And Then They Came For Your Guns: Holder Wants 'Smart Gun' Bracelets...

[RoadVirus]

Attorney General Eric Holder wants to explore “common sense” gun reforms, like mandating that gun owners would have to wear bracelets before they could activate their firearms.

We should "explore" this kind of bracelet for people who come up with silly, unconstitutional ideas like that.

Yeah! We should arrest people who say things we don't like!!!

Oh wait...

Holder isn't just saying things we don't like. He is saying things that is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[MrMax]

We should "explore" this kind of bracelet for people who come up with silly, unconstitutional ideas like that.

Yeah! We should arrest people who say things we don't like!!!

Oh wait...

Holder isn't just saying things we don't like. He is saying things that is a violation of the Constitution.

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

 

[Iceweasel]

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

Maybe because he's not that stupid? Where is the ruling that says it's a violation? The Constitution doesn't specify what arms you can have or not have, it's left up to the states. The states that disallow it are the ones violating the Constitution.

As far as Holder, he is a radical and is using his office to help his friends and hurt his enemies. Which is why Obama put him there. The media helps as much as they can but Americans are waking up to the corruption going on.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think finger print scanning sounds like a decent idea.

OK, under two conditions: it is absolutely 100% reliable, and all police officers are subject to it at all times.

nope i will stay with the non electronic ones

 

[MrMax]

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

Maybe because he's not that stupid? Where is the ruling that says it's a violation? The Constitution doesn't specify what arms you can have or not have, it's left up to the states. The states that disallow it are the ones violating the Constitution.

As far as Holder, he is a radical and is using his office to help his friends and hurt his enemies. Which is why Obama put him there. The media helps as much as they can but Americans are waking up to the corruption going on.

I doubt that you could find even one state that would allow ordinary people to own a nuke. LOL.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

Maybe because he's not that stupid? Where is the ruling that says it's a violation? The Constitution doesn't specify what arms you can have or not have, it's left up to the states. The states that disallow it are the ones violating the Constitution.

As far as Holder, he is a radical and is using his office to help his friends and hurt his enemies. Which is why Obama put him there. The media helps as much as they can but Americans are waking up to the corruption going on.

I doubt that you could find even one state that would allow ordinary people to own a nuke. LOL.

maybe in Kansas which will be home

to the first privately held nuclear weapons factory

 

[paulitician]

Oh so its not happening yet but its gonna happen some day...one of these days

'Death by a Thousand Cuts.' Slowly and incrementally. But most have caught on now. You Communist Globalists are gonna lose. Bet on that.

You are truly the king of repeating yourself verbatim, over and over again. You and healthmyths are neck and neck for the title.

Yet you hang on my every word and frequent every one of my threads. Go figure? You know, no one forces you to come to my threads. Capisce.

 

[OKTexas]

Holder needs a corn cob broken off in his ass.

He acts like someone already did.

 

[OKTexas]

When they have weapons like that protecting the president, then get back to me.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When they have weapons like that protecting the president, then get back to me.

Why?

 

[paulitician]

When they have weapons like that protecting the president, then get back to me.

These absurdities are only meant for the little people. You can bet Big Brother ain't giving up his weapons anytime soon. It's all part of the NWO Global Elite agenda. They just wanna make sure the little people can't defend themselves. Disarming Citizens is a huge part of their agenda.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

Your argument here can only hold water if the 2nd Amendment protects the rtight to own these weapons.
Show that to be the case.

 

[Pheonixops]

Another pathetic Communist Globalist attack on law abiding American Citizens. Why is Eric Holder still our Nation's Attorney General? He should be wearing an orange jumpsuit by now. He's a criminal. Brian Terry's family still hasn't seen any real justice for their son's brutal murder. Holder should have been held accountable for his involvement. And now this absurdity...


Attorney General Eric Holder wants to explore “common sense” gun reforms, like mandating that gun owners would have to wear bracelets before they could activate their firearms.

Holder made his remarks while testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations committee on Friday. He acknowledged the existence of the Second Amendment, which gives people the unqualified right to own and carry weapons, but nevertheless expressed support for several gun control measures that he described as “common sense reforms,” according to The Washington Free Beacon.

“One of the things we learned when we were trying to pass those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how guns can be made more safe by making them either though fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon,” said Holder, referring to so-called “smart gun” technology.

“It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights while at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things we see on a daily basis, where people, kids especially, are struck down.”

A smart gun requires the shooter to be wearing a bracelet or watch with an RFID chip that communicates with the gun and allows it to fire. (RELATED: ‘Smart gun’ would require shooter to be wearing watch before firing)

The National Rifle Association opposes such technology, writing last year that “we are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire.”

Holder’s testimony concerned the Department of Justice’s budget requests for fiscal year 2014...

Read more: Eric Holder wants gun owners to wear 'smart gun' bracelets | The Daily Caller

In one case it sounds "nice" as far as "gun safety", but it's totally not practical and can make such a thing open to an infringement on certain rights. I disagree with his stance, luckily, I think for such a thing to be mandatory, it would have to pass through Congress. I'm sure that there would be many local, state, and federal court cases challenging such a mandatory act.
If it was voluntary and people want to partake in such a thing; more power to them.

 

[Pheonixops]

I think finger print scanning sounds like a decent idea.

How many finger prints would it be able to scan? What if one of your guests needed to defend themselves while you are away and they tried to use the weapon but it didn't fire? They would be victims instead of survivors. I think it's fine if people want to use it and it doesn't become a law that makes people who don't want to use it, use it.

 

[Wyld Kard]

 

[MrMax]

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

Your argument here can only hold water if the 2nd Amendment protects the rtight to own these weapons.
Show that to be the case.

The 2nd amendment doesn't pick and choose. Now you know.

 

[Jackson]

Holder wants smart gun bracelets...we want a smart fair Attorney General. Deal.

 

[Iceweasel]

Holder wants smart gun bracelets...we want a smart fair Attorney General. Deal.

And I want to see him in ankle bracelets.

 

[paulitician]

Holder wants smart gun bracelets...we want a smart fair Attorney General. Deal.

And I want to see him in ankle bracelets.

He's a corrupt Communist piece of shit. He should have been arrested for Brian Terry's murder. He is complicit. I won't be satisfied until i see him in cuffs and orange jumpsuit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your constitutional rights are already violated: you can't buy any kind of arms that you want, ex. nukes, cruise missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, ground to air missiles... Yet, you don't raise a fuss about that. Why not?

Your argument here can only hold water if the 2nd Amendment protects the rtight to own these weapons.
Show that to be the case.

The 2nd amendment doesn't pick and choose. Now you know.

If that's your argument to show the 2nd protects all of the weapons you mentioned, a condition necessary for your argument to hold any water, then you have failed miserably.

I chalk it up to your ignorance of the subject matter; if that ignorance is wullfull or not is another question.

Feel free to try again.