The Unrequited Dream of Smart Guns
The simple fact of the matter is that technological hurdles are only part of the problem, and there are only very few people who have any real interest in seeing the technology come to fruition. Traditional defenders of gun rights have joined with their anti-gun foes to attack what both sides consider a gimmicky solution.
A fact sheet from the National Rifle Association (NRA) comes out strongly against smart guns as both a safety concern and a potential attempt at gun control, as the cost of the technology might price some potential gun buyers out of the market. While technology costs typically go down over time and may be waning as a barrier, there is still a great deal of concern over the viability and safety of smart guns. The NRA goes on to cite a statement from Italian firearms manufacturer Beretta, which still holds true:
Careful consideration has not been given to potentially dangerous risks associated with these concepts. In our opinion, such technology is undeveloped and unproven. In addition, Beretta strongly believes that “smart gun” technology or “personalized” guns (hereinafter also referred to as “smart gun” technology) could actually increase the number of fatal accidents involving handguns.
The position of firearms manufacturers and gun owners is that the existing experimental solutions would make guns less reliable and may also mislead gun owners into thinking that the locking mechanisms are a replacement for safe gun-handling and storage practices.
The argument from those who favor stricter gun control is captured in a release from the Violence Policy Center, which accurately notes that even the successful implementation of such technology would fail to have any impact at all on the hundreds of millions of firearms already in the public’s hands. The VPC also notes that these firearms, which they characterize as “personalized guns,” would have little to no effect on suicides (people who choose to end their lives with firearms tend to use their own guns) or homicides (people who choose to end the lives of others with firearms also tend to use their own guns).
Both sides agree that a mistaken public perception that the technology would make firearms less lethal would instead probably lead to an increase in injuries or no net change at all.
So could smart gun technology have made things substantially different at Fort Hood, the Binghamton community center, or the college shootings at Northern Illinois University or Virginia Tech? In a word, no. It is highly unlikely that the suspect would be armed with such a weapon and even if they were, the shooter would be the authorized user. If anything, a working smart gun in this situation would likely make the situation more untenable, making it even more unlikely that victims could overpower the shooter and turn his weapon against him.
Smart guns were wonderful in theory, but fail on the firing line in every way imaginable.
Who came up with this crazy idea of “smart guns” being able to be remotely disabled? Obviously someone with no idea about security. Firstly, “fail safe” would mean the gun fails in an operable condition. Secondly, anyone planning a shooting would disable the receiver or spoof it so it couldn’t receive the shutdown signal. Thirdly, no one is going to purchase a weapon designed for use when you are under immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury that can be broken from a distance.
How long before shutdown transmitters are for sale all over the internet? By definition, the shutdown code has to be publicly available since it will be in all guns and tons of “restricted” transmitters that can be stolen, recorded or replicated.
The problem with these and the registered owner “smart” guns is that when seconds count, you don’t want the blue screen of death to take on a literal meaning.
Odd how repubs are pro-gun yet anti-abortion. They are really the same thing.
Since Hasan was the legal owner of the weapons, exactly what would be the point of a system that thwarted unauthorized users? As for some system that would allow police to disable a weapon at a distance, considering that this episode lasted only a few minutes, it was over before the police knew it was happening. By the way, we already have an effective system to terminate such events; a marksman with a high powered rifle.
The only “fail safe” solution to the Fort Hood disgrace would have been if soldiers on base were permitted to carry side arms as they were before Clinton outlawed that by executive order (one of his first). Another sad example of the failure of gun free zones to save lives. How crazy is it that dozens of soldiers, well trained in the safe and effective use of weapons, had to wait to be saved by a local police woman with a gun.
The guns safety is between the shooter’s ears. Just as in handling fire or any other potentially destructive force a health respect for the material handled is required.
The same idiots that think guns are bad will want ‘smart screw-drivers’ next because they can’t remember which way to turn it.
Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack in a place he KNEW to be gun-free. That’s why it succeeded. That’s why 9-11 succeeded, and Virginia Tech, and Columbine….do we see a pattern here, folks?
That was one of the very few factual articles I’ve ever read when it comes to guns.
2. kochevnik:
Odd how repubs are pro-gun yet anti-abortion. They are really the same thing.
__________________________________________________
Odd how you left out that there are demacrats who are against abortion and for guns. Odd how you left out that there are independents who are against abortion and for guns. Odd how you failed to be intellectually honest in your haste to smear a group of people. Not that I’m all too surprised since you are the same person who doesn’t understand oil fungability and thinks oil is being stolen.
And abortion and gun ownership are not even close to the same thing. Or maybe you can tell me exactly how owning a fire arm that most likely will never kill a human being to a medical procedure that removes a mass of tissue from a uterus.
Bubba, most shops and factories have the machinery and the skills to make a firearm and not zip guns either.
Smart Guns? I bet a smart gun’s, smart can be disabled in about five minutes by any good gunsmith.
I was once told there are No deadly weapons except a man’s mind and two opposable thumbs.
A gun makes killing easier but the lack of a gun will not stop murder. Think of a nail and hammer, the hammer makes driving the nail into the work easier but Bubba’s ya can drive a nail with any kind of large lump of Aluminum,iron, wood, rubber, plastic or steel. Like the gun a hammer can also kill in the hands of a determined killer and ya cannot ban all percussive action tools.
Now a lobotomy and amputation of the thumbs might slow it down enough.
——————————————-
ABORTION is the legal death of a human baby.
A GUN is just a hunk of steel and plastic like a skill saw or a bubble level these items will sit forever and rust away long before these items will kill anyone without the hand of man/woman to actually do the work.
They are not at all similar.
Ya cannot ban every tool that can be used as a weapon.
If someone in the Gov. really wants to start a civil war attempts to ban or confiscate firearms will be the spark that sets it off, politicians will decorate trees all over deer hunting states.
i had to smile at the thought of some government entity having the ability to disable a citizens personal firearm…
the weapons i own are for home defense, that defense includes their use against a hostile American government.
kockevnik:
I don’t really see how the right to defend one’s self against criminals equates to the right of a mother to kill her unborn and defenseless child.
But feel free to try and explain it to me.
NJIT’s “Smart Gun” suffers from a fatal flaw. The grip pattern matching works well on a firing range, but that is a known, low stress environment. When somebody’s shooting back at you, the way you hold the gun changes.
NJIT’s “Smart Gun” suffers from a fatal flaw. The grip pattern matching works well on a firing range, but that is a known, low stress environment. When somebody’s shooting back at you, the way you hold the gun changes, and it won’t fire. NJIT’s “smart gun”, in other words, works well — except when you actually need it.
Assistant Professor
New Jersey Institute of Technology
“The [smart gun] concept gained widespread public attention in the early 1990s and hoped to offer a solution to the problem of law enforcement officers having their own guns used against them in struggles with criminals.”
*************
The funny thing about that is the laws–proposed or enacted–mandating smart guns, specifically exempt law enforcement from using them. That kinda makes the “public safety” rationale seem a little shaky.
This calls to mind the science fiction story “The Weapon Shops of Isher” by A. E. van Vogt (1951; in “A Treasury of Great Science Fiction, Vol. 1, ed. Anthony Boucher, 1959) (paperback on amazon for just $3.50). Only provate citizens, not government agents, could buy a gun from one of these shops; officials could not even enter them, nor injure them. And the gun you bought there would — as I recall, it has been 30 years since I read it — only work for the owner, not for anyone else. Thus if an officer took it away, the gun would not work.
“Smart guns were wonderful in theory, but fail on the firing line in every way imaginable.”
Nope, not even really a good idea in theory.
I already have a “smart gun”. It’s my own personal firearm, which happens to be a Ruger .357 and the gun is samrt enough to know not to be pointed at someone unless you will pull the trigger, to keep itself away from children and to keep itself clean, oiled and ready for use. Now that’s SMART.
Professor,
Maybe that’s the plan all along…an illusion of security (just like your local police dept. or at the airport) instead of actual…you know…REAL security.
One of the problems with “personalized” guns is how many criminals brings a gun to a crime, and the victim disarms the bad guy and uses the criminal’s gun against him. This is a startlingly common situation–and personalized guns would preclude this.
“responding law enforcement officers could end the massacre from a distance by broadcasting a fail-safe signal to the weapon, disabling it”
And if there are no LEOs handy, perhaps you could convince a student hacker, Russian mobster, or local serial killer with a Radio Shack account to do you the same service.
While developing the technology to disable a criminal’s weapon from a distance, the technology to disable police weapons from a distance is also being developed.
Question Authority!
Ask how many mass shootings have NOT taken place in gun-free zones.
A hypothetical “what if” version of events was assumed, where civilian firearms — including Major Hasan’s FN pistol — had been enabled with smart gun technologies. In that scenario, it was posited that responding law enforcement officers could end the massacre from a distance by broadcasting a fail-safe signal to the weapon, disabling it.
You actually never got around to responding to this issue. Even if all of the smart gun technology you mentioned is as bad an idea as you suggest, why shouldn’t all guns be made with this failsafe in any case. The worst that could happen is that some seriously determined individuals with access to the resources to modify the weapons would still be able to shoot, a possibility that the police would be ready for.
The “smart-gun’s” fatal flaw is the concept itself.
If ANYONE can disable it other than the user, and/or if the design in operation is less reliable than it would be otherwise, then the idea itself is of no value.
Create a world where the authorities are never in the wrong, the wrong-doers can never get their hands on the technology to disarm the innocent, AND where making the design more complex does not increase the number of potential failure modes which in turn increase the probability of failure. THEN we’ll talk about developing the concept.
But I’m sure the magical world where the above are true will be far more interesting to talk about, what with all the pixies and unicorns and such.
The pigs can have the means to disarm my gun as soon as they give me the means to disarm their weapons.
Edward Sisson -
You beat me to the A.E. van Vogt reference. I believe he did invent the concept of the safe gun (wrote “gub” first – unintentional Woody Allen reference). Parts appeared in “The Seesaw”, Astounding Science Fiction, July 1941, and “The Weapon Shop”, Astounding Science Fiction, December 1942 (later incorporated into the novel of 1951). Weapon Shop weapons were keyed to you personally and would essentially teleport from your holster to hand instantly upon need; they could not be used by others. And indeed police, military and government types could not enter a Weapon Shop, based upon the same technology. The motto of the Weapon Shops was “The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to be Free”. This sounds more libertarian than the worlds posited by van Vogt, who opposed a 4700-year-old dynasty with a shadow council behind the Weapon Shops that had maintained stasis for thousands of years. However, the right of self defense qua liberty still resounds with the Founding Fathers’ intentions.
Smsgt MAC:
Create a world where the authorities are never in the wrong, the wrong-doers can never get their hands on the technology to disarm the innocent,
You have brain damage. You just made the perfect argument for why the authorities should never have guns. Or anyone for that matter. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent, but if the technology to limit use of guns is too dangerous to use, then it brings up a legitimate question of whether guns are too dangerous to use. Fail.
Wuld it be rude to ask how many times per year it actually happens that an officer’s gun is turned against him? Or, anyone’s gun?
Yeah, it happens, but you sure don’t hear it very often.
IOW, is this really a problem, or a technology in search of a reason?
The Second Amendment exists not only to protect us from criminals and wild beasts, but also from the government, as a last resort. In the event the government should become tyrannical, and armed resistance becomes necessary, it would utterly defeat the purpose of the Second Amendment were the authorities to be able to neutralize our guns remotely. No one is arguing that the police and military shouldn’t have guns, but we are adamantly opposed to the idea of the government having a monopoly on guns, whether by confiscating private firearms or by disabling them.
“2. kochevnik:
Odd how repubs are pro-gun yet anti-abortion. They are really the same thing.”
Sure. Many thieves attempting to rob innocent people are shot with unborn babies. Most wars are fought with soldiers hurling fetuses at each other. I know when someone breaks into my home and threatens the lives of my family I want a couple of aborted twins in my hands to take care of business.
What is needed are smarter people. You get that thru education. Gun safety and marksmanship should be taught in elementary school ( 4th to 5th grade- 10 or 11 years old). Get them young and teach them that while fun, firearms are NOT toys.
This is too simple for the left, which sees nothing wrong with teaching children how to put a condom on a cucumber. Not sure what they do with the cucumber next. I am sure I don’t want to know.
Seems to me the lady cop had a way to disarm his gun from a
distance. She shot him!
Mudpie. Pick up a paper; it turns out that she never even hit him. Her partner brought him down and disarmed him. She just got shot. He had a way to disarm her; he shot her.
Are smart guns something the industry is developing in response to consumer demand, or something the government and “consumer groups” are trying to push on people who don’t want it? Let me guess.
Where would the geniuses of today’s gun control fad have been when Cain Killed 1/4 of the known population before guns were even around? How on earth did that happen when we all know that it’s guns that kill people.
I’d settle for some smarter trolls, if we have to have any at all, but the same old morons keep showing up and befouling themselves in public.
Edward Sisson,
A lady named Leslie Fish also wrote a song by the same name based on that book.
Are smart guns something the industry is developing in response to consumer demand, or something the government and “consumer groups” are trying to push on people who don’t want it? Let me guess.
Is there somewhere in the 2nd amendment where consumer demand is mentioned? Free speech is regulated to some degree. I think people are rather sick of the idea of gun ownership being some god-ordained privilege accorded Americans. You have guns, you’ll probably always have guns; I actually don’t give a sh^%. The constant b*&^-##s crying about every single ordinance, state or federal law prohibiting the fellation of guns or their use as a buttplug is difficult to handle, however.
By the way the 2nd Amendment is a restriction as to what government can do. Nothing else. It states that government can not deny the people the right to own arms. And given the large amount of gun ownership I’d say people are more sick of people like you who can’t address an issue like an adult than they are of the voicing of the fact that gun ownership actually is ordained to Americans. Its written down by the founders. Maybe you should spend more time critically thinking and understanding what the Bill of Rights means.
MOHO
The quest for ‘smart guns’ is so yesterday. Smart Ammunition is the answer. The microprocessor in the projectile makes and independent decision whether or not the aim point is acceptable. Unfortunatley, that means you’re shit out of luck, bro. So sorry.
moho not to sure what the second amendment had to do with TY’s very insightful observation, maybe you could explain.
but, i like your use of guns and buttplugs in the same sentence…are you related to barney frank?
Moho:
“Is there somewhere in the 2nd amendment where consumer demand is mentioned? ”
Yes, Moho, there is. Let me see if I can find it. Ah yes, “Unanimous Consent:”
**We the People** of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, **insure domestic Tranquility,** **provide for the common defence**, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[snip]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[snip]
Done in Convention by the **Unanimous Consent of the States** present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
—-
The first ten amendments were very much demanded by the consumers through their representatives.
And, Moho, before you foolishly mention the Militia in the Second Amendment, consider that there was NO mass confiscation of guns, no voluntary turning in of guns by the new citizens of the new country. They had just got done fighting a long, bloody WAR against a despotic government, and they were not ABOUT to hand over their sole means of securing their liberty to another government. If you knew anything at all about our history you would not be saying such damned fool things.
And, you would know that the Founders did, indeed, consider their right to defend themselves and secure their Liberty GOD GIVEN. They said so in the Declaration of Independence.
Also, please note that those puerile sexual images you employed are the product solely of YOUR mind, so it’s clear that you are the one with the gun perversion. Projecting it onto the adults here doesn’t help your case.
It states that government can not deny the people the right to own arms.
And yet it does, because it prevents ex-cons from having guns. How do you square this blatant abuse of freedom?
Its written down by the founders.
They also wrote down that certain human beings should be considered 3/5 the value of others. Yeah, wow.
The microprocessor in the projectile makes and independent decision whether or not the aim point is acceptable.
LOL. Actually, like most of your ilk, when confronted with a real life situation of danger, and not one in a Bruce Willis movie, you’d most likely shoot yourself in the foot. I’m sure the bullet would appreciate it too.
Bill Smith, as usual, when confronted with someone who actually believes in the 2nd amendment, but also believes in reasonable regulation, you revert to your black, white script. I’m pretty sure I said,
You have guns, you’ll probably always have guns; I actually don’t give a sh^%.
Rather than defend what seems obviously a phallic-replacement relationship with your weapon, you’d rather argue with an opinion I didn’t state. Do so, but don’t forget to spit clean your gun and rub it on your b%$$s for good luck before laying it gently under your pillow for the night. You whine like a little girl.
“I don’t really see how the right to defend one’s self against criminals equates to the right of a mother to kill her unborn and defenseless child.
But feel free to try and explain it to me.”
The 2nd amendment isn’t about crime. It’s about keeping the government under control.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Nothing about crime or criminals there. If the founders had wanted to address crime, they would have.
Instead they used the phrase “security of a free state”. Obviously they were referring to the citizens right to defend themselves from hostile governments. They DID NOT specify foreign governments. They could have if they had wanted to.
If they had meant crime they could have written ‘ security of the individual’, or ‘personal security of the citizen’, or any of thousands of other ways to indicate crime was the subject. They didn’t because the subject was the Security of a FREE State. If you want to play the interpretation game, the 2nd amendment requires violent action against any threat to a free state. That is easier to find then some nonsense about crime.
Remember, at that time an armed citizen was a novel idea in the West. In the late 18th century, Kings kept professional soldiers around to act as the core of an Army. The peasants/serfs were armed when needed to form the bulk of the army. There were exceptions, but that was the general rule. The average Monarch feared his peasants more then some other Kings Army. And rightly so.
The confusion on this issue is created by Elites that see an armed population as standing between them and seizing power. History is rife with examples of tyrants seizing power by force of arms, then maintaining it the same way.
A current example would be Iran. If the Iranian protesters were as well armed as Americans, the Mullah’s bully boys would have been slaughtered.
The connection to abortion is that abortion is NOT the Law of the land. No Bill ever went thru Congress allowing unborn children to be murdered. It is a corruption of the judicial process, legislating from the bench, which should be a treasonable offense.
Not the reasoned decision of the citizens of a FREE state, which brings the 2nd amendment into play.
Abortion WAS illegal. It was made ‘legal’ thru an illegal process. So, logically, it cannot be legal.
You cannot enforce the law by breaking it. Ask any liberal about that.
History is rife with examples of tyrants seizing power by force of arms, then maintaining it the same way.
A current example would be Iran.
Birther
That’s hilarious. These tyrants were seizing power from an autocrat running a dictatorship. If anything they should be your 2nd amendment wet dream. That is, if you knew anything about history and could actually think for yourself.
42. moho:
It states that government can not deny the people the right to own arms.
And yet it does, because it prevents ex-cons from having guns. How do you square this blatant abuse of freedom?
__________________________________________________
Felons forfeit their rights when they transgress. The government doesn’t take anything. The felon gives it away when they willfully break the public’s trust. Just as they give away their right to vote. It isn’t an abuse of freedom at all. You really have no idea how the criminals justice system works or how rights are bestowed and kept.
‘It states that government can not deny the people the right to own arms.’
“And yet it does, because it prevents ex-cons from having guns. How do you square this blatant abuse of freedom?”
And, it puts people in jail, Moho. It forcibly extracts their money in fines. These are things that government is legally entitled to do. You lack basic skills in logic, Moho. Have a good day.
LOL Phrarank.
Felons forfeit their rights when they transgress.
Where in the constitution does it say that? Does the 2nd amendment have a special footnote about convicted felons, you idiot? You’re too stupid to understand this, but the fact that you support SOME limitations on the 2nd amendment not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, means that you accept CONCEPT OF LIMITATIONS on the 2nd amendment not contained in the constitution. I hope you continue this conversation, SfB.
Wake me up when the United States Capitol Police and the Secret Service arm themselves with “smart guns” to better protect the politicians that come up with these moronic ideas.
“They look wonderful in theory…”
I don’t know, Bob. It sounds like a really bad theory to me.
LOL Phrarank.
Felons forfeit their rights when they transgress.
Where in the constitution does it say that? Does the 2nd amendment have a special footnote about convicted felons, you idiot? You’re too stupid to understand this, but the fact that you support SOME limitations on the 2nd amendment not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, means that you accept CONCEPT OF LIMITATIONS on the 2nd amendment not contained in the constitution. I hope you continue this conversation, SfB.
_______________________________________________
Thank you being so grown up about this. I would like to keep a conversation going but This isn’t a conversation. Its me presenting facts, logic and reason with you making personal attacks. It’s ok though that is what people like you do. And next time you want to call peoples intellect into question try to spell the name right.
Phraranc–>You’re basically admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about. Cool, you’ve got more balls than most of your compatriots. But if you dry your eyes for a moment, you can try answering this:
but the fact that you support SOME limitations on the 2nd amendment not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, means that you accept CONCEPT OF LIMITATIONS on the 2nd amendment not contained in the constitution.
It was perfectly fine for felons to own guns before the gun legislation of 1968. That law curtailed the 2nd amendment. Accepting that limitation as you do, then you accept the idea that the 2nd amendment rights can be curtailed by the legislature. And in doing so, you’ve accepted the primacy of the legislature to interpret the limits of right to bear arms. You’ve undermined your entire argument. You’ve presented no facts and precious little reason. Reason and logic would have prompted you to seek out the source of the limitation on gun ownership by felons. You didn’t do that, referring instead to some mythology about the criminal justice system as if it comes from the bible.
Idiot Bill Smith:
These are things that government is legally entitled to do.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Which government? State governments take away voting rights for felons, the federal government prevents felons from owning guns. Jail and fines are imposed as punishment for a crime, preventing an ex-felon from owning a gun is done outside of the judicial system; it has nothing to do with the judicial system whatsoever. Where does any government’s legal right to do these things come from? Again, you’re talking out of your a$$ and missing the point to begin with. You already allow the government to modify the 2nd amendment.
Moho, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment and I do not believe the government has the authority to take away a felon’s rights. If they have done their time and are no longer a danger to society, then they should get their rights back once they are released from prison. If they cannot be trusted, then they shouldn’t be released. The gun control law of 1968 was a huge usurpation of federal power.
Are “moho” and “Moho” the same person? Just curious.
In any event, moho/Moho is the most consistently amusing poster on PJM.
moho I didn’t admit anything. Why are you so dishonest that you need to put words in my mouth? I’m not even sure how you got what I was “basically admitting” about the second amendment is a post that only outlined how dishonest you are. I love when people like you set up false argument after false argument then declare victory when you haven’t really done anything. You erect an army of straw men equipped with nothing more then ad-hominen attacks. Lies false hoods and dishonesty is what you peddle. Like most trolls you probably get off on it. Your life is so void of substance you have to fill it with something and you pick vitriol. So I’ll leave you to go back to calling people idiots and using inappropriate language in some juvenile game that you play to feel important.
You erect an army of straw men equipped with nothing more then ad-hominen attacks. Lies false hoods and dishonesty is what you peddle.
And yet you detail none of them, nor defend your point.
Kochevnik: Abortion is the murder of an innocent, unborn child.
Guns are properly used to protect the innocent from the evil.
Protecting the innocent IS NOT the same as murdering the innocent. Got it?
Just dropped in to see if this was still going on.
I want to correct one other bit of Moho nonsense:
“They also wrote down that certain human beings should be considered 3/5 the value of others. Yeah, wow.”
That is not at ALL what they wrote, and not at all what they meant. For obvious reasons, the southern states wanted to keep the institution of slavery. The northern states wanted to get rid of it. The 3/5 rule was put into Article I, Section 2 to LIMIT the number of Representatives that the southern states would have in the House, because the number of Representatives a state had was dependent on the population. The intent was to limit the power, and influence of the southern states, NOT to somehow enshrine racism in the Constitution. Moho says “3/5 the value,” with all that word’s incendiary connotation, but that is NOT what the document itself says:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective **Numbers,** which shall be determined by adding to the whole **Number** of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)”
The operative word here is “NUMBERS” not “value” as you state, Moho. You cannot twist it into some racist intent, because the numerical effect was precisely the opposite — it gave the north more clout in efforts to LIMIT the spread of slavery in the country.
Your stupidity is dangerous, Bill:
You cannot twist it into some racist intent, because the numerical effect was precisely the opposite
They were writing about how to count slaves for the purposes of representation, lol. I think its common knowledge, since it is historically known as the “3/5ths compromise”, lol, that it was a compromise between the Northern and Southern states. And, of course, it follows rather obviously that the North sought to bind the power of the Southern states. What doesn’t follow is that excluding an entire population from the blessings of liberty is somehow not racist, or indeed, was seeking to fight racism. Only a complete retard–or indeed, someone so steeped in racism that they are unaware of what they are actually writing–would seek to prove that.
50. 5th Amendment, Moho, not the 2nd. The 5th Amendment states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That means if you are convicted of a crime, having been granted due process, you must pay the just punishment for that crime as established by law, which means forfeiture of property, liberty or even your very life, depending on the severity of the crime. Felony convictions carry with them the punishment of confinement in prison for at least one year, plus revocation of the right to vote and the right to bear arms indefinitely.
When Smart Guns can calculate windage and distance and adjust accordingly, I’ll look into them.
Felony convictions carry with them the punishment of confinement in prison for at least one year, plus revocation of the right to vote and the right to bear arms indefinitely.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Revocation of the right to vote is up to the states. That discretion derives from the 14th amendment:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,
Your statement “carry with them the punishment of confinement in prision for at least one year, plus revocation of the right to vote” is untrue, unless you’ve inadvertently spliced some state law in here thinking that it applies nationally. I can’t imagine where you got this, maybe from the law tree in your backyard or a burning bush in your garden. Restriction of felons to own guns derives from federal law and it has absolutely nothing to do with state-level.
61. Moho:
Your stupidity is dangerous, Bill:…..Only a complete retard–or indeed,
_____________________________________________
Typical Moho ad-hom attacks. Since you need them spelled out for you.
As for your statement of slavery being race based: that may be thought true if you only have a limited public school white washed education and ignore the white slaves, free black and black slave owners. Did you know the north had many slaves. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only attempted to free southern slaves and said nothing of the slaves still kept in the north. I say attempted because the EP had no legal standing in the south. Another fact is that Lincoln didn’t free a single slave.
I look forward to your rebuttal filled with fallacious arguments.
Whites were never slaves; they were indentured servants. Their children were not born into slavery, nor was there service in perpetuity. There has never been anything like chattel slavery of Africans, and African Americans were never anything but a tiny proportion of slave holders. Indeed, one of the most salient reasons for black slave ownership was the purchase of relatives and loved ones that could not be freed otherwise, or would be subject to fugitive slave laws. Why don’t you answer the evisceration I gave your previous bs and ignorant postings rather than finding new ground to get reemed on?
No whites were indeed slaves. Of course you could always educate your self its only a google search away but you wont do that. You enjoy being willfully ignorant. Its ok Moho you simply aren’t as educated as you pretend to be. Its a common troll thing. They have such inflated views of them selves. Its a type of narcissism. And naricism stems from putting up a wall to compensate for a deep understanding that the person really has many and drastic short falls. So keep on calling people stupid to make up for your own inadequacies. They say not to feed the trolls but I think exposing them for what they are is a much better way to deal with them. But I’m done with you today. It’s been fun showing you for what you are.
moho (42):
It states that government can not deny the people the right to own arms.
And yet it does, because it prevents ex-cons from having guns. How do you square this blatant abuse of freedom?
moho, you are a twit. Convicted criminals lose rights, including the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to vote by definition. These rights may or may not be returned upon the fulfillment of their sentence.
moho (43):
Its written down by the founders.
They also wrote down that certain human beings should be considered 3/5 the value of others. Yeah, wow.
No, they said that slaves would only count for three-fifths of a person with regard to congressional representation. This was an anti-slavery measure to keep the slave-owning states from having disproportional representation due to their slave populations (who couldn’t vote anyways).
Moho (66):
Whites were never slaves;
Who do you think built Rome? Please go and study history before you make such statements.
Its ok Moho you simply aren’t as educated as you pretend to be.
LOL. I’ve never claimed to be educated, hillbilly bob. Think about that when you’re crying yourself to sleep over the reeming I’ve give you here. Off with you then.
Paul:
the right to vote by definition
Absurd ignorance. There are several states where felons lose no voting rights whatsoever. In Maine and Vermont, felons can vote from prison, even if they’ve already been convicted previously of a felony. You might as well have proclaimed that you are functionally retarded.
“In Maine and Vermont, felons can vote from prison”
Probably explains why those states aren’t Republican strongholds anymore.
Whites were never slaves;
Wrong Moho. Try looking up the conditions of European peasants, their rights, etc. just slavery by another name. Also going further back the institution of slavery in Rome included people of every race. Look up the legal status of Saxons after the Norman conquest of England.
Now WTF does slavery have to do with “smart guns”?
71. moho:
Its ok Moho you simply aren’t as educated as you pretend to be.
LOL. I’ve never claimed to be educated, hillbilly bob. Think about that when you’re crying yourself to sleep over the reeming I’ve give you here. Off with you then.
___________________________________________________
Actually by calling other people stupid you attempt to make you self look smarter and thus better educated. Yet in fact you aren’t that educated as you fail most often in facts. Instead you resort to your ad-hom attacks like calling me hillbilly bob. That isn’t a reaming (note spelling) in any way. It’s little more then cowardly debate. Like I said earlier you offer nothing but strawmen and ad-homs. Those are false argument tactics that can not be rebutted so when people who are intellectually your better don’t stoop to your level you claim to win. But you haven’t really won because you didn’t even play the game. But for you its much more easy to call people functionally retarded then to be intellectually honest. Now I’m done for the day. I have to go buy a few hundred boxes of Stove Top.
Hillbilly bob. Calling you stupid is exactly what it seems to be. You are stupid. It means nothing about me. No one could argue with the fact that you seem to be cognitively impaired. I’ve refuted every argument you’ve made here. The fact that I’ve called you stupid before and after I make my points, has nothing to do with the obvious fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again:
Wrong Moho. Try looking up the conditions of European peasants, their rights, etc. just slavery by another name. Also going further back the institution of slavery in Rome included people of every race. Look up the legal status of Saxons after the Norman conquest of England
You must distinguish between slavery in history, and the kind of slavery practiced in the US for nearly two centuries. Chattel slavery meant that African Americans could in most cases never be free, they had no control over their families or even their bodies. Indentured servitude had limitations, the children of servants were born free. When you make these links, you take what had nothing to do with you–slavery–and make it part of your heritage, to be defended as if it were your culture. When you do that, you are placing yourself in a line of slave holders, not in the line of people who opposed it. Its your choice.
73. Dave Surls:
“In Maine and Vermont, felons can vote from prison”
Probably explains why those states aren’t Republican strongholds anymore.
“What doesn’t follow is that excluding an entire population from the blessings of liberty is somehow not racist, or indeed, was seeking to fight racism. Only a complete retard–or indeed, someone so steeped in racism that they are unaware of what they are actually writing–would seek to prove that.”
———-
Moho, I was focusing on your argument, but I will, here, now, acknowledge that you do have a keen sense of the obvious. We all know that slavery was a fact. That you think triumphantly announcing this a devastating blow is, well, sad.
My point — as anyone reading in good faith knows — was specifically about the 3/5s. No reputable historian will dispute that its intent was to limit the expansion of slavery. It was, indeed, a compromise, but a compromise without which the Constitution almost certainly would not have been ratified.
You, Moho, are like a child who has found an old bugle. You have learned to blow one note on it — badly — and so imagine yourself a bugler. You’re not. To your ongoing embarrassment. Which only you cannot see.
Why do I continue to joust with a blind fool sitting backward on a pig? Because he’s annoying me, and the pig. And, yes, I have now indulged in AD HOMINEM. I’m entitled.
You anti-gun freaks are so predictable! Slavery? 3/5 of a person? That has something to do with “smart guns”? GTFO! It’s easy to grow the Lenin beard but believe me, you’ll never be more than a useful idot.