Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 26, 2022

This article was posted last year of your mama and restrictions but the technology still exists and we once again have a president and a Congress that could vote for this technology to become required of all new guns sold in America.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

* last year of the Obama Administration

#1 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-26 10:55 AM | Reply

* Unbidden comes to mind a flood of yo mama jokes.

#2 | Posted by mattm at 2022-04-26 04:54 PM | Reply

That out of the way. Interesting article, seems reasonable, don't understand why one of the biggest groups with purchasing power, law enforcement, hasn't already embraced this tech.

#3 | Posted by mattm at 2022-04-26 04:56 PM | Reply

#3 Because their thought leaders are right-wing and pro-gun.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-26 06:03 PM | Reply

Ban guns in America, collect them all and give them to the Ukrainians. Because guns can never solve the problems in this country...

...but we nevertheless believe they can solve the problems in other countries.

#5 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2022-04-26 06:55 PM | Reply

I'm pretty strong for gun rights and I just never understood the problem with using these systems.

Sure hacking but how often is your phone hacked? Heck a gun wouldn't even need to connect to a network so remote hacking would be impossible.

If we allowed victims to sue gun owners I bet demand for a system that would make your gun a brick if stolen would go way up.

#6 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2022-04-26 07:04 PM | Reply

Perhaps we need mnew laws stating that gun owners who are robbed more than once in a year of their firearms can be sued by in the future victims of said firearms.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-26 07:13 PM | Reply

If we allowed victims to sue gun owners

There would be nothing unconstitutional to pass laws establishing gun holders must insure themselves against liability for the damage their weapons might cause other individuals and property.

It's hard to imagine that automobiles require liability insurance and they're not designed by purpose to cause physical damage during their normal usage as are guns firing live ammunition are, but gun users aren't.

The way we view the 2nd Amendment is antithetical to the entire notion of any constitutionally proscribed "right". Rights always come with the responsibility that they must not harm other individuals' equal rights when exercised. Firearm usage should be no different.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-04-26 07:14 PM | Reply

Anybody can buy far more reliable trigger interlocks already.

Very, very few want them.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-04-26 07:21 PM | Reply


I'm not a gun owner but I do support the rights of gun owners so would you be willing to share the reasons so few gun owners are interested?

If I owned a gun I think I would want a way to ensure my wife and I were the only ones who could use it.

#10 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2022-04-26 08:21 PM | Reply

#10 Mostly because of the fear that in an emergency, the thing will keep you from using your gun.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-26 08:22 PM | Reply

#10 People here aren't channeling their Inner Nixon. Now flag me and and His ghost will explain:

Nixon: "I'm banning handguns. 94% of gun crimes are committed with handguns, and 87% of them are stolen".
Congress. "The Second Civil War (the secret one) is over and you lost."

I'm not sure if I'm using this board right, but maybe CCL carriers are the only ones with smartguns and we melt all other handguns down.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2022-04-29 01:47 AM | Reply

Old news. When law enforcement and the military endorse the technology then general legislation might be appropriate. Until then not at all.

There would be nothing unconstitutional to pass laws establishing gun holders must insure themselves against liability for the damage their weapons might cause other individuals and property.

Nothing except due process and equal protection problems. That aside, liability insurance covers civil liability under established tort law, basically negligence. If you have homeowners insurance you're probably covered.

Liability insurance does not cover homicide, suicide or other intentional uses of firearms by the owner or third parties. In other words, it doesn't cover a large majority of gun violence whether or not constitutional problems exist.

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2022-04-29 04:51 AM | Reply


How did mandatory car insurance get past due process and equal protection? Is it simply because of the second that it would be an issue with guns?


I assumed it was something like that but I kinda wanted to hear it from a gun owners perspective. Like I don't know possible failure issues that would cause concern. I mean we've had basic fingerprint locks for a while now and I haven't run into issues with not being able to use those. I'm sure in the 9 years since IPhone got it the tech has matured.

#14 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2022-04-29 05:53 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort