Neato- gun nuts threatening gun dealer over selling new gun!

[EVT1]

Unbelievable...

     On Thursday night, Raymond lashed out on Facebook against protestors who he says have made death threats against him, his family and even his dog, reports Bethesda Magazine. That Facebook post has since been taken down, but his video explaining his decision can be found on YouTube.

     “How can the NRA or people want to prohibit a gun when we’re supposed to be pro-gun? We’re supposed to say that any gun is good in the right person’s hands. How can they say a gun should be prohibited? How hypocritical is that? … If you’re pro-gun, does it matter what kind of gun the person has?"

     Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, had said earlier this week that offering the Armatix iP1 handgun was a “really tough decision” after what happened to the Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles. The California club was criticized by gun owners and National Rifle Association members who fear the new technology will be mandated and will encroach on Second Amendment rights, reports The Washington Post.

     Electronic chips in the gun communicate with a watch and the gun cannot be fired without the watch.

So the idea of selling a gun that can only be fired by the gun owner is repellant to the NRA- OK got it.

silverspring.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/gun-seller-under-fire-from-gun-owners--for-selling-guns74685

[djAdvocate]

i don't understand why this gun is such a problem for people.  anyone want to explain it to me?

[EVT1]

The problem was a law in one state I think that would mandate the safety features- but rather than attacking the law- they are attacking the technology. 

Some people might like the idea that their child could not fire a weapon in the house- whether it requires a watch, ring, or whatever.  Or even someone that takes their gun from them.  I am sure some cops would like that extra protection as well.  Well, the NRA isn't going to have any of it.

    "NRA recognizes that the 'smart guns' issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the National Rifle Association said on the website of its legislative arm. 
    The gun lobby has cracked down on any move by Armatix to get into stores. That includes a campaign against the Oak Tree Gun Club, a shop in California whose owner agreed to sell the iP1. "It could revolutionize the gun industry," the shop's owner, James Mitchell, told The Washington Post in February. 
     Activists inundated the club with boycott threats, The New York Times reports. They also personally threatened Belinda Padilla, the woman who leads Armatix's American division. The club stopped selling the gun and took down all signage and merchandise related to the company

www.cbsnews.com/news/smart-gun-technology-faces-an-uphill-battle/

[zibazinski]

Wah, wah, wah, a 22 wouldn't kill a mouse. Big whoop. Got his 15 minutes of fame and looks like a pansy in the process.

[billisonboard]

May 3, 2014 13:12:15 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Wah, wah, wah, a 22 wouldn't kill a mouse. Big whoop. Got his 15 minutes of fame and looks like a pansy in the process.

Yeah, ****ing queer obviously doesn't have any balls. Clearly ain't a real man like you zib! 

[EVT1]

Like caliber has anything to do with it

Pretty sure I could kill someone with a .22 with one shot- a mouse doesn't stand a chance.  In fact people are killed with .22 caliber rounds on a regular basis- maybe not a gun of choice- but still quite deadly.

[Deleted]

My only issue with "smart" guns is... when they fail and the owner of the gun CAN'T use it to protect him/her-self.

What happens if the gun has a defective circuit and CAN'T "read" the watch?

[billisonboard]

May 3, 2014 18:12:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

My only issue with "smart" guns is... when they fail and the owner of the gun CAN'T use it to protect him/her-self.

What happens if the gun has a defective circuit and CAN'T "read" the watch?

what happens when a regular gun jams?

[Deleted]

May 3, 2014 18:53:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 3, 2014 18:12:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

My only issue with "smart" guns is... when they fail and the owner of the gun CAN'T use it to protect him/her-self.

What happens if the gun has a defective circuit and CAN'T "read" the watch?

what happens when a regular gun jams?

The same thing that happens when a "smart" gun jams (and, for the record, MOST "jams" in commercially available guns are due to the USER... not a failure of the design of the gun itself).

Please note in my post that I never said "regular" guns were infallible. I just disagree with adding ANOTHER thing that could go wrong.

I think "smart gun" technology isn't failure-proof ENOUGH to introduce it to the world... yet. Make it "body heat powered" or "squeeze powered" (pressure CAN be used to create electricity)... and prove the failure rate to be EXTREMELY low... and then maybe I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

[djAdvocate]

May 3, 2014 18:12:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

My only issue with "smart" guns is... when they fail and the owner of the gun CAN'T use it to protect him/her-self.

What happens if the gun has a defective circuit and CAN'T "read" the watch?

any evidence that this is a serious issue?

and even if it is, why not just let the market sort it out?

saturday night specials are notoriously poor for aiming, and jam regularly.  they still sell.

[Deleted]

There's plenty of evidence that "smart" guns are not ready... yes.

Fortunately however since "smart" guns haven't been "out in the field" in any quantity yet, no, there isn't evidence of it ever being a serious issue... yet.

[EVT1]

What does it matter how 'proven' the technology is? Is that not for the customer to decide? I am sure law enforcement would wait and see before issuing these- but they will want them.  Police officers get shot with their duty weapons on a regular basis.

The tech is really not that big of deal anyway- your cellphone is 10000X as complicated as a simple firing pin interrupt or whatever it is and it is pretty freaking reliable.  The stakes are higher- that's it. 

But- free market be damned- the NRA wants to kill them because they fear a new law- imagine that- the NRA falling prey to the fear they use to keep their membership up.  Not shocking really that an organization based on fear is susceptible to it.

I think they are a great idea- would be nice to know some children could not shoot another one if their parents were lax on the gun safety by simply owning one of these.  This happens far too often and it makes me sick people would fight against it.   

[Deleted]

It's not fear of a new law. It's fear of the failure rate. Guns have enough ways they can fail already (even though such failure is pretty rare... generally). Why add new ways before they are proven reliable.

The biggest fear is that states will mandate these requirements BEFORE that happens.


And I think you may misunderstand me. I think they are a great idea too. I just don't think they are quite ready... yet.

[djAdvocate]

yeah, i am really not getting it.  there are lots of stupid, failure prone guns out there.  but i don't recall that a gun dealer was ever threatened for selling them before.  haven't heard anything yet that explains it.

[EVT1]

May 3, 2014 21:31:39 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's not fear of a new law. It's fear of the failure rate. Guns have enough ways they can fail already (even though such failure is pretty rare... generally). Why add new ways before they are proven reliable.

The biggest fear is that states will mandate these requirements BEFORE that happens.


And I think you may misunderstand me. I think they are a great idea too. I just don't think they are quite ready... yet.

Bullshit- at least as far as the NRA goes. They are worried about gun laws, they could give a shit if it saves lives or what the failure rate may be. They decided to take the choice away from gun buyers.

And if they are iffy- what the hell does anyone care? Is it not up to the CUSTOMER?

Don't see the NRA complaining about their favorite 50 and 100 round magazines that jam all of the time- usually in mass shootings.

Even the murderer on the other thread had his mini-14 jam and had to go to a backup in order to make sure he killed a defenseless teenage girl.  A .22 no less- the one Zib thinks can't kill a mouse . 

I can't think of a single organization that went from a positive to a negative in such a dramatic fashion as the NRA- pretty bad when the majority of gun owners want nothing to do with you.

[Deleted]

And if they are iffy- what the hell does anyone care? Is it not up to the CUSTOMER?

No. And here's why:

If a food is iffy... shouldn't it be up to the customer?
No. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some group or agency that pushed for safety in food... especially in areas that the general public doesn't understand? For that we have the FDA

If a vehicle is iffy... shouldn't it be up to the customer?
No. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some group or agency that pushed for safety in cars... especially in areas that the general public doesn't understand? For that we have the NTSB

And, while I know that the NRA isn't a governmental entity... it IS nice that there's someone out there trying to keep us as safe as possible when it comes to our personal protection choices (the DOJ and the ATF are still in "we need to study" mode about the issue... according to their websites).

[djAdvocate]

May 3, 2014 23:07:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

And if they are iffy- what the hell does anyone care? Is it not up to the CUSTOMER?

No. And here's why:

If a food is iffy... shouldn't it be up to the customer?
No. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some group or agency that pushed for safety in food... especially in areas that the general public doesn't understand? For that we have the FDA

If a vehicle is iffy... shouldn't it be up to the customer?
No. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some group or agency that pushed for safety in cars... especially in areas that the general public doesn't understand? For that we have the NTSB

And, while I know that the NRA isn't a governmental entity... it IS nice that there's someone out there trying to keep us as safe as possible when it comes to our personal protection choices (the DOJ and the ATF are still in "we need to study" mode about the issue... according to their websites).

LOL!  ok, this strikes me as hilarious for TWO reasons:

1) the NRA had nothing to do with scaring the jezeebus out of that arms dealer
2) the NRA spends a fair amount of time UNDERMINING weapons safety, not "enforcing" it.

of course, you were not talking about weapon's safety here, but that made it even more ironic.

[Deleted]

1) I never said they did... did I? Nope. I was responding to EVT1's comment about the NRA.

2) The NRA never has undermined weapon safety (not sure where you got that BS). They are all about safe and responsible gun ownership.

And yes... I was talking about weapon safety... as in: the proper functioning of it so it is able to be used as intended to help save your life and the life of the ones in your home or anywhere else you feel the need for self defense.



If you want to talk about irony... there it is for you. It's ironic that you didn't see that... considering it was stated fairly clearly.



ETA: Ohhh... and just for the record, I'm actually NOT a member of the NRA. So don't try going with some BS "well what do you expect from a member of the NRA"...

I'm happy to defend anyone that's provably being slandered/libeled.

[truthbound]

May 3, 2014 6:37:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Unbelievable...

     On Thursday night, Raymond lashed out on Facebook against protestors who he says have made death threats against him, his family and even his dog, reports Bethesda Magazine. That Facebook post has since been taken down, but his video explaining his decision can be found on YouTube.

     “How can the NRA or people want to prohibit a gun when we’re supposed to be pro-gun? We’re supposed to say that any gun is good in the right person’s hands. How can they say a gun should be prohibited? How hypocritical is that? … If you’re pro-gun, does it matter what kind of gun the person has?"

     Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, had said earlier this week that offering the Armatix iP1 handgun was a “really tough decision” after what happened to the Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles. The California club was criticized by gun owners and National Rifle Association members who fear the new technology will be mandated and will encroach on Second Amendment rights, reports The Washington Post.

     Electronic chips in the gun communicate with a watch and the gun cannot be fired without the watch.

So the idea of selling a gun that can only be fired by the gun owner is repellant to the NRA- OK got it.

silverspring.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/gun-seller-under-fire-from-gun-owners--for-selling-guns74685

Wow. You are copying and pasting on the different forums under all kinds of user names aren't you?

[mmhmm]

May 4, 2014 4:11:20 GMT -5 truthbound said:

May 3, 2014 6:37:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Unbelievable...

     On Thursday night, Raymond lashed out on Facebook against protestors who he says have made death threats against him, his family and even his dog, reports Bethesda Magazine. That Facebook post has since been taken down, but his video explaining his decision can be found on YouTube.

     “How can the NRA or people want to prohibit a gun when we’re supposed to be pro-gun? We’re supposed to say that any gun is good in the right person’s hands. How can they say a gun should be prohibited? How hypocritical is that? … If you’re pro-gun, does it matter what kind of gun the person has?"

     Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, had said earlier this week that offering the Armatix iP1 handgun was a “really tough decision” after what happened to the Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles. The California club was criticized by gun owners and National Rifle Association members who fear the new technology will be mandated and will encroach on Second Amendment rights, reports The Washington Post.

     Electronic chips in the gun communicate with a watch and the gun cannot be fired without the watch.

So the idea of selling a gun that can only be fired by the gun owner is repellant to the NRA- OK got it.

silverspring.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/gun-seller-under-fire-from-gun-owners--for-selling-guns74685

Wow. You are copying and pasting on the different forums under all kinds of user names aren't you?

If you mean on this message board, truthbound, you are incorrect.  We do not allow multiple aliases on this board and we are very proactive about it.  We also don't allow posters to accuse others of having multiple aliases, as there's no way you could possibly know that.  It's a spurious accusation and has no place here.

mmhmm, Administrator

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2014 2:50:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

1) I never said they did... did I? Nope. I was responding to EVT1's comment about the NRA.

2) The NRA never has undermined weapon safety (not sure where you got that BS).

by closely observing them.

They are all about safe and responsible gun ownership.

they are about safe OPERATION of firearms.  they never have been (if we stick to the last century) about safe armaments.  banning unsafe weapons, and common sense things like trigger locks have been fought vigorously.

And yes... I was talking about weapon safety... as in: the proper functioning of it so it is able to be used as intended to help save your life and the life of the ones in your home or anywhere else you feel the need for self defense.

a saturday night special is basically a useless weapon.  show me that the NRA is opposed to owning them, and i will concede the point.

If you want to talk about irony... there it is for you. It's ironic that you didn't see that... considering it was stated fairly clearly.

i don't think you are using the term irony properly.  i don't see any irony in misunderstanding.

ETA: Ohhh... and just for the record, I'm actually NOT a member of the NRA. So don't try going with some BS "well what do you expect from a member of the NRA"...

neither am i, but i used to be.  there is no shame in being an NRA member.

I'm happy to defend anyone that's provably being slandered/libeled.

cool.  it is nice to know that someone will be rise to my defense when i am slandered on this board. 

[EVT1]

May 4, 2014 10:03:05 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 4, 2014 4:11:20 GMT -5 truthbound said:

Wow. You are copying and pasting on the different forums under all kinds of user names aren't you?

If you mean on this message board, truthbound, you are incorrect.  We do not allow multiple aliases on this board and we are very proactive about it.  We also don't allow posters to accuse others of having multiple aliases, as there's no way you could possibly know that.  It's a spurious accusation and has no place here.

mmhmm, Administrator

Only have time for one message board.  If the poster thinks I post on others let them show the evidence- I would love to see it  

[EVT1]

So when is the NRA going to step up and go after manufacturers of cheap ammo that jam weapons

When are they going to step up and ban the high capacity magazines that jam weapons?

All about the safety folks   Like guns in bars

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2014 11:23:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So when is the NRA going to step up and go after manufacturers of cheap ammo that jam weapons

When are they going to step up and ban the high capacity magazines that jam weapons?

All about the safety folks   Like guns in bars

there are guns marketed out there that can't hit a target at 10', that jam after repeated use, and that are pretty much useless for anything other than suicide.  when people have sought to ban those weapons, the NRA has fought them.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2014 11:08:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 4, 2014 2:50:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

1) I never said they did... did I? Nope. I was responding to EVT1's comment about the NRA.

2) The NRA never has undermined weapon safety (not sure where you got that BS).

by closely observing them.

They are all about safe and responsible gun ownership.

they are about safe OPERATION of firearms.  they never have been (if we stick to the last century) about safe armaments.  banning unsafe weapons, and common sense things like trigger locks have been fought vigorously.

And yes... I was talking about weapon safety... as in: the proper functioning of it so it is able to be used as intended to help save your life and the life of the ones in your home or anywhere else you feel the need for self defense.

a saturday night special is basically a useless weapon.  show me that the NRA is opposed to owning them, and i will concede the point.

If you want to talk about irony... there it is for you. It's ironic that you didn't see that... considering it was stated fairly clearly.

i don't think you are using the term irony properly.  i don't see any irony in misunderstanding.

ETA: Ohhh... and just for the record, I'm actually NOT a member of the NRA. So don't try going with some BS "well what do you expect from a member of the NRA"...

neither am i, but i used to be.  there is no shame in being an NRA member.

I'm happy to defend anyone that's provably being slandered/libeled.

cool.  it is nice to know that someone will be rise to my defense when i am slandered on this board. 

If I know facts that can back up that defense... I will happily defend the truth. Always have. Always will. 

As to the irony I saw... it was ironic that you saw irony in my comments when there wasn't any.
Irony: (noun) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

A "Saturday Night Special" isn't a useless weapon if used as intended. You aren't supposed to be able to be accurate with it at distance. It's SUPPOSED to be a "close in, face-to-face, self defense" weapon. They are also designed to be "cheap, dispose of after use, let the police keep it for evidence - I'll just go buy another one" guns. If people that buy them, use them in any other manner (or if they get stolen and then sold on the black market)... that's not the fault of the weapon designer/manufacturer.

Also worthy of note: You might want to check out the following link to see what the NRA says about "Saturday Night Specials"... before you state anything about their opinion on them: NRA: SNS Fact Sheet

[Deleted]

May 4, 2014 11:23:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So when is the NRA going to step up and go after manufacturers of cheap ammo that jam weapons

When are they going to step up and ban the high capacity magazines that jam weapons?

All about the safety folks   Like guns in bars

The NRA already opposes dangerous cheap (not to be confused with "inexpensive, because it's on sale, but still quality and safe") ammo.

And there is no justifiable reason for high capacity magazine bans, so why would they support them? "High-capacity" magazines don't jam weapons... improper use of them does.

Not to mention... just what is "high capacity"? Some anti-gun people would have us believe that anything over SIX ROUNDS is "high capacity"... and that's BS.

[EVT1]

Improper use of them? Like shooting up a theater?  Seems to me I read about these things jamming all of the time- of course they are only in the news when used in mass shootings-but pretty strange 'jammed weapon' always seems to be in the story.

IMO there is no justifiable reason to sell them or own them- I think they are ridiculous and support banning them- they are always the go to choice of mass shooters.  Where do we draw the line?  That's debatable, but a 30 round mag in a pistol, or a 50-150 round drum on a rifle fits that description.  There is no legitimate use- just like with machine guns.  Might be fun to shoot but the negatives outweigh making them easily obtainable for any jack ass on a whim with murder on their mind.

Fact remains the NRA is supporting a gun ban- so the 2nd amendment be damned I guess.  Didn't see the '*that are deemed reliable' clause in the Constitution. It's an obvious load of shit. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 3, 2014 22:26:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, i am really not getting it.  there are lots of stupid, failure prone guns out there.  but i don't recall that a gun dealer was ever threatened for selling them before.  haven't heard anything yet that explains it.

They likely see it as a catalyst.

Assume the government has the goal of mandating the technology. Realistically the only way to accomplish this is by first getting the technology into widespread use, falling back to the argument "the technology is already ubiquitous; most owners won't even notice" during the final push. The government can do any number of things to get the technology into widespread use: cost incentives, taxes on non-compliant weapons, regulations targeting non-compliant weapons, government contracts, promotions, advertising, standards selection, etc. It's reasonable to assume that a suitably motivated federal government could push a technology of choice from obscurity to widespread use in relatively short order. And this kind of social engineering can't effectively be opposed in any way. It's too broad, vague, and incremental.

But for this chain of events to be set in motion, the technology first has to achieve some nominal degree of market penetration. This first milestone--to a degree--can be opposed. It's easy enough for opponents to see which gun store owners are trying to introduce the government-backed "Trojan horse" technology, to intimidate them, and to prevent the inception of the technology in the first place.

All of this hinges on the belief that the government has the ultimate goal of mandating the technology. Supposing one holds this belief (and some people obviously do), threatening store owners to keep the "Trojan horse" technology as far away from clueless, socially-manipulated consumers is a sensible course of action. Consider it social counter-engineering.

I don't endorse it, but I understand it.

[Deleted]

May 5, 2014 1:27:29 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Improper use of them? Like shooting up a theater?  Seems to me I read about these things jamming all of the time- of course they are only in the news when used in mass shootings-but pretty strange 'jammed weapon' always seems to be in the story.

IMO there is no justifiable reason to sell them or own them- I think they are ridiculous and support banning them- they are always the go to choice of mass shooters.  Where do we draw the line?  That's debatable, but a 30 round mag in a pistol, or a 50-150 round drum on a rifle fits that description.  There is no legitimate use- just like with machine guns.  Might be fun to shoot but the negatives outweigh making them easily obtainable for any jack ass on a whim with murder on their mind.

Fact remains the NRA is supporting a gun ban- so the 2nd amendment be damned I guess.  Didn't see the '*that are deemed reliable' clause in the Constitution. It's an obvious load of shit. 

Actually, the fact remains that they are supporting an "unproven technology" ban. They are also opposed to the "smart gun" because it is a doorway to more bans on ALL "non-smart" guns.

Get the facts straight before you claim them AS facts.

To save you some time, I will help you in your search for relevant facts about the NRA: Once upon a time they actually were in favor of "gun control" (bet you didn't know that). They stopped being in favor of it when it passed the point of being reasonable and tried going to the point of being extreme.

[Tennesseer]

May 5, 2014 2:15:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 5, 2014 1:27:29 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Improper use of them? Like shooting up a theater?  Seems to me I read about these things jamming all of the time- of course they are only in the news when used in mass shootings-but pretty strange 'jammed weapon' always seems to be in the story.

IMO there is no justifiable reason to sell them or own them- I think they are ridiculous and support banning them- they are always the go to choice of mass shooters.  Where do we draw the line?  That's debatable, but a 30 round mag in a pistol, or a 50-150 round drum on a rifle fits that description.  There is no legitimate use- just like with machine guns.  Might be fun to shoot but the negatives outweigh making them easily obtainable for any jack ass on a whim with murder on their mind.

Fact remains the NRA is supporting a gun ban- so the 2nd amendment be damned I guess.  Didn't see the '*that are deemed reliable' clause in the Constitution. It's an obvious load of shit. 

Actually, the fact remains that they are supporting an "unproven technology" ban. They are also opposed to the "smart gun" because it is a doorway to more bans on ALL "non-smart" guns.

Get the facts straight before you claim them AS facts.

To save you some time, I will help you in your search for relevant facts about the NRA: Once upon a time they actually were in favor of "gun control" (bet you didn't know that). They stopped being in favor of it when it passed the point of being reasonable and tried going to the point of being extreme.

The Black Panthers wouldn't have something to do with that, would it?