
Go and look at our drone that sits in Iran.

Fundamentally, a gun is something you have because you have made the determination that may need it someday. I own several, and it was a part of long decision making process.

My life or the lives of my family may never actually depend on the guns I have, I may never need them. I certainly hope it never comes to that.
But if I do need them, I am going to need them real bad, and nothing else will do.

Duffy

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Every time a person has designed a lock which can't be be picked or a code/cipher which can't be broken, another person a short time later has picked/broken it. Every lock, every code, every cipher, all the time. Technology is simply one generation of engineers making obsolete what's available today and replacing it with something that will be "better" until the next generation of engineers attack it and make it obsolete.

Technological "solutions" only can address the "how" (for a very short time) and never address the "why" of any problem. Any locksmith will gladly explain that to anyone wanting to stop burglaries.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Well now, hang on..... Naoufal has a point here, and manufactuers are moving in this direction....I cannot comment on this issue personally as I have an unusual relationship with firearms, being an amatuer gunsmith ( and defeating safeties in a few of my carry guns) BUT...

I will say that as a parent, and a potential new gun owner, if you could sell me a compact 9mm or large 45 handgun that only I could shoot i.e, my kids couldn't accidentally or deliberately discharge it, I might be VERY interested.

And I do think technology is part of the solution, both on the nomenclature, and in screening closed access "public" places like schools.

Personally more favor the logic of "star wars" bubble defense screening for schools etc over trying to control nomenclature. AND, this is my "weirdo" part which most wouldn't cotton to, there ought be a provision for a "recorded and vetted" citizen like me to be able to carry in such environments. Maybe more than my general carry permit. Only LEOs can do that now. Not to sound smug, but I am the kind of guy you might want around if it hits the fan. And I am willing to test out to prove it, if required.

This is part of the MWP postion of "we must also speak to our social contract with one another" as part of the solution.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Whenever folk try to keep kids from something, an element of mystery is added to that something. That air of mystery seems to drive kids to find it, play with it, experiment with it, and probably misuse it. That's human nature.

If a person plans to have a firearm in the house, then take the time to de-mystify it. Kids respond well to firearms instruction and don't normally misuse them when adults take the time to instruct.

So, the question becomes, what do you do with the person with little-to-no firearms training who now wants a rifle or handgun, but has no idea which kind of firearm best suits their needs? There's a lot more to firearms than barrel length, round capacity and caliber, and we haven't even addressed the various types of ammunition available. It reminds me of the story of the person who gets a drivers license for the first time and decides s/he should own a personal vehicle to scoot around town - so s/he buys a dump truck. A lot of folk buy fireams like that.

It brings us back to being a responsible citizen - just because I have the right to own/carry a firearm (permit notwithstanding) doesn't mean I should, especially if I have no knowledge or skill in firearms usage. That includes having the know-how regarding storage, locking, cleaning/maintenance, and how to deal with persons who can predictably encounter the firearm through living in the same household.

One thing has been proven throughout the history of species homo sapiens - you cannot legislate common sense and acting responsibly. Expecting government to instill that by legislative direction or law enforcment is folly.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

All true, but if government cannot be expected to help instill responsibility ( and many would argue they've positioned themselves at cross purposes already), then what form of socio-political institution can?

Let us assume that laws on the books already ought be enough to maintain a social contract, but they have been failing us.

This drives to the redress of our social contract issue.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty - that's why government exists here. Anything else is presumptuous and ultra vires. Government was not designed or intended to superimpose itself upon the citizenry as a super-conscience. If it was, then the Constitution's Preamble would not have included the clause "secure the blessings of liberty."

Laws have not failed us. We have failed the laws. The fact that laws are very selectively and discriminately applied is the problem. What good is having a legislature of elected members of society enact laws when the executive branch has discretion to determine which laws shall be administered and enforced, and to what level, and when, and upon whom? Laws mean nothing to the general populace when those laws become optional instruments in the government's (actually, the executive's) hands.

As far as what insitution instills responsibility, there are several. The first is the family. After that comes organized religion and all the philanthropic, charitable and fraternal ancillaries of society, ranging from the boy/girl scouts to the red-hatters. There are hundreds of such institutions, and they all inspire and instill responsibility. Government is NOT one of these institutions, and for a darned good reason. When government attempts to take over how folk should think, then government becomes singularly dictatorial, freedom ceases to exist and there are no longer any "blessings of liberty" as delineated in the Bill of Rights.

We need to remember that government per the US Constitution was designed to be functionary and subordinate, not directive and superior. The Founders realized that government is not infallible, so government was not given any absolute authority so that government could not be abusive (at least, not for long).

So, if folk want a government which instills, inspires and directs, then move to some place like Jordan or Saudi Arabia where a true functioning monarchy exists, or to a North Korea or Venezuela where "Dear Leader" thinks for everyone and woe to whomever disagrees with "Dear Leader." For me, just give me a government that does the jobs we delegate to it and doesn't try to control our minds and morality.

As members of society, all we owe each other is to tolerate each other and do no harm. In that toleration and doing no harm is respecting each other's concept of morality. Responsibility and doing no harm go hand-in-glove. As far as government goes, if it becomes more than our collective employee, then we become its slave.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Well Brother, if we aint feeling like slaves already, I don't know what more it'll take. Slaves of a myopic master.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

we live in a world of smart technologies include smart phones, smart cars, smart security systems,.....smart handguns & fire arms will follow, it is just question of time. I am a supporter of the second amendment like the majority of Americans and i don't want no one to change it BUT i am for updating the gun laws and the technology of these tools. If these politicians sitting at the congress and senate or even the president cabinet can't come up with no creative ideas rather than the same old lazy proposals, they should resign and let us do the job that people are waiting for...many people ask the same question--->> how they got elected, we did not vote for them!!!

At the modern Whig party our ideology is CENTRIST which means we don't care about the special interest groups, or lobbyists, or big corporates, we care about the majority of the american people----->>> the best solution to keep every body happy on our society and yes my proposal of smart handguns is the best realistic project on the short-mid-long term.

For the NRA proposal to put armed guards on every school, based on "the ISRAELIS SCHOOLS MODEL" its just a short-cut solution that will NOT prevent a crime. The shooting at the movie theater, it was having police officers and they could not stop the massacre!. Never succeed fixing a big problem by creating another problem, but what to say, it is lobbyists game.

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

"Centrist" also insinuates "wholistic.". If we are ready to apply selective application of technology regarding inanimate objects - which won't change human behavior - than are we also ready for:
1. Mandatory psychological evaluations for everyone conducted every xx years to identify certain psychological/developmental problems before disaster occurs.
2. Mandatory parenting classes for all persons who declare dependent children on their tax returns.
3. Mandatory periodic home visits/inspections by state child welfare agencies to verify children are being cared for according to state standards so that psychologically-challenged kids can be assured of receiving necssary care.
4. Mandatory treatment for anyone declared having certain psychological/developmental problems.
5. Mandatory termination of parental rights for failure to comply with 1-4 above.
6. Mandatory purchase, use and viewing restrictions for all movies and games to insure those persons determined to be potentially influenced by gore and violence do not get access to such materials.

Band-aid solutions don't solve multidimensional problems, and never has any ban/restriction of ownership/use of any inanimate object ever solved anything by itself. In most circumstances, as argued by marijuana users, such bans are counter-productive. It's always easy to tax the other guy or ban something you don't use.

If technological "locks" work, why isn't every motor vehicle equipped with those devices which determine a person is sober before the vehicle's ignition can be engaged? Close to 25,000 people each year are killed, and many more thousands seriously injured, each year by drunk/impaired drivers - and the technological locks have been available for many years - yet these locks are only occasionally required by courts, and only after a driver is charged and convicted (meaning folk have already been injured/killed by the driver). Is it because the "good" drivers shouldn't be burdened by the inconvenience and additional cost because of the "bad" drivers? Again, folk find it easy to restrict/tax when it won't affect them as well, no matter how many folk are killed or injured.

The Newtown tragedy is indeed sad, but knee-jerk responses that make political headlines but don't go to the causes of the tragedies are extremely short-sighted and, worse yet, provide the public with completely false sense of security. That false sense of security causes folk to drop their guard and become even more susceptible to the next nutcase looking to make headlines on his demented path to suicide.

Centrists should not be political opportunists seeking headlines rather than logical, responsible and workable solutions to the causes of problems. If the causes are not corrected, then the tragedies will continue to occur. It took us quite a while to develop these folk who are devoid of religion, morality, desensitized to violence and gore, lacking personal responsibility for their actions, free from discipline and thus lacking self-discipline. Until that trend reverses, what's going to keep there from being another undisciplined, immoral, insensitive and irresponsible person hellbent on initiating the next horrific tragedy? Until we accept the fact that human beings (not cars, trucks, guns, kitchen knives, basball bats, ice picks, etc.) are the initiators of mayhem, as mayhem requires conscienceness, we cqnnot hope to stem the mayhem.

Placing techno-locks on guns may change a few to utlize an alternative weapon (cars are easy, as are home-made explosives, acids and other such buy-them-anywhere stuff). I'm not against techno-locks at all, and any engineering improvement which increases performance and safety for all parties should be incorporated into products. However, such improvements won't stop there from being "unlocked" guns in the public arena. I also can remember when kids (when I was in high school) made zip-guns from cheap pipe and hardware store goods using skills learned in shop class. Guns are really not technologically sophisticated, and workable firearms can be made on any workbench using commonly-available tools and materials. And if techno-locks on guns will be such a big life-saver, why aren't they on every motor vehicle out there to protect us from the drunk/impaired drivers who kill/maim tens of thousands each year?

Doing nothing is wrong, but doing something wrong which deceives folk into believing an untruth is obscene. Again, attack the "why" and not the "how," and then you have the basis for real security and tragedy-prevention. Centrists should understand that true solutions require responsible approaches to deal with the root causes of problems, not just with what makes "silver bullet" (pardon the pun) headlines

...SteveZ

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

You have a misunderstanding to the timing of the context you are living now! you are too much liberal on your ideology regarding the role of the government and don't try to impose it on our centrist ideology my friend.

One more time hopefully you get it this time, NO ONE can change a behavior of an individual BUT we can control the bad behavior and guide it to good results, and this is where each part of our society must play their role--->> government by enforcing the laws and control=yes, civil groups by their campaigns guiding the behavior, science groups and manufacturers by creating new technologies=yes, politicians by balancing the interest of each group....etc,

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

I've been accused of many things, but having too liberal a view on the role of government is a first. If anything, my first call is that government, especially at the federal level is too controlling. That's hardly a liberal viewpoint.

That "mwp badge" crack is way out from left field. At this point point I'm wondering if the MWP is indeed centrist or liberal-focused to the point of tunnel vision. Centrist to me means wanting wholistic workable solutions to problems, not locking onto one reactionary simplistic approach and saying this is the cure-all end-all. If centrist to MWP is not recognising that nutcases cannot be stopped from doing heinous acts simply be legislatively-commanded hardware add-ons, then centrist I am not.

What I definitely "get" this time is a serious disconnect exists between us if "mainstream MWP" means believing all problems can be solved via governmental edict. Controlling "bad behavior" toward "good results" via government power, selective civic groups direction and industrial manipulation has already been tried - by the Nazis, the Stalinists, Pol Pot and his crew, Duvalier and the Macoutes, Sadaam Hussein and a whole host of others who employed government power coupled with selective civic/industrial support. It all starts with "controlling bad behavior" and what's determined to be "bad" evolves to be very subjective and discriminative. Control itself insinuates use of some kind of force to achieve a goal, and once government employs selective force in place of individuals acting responsibly, the result always involves a marked reduction in liberty.

Maybe we can't change a human's behavior, but we can learn to recognize it, protect against it, treat it so it can be self-regulated, and provide the individual (and his/her supporters) with the tools to effect a change if it is indeed psychologically possible. THAT's what government, civic groups and industry should be doing, as opposed to trying to "control and guide." Legislating morality and responsibility, combined with government enforcement power, hasn't worked yet, as evidenced by a long history of overcrowded prisons, lengthy court dockets and a daily police blotter totalling thousands of felonies daily. The more laws we add, the more diluted is the ablity of law enforcement to respond, and number of scofflaws grows in like proportion. The idea that all problems have a legislative (and thus a law enforcement) solution is not centrist, liberal or conservative - it's dilusional.

So, we're back to the beginning. What is the real problem? Is it that some firearms require locks to keep crazy people from firing them? Is it that there are harmful crazy people out there who are also smart and cunning, and these crazy people want to do crazy things which hurt others? It it that harmful, smart crazy people will always find some way/means to do harmful crazy thngs, no matter how much the sane world tries to second-guess them? Is it that, knowing there are harmful, smart crazy people out there, that more has to be done to identify who they are and get them treatment for their and our protection?

Until we recognize and accept what the real problem is, we are spinning our collective wheels. There may indeed be technlogical support systems which may be useful, but folk thought that about ocean travel when they built the Titanic, and the Titanic proved that applying technology is not the cure-all end-all solution if a problem is not correctly identified.

Diagnosing/recognising potential harmful human behavior, and negating potential and probable harmful acts, is what's at stake here, and if as a communty, state or nation we are serious about it or just want to do enough to feel good about ourselves for doing something, anything, even if it doesn't stop the next nutcase, or the one after him/her, or the one after him/her, and so forth ad infinitum.

To me, the centrist recognizes that jumping on any particular political special-interest bandwagon is the fastest way to never get consensus, as well as to duck the tough and responsible duty of true problem identification. The centrist realizes that "middle ground" solutions demand that accurate problem identification is mandatory so that far-left and far-right can be shown a basis to rationally concede for fact rather than due to conjecture. The centrist accepts the role of political mediator, seeking to draw folk from extremes toward a more collabrative posture. If this is not the MWP view of centrist, then I apologize for wasting your time with these ramblings.

...SteveZ

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

Again my friend you are missing the point, circling around your thought for less government power, no second amendment and giving wrong examples based on dictatorships, communism's systems = 100% government control that did not allow No civic groups, No politic groups, No body to manage the behavior of their people.

At the Modern Whig Party WE ARE SUPPORTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT and ;yes again; proposing solutions as smart handguns----> reduce/eliminate accidental use and the misuse of guns.

My Friend, keep moving, you don't have nothing to add you are just circling around.

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

If you believe that supporting techno-locks is pro-Second Amendment, then there is the problem.

You see this as circular only because of a failure to even possibly accept that there is a hole in your argument. Who do you think will control the locking codes, ability to remotely change them, and thus be in the position to render the firearms useless? Currently ALL encryption/locking systems are either controlled by the federal government or broken before commercial release.That's reality.

What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

By the time 1774 came, many North Americcan colonists saw an originally-passive "federal" government go rogue in its dealings with them. It got to the point where "federal" troops commandeered homes, patrolled the streets, "administered" justice on-the-spot, confiscated firearms and munitions, and enforced "federal" laws which did not in any way benefit the colonists.

Life in the colonies was primarily agrarian. The use of firearms for food collection (hunting to you city folk), varmint control and home protection (no 911 back then) was routine, related operational skills learned by all, and many having firearms-manufacturing abilities out of necessity. So, when the "federal" government went rogue, here existed a population with the rudimentary skills and basic hardware (e.g., firearms) capable to be militarized to confront the "federal" government's enforcement forces. The technological differences between the firearms held by the colonists and the "federal" forces was miniscule, and that fact did not go unnoticed by the writers of the US Constitution. Had there been significant differences in the operational factors (sometimes referred to as "force multipliers") between colonist and "federal" weaponry, the results of the Revolutionary War could have been reversed.

Having witnessed what was thought to have been a beneficial "federal" turn villain, the Founding Fathers recognized that the replacement "federal" government they were initiating could sometime in the future also go rogue (fool me once, shame on you...). To protect future generations from potential "federal" tyranny, the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to have the capacity to effectively challenge any such tyranny. The only sure way to provide that protection was to place the citizenry in the position to vibrantly respond to the obvious means (as the Founding Fathers witnessd) a rogue "federal" uses to force its will - by military power. So, the Second Amendment came into being, with no caveats of any kind as to what constitutes "arms."

Here we are, 235+ years later, and we find ourselves with an ultra-powerful "federal" as did our national ancestors. We are almost as divided politically regarding the "federal" as folk were in the 1770s. We have a "federal" establishment which, failing to eradicate firearms from citizenry possession, has worked hard to establish as wide a technological gap between citizenry arms and "federal" arms as possible. Again, those technological differences equate force-multipliers, thus insuring that the "federal" establishment will be more powerful, and thus greater, that the citizenry itself. In the history of this planet, whenever the "federal" acquires as close to absolute physical power over the citizenry as necessary to demand its will be followed, tyrrany occurs.

Well, that happened way back then, but we are smarter, wiser and more "informed" now. Our current or future "federal" won't ever go rogue, because our political parties are "nicer" than that. Those seem to be the arguments by all the domestic disarmament/restrictionist folk, and these same arguments were also popular in the 1770s by the Tories who supported the existing "federal" establishment .

Let's make one point very clear. There is no such thing as a "non-military" firearm. When I was on active duty we had training on all sort of personal weaponry ranging from .22lr handguns to tactical missiles. The only discriminator with weaponry is the technology incorporated into the weapon to increase its operational usefulness (e.g.' force multiplier). In the 1770s this technology gap was insignificant, and the citizenry rid itself of an oppressive "federal" which became oppressive only when it thought it could get away with it based on sheer size. In the 2010s the "federal" is close to being in the same power position as the "federal" of the 1770s, and seems to want to emasculate the Second Amendment on the basis of "trust me, I'm from the federal government and you know I only do what's best for you."

Today, whenever a terrible tragedy occurs, there is an expectation that the federal government can and will take charge and prevent all harm. It's an easy out, since it avoids the citizenry from having any self-resposibility. It is so much easier to delegate to a "higher authority" all thought and action, despite the fact that the folk within that "higher authority" may have personal agendas (I.e., desire for more personal power and wealth) which impact their fact-finding, results-disclosure and ultimate decision-making. When the resulting "federal" decision-making or posturing states that further erosion of citizenry constitutional rights is necessary to protect the public, that in itself should be a warning sign that the "federal" is becoming less "by the people" and more dictatorial.

The Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution - and especially the Bill of Rights - based on experiencing what happens when a "federal" becomes too powerful, reflecting on what happened which led to warfare on their lands to rid themselves of a tightening "federal" yoke, and thus providing the citizenry with the protection they learned first-hand as necessary to keep a future benefactor government from becoming the oppressor.

So, when tragedy happens, and equivalent tragedies occurred in our earlier national and pre-national history, our responsibility as citizens is to first seek solutions which don't involve government intervention. Only when the solutions require employing government resources should government be tasked, and then at the lowest possible echelon. We have various local governments and state government for a darned good reason, and that's because one-size-fits-all "federal" solutions rarely work with such a wide variety of geographies, cultures, mores, environments and economies as exist within our 3,794,101 square miles of national turf. Trying to direct it all from within a dozen of the 66 square miles of DC is either pure folly or a desire for an operational monarchy-equivalent.

If the MWP is indeed centrist, then its center needs to recognize what happened to create this nation, why its core document contains what it does, and decide whether that founding logic is still valid today. If Yes, then why? If No, then why not? From there comes a rationale for any action and position.

Whether it is a watering-down of the Second Amendment "bear arms" right due to a nutcase's horrific suicide methodology or a watering-down of the Fourth Amendment "unreasonable search and seizure" due to a terrorism action, the overall result is the same - the "federal" grows in power and ability to eventually dictate and suppress autocratically, and citizens become less free and less capable to prevent "federal" totalitaranism.

So, can we come up with solutions to societal problems/incidents which solutions don't involve expansion of "federal" power involving corresponding reduction of citizens' constitutional rights, or are we destined to inevtably return to what caused the Revolutionary War? Can centrists mediate the right-left extreme factions into a political middle-ground before history repeats itself? This particular debate may very well foretell our national future.

One last thing is also certain. Trying to chase folk away who don't immediately rally around a proposal does not demonstrate any openness, but rather shows a "my way or the highway" attitude. If the MWP centrist concept is to accept all proposals originating from certain folk as gospel not to be questioned, then how is MWP any different than the RNC and the DNC?

...SteveZ

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

Careful Steve,
Some people do not like being told they are wrong, and when opposed they are dismissive of any contradictory statements.
*******************************************.
As far as "Centrist" that can mean allot, form the stated platforms for the WHP, they seem a complete 180 out from the other International centrists party, the Christian Democrat Party for example. Guess being centrists depends on where you stand.
But a few things about this idea of “smart” weapons.
Again electronics fail, and there is no predicting when, and no predicting how. And if they fail on a gun, it is useless.
As well, how much does this add to the cost of a weapon? Does it make it a burden for the average person to purchase one?
And suppose everything works as it should, and the legal and legitimate owner is the one doing the rampage?
No thanks, bad plan.

Duffy

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

Trying new things, new technology is sometime uncomfortable or scary for the oldest ages groups in our society, and i understand that, BUT the majority youngest and middle ages groups are for trying new technologies and buying it what ever it costs, example: iPhone, tablets....My point it is not just about smart handguns & fire arms, it is about the context we are living in, the fast innovation and evolution that is going on--------> the future vision = America leadership on the technology world ---------->> We must keep our eyes on the horizon to anticipate potential change and ensure we are always ready for it.

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Technology can be a crafty devil. Have been at the cutting edges of it several times one truism always rises - if the government starts out by controlling it a little, that quickly changes to 100%. If encryption algorithms become part of the applied technology, those algorithms, and the controlling devices, will definitely become subject to government control.

Do techno-locks have a place in the coming firearms discussions? Definitely! However, these devices as mandatory in all situations for all firearms can indeed be constitutionally challenged if applied encryption technology is government controlled in any manner - and it will be. However, firearms used for specific purposes and equipped witb techno-locks definitely could (and logically should) be mandatory in those situations where their access can reasonably be anticipated to fall into unintended untrained hands, and the very first place comes to mind is any firearm brought into a school classroom by any school employee/contractor (don't let kids get even accidental access). Firearms carried by law enforcement officers as on-duty carry pieces also fit here, since there is a reasonable presumption that the law enforcement officer may find him/herslf in a precarious situation where s/he could be violently separated from the firearm. There is no problem to restrict by regulation/statute the bringing of a firearm into a very specific setting unless the firearm is particularly equipped and the possessor has certain qualifications. However, a global requirement or ban can readily be argued as over-reaching under the historical/context of the Second Amendment and prior SCOTUS interpretations. I'd enjoy arguing that case.

So, actually, we're all not that far off. If there is a difference, it's not due to age or techno-fear, but experience and knowledge as to the breadth of federal involvment and control of such technologies. As a centrist (at least by my definition) I don't see the value of forwarding any position which has constitutional weakness, but can and do view any concept as having potential if within a defined context and explained accordingly. The techno-lock concept fits this criteria as having potential to draw left-right extremists into a common ground IF it can be shown as fitting specific situations which can be agreed by all as logical. As an example, Utah's current idea to allow teachers to be armed has some parents and gun control types leery, but those fears may be calmed by requiring such carried firearms be equipped with techno-locks so kids (if they get a hold of a teacher's firearm) can't possibly fire them.

As far as disagreeing with any proposal raised by anyone, that's EXACTLY what should occur in forums like this or why bother having the forums at all. Until any proposal undergoes a vigorous "devil's advocate" examination, the proposal's weaknesses lie in wait for political exploitation by others whose goal is to promote their political position at the expense of this or any other party. Rarely is any proposal's initiator fully aware of all the pitfalls or weaknesses, and open discussion of the good, bad and ugly concerning any proposal should be encouraged, not stifled in any manner. Such discussion allows for refinement to the betterment of the proposal, even if it means scrapping it entirely (which rarely is necessary, if open minds truly exist).

I come from a professional world where every idea is subjected to an inside-out scrubbing before it is ever forwarded, and the author of the idea accepts that all criticism - no matter how detailed or intense - is constructive and necessary, as no idea is initially perfect. Better to get that criticism from those on your side than others who would like the opportunity to eventually skin your political hide. It is hoped that the MWP encourages that openness, as there are a lot of middle-ground folk out there who have a lot of brainpower and experience to offer. Demeaning or patronizing never won any argument, gained any followers or made any position stronger, and many who witness it just read it, make their opinion of an entity by the desparaging comments, and leave, never to return and with a bad taste.

I have to admit to reviewing almost every proposal from the counter-position, even if I personally like the idea on its face. Again, it's part of my professional training and experience, and it has done me well over the years. A lot of folk work and think similarly, and when these talents/skills are encouraged and brought into the mix, great progress occurs. It beats the daylights out of the autocracy which is driving folk from the two major parties.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

A point of information, the use of political labels is counterindicated on these pages, as they are mostly incorrect, pre-loaded and do not allow proper framing of issues around truth and perspective. This is the primary reason political discourse is so INeffective in this nation right now!

Nauofal, I do beleive you missed the abject irony in Steve Z's comments, which promulgated your response. I'm thinking there may have been some mis-interpretation there which was not allowed to be cleared up.

Steve's comments are acceptable in these discussions which are "Rountables light" and are meant to inform discuss and collaborate on critical issues. Issues, I might remind you, that the vacant national leaership can't seem to get their hands around, principally since they have their hands outstreched for their next campaign contribution - self perpetuation. The ME generation indeed.

The one point that Steve brings up is that many of our fellow law abiding citizens will NEVER give up their firearms as a matter of deep personal belief. And that is a fact. I am one of them. It flows from the very AMERICAN ideal of not trusting ANY government implicitly.

Self aggrandizing BS interdicts the mission of informing. We can see this here, and in the MSM. This is why MWP maintains an honor code unlike any other political party, we've institutionalized the concept as part of our mission to redress the social contract. So even on these open public pages, we request tht ALL behave to our standards of conduct.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Treat others with dignity and respect. Approach political dialouges and policy discussions with perspective and truth in an open mind. Maintain your personal integrity at all times while acting as a fiduciary to the public trust.

Carry on.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

BTW, in my son's 10th grade social studies class, the students agreed almost' unanimously that they'd feel safer with an armed guard at the school.

So while I dont truly give a hoot what the Israelis do in their schools ( and we Yanks need to be careful comparing with tribal societies - they tend to bring out the worst in us!), what the 10th grade class, at Canisius Jesuit High School in Buffalo NY says, IS important to me. They ARE our future.

And the kids say, protect us with a gun please.

Indeed, these chickenshit crazy cowards would pick a much softer target for their death shows.

I might posit that tasers are potentially a much better solution for close quarters with non-combatants galore.

A technological solution again. Tasers with biometric safeties. We can do those for not so much money and make them all here in the States.

BTW, these biometric safeties are fine, but someone trained in counter measures could somewhat easily make a local EMP generator that disables the gun. Not to publish my wicked mind, but.....

Gene Chaas
NY CO

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

My colleague Gene, you made your point but we are here to clarify duffy and steve points of views = free speech without disrespect and using BS/F language or threaten to censure , this is why i censured a part of your comment.
Happy new year my colleague.

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

And to you Naoufal, best wishes for 2013!

Mr Houjami, my fellow MWP officer, you are correct in editing that. We as MWP officers must always maintian the highest level of honor and respect, PARTICULARLY to those with divergent opinions. We must LEAD BY EXAMPLE, and that means not behaving like the majority of political commentators do, with personal atatcks, diatribe and false causality.

Frankly, I was more than a little put off by comments about "Reds" in the MWP. No empirical basis in fact, and it seemed very much a troll like self-aggrandizing statement. For anyone who knows what makes me tick inside, you might recognize that as my hot button ( reds not trolls). On certain issues, I can make the honorable James Angleton look like a choir boy.

Which is another reason that a disarmed public makes me more than a little uneasy.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

My Colleague gene, i support 100% your comment against Duffy regarding his mistaken comment "reds"...this is why we are here with our background and experience to clarify and debate. The majority of the mwp officers include you my friend Gene and members are good people who served or still serving America on the military, intelligence, government, private sector.... Every one should keep the respect of each other at all time on the forums, or it will be a censure.
Let is focus on the subject of smart handguns and fire arms as one of the solutions that goes with context which support the 2Th amendment.

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

The one thing I will say about Steve's comments, is that he implicity understands the nature of the 2nd Amendment and why it is written the way it is. This is something we truly do need to address, as the concept has been lost by many.

Here is an op ed from the LV Sun that Jim Bacon shared with us the other day:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jan/01/constitution-shows-lack-wisdom/

In addition to technological solutions ( and we Yanks are REALLY good at high tech firearms btw as Uncle Sam has spent our BILLIONS on them) - we also need to help ILLUMINATE for those who have lost their historical bearings, or who have never understood them as new immigrants on why most of us are willing to put up such a fight to maintain our rights. Yet, these discussions MUST find common ground and aim to enlighten those who are living in darkness by gentle, logical persuasions.

If techie solutions help that cause - so be it.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Thank you, gentlemen for the opportunity to participate in your forum. I found the concept of MWP an intriguing one and was interested if it would be a place for a die-hard independent (me, specifically) to get involved.

The remarks concerning Duffy's comments are very noteworthy. Rather than discuss why he believed what he does, the approach was to delete and censure. This was indeed significant as it indicates less of desire to persuade and more of a determination to postulate. This is extraordinary, as one would think that a party's leadership would have membership recruitment as a top priority. Considering the MWP's obvious target demographic is the independent voter who is philosophically and intellectually disenchanted with the two majors and semi-stuck between them, one would think that efforts to seek clarification and then persuade would be paramount. Others who visit sites like this usually read how others are welcomed and treated as their measure of not only the site, but also the organization as a whole.

Thrice within this thread I was confronted and discounted ("You have a misunderstanding to the timing of the context you are living now!... One more time hopefully you get it this time... keep moving, you don't have nothing to add you are just circling around") for daring to philosophically and intellectually debate a point. I've got a fairly thick skin and was willing to give this attitude the benefit of the doubt - up to a point. I doubt others would be this patient, especially if they are seriously investigating MWP as a potential political retreat. If the goal is to keep MWP as an exclusive group, the best way to do it is via confrontation and discounting potential members.

Again, thank you for your time and best wishes.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

You are welcome here anytime. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

Hmmm, thanks Steve did not really realize I had been censored, but I also understand the right, and the responsibility, of any organization to exercise censorship of and within its instruments, the elected (you MWP Officials are elected, right) or appointed moderators of any website have that right, and that responsibility, in order to maintain the integrity of the group. I do believe the term is censored, I have not been approached or advise of being Censured, or reprimanded.
That being said, let us get to Brass tacks. Steve is right, if you have designated certain people as those whose opinions are final, and they cannot be disagreed with; just say so. Because like Steve I do not like being told that, basically, I am a retard, in a very courteous way, granted, and that what objections I might have are not worth considering. Rather I just must accept what those who are so much more intellectual than I am are saying,
It does not matter if it is Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Barak Obama. A member of the mainstream media or Mr. Naoufal Houjami. I understand what you are saying, I get your point, and it is not beyond my ability to comprehend. I just think you are wrong. I can make my points by citing examples if I need to. This is simple. But I expect you to argue your points the same way, and not just dismiss someone who disagrees with you as if they were intellectually deficient.
Indeed, when someone exclaims “You just d o not understand the depth of my intellectual argument.” I begin to act under the assumption that they really do not know what they are talking about. They are arguing an erroneous point through a pseudo intellectual pose relying large words to cover up the holes in you logic.
In so far as not debating and disputing points brought up. You had better, and you had better do it a lot.. Because if what you trying to do is develop a Platform for a viable National Party, you had better be ready to argue your point with people who have been developing and defending their platform for over a century, and unless you have a coherent platform you can defend, they will eat you for breakfast and crap you out before dinner. You certainly are not going to out Democrat the Democrats, they will tear you apart with sympathetic media coverage.
On the Biometric Gun Safety issue, I do not oppose its introduction, I oppose its imposition. It may be a handy and wonderful thing for some people, and a real money maker. I do not want them on my Guns. You want to know how frequently the Biometric Access Locks have to be bypassed because they fail at your local sheriff’s department? I know how frequently it goes down , often for weeks, in my county. Not something I wish to risk my life, or the lives of my family.

Duffy

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Not to mention that a formerly highly trained "counter-revolutionary" with some eletronics background could probably conjure up a device to defeat that device making your firearm useless to you.

Not that I would Mr. Sheriff, because I'm on your side, but the potential exists. In my old unit, back in the last century, we still adhereed to the Keep it Simple and Stupid rule. ( not anymore, they're way high tech now).

Duffy, if I may ask a question, as you may have access to this type of data - these teen shooters we seemed to be plagued with - is there any public data on whether they were on anti-depressants.

Here we speak of nomenclature ( restricting the iron), while we may be better served looking at the root cause.

We have three empty "psych" hospitals around the Buffalo area, one looks like the darn Smithsonian its so big.

The point is, I do not beleive we, as a society, are handing mental illness well at all. While its much more expensive to us, as taxpayers, to facilitate "safe hosues" for the folks with feeble minds, it would seem that if done correctly, it is a much better solution. For them, and for the rest of us.

I've come to realize that somehere around 1/2 the country is on some sort of psych drug. Discovered this back when I sold health insurance. And I thought being a mild "pothead" in college in the 70's was bad ( it was later on when security clearances were required ). Man, now its "institutionalized" but its legal and mothers little helpers are made by Merck, Barr, Bristol etc etc.

That, to me, points more to the core problem.

So, I ask again, does an LEO have access to any sort of database that would indicate whether the shooters were accessing anti-depressants?

Because something tells me, we're barking up the wrong tree altogether here.

Oh, and for the record, the modern Whig movement is not here to tell anyone what to think, but HOW to think. Especially to try and look at things in different lights. The what to think business is a big reason we are not progressing as a society, and our faux leaders seem to be successful at dividing us further and further.

MWP is here to enable individual critical thinking. A missing component, and required for proper managment of freedoms and The Republic.

But for the record, your "reds" comment got under my skin. I thought it was bs anyhow, yet..... good day and be safe out there sir.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

Gene, the Drug issue, in relation to the phenomenon of Active Shooters, remains unexplored, for a lot of reasons.
Understand, the odds are most of them were on psychotropic drugs, but correlation is not causation, it is more likely they were on psychotropic drugs and committed the act of violence for the same reason, they were mentally unstable to begin with. Then there is the money factor, but there is also the fact we are trying to cope with a large number of people, not all of the “young”, who act in a manner everyday, and are glamorized for it, which would have been unacceptable 50 years ago.
What you have to look at is the possibility that they were not taking their prescription medication when they had their episode leading to the incident. Using a psychotropic drug irregularly, and coming off the effects when you stop suddenly, may well be a more likely cause than the use of the drug itself. What it comes down to is which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Did the subject become unstable because of the medication and go on the rampage, or was it caused by the condition which was being treated by the drugs.
And because you can never really prove either way which one it is, it will not be adequately studied by academia or the Government.
They want a simple cause for a complex issue. I would look at multiple factors. Several things prevent the average person from committing horrible acts.
First and foremost is a set of moral values which inhibit such acts by an individual.
The second thing is the desire not to be viewed as a monster by your fellow members of society; most people want to be viewed as good persons and will go very far to be viewed as a good person.
Then there is fear of punishment for what you do.
All of those restraints are more cultural than anything else, and all of those restraints have to weaken greatly for a person to commit an act which is generally viewed as horrific.
When people act that way they are called Sociopaths, their relation to Society is abnormal, diseased, and they lack empathy.
But I do not think that is the case with most of these shooters, they are not Sociopaths, but they may well be responding to a change in the cultural values which their society shares. They have a set of values which allows them to act in this manner. They have an opinion of the expectations of society which allows them to do this, that is their actions are acceptable to that part of society whose approval they care about. And they see a “Justice” system which is inconsistent applied and they may never really be punished for their acts, but may well be glorified for it, or at least be given sympathy .

Duffy

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

Oh and Gene,l Like Mr. Houjami, I do not think you are a Red. You seem to me like Libertarian than anything else. I kind of view Mr. Houjami as actually a Technocrat, well educated, well informed, opinionated, but possibly suffering from Tunnel vision. I think he also underestimates people’s intelligence. He might be surprised at my academic credentials. I am by no means uneducated. But you have some, shall we say, Socialists Progressive Transnationalists hanging about, if you prefer that term over Reds, hanging about. They may have joined the MWP, but they have not left the Social Democrat Party, they are working to move the MWP that way.
Nor am I a Sherriff, I work with the Sheriff Department frequently, and the local PD as well, what I actually do is rather obscure in that it surprises most people, it is the same thing I did before I retired from the Military, and I am subject to posse comitatus and the Hatch act.

Duffy

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Thanks Captain, that's why I asked a pro. I used sherriff honestly to be deferential. I was raised by a hard core soldier.

I too do not beleive in single dimension "silver bullets" to cure ills. Reality is multi-dimensional, as ought be policy. Yet, policy cannot be the way it is debated and crafted now, it would seem.

Duffy, MWP is truly still a budding movement and not a full blown party, as I am sure is obvious to most. Therefore, what IT is, is morphing daily. And we want it to morph, somewhat, as more citizens join. From prior experience, once we go operational this year, and begin to separate wheat from chaff, or doers from fakers, its complextion will become more obvious.

Dont know if I would consider myself a libertarian, as it would seem the depth of social contract required to maintain a "kind and gentle" society in the context of libertarianism is simply not there. Maybe MWP can help rebuild that social contract, maybe not. But we sure as hell need to give it a shot.

How much longer can we maintain a Republic where the "leaders" have by and large whored us out for their own security, and wouldn prefer to rule a bunch of dependent children who are easily controlled?

Gene Chaas
NY CO

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

Regarding the question about drugs and the spate of mass shootings, the article on this link has a pretty good run down on the issue.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

But again I would point out, these people were on these drugs for a reason, and while I think the drugs are overprescribed, and the categories of mental issue too broadly defined to be of much use, the question still remains. Did the drugs have anything to do with the incidents, or are both the need for the drugs and the violent acts a result of a mental condition.

I believe in this day and age, despite what everyone says about the problems with our mental health care, it is far better than it has ever been, and I would expect anyone who commits an act like this to be on the drugs, because they did not just snap, they were always nuts. Maybe they just developed a tolerance to the drugs.

Or as I said before, and the article also relates, maybe they stopped taking the drugs.

Duffy

Twitchy
Twitchy's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011

'Smart' weapons will seem like a good idea, right up until someone manages to disarm an entire police force, or there's a mass shooting where it comes out that twice as many people died because there was one early victim with a weapon that others got hold of, but couldn't use.

As for the mental health drugs, just listen to the commercials you see so often for anti-depressants and other drugs, even for minor issues like psoriasis. Listen to the possible side effects, then consider, given how many people are taking those drugs, what a risk we're running by promoting them. We need more research into the basic causes of mental illness and cures, not profitable forever treatments.

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

i was surprised when my family and I watched the last movie of James bond -sky fall-, the reason was a smart gun was programmed to recognize only the owner James bond to be used on one part of the movie....i really advise all of you to watch this movie not just for smart gun proposal as a one of an effective solution that follows all the smart technologies we are living in but also it a good movie.

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

I agree that the lastest James Bond movie was quite entertaining. However, the "smart gun" as a reliable technology is about as plausible as riding a motorcycle across the roof of the Istanbul Grand Bazaar. It all makes for a good story, but it's just the movies being good fiction.

Anything chip-controlled is also highly vulnerable to chip malfunction/failure, counterfeiting and bypassing. Heck, we can't even keep sophisticated computer networks from being hacked by enterprising teenagers despite a myriad of firewalls, recognition/blocking software and other protections. Despite all of the technological safeguards out there, pedophiles still reach kids via chat boards and other social media. Even today's "smart" passports and other chip-imbedded access IDs have exploitable vulnerabilities. Drunks still find ways to bypass court-ordered ignition blocks when the walk home from the tavern is too far.

The reality to any technology solution is that the time line from concept to design to development to manufacture to distribution/use ranges from four-to-eight years. All during that time technology itself continues to advance, making the original technological solution vunerable-to-obsolete by the time it's initially deployed. That's why hackers are so successful and burglars can defeat the latest locks and security systems.

Those in law enforcement who have had to rely on weaponry, as well as those of us with military combat experience, know that any lock on available weaponry increases risks dramatically. The potential of a malicious software/emission attack on "friendly" chips for the purpose of disabling them is not science fiction, and such an attack - whether done by criminals, crazies, a hostile government or even a friendly government - far outweighs any emotional reaction to the acts of crazy people who need custodial care.

There has never been a technology which can replace common sense and personal responsibility. If there was, then we'd have the technological means to identify those mental conditions which drive crazy folk to seek out the most vulnerable victims and do them harm. Society has always been victimized by mass murderers and serial killers (e.g., Jack the Ripper, Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, Gameel Al-Batouti, Baruch Goldstein, Martin Bryant, Michael Ryan, etc.) despite gun laws and other restrictions on the general public. The list of folk worldwide, especially in "gun control" countries, who have committed vehicular manslaighter as their rage release is quite long (as is the list of their victims).

Technology has a history of providing the public with "feel good" escapes from having to exercise common sense and personal responsibility. That's why despite a long reliable history of polygraph using the "controlled question, probable lie" technique, SCOTUS banned its admission in jury trials, anticipating that juries would believe that such technology is guaranteed to be foolproof.

The core problem to "crazy crime" remains the workings of the crazed human mind, and no amount of mechanical/electrical locks on hardware will protect the "sheep and lambs" from the "rabid wolf."

If as a party the MWP wants to vanguard a response to the "rabid wolf" threat, then finding ways to identify and isolate the "rabid wolves" among us without violating individual civil rights would be an admirable goal.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

As likely the most "radical" interpreter of MWP philosophy around these "walls" I might have posited that we ought have implemented every available solution FIRST, before infringing on any 2nd Amendment Guarantees.

Some things that we've discussed here:

National registration card. It would be a card allowing you to buy or own anything publicly available. NO RESTRICTION on nomeclature!

National background database with data security restrictions. Database integration with all states requiring a common fact set.

Mandatory classes to keep card valid.

***Ensuring all schools have modern functioning alarm, survelliance and "lock down" systems in place. ( some GDP effect right there)

Mechanisms for blocking access to firearms for the mentally ill; private-run armories for those who might need temporary removal of firearms from a home - without LEO involvement.

Using the same "harsh sentincing" logic we do on drug crimes on gun crmes ( Oh - the stories the local LEO's tell me about the inability to prosecute !)

Fostering the growth of "citizens' militia" groups, with a less "Hu-WAH!" name, to bring said training etc to every neighborhood in America - this is the MWP notion of fostering more "self-help" amongst citizens and trying to break the "slavemaster" role the current policy environment seems to assume without question.

And advanced technology in firearms as Nauofal posits here.

And maybe we'd catch more of the rabid wolves Steve Z, and maybe we could unass some of the rabies altogether - BY COMING TOGETHER.

Such imaginative solutions, especially those that focus on personal responsiblilty, and responsibility to others, just are not in today's lexicon.

Its a Whig thing! To be sure. And not in the typical right wing way at all. This is something completely different and much more deeply authentic in each of us - already. "It" simply hasnt found its voice among us yet. "It" will.

ILLUMINATE US!

Carry on.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Gene,

What I have a hard time with is that everything is always a "national, federal" issue rather than a state issue. The beauty of being a union (the term "nation" appears nowhere within the US Constitution , but rather the "United States" and "union") of fifty sovereign states is the ability of states doing what works for themselves regardless what the others do.

Techno-locks as Nauofal proposes may be just the thing to propose in his home state of Texas and if it works there, then other states can decide for themselves based on Texas' experience. That goes for any other "control" scheme - leave it to the states. It's their responsibility.

Can it work? Well, California has been imposing its own anti-pollution regulations for motor vehicles for years and manufacturers have adapted to those differences. States always have the option for doing what California has done. Gun control measures are no different.

It's about time that we start looking at the United States for what it constitutionally is - a union of sovereign states, not a super-state with fifty sub-states.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Oh, I think MWP is more "states rights" focused than most, but this issue of firearms responsibility, as it touches the 2nd Amendment, does it not become by default, something greater than a state or local issue?

Gene Chaas
NY CO

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

My apologies - made a duplicate post by error.

...SteveZ

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

It's only national if folk want to amend the Amendment. The problem is the backdoor attempt to amend the Amendment without following Constitutional procedure. If that successfully happens, NO RIGHT or provision in the US Constitution means anything, be that gun rights, religious freedom, free speech, protection from unlawful search and seizure, or due process itself.

This is not simply a "gun control" matter, but a Constitutional one. If the Constitutional change process itself is not adhered to - the ultimate "due process" consideratioñ - then we find ourselves back in the same situation folk did in 1772. Trying to legislatively or administratively weasel-word around the content and meaning of any Constitutional provision is the coward and special interest way to accomplish what can't be attained via the ballot box.

So far I haven't seen anyone seriously try to amend the Second Amendment. That non-action in itself shows there is no national majority clamoring for its change of content or intent. That only leaves the "we know what's best for you, you poor dumb folk" special interest types who ankle-bite the Constitution for their special purpose.

Again, I have no problem if the nation decides to rescind the Second Amendment (or any other Constitutional provision) in entirety. Just do it according to Article V! Anything less means that Article V is worthless, that the majority doesn't rule, and there is no due process. Nibbling around the content and intent demeans all of us.

Perhaps, if the MWP wants to endorse or vanguard federal-level gun control measures of any kind, then the MWP should consider proposing a new Constitutional Amendment which rescinds the Second Amendment and replaces it with an amendment which states "--------------------.". Such an action would be intellectually honest and totally respectful of the citizen majority, the Constitution (especially Article V) itself, and States' Rights as a whole.

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Well, I cant disagree with any of your points Steve, but for the record, MWP does not endorse amending the amendment at all. Reframing it with more citizen responsibility is where we'd like it to be at.

In fact, we are in the process of re-writing the intro to our 2nd Amendment stance with something along those lines, to wit, something akin to : " MWP supports all reasonable measures to ensure citizen safety be implementented and evaluated FIRST before any infringement of 2nd Amendment rights and responsibilities or restrictions of nomenclature ought even be discussed."

This outlines our process and methods perspective on policy, METHOD: set the primacy of the 2nd Amendment, and review all common sense measures to help interdict gun violence, ESPECIALLY THE DAY TO DAY VARIETY THAT DOES NOT GET THE MEDIA'S UNDIVIDED ATTENTION."

I go back to the notion that the media, et al, seem to care more about 20 white suburban kids being murdered, than the 20 per month that die by consequence on our city streets. Not to sound like a radical "Black Panther" type, but that IS the score and part of the policy problem. No "smart guns" will help that.

Speaking to nomenclature actually deflects the discussions from efficacy and truth. Witness that we've been "toying" with restrictions of nomnclature for years to no avail.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

Mr Houjami

It was a movie. In movies your magizines run dry only when it is required by the plotline, Hand Grenades make huge explosions, without the amount of shrapnel that actually comes with a handgrenade, and smart technology always works....unless, of course, the plot requires it not to work.

On the other hand if you can show me where I can get an infinite magazine, the I might be interested.

Duffy

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

Hey Duffy, how about a "hopper" style that you can load a whole "brick" of .22 rim into, which feeds a chain gun? While not infinte, its an approximation! ;) Like a broadsword made of lead. Hand held to boot!

That's the trouble with gun control; to a imaginative Yanqui rebel, unrequited coveting of an American Arms 180 .22 cal machine gun leads to blueprints for a .22 chain gun.

( The American Arms 180 holds 180 rds in a drum - designed by Richard Casull in the 1960's. In deference to Nauofal, this YouTube clip is filmed in TX = check it out. )

go to 1:24 and watch mom, a novice shooter, have fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl5w1fzZl8

Odd fascination us Yanqui rebels have with iron, eh? Got to "squeeze" an MG42 kept in SF5thGRP's armory in the last century. I am STILL in love with that piece. "Normal" males might miss another kind of "squeeze", but expect no less from the son of a European machinist who served in the OSS.

Ok, ( as he stands up) "My name is Gene Chaas, and I am a gun nut! I dont need no help but those blueprints!" :D

now.....seriously.... in my home state of NY, the NYS Sheriff's put out an excellent reply to the NY SAFE law that I pretty much "buy lock,stock,and barrel", if you will be so kind to also check this link:

www.nysheriffs.org

Please note what the experts say about restrictions of nomenclature. Also echoed by the mayor of Buffalo who hasnt said "YEA!" to the new NYS law. His quoted factoid, "of 50 homicides in Buffalo, 49 are with a handgun, 1 is with an assault weapon."

Which lends more creedence to the DGR technology Nauofal speaks of. Although it wont dent those 49 homicides in Buffalo, factually, for years if at all.

Carry on.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

An MG 42 down at 5th Group huh, got to ask about that. I helped capture the one displayed in the 187 Infantry Headquarters while in Kosovo.

But upfront, I do not collect guns, nor do I have a fascination with them. They are tools, and I have what I feel is an adequate number, not all that many. A gun is like a parachute, you never want to have to use it, and may never need one, but if you do need one, you will need it very badly, and may not ever need it after not having when you need it. Or having it and it not working because of an electronic failure which cannot be remedied with immediate ation.

The joke about the magazines goes to the point of keeping it real, and citing Skyfall as an example in the argument over the issue is not keeping it real.

Nothing against Skyfall, it is in fact the only movie I have gone to see in theatres in about 4 years. And some very valid political and policy points are made in it. But those can be argued on their own merit without citing the movie as an example. This same mistake was made with the Movie the day after and global warming.

Heck I saw a movie about the dangers of radiation, prehistoric dinosaurs, and large urban areas like Tokyo. None of this contributes to an argument about needing giant laser and rocket armed robots being desirable for the defense of Los Angeles or New York against Godzilla.

Duffy

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

So true Duffy. I have had a carry permit since I was 16. I'd like nothing more than another 36 years without ever having to use it.

BTW, the Mg42 was among a number of these old "cold war" relics they had back in '85. Heaven knows if they destroyed them or not.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

You need to be open to try this new technology first before thinking that it won't work! And my other idea is to create a MANUAL PASS-CODE to the old fashion handguns and fire arms to open fire, and i am not talking about the safety button. A different generation of manual code system attached directly to the hand guns and fire arms, and the owner can set his own password to use it or block it, that's way the old fashion users will have a PRE-SMART handguns and arms to use.

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

No Sir

I do not have to be more open to this new technology. And let me give you some advice, talk what you know.

For example:

"And my other idea is to create a MANUAL PASS-CODE to the old fashion handguns and fire arms to open fire, and i am not talking about the safety button."

Are you really talking about retrofitting existing firearms with an interlock system which uses a manual pass code?

Not possible while maintaining the integrity of the weapon itself.

Which I guess is the whole issue in the first place. My point is simple, you do not know enough about weapons to try and explain this to me. And you do not know enough to argue the point. I am not trying to be insulting, I am pointing out where your argument is failing. I will also add that you have the disadvantage of talking down about firearms to people who have, in my case, 28 years experiance using, training people to use, and maintaining weapons. Yet you are ignoring us when we tell you where the weakness in your argument lay, indeed, dismissing what we are saying. As if we do not know what we are talking about.

Again I do not oppose the introduction of new gun safety systems, only the mandating of their use.

Duffy

strategy
strategy's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 08/08/2011

You need to read and understand first before replying, if you did not understand i will explain it to you slowly. I said A "NEW GENERATION OF WEAPONS" TO BE DIRECTLY MANUALLY LOCKED by pass-code, and yes it is possible and it is already patented!, NOT to be implemented on existing fire arms. You said 28 years of experience, well It is time for you to update your information and knowledge about fire arms and their future use. I do have the background and the experience on the tactical use of not just light fire arms also heavy arms.
My friend again smart technology in any kind of product not just arms is here in our daily life, Tv's, phones, cars..... If you go back to the development of the fire arms since the 14th century, you will notice how it is changing.

Duffy
Duffy's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 10/14/2012

I read and understood your very clear statement.

"my other idea is to create a MANUAL PASS-CODE to the old fashion handguns and fire arms to open fire, and i am not talking about the safety button..."

Perhaps you were not as clear as you believed, and on the basis of all of your arguments so far, I have little confidence in your claims of experiance.
If my cable, phone or car has a programming fault, it is an inconveniance, not so with my weapons.

Duffy

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

There is nothing wrong with conceptualizing any high/low technological product. Design engineers do that all the time. The danger is political or commercial marketing that the wunderkind system will be the cure-all/end-all despite no comprehensive testing or evaluation to back it up. In three decades in systems devlopment/management of high tech military hardware (including a few intel/training systems and one weapon system) I've seen many a component/subsystem/system design fail to make it through T&E unscathed, and every manufacturing engineer I know has funny stories of designs which were just not able to be affordably produced in spite of the desires of the sales force.

There is a danger of politically touting any technology or development thereof as part of a platform or philosphy. If that technology is not already proven to meet that platform or philosophical purpose at the proposed scale, then intellectual and/or fiscal credibility becomes questionable.

In the force-counterforce market, what often also happens is that by the time the "force" system is at the manufacturing stage, the "counterforce" to it is at the same developmental level, thus making the "force" system obsolete before it can be deployed. This happens all the time in any locking or cryptographic systems and one of the main criteria upon which any firearm techno-lock will be evaluated.

No matter how enthusiastic some one may be about an idea or concept, until that idea/concept has been subjected to the rigors of the appropriate systems development model, that idea/concept has not proven itself as being economically feasible, technically reliable or operationally valid. For a party to hang its political hat on any unproven idea/concept shows either a short-term pandering to a special interest or exceptional systems devlopment naivete. Both open the party to being questioned on its understanding of industrial reality.

Hopefully, that was explained slowly and simply enough to be understood.....

...SteveZ

gene
gene's picture
Offline
Executive CommitteeWhig
Joined: 04/08/2011

While this means nothing to the masses or to discussions of efficacy, experentially, IMHO, I would NEVER carry such a complicated mechanism. In fact, my standard sidearm is an old East German relic, a Walther PP. Simple, reliable, accurate, with one modern retrofit. I was taught the KISS method of survival. Keep the exogenous variables to a minimum.

Unsure if you all saw the press relsease NY MWP issued but it essentially says that we are willing to put every solution on the table, including supporting a state firearms lisense linked to a national database, and implement/evaluate them BEFORE we get to any 2nd Amendment issues. This would include "smart" handgrips. This is the proper sequencing, not the "progessive" agenda of banning certain firearms.

IMHO, the assault rifle ban is based on ideology, not fact. And I trust most Americans, like me, would not comply anyhow. Welcome to the land of Yanqui Rebels, Thank GOD! :)

This is not to say NY MWP, or MWP proper doesnt feel we could do much, much better at keeping each other safe.

Part of Citizens' firearms reponsibility ( not gun control) means keeping EACH OTHER safer, and not simply relying on big brother or the fuzz.

In fact, as much as we debate issues of nomenclature here, the one thing that continues to get overlooked by proposed legislation, quite deliberately, is PERSONAL REPOSIBILITY. Which would make sense as the legislation is framed by a liberal or Marxist tendency.

The basis of the MWP Citizens' Firearms Reposibility policy IS personal responsibility, licensing ( not registration of nomenclature), accountibility and continued education are the core of the policy. Not government's "help".

Assault rifle bans do NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to mitigate the daily violence on our streets. Nor would "smart grips" as another ban of nomeclature. Yet, owners of smart grip handguns may feel easier knowing their handguns cannot be used by criminals, unless they pass through the hands of an gunsmith, like me.

But you dont have to beleive me, beleive the NYS Sheriff's. I beleive those public safety experts are 100% spot on.

Gene Chaas
NY CO

SteveZ
SteveZ's picture
Offline
Whig
Joined: 11/13/2012

Hear, hear!

...SteveZ

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer