Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.
The second amendment doesn't mention muskets.
But it mentions "arms", and the musket was about the best you could do at the time, therefore that's what "arms" meant. One or two new refinements have been invented since then vastly affecting both accuracy and impact (see also post 23) which means what the Founders were describing and what exists today are vastly different technologies capable of vastly different things.
It is impossible, then or now, to write laws or constitutions for technology that does not at the time of writing exist.
One might add, "duh".
Oh sorry, you were saying something about "stupid"? Do go on.![]()
But it mentions "arms",
Thanks, glad you agree it didn't mention muskets.
It is impossible, then or now, to write laws or constitutions for technology that does not at the time of writing exist.
The government can restrict speech on the internet, because the technology is new?
Oh sorry, you were saying something about "stupid"?
Yeah, liberals are stupid.