65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

I think an even higher percentage agree with justice Scalia that we can put restrictions and conditions on gun ownership......the background check restriction unanimity suggests that there is more in common than the alleged zero sum game of win everything....or lose everything......the middle is comfortable, and allows folks to keep their guns, and promotes improved safety.

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

Actually, quite the contrary;

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Sal wrote:Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

Actually, quite the contrary;

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

*********************************************************

Very Interesting . . . . . learned something!

2seaoat wrote:I think an even higher percentage agree with justice Scalia that we can put restrictions and conditions on gun ownership......the background check restriction unanimity suggests that there is more in common than the alleged zero sum game of win everything....or lose everything......the middle is comfortable, and allows folks to keep their guns, and promotes improved safety.

There have been restrictions and conditions on gun ownership for decades, it is nothing new. Scalia’s opinion that the Second Amendment is not unlimited is simply stating historical rulings that have upheld various limitations but it does not go as far as to define what those limitations are, it just gives examples.

What this decision did was define a definite answer on whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, it also protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. Also look at McDonald VS Chicago, this case further defined the right to bear arms at the state and local level because what Chicago had done was require all firearms to be registered then refused to register any firearms effectively banning firearms. The Heller case was more about a Federal Enclave denying an individual the right to bear arms than it was about limitations.

You do realize that in the Heller vs DC case that the requirement for trigger locks was considered unconstitutional and in violation of the second amendment as it pertains to self-defense. Which means any type of trigger lock (Biometric trigger locks included) will face a court challenge where a precedent has already been set by the Supreme Court that ruled them unconstitutional.

You do realize that in the Heller vs DC case that the requirement for trigger locks was considered unconstitutional and in violation of the second amendment as it pertains to self-defense. Which means any type of trigger lock (Biometric trigger locks included) will face a court challenge where a precedent has already been set by the Supreme Court that ruled them unconstitutional.


I disagree. There is absolutely no constitutional constraint on requiring trigger locks, and you jump from the overbroad DC law to a specific conclusion which in fact was not the stated position of the court. I agree anybody can file a lawsuit. However, a properly drafted gun safety restrictions which is backed by sound scientific evidence that trigger locks save lives, when put into a proper context will allow congress to pass the same and in fact the Supreme Court will support the same. There absolutely is no precedent which bars congress from passing a safety law which involves trigger locks......none.

I would argue that Congress would only need to meet the rational basis test, but after congressional hearings and proper review of the data, they can easily meet the compelling state interest test, which is a higher standard afforded to fundamental rights, or in this case a right specifically set out in the second amendment.

There's not much of a constitutional constraint to issue any govt control anymore... the real tragedy in this progression/progressivism imo is that as new generations have been brought up under this ideology and more will now know less and less liberty that what were constraints have been educated out of us. The constitution is nearly meaningless at this point.

....and SAL finds a way to play the race card...again.

2seaoat wrote:
I disagree. There is absolutely no constitutional constraint on requiring trigger locks, and you jump from the overbroad DC law to a specific conclusion which in fact was not the stated position of the court. I agree anybody can file a lawsuit. However, a properly drafted gun safety restrictions which is backed by sound scientific evidence that trigger locks save lives, when put into a proper context will allow congress to pass the same and in fact the Supreme Court will support the same. There absolutely is no precedent which bars congress from passing a safety law which involves trigger locks......none.

I would argue that Congress would only need to meet the rational basis test, but after congressional hearings and proper review of the data, they can easily meet the compelling state interest test, which is a higher standard afforded to fundamental rights, or in this case a right specifically set out in the second amendment.

This "overbroad DC" law was at the heart of the case. So much so it was clarified in the Supreme Court decision and was found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So is this not the stated position of the court, isn't the Supreme Court the authority on the interpretation of the constitution.

So yes a precedent has been set and it is defined in the decision. So when someone passes a law that requires every firearm you own to have a trigger lock there is a precedent to challenge that law. Not to mention what this case affirmed was the Second Amendment is the law of the land and a federal enclave, state, or city can not pass a law infringing on the second amendment and a trigger lock infringes on that right or at least the Supreme Court seems to think it does.


(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Seaoat's mind is made up. He won't rescind his opinion despite FACTS being presented.

Sal wrote:Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

Actually, quite the contrary;

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

[url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery[/quote[/url]]

Sal and the Dem idiots including Danny THE RACIST Glover are on a roll today:



http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582

Sal,

Interesting opinion piece. I say opinion piece since this was written by Thom Hartman a progressive talk show host (yeah he really is a talk show host) and this was "his" research that concluded "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery" (remember folks he is a talk show host). So it begs the question. Is this more progressive revisionist history bullshit again? This guy is a die hard progressive (a.k.a. liberal), you think there is any chance he is full of shit and has done this to simply sell more books (oh yeah he is an author as well)?

Seaoat's mind is made up. He won't rescind his opinion despite FACTS being presented.

I am probably more familiar with this case than anybody on this forum.....I did not misspeak. I have consistently talked about trigger locks, chips, dynamic foid cards and control modules in vehicles because in fact I know these cases. First, please read the cases very carefully.....please look at the clear insertion.....as applied to self defense. Please read very carefully my discussion of the rational basis test and compelling state interest test and understand them before you try to interpret a case by simply reading into something which is not there.

First, we are not talking of requiring a gun to be taken apart. This is logical, and the government would be rendering a person without defense.....the supreme court is clear.....however.....nowhere does the Supreme Court ban biometric trigger locks which in no way hinder the use of a trigger by a person authorized to use that weapon. Biometric finger identification system allow for instant firing of the weapon, but more importantly the reason I have focused on the automobile as the control point is the very argument raised from the link I provided on the history of the second amendment going back to middle ages in England. However, to tie a bad and poorly written bill in DC which banned handguns and basically made a homeowner take their gun apart, or delay that person from using it in defense of their home......well we all can agree the Supreme Court is correct.

A biometric trigger locks which meets the compelling state interest test is available today, and the stats can back its safety and if congress passed the same, it would have unanimous support from the court because it would meet the test of Heller. More importantly the reason that I chose the nexus of gun safety at the vehicle level is that the Supreme Court has consistently used the rational basis test, and not the compelling state interest test when applying the same to conditions and privileges for driving......with weapons.

No Heller and Mac corrected overreach when hand guns were banned in their entirety, and when regulations hindered the core concept of self defense, and a non intrusive biometric trigger lock which only allows authorized folks to shoot the same are consistent with Heller, will not be overturned, and are smart and the proper course for this nation. I bet in five years we will be close to my model.....and biometric trigger locks will be part of that solution.

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat's mind is made up. He won't rescind his opinion despite FACTS being presented.

I am probably more familiar with this case than anybody on this forum.....I did not misspeak. I have consistently talked about trigger locks, chips, dynamic foid cards and control modules in vehicles because in fact I know these cases. First, please read the cases very carefully.....please look at the clear insertion.....as applied to self defense. Please read very carefully my discussion of the rational basis test and compelling state interest test and understand them before you try to interpret a case by simply reading into something which is not there.

First, we are not talking of requiring a gun to be taken apart. This is logical, and the government would be rendering a person without defense.....the supreme court is clear.....however.....nowhere does the Supreme Court ban biometric trigger locks which in no way hinder the use of a trigger by a person authorized to use that weapon. Biometric finger identification system allow for instant firing of the weapon, but more importantly the reason I have focused on the automobile as the control point is the very argument raised from the link I provided on the history of the second amendment going back to middle ages in England. However, to tie a bad and poorly written bill in DC which banned handguns and basically made a homeowner take their gun apart, or delay that person from using it in defense of their home......well we all can agree the Supreme Court is correct.

A biometric trigger locks which meets the compelling state interest test is available today, and the stats can back its safety and if congress passed the same, it would have unanimous support from the court because it would meet the test of Heller. More importantly the reason that I chose the nexus of gun safety at the vehicle level is that the Supreme Court has consistently used the rational basis test, and not the compelling state interest test when applying the same to conditions and privileges for driving......with weapons.

No Heller and Mac corrected overreach when hand guns were banned in their entirety, and when regulations hindered the core concept of self defense, and a non intrusive biometric trigger lock which only allows authorized folks to shoot the same are consistent with Heller, will not be overturned, and are smart and the proper course for this nation. I bet in five years we will be close to my model.....and biometric trigger locks will be part of that solution.

I'll bite Seaoat...



What additional cost does a biometric trigger add in for the consumer?

My biometric control to open my computer 10 years ago cost $59 from a company call digitalpersona......I believe. My guess, as I have argued since the shooting, that it will take about a decade to properly implement the safety measures in vehicles and guns. The biometric trigger locks are available today. If the government gave a simple 100% tax credit on each trigger lock which was approved, my guess the initial cost would be under $100 per gun with a dollar for dollar credit at tax time.

Biometric controls have limits to the number of people approved. I had 10 fingers which I could register. My wife took five and I took five. A gun tied into a foid card, biometric trigger, and properly chipped would cut unauthorized and immediate shootings down dramatically. My guess in a decade between guns and vehicles we could save 25k people a year. Again, if you read my original proposal, I am not asking to ban guns, but simply keep guns in authorized hands. The idea that any of the recent Supreme Court cases will stop this march to safety is absurd. Poorly written arrogant laws which do not work are properly overturned by the court. Please do not misread, however the courts clearly will allow restrictions and conditions ....they will....they always have been allowed, but the state must show a compelling state interest usually which well thought out and simple statute....and the integration of state of the art technology which gets us where we have to go. The problem is that it must be gun owners, and those who love guns leading in this march to sanity....not gun merchants, or people who have never fired a weapon.

knothead wrote:

Sal wrote:Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

Actually, quite the contrary;

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

*********************************************************

Very Interesting . . . . . learned something!

Something false...but not surprising you chugged down the Kool Aid.

Something false...but not surprising you chugged down the Kool Aid.




I would agree with you if it was offered as the whole answer....it is but one part of the answer.....nonetheless an important component, but the English traditions must be factored in which deal with the use of militias to challenge the king, the core concept of self defense, and a very angry group of colonist who had been abused by standing armies whose leaders had selectively taken away the rights of certain people to own arms....particularly catholics....as a means of controlling a portion of the population.....no there are many considerations which bring us answers to the 2nd amendment.....all of which are not too relevant, unless the US Supreme Court puts its faith in one of the many parts of what made up the 2nd amendment. Right now the standard is self defense....a concept going back to middle age England, and one that the Courts have been affirming and limiting governments right to ban.....but conditions and restrictions have always been on the table and Congress must be precise....they must foremost have honest sportsmen involved in the process....not gun merchants as the main impetus......common sense will prevail.

2seaoat wrote:Something false...but not surprising you chugged down the Kool Aid.




I would agree with you if it was offered as the whole answer....it is but one part of the answer.....nonetheless an important component, but the English traditions must be factored in which deal with the use of militias to challenge the king, the core concept of self defense, and a very angry group of colonist who had been abused by standing armies whose leaders had selectively taken away the rights of certain people to own arms....particularly catholics....as a means of controlling a portion of the population.....no there are many considerations which bring us answers to the 2nd amendment.....all of which are not too relevant, unless the US Supreme Court puts its faith in one of the many parts of what made up the 2nd amendment. Right now the standard is self defense....a concept going back to middle age England, and one that the Courts have been affirming and limiting governments right to ban.....but conditions and restrictions have always been on the table and Congress must be precise....they must foremost have honest sportsmen involved in the process....not gun merchants as the main impetus......common sense will prevail.

We have a POTUS who thinks he is King unfortunately.

2seaoat wrote:My biometric control to open my computer 10 years ago cost $59 from a company call digitalpersona......I believe. My guess, as I have argued since the shooting, that it will take about a decade to properly implement the safety measures in vehicles and guns. The biometric trigger locks are available today. If the government gave a simple 100% tax credit on each trigger lock which was approved, my guess the initial cost would be under $100 per gun with a dollar for dollar credit at tax time.

Biometric controls have limits to the number of people approved. I had 10 fingers which I could register. My wife took five and I took five. A gun tied into a foid card, biometric trigger, and properly chipped would cut unauthorized and immediate shootings down dramatically. My guess in a decade between guns and vehicles we could save 25k people a year. Again, if you read my original proposal, I am not asking to ban guns, but simply keep guns in authorized hands. The idea that any of the recent Supreme Court cases will stop this march to safety is absurd. Poorly written arrogant laws which do not work are properly overturned by the court. Please do not misread, however the courts clearly will allow restrictions and conditions ....they will....they always have been allowed, but the state must show a compelling state interest usually which well thought out and simple statute....and the integration of state of the art technology which gets us where we have to go. The problem is that it must be gun owners, and those who love guns leading in this march to sanity....not gun merchants, or people who have never fired a weapon.

How do we go about changing the perameters of the trigger lock if I decide to sell and would it be worth the cost?

We agree on something...not much but this I can agree on if I can put the biometric print of my household members on the gun for use. I am not for grandfathering that in though. I have too many weapons at 59 bucks a pop to do this with.

How do we go about changing the perameters of the trigger lock if I decide to sell and would it be worth the cost?


I think a simple software program, and the use of your foid card would probably allow it to be done simply. On my biometric fingerprint control, I could pull the software up and used a password. I would suggest that any transfer of a firearm would require it to be chipped, biometric trigger lock, and work in conjunction with your dynamic foid card. Otherwise a burglar would only have to crack your password, or there would be programs which are available today which can eventually crack a password. The dynamic foid card, and password protection would give another level of protection.

I would imagine a person would have to have a foid card to be registered on the trigger lock. There would have to be some training programs for very young kids, and more than one kind of foid card. I would imagine, that I would simply use a USB connect to my computer which has a internet connection. I would plug in the trigger lock which would transmit the chipped information and update my foid card to recognize the weapon. This would be done with the card readers you can now put on your phone to run credit cards. Once there has been review of the chipped information so that we are not dealing with a stolen weapon, then the code would be downloaded into the trigger lock and then prints could be recorded and updated for all family members who have updated their foid, and then it is simple recognition of that family member.

When a person sells the weapon, again the chipped weapon is connected to a computer which has internet connection, after a person has applied for the proper background check, and then the foid card would be updated, and then the biometric trigger lock. This is not technology which is 10 years into the future....it is available today. What we are missing is actual gun owners committing to the process to make guns safer......so we have boneheaded laws and then say gun safety does not work.......it will work when gun owners merge technology with common sense.....not being dictated to by folks who have never fired a gun. Nobody is taking my gun away....nobody is controlling me......but I have no problem making the operation of my guns exclusive to myself and those I authorize.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Something false...but not surprising you chugged down the Kool Aid.




I would agree with you if it was offered as the whole answer....it is but one part of the answer.....nonetheless an important component, but the English traditions must be factored in which deal with the use of militias to challenge the king, the core concept of self defense, and a very angry group of colonist who had been abused by standing armies whose leaders had selectively taken away the rights of certain people to own arms....particularly catholics....as a means of controlling a portion of the population.....no there are many considerations which bring us answers to the 2nd amendment.....all of which are not too relevant, unless the US Supreme Court puts its faith in one of the many parts of what made up the 2nd amendment. Right now the standard is self defense....a concept going back to middle age England, and one that the Courts have been affirming and limiting governments right to ban.....but conditions and restrictions have always been on the table and Congress must be precise....they must foremost have honest sportsmen involved in the process....not gun merchants as the main impetus......common sense will prevail.

We have a POTUS who thinks he is King unfortunately.

Sad and dangerous but true!