FYI: Clinton to propose $10 million for smart gun technology

P

Pilate

New member
The following text has been cut and pasted from CNN.com and is posted for your information:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton wants to spend $10 million to help gun manufacturers develop new technologies designed to prevent the weapons from being fired by anyone but their owners.

White House chief of staff John Podesta said Sunday that Clinton's proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 will include money for the National Institute of Justice to fund research and development of
so-called smart-gun technology, which would use fingerprints, radio waves or other ways to ensure that a weapon would fire only when used by its owner.

Several gun manufacturers are developing the new technology, and Podesta said the White House has talked with them.

"We've had some discussions with them about this, about how we can improve the technology so that, again, only a lawful owner can use the gun," Podesta said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "And if that's true, what you can
prevent is a police officer being disarmed by a felon and having the gun used against the police officer. But I think almost most importantly, it'll prevent children from being able to get access to guns and use them."

Podesta announced the smart-gun initiative as he also urged the Republican-run Congress to pass gun control legislation. House and Senate negotiators were unable to agree on a juvenile crime bill that contained gun
control measures, including background checks of purchasers at gun shows.

"Given the Congress that we have in front of us, it's going to be a very difficult chore to get that passed through this Congress," Podesta said. "But we are going to press ahead. With members going home and listening to their constituencies, we still have a good chance of getting the commonsense gun legislation that is before Congress passed into law this year."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"And if that's
true, what you can
prevent is a police officer being disarmed by a felon and having the
gun used against the police officer. But I think almost most
importantly, it'll prevent children from being able to get access to
guns and use them." [/quote]

Yep, and it will prevent the illegally disarmed law abiding good citizen from helping a wounded cop by using the cop's gun against the bad guy. And of course, its way too easy to secure your guns from kids....
So, the powers that be figger its fair...afterall a cop gets paid huge bucks to die, right Your Billness?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I believe that the "smart gun" technology is being foisted on the American citizen with the express intent of putting the firearms manufacturers out of business through lawsuits. Up to the point that the "smart gun" technology becomes public purchaseable, firearms will do exactly what they are supposed to do. They are not defective based upon that very premise. That is why the mfgrs have never lost a "defective product" lawsuit. At the point that defects are introduced, the firearms become inherently defective because they are no longer able to do what they are designed to do.

The suits will come when a wife cannot defend herself with her husbands firearm, the partner cannot defend his partner's life with his partner's firearm when his is empty, disabled, or removed. That is the point that the mfgrs will lose suits, when they incorporate what the government wants. Remember seat belts, air bags, and anti theft devices.

Seat belts became the number one crippler of small children in auto crashes when lap belts tore their spine in two on a frontal impact and the child was folded double by the impact.

Air bags actually decapitated two children right before the parent's eyes.

Anti-theft devices made cars harder to steal so the bad guys simply started sticking a firearm in the victims face and taking the car. Anti-theft devices turned a property crime into a personal crime.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited January 03, 2000).]
 
Okey-dokey.

One more time from the top: I don't want some pencil-necked, fumble-fingered, techno-wonk cramming electronics into my finely-tuned pistol.

My sidearm has to do only one thing, but it has to do it EVERY DAMNED TIME: It has to go 'bang' when I pull the trigger.

I have had to draw my sidearm when my hand was covered in blood, mud, grease, clay and blood again. And what about gloves? We do need to wear them once in a while. Old Man Winter still being a stubborn **** and not obeying them Executive Orders.
I'd better see a guarantee signed by Bill be-Damned Clinton, Sarah Brady, and Janet BBQ Reno, swearing by God, their children and ancestors that my firearm will function each and every time I need it, and if it doesn't that they accept complete and full responsibility, culpability and blame for what happens next. Fingerprint recognition, my furry ****.

Magnetic and/or radio transmitter? Remind me to tell y'all about the time I arrested a critter under one of the biggest magnets in the Western Hemisphere.

To heck with that, remember that most Peace Officers are going to get hit in their gun arm--so then what? Tell me how a cop, with his gun arm hanging shredded and useless by his side, is going to take up his sidearm with his reaction hand, THEN GET SAID GUN FOUR INCHES IN FRONT OF THE HAMBURGER MEAT THAT USED TO BE HIS RIGHT ARM, SO HE CAN SHOOT THE S.O.B.?

Thank you ever so much for helping us, Miz Brady, et al., now would you mind awfully BUGGERING OFF and helping someone else?

And, one wonders, just how are you going to power this wonder machine? Batteries? Out****ingstanding! See above guarantee. Signed, if you please. While you're at it, you can bloody well guarantee me that the electronic crap in my pistol won't break when the pistol is thrown, dropped, used as a club, frozen, drowned and broiled. And yes, I have done all of the above to my sidearms. Law Enforcement is rough on pistols. Of course what the **** would you bunch of lying pukes know about Law Enforcement?

I must hazard a guess that Willy Clinton, ***** Brady and MIZ Reno have never had a computer, cell-phone or ANY piece of electronic junk in their lives, otherwise they'd think, "Hmmm--these non-vital items simply fail to work at regular intervals--maybe the same thing would happen when the same technology is installed in guns. And maybe it'll fail at the worst possible times."

What am I saying? Thinking requires A ****ING BRAINSTEM!!! Thinking is for people who realize that relying on rampant emotionalism isn't the way to run a government. I'm getting more than a little disgusted with the "Warm Fuzzies" style of law making.

Okay, I feel better now. I'm going to go jog around the block. Sorry about the rant. Pet peeve.

LawDog

------------------
I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.

Well, buddy, the best thing you could do to help me is to walk west until your hair floats.

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited January 04, 2000).]
 
To see what LEOs feel about "smartgun" technology, go over to the coptalk forum at www.glocktalk.com

So far it is 0% in favor. Who wants a gun that costs so much more which will fail on them?

Rick
 
here is an Unintended Consequence:

IF smart guns are sold along with conventional guns
(in other words anywhere but Maryland)

(part 1)
then won't the Smart guns be a new market for current non gun owners?

i know some people that would buy a home protection gun if it was marketed as a safer gun

(part 2)
how many people can resist the temptation to buy another gun? "I have more than i need, but fewer than i want"

won't smart guns increase the number of gun owners?

dZ

------------------
"walk softly and carry a big stick, one that goes bang in .308 is fine"
 
Pathetic.

If smarts are the problem, how about spending that $10M on education?

Oh, I forget. We live in a perfect world, and guns are the problem, not the people behind the trigger. How silly of me.

Smart guns will not guarantee smarter shooters.


------------------
Whatever happened to Cincinnatus?


[This message has been edited by Ulfilas (edited January 04, 2000).]
 
Why not, as he has access to a whole lot of money, called TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

Of course, last year, The Congress rejected a similar idea, who knows what will happen this year, what with "executive orders", "rule making" and other political-bureaucratic gambits.

Perhaps the Congress will awake and stay awake to their OVERSIGHT responsibilities, who knows. There are lots of presidential powers. There are also lots of Congressional powers.

Clinton is willing to use/abuse his, we shall have to see about The Congress.
 
If (and that's a BIG "if") so-called "smart" technology were available, and if it were user-friendly (meaning, for instance, that I could turn it off for a few minutes so a friend could try one of my guns), and if it didn't make a gun any less reliable or quick to use, and if it were genuinely secure (meaning that Mr. Bad Guy couldn't bypass it with a reasonable degree of ease, or Officer Jackboot couldn't disable my gun by remote control), and if it didn't increase the cost of a gun, and if it didn't provide an excuse for hundreds of lawyers to enrich themselves with bogus "product liability" suits, then I'd think it was great.

Really, though, who's dumb enough to believe that 10 million dollars is going to make this happen? If securing machines with "smart" locks were that simple, I have to think that automobile, PC and cell phone makers would have done it already. After all, I've got a lot more at risk with a $15,000 machine sitting in the street than with a $500 machine locked in a safe. And it should be much easier to add "smart" features to a 1500 pound machine that already has multiple electronic systems than to a 1.5 pound machine that has about two dozen moving parts.

It seems to me that so-called "smart guns" are a sort of political vaporware, dreamed up as an excuse to declare real firearms dangerously obsolete.
 
sig sauer has come out with a so called

"SMART GUN" that only costs 300.oo more than the same "RELIABLE & DUMB" sig sauer gun.

The new "Smart Ass" gun incorporates a 4
digit pin number required to activate the gun
for one hour. At the end of one hour, or sooner ,if the batteries go dead, the gun automatically deactivates.

Excuse me, Mr assissin, please, if you dont
mind, not shooting me while I punch in my pin number to activate my gun.Now was that number 1942 or 1492. Kinda like trying to remember your password to the firing line
they first time you log on each day!

Now that I have my 4 digit pin number
punched in ,I gotta hit the side of the gun just so to make the batteries make contact;

kinda like that preverbial flashlight that
the girl in the horror movie always wacks the side of just before it goes out for good, thus
causing some one's death.

duh,da--duhda-duhda--duhda--duhad--
aaaaiiiieee!

SMART GUNS , NOW THATS REALLY DUMB!!!

------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
consider maryland...
the AG & the govenor want a law that only permits the sale of smart handguns in 2003

no used non smart handguns?
no private old tech sales?
no non smart handguns for sale?

gee lets go look at the gun case at the local shop
i see 3 guns in a long empty case
i don't see many gunshops remaining open

didn't Zilka say he was abandoning the iColt concept last month due to lack of funding?

i feel infringed

dZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top