Coming soon GPS chips in all guns. Montel Williams

[newmac]

Run time: 02:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiDVxUTXlaU   Posted on YouTube: April 17, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 20, 2009 By DU Member: newmac Views on DU: 4278

 
And Montel does a first class redneck accent..;-)

[doctor jazz]

1. Is he serious?...I can't tell (not familiar with the guy)

if he is, let's take his advice one step further and put a chip in every person so the government will know where we all are. Just in case we might ...you know, break a law.
:eyes:

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. The difference is you can leave your gun behind. It's much harder to do that with your body.

I see this as a good thing if true, and it in no way should pose a problem for people who want to bear arms. In fact, if people want to get their guns back after they've been stolen, it's a total positive. It will only work, though, if there's no way for a thief to disable the chip without rendering the firearm useless.

[doctor jazz]

32. It would open up the same kind of cottage industry as those that disable

catalytic converters, encrypted transmissions, locks, immigration laws, ad nauseum.

[IntravenousDemilo]

40. It seems odd to me that anyone would disable a catalytic converter.

"I'm not going to let some bureaucrat tell me where I can and cannot pollute the air, dammit!" Does a catalytic converter make your car go slower or something?

In any case, to prevent such a cottage industry from forming, they'll just have to find a way to make the chip unassailable, perhaps by linking it directly to the firing mechanism. Bust the chip and the gun is rendered inoperable and thus worthless to any potential buyer.

But it would be much more fun to fix it so the gun would explode in a gigantic fireball if anyone tried to tamper with the GPS.

[doctor jazz]

65. Well, what "seems odd" to you is a very commonplace activity.

Does sex 'seem odd' to you too? (Just wondering how extensive the cave you live in actually is)

[IntravenousDemilo]

73. Well, in my cave, we know why people have sex. It feels good.

But I can see no earthly reason for disabling a catalytic converter. Does it increase your gas mileage? Can you go faster?

[CLANG]

49. Also, let me quote a famous and often used phrase by the right

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what does it matter?"

[TheEuclideanOne]

50. That is beautiful

I will use that when discussing this with a right wingnut that I know that would make Rush Limbaugh seem like a flaming liberal. That is the common justification for letting the government tap into our phones, emails, etc. Of course, now that there is talk of keeping lists of Right Wing extremists, they are not so happy about that, even if it does protect them from Terrists.

[CLANG]

55. The bumfucks just can't figure it out, can they?

:rofl: :rofl: :toast: :toast:

[iamthebandfanman]

56. yeah, just keep telling yourself they are equivalent.

live in ur own world.


seems to work for republicans.

[Hyper_Eye]

2. I like Montel and I see where he is coming from but this is a bad idea.

Then again... when you buy a cell phone you get the same thing pretty much.

[Hulk]

3. A chip in $20, $50, $100 US bills....

I LIKE the idea. Take it a step further. We already have these little strips in our bills to help prevent counterfeiting. Can we insert something that when they are collected in greater numbers than, say 100+, will alert a meter?? This would be extremely helpful in the monitoring of cash flow across the borders for drug payment.

I have NO PROBLEM with sticking a chip in automatic weapons. YES...I think we can know where they are. As for 30.06 rifles and .22 caliber target guns....not necessary. For those weapons that are creating havoc in drug cartels and "nut case owners"....YES!! Let's get a chip in them, similar to the idea with currency. If it crosses the border....PING!! alarm! Do we need to be able to "locate" them? Not really. But we do need to know when they are trafficked.

Get serious, paranoid America. We are just beginning to see the buds of drug cartels exploding in THIS country. What's been going on in Mexico for the past 5-10 years is now in some 260 major US cities, and it won't be long before your shopping mall erupts in a nice gun battle that overwhelms the police forces and murders innocent men, women and children. THEN, maybe then you'll understand a little better.

[poboyross]

6. Automatic weapons require a Class III permit.....

And that requires a much more in depth background check, waiting period, fees, and granting permission for Feds to come to your house anytime they want to check up on it. You cannot buy automatic weapons with ease or in any way comparable to your average firearm, which is semi-automatic. That being the case, a list of guns that "nut case owners" want or buy would be interesting to see. So much is determined by the look, when there are wooden stock equivalents that look like hunting long rifles. Maybe I'll paint mine pink and put glitter and glue on them...maybe some pink puffies hanging from the front.

The AR-15 looks evil (and beautimus, but I digress) but fires a round much weaker and smaller than a 30-06 or 30-30. Take the powder from your 30-06, put it behind your .22 round....that's closer to the power of an AR-15. The look, the color, and the round capacity is what freaks people out for some reason. You can; however, buy AR-15s chambered in .762...which is actually a 308 (can be fired from many 30-30s). The military tried that for a while, but in full auto or 3 shot burst mode, it proved to be near uncontrollable. You have to have a gun with a frame much heavier, in general, to maintain the level of accuracy they wanted....like the B.A.R.

The easy answers that we have are not the ones many want to hear. Put our military at the border, build a significant but efficient wall (and hire Americans to do it...hey, jobs!), and stop putting these cartel guys in prison...use them as the foundations for the new edifice.

The ability to track people's firearms, whether actively used or not, creates another Pandora's box similar to the Patriot Act. Man can never resist opening the doors, ever. The temptation of that kind of power always proves too great.

[X_Digger]

16. George, George, is that you?

You know that you shouldn't hang out here at DU. I know you liked the patriot act, but that kind of talk is what pissed off everyone here.

[rrneck]

4. *sigh*

Who's gonna make sure there are batteries in the GPS? And on and on and on...

[poboyross]

5. Obviously, 22 years in the military didn't improve his common sense.

Montel, why are you shooting rocks? Anyone who shoots for sport or fun knows that is a recipe for multiple types of disaster.

Regarding his suggestion of GPS chips and saying "I wanna know where your AK is at"....*sigh*. That's the point, you shouldn't know where someone's firearms are located at all times. What's the point of the public having ultimate control over there govt. if the govt. has that nuclear option? Besides, let them try to pull some crap like that. All we'll do is wrap them in foil or remove the chip and tie it to a squirrel's arse. Have fun tracking THAT, Montel.

[baldguy]

8. The ultimate control of the people over the govt is through the ballot box, not firepower.

This is a republic.

[rrneck]

18. Ahem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler
The new German citizen ran against Hindenburg, who was supported by a broad range of reactionary nationalist, monarchist, Catholic, republican and even social democratic parties. Also in the field was a Communist candidate and a member of a fringe right-wing party. Hitler's campaign was called "Hitler über Deutschland" (Hitler over Germany).<55> The name had a double meaning; besides a reference to his dictatorial ambitions, it also referred to the fact that he campaigned by aircraft.<55> This was a brand new political tactic that allowed Hitler to speak in two cities in one day, which was practically unheard of at the time. Hitler came in second on both rounds, attaining more than 35% of the vote during the second one in April. Although he lost to Hindenburg, the election established Hitler as a realistic alternative in German politics.

How many times does this have to be pointed out?

[baldguy]

37. Godwinning is only allowed when you're talking about ACTUAL NAZIS.

People who advocate sane & rational gun laws are NOT Nazis.

The Nazis never confiscated guns from the general populace and the average German gun owner in 1933 supported Hitler & was perfectly happy with his policies. The very reason for this was because the Weimar Republic failed.

If the American Republic fails and an unrepresentative govt decides to turn our $600 billion/yr military on its own citizens your pop-gun won't help you stay free.


How many times does this have to be pointed out?

[rrneck]

52. I'll repost a portion of the post to which you replied for your convience,

Hitler came in second on both rounds, attaining more than 35% of the vote during the second one in April. Although he lost to Hindenburg, the election established Hitler as a realistic alternative in German politics.

I didn't say anything about gun confisication. Hitler was a successful politician before he was a dictator.

You don't seem to understand that prevailing against the United States military is not the point. Nobody harbors any illusions in that regard. You are clearly blinded by your unthinking partisanship and lack of respect for gun owners.

After eight years of free speech zones, the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and the quiet acquiescence of over half the American public to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration when they were clearly tending toward fascist dictatorship given the chance, the republic will (hopefully) survive. The possibility of a government run amok has always been very remote, and fortunately is less so now. Good for us.

The power of a weapon is not necessarily in its physical properties. In the hands of someone who values his or her freedom it sends an important message to the powers that be or to anyone else who would do them harm.

It says, "I don't give up."

And that is being pointed out about 250 million times at last count.

If you are afraid of exercising your constitutional rights that's fine with me. I hope you can defend yourself from assault better than you can read.

[baldguy]

60. You bring Hitler into a conversation about guns, then insist it doesn't apply?

What's your point in bringing him up then?

[rrneck]

63. Read, and there is a question pending.

baldguy
8. The ultimate control of the people over the govt is through the ballot box, not firepower. This is a republic.

rrneck
18. Ahem... The new German citizen ran against Hindenburg, who was supported by a broad range of reactionary nationalist, monarchist, Catholic, republican and even social democratic parties. Also in the field was a Communist candidate and a member of a fringe right-wing party. Hitler's campaign was called "Hitler über Deutschland" (Hitler over Germany).<55> The name had a double meaning; besides a reference to his dictatorial ambitions, it also referred to the fact that he campaigned by aircraft.<55> This was a brand new political tactic that allowed Hitler to speak in two cities in one day, which was practically unheard of at the time. Hitler came in second on both rounds, attaining more than 35% of the vote during the second one in April. Although he lost to Hindenburg, the election established Hitler as a realistic alternative in German politics.

How many times does this have to be pointed out?


baldguy
37. Godwinning is only allowed when you're talking about ACTUAL NAZIS.People who advocate sane & rational gun laws are NOT Nazis.

The Nazis never confiscated guns from the general populace and the average German gun owner in 1933 supported Hitler & was perfectly happy with his policies. The very reason for this was because the Weimar Republic failed.

If the American Republic fails and an unrepresentative govt decides to turn our $600 billion/yr military on its own citizens your pop-gun won't help you stay free.


How many times does this have to be pointed out?


rrneck
52. I'll repost a portion of the post to which you replied for your convience,Hitler came in second on both rounds, attaining more than 35% of the vote during the second one in April. Although he lost to Hindenburg, the election established Hitler as a realistic alternative in German politics.

I didn't say anything about gun confisication. Hitler was a successful politician before he was a dictator.

You don't seem to understand that prevailing against the United States military is not the point. Nobody harbors any illusions in that regard. You are clearly blinded by your unthinking partisanship and lack of respect for gun owners.

After eight years of free speech zones, the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and the quiet acquiescence of over half the American public to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration when they were clearly tending toward fascist dictatorship given the chance, the republic will (hopefully) survive. The possibility of a government run amok has always been very remote, and fortunately is less so now. Good for us.

The power of a weapon is not necessarily in its physical properties. In the hands of someone who values his or her freedom it sends an important message to the powers that be or to anyone else who would do them harm.

It says, "I don't give up."

And that is being pointed out about 250 million times at last count.

If you are afraid of exercising your constitutional rights that's fine with me. I hope you can defend yourself from assault better than you can read.


And by the way, there is a question pending that you have been ignoring for several days.
rrneck
54. By the way,`do you have any sane, rational, and workable gun laws in mind? I'm always prepared to listen.

[rrneck]

54. By the way,`

do you have any sane, rational, and workable gun laws in mind? I'm always prepared to listen.

[AlbertCat]

62. Well, background checks help

and registration. Not being able to walk into a tent in a field in Alabama and buy a gun might be nice. Locks that only the owner can unlock is good as well as. And like with your car, you have to go back every 4 years or so, prove you know how to use the gun and the laws concerning it in order to get a renewed permit.... that kinda stuff.
Oh...banning assault weapons was also a good idea.

None of these are perfect, but what law is? They're all sane.

I don't get the "I hafta protect my family and stuff" argument. Where the hell do you live? In a methadone clinic? I've lived alone 50 some years in the rural South and have never needed a gun for anything. Beside....most people shoot family members and people they know....not burglars or even victims of crimes.

[baldguy]

64. License the owner, register the gun & get insurance for it.

Just like a car.

[rrneck]

68. Cars aren't like guns

Try again.

[baldguy]

69. Right, cars aren't designed to kill things.

If they were, they'd all be recalled & the manufacturers subject to lawsuits & criminal charges.

Responsible gun owners have no problem with licensing, registration & insurance requirements.

[rrneck]

70. Responsible gun owners have no problem with licensing, registration & insurance requirements.

How do you know?

Got a link?

[rrneck]

67. Thank you.

I apologize for using the cut and paste function but in this case it might be quicker.

background checks help

Yes they do. I'm for 'em all the way. Elsewhere on this forum (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x214198 ) there has been an extensive discussion regarding the expansion of NICS so that individual sellers can use the system as well. As I understand it (I haven't bought a gun in years), even dealers at gun shows have to use NICS to check buyer's backgrounds, but the "loophole" is between individual sellers. And that can happen anywhere.

Locks that only the owner can unlock
http://www.gunvault.com/minisafe.nxg

(If I keep flogging these things I'm gonna want to get paid):)

banning assault weapons was also a good idea
If we knew what an assault weapon was that might be fine. Actually an assault weapon is just a semi automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon. The military version is capable of fully automatic fire, whereas the civilian version is only semi automatic. The plastic stock, picatinny rails, box magazine and all that cool stuff actually makes the rifle easier to shoot accurately and reduces weight. Just about every hunting or sport gun ever made started out as a weapon of war.

An assault rifle (military) has three basic characteristics.
Fed by box magazine.
Medium power cartridge
Selective fire (semi and full auto)

The AWB wasn't designed to make anybody safer. It was designed to make the law so confusing that nobody would want to make the capital investment to produce the product for fear that it would be found to be illegal. It actually worked in reverse. The market responded and the workaround of the law made scary rifles hugely popular. That's why we're having this discussion today.

I don't get the "I hafta protect my family and stuff" argument. Where the hell do you live? In a methadone clinic? I've lived alone 50 some years in the rural South and have never needed a gun for anything. Beside....most people shoot family members and people they know....not burglars or even victims of crimes.

Heh. rrneck stands for Renaissance Redneck. I'm from the rural south myself. Actually, the only time I had a carry permit was when I lived in a place where my job might have gotten me shot at my own front door. People defend themselves with firearms all the time in this country. One DUer in particular makes it a point to post news reports all the time. I live in a much safer place now and the only time I touch a gun is to move it out of the way to reach something in the closet.

But you touch on an interesting point here. What do guns mean? Gun owners will tell you that they are just a tool, but they are much more than that. A gun has symbolic power that intersects any number of important aspects of people's lives. Yes, they can mean sport, food on the table, history, craftsmanship, skill, and just plain fun. They are also a last line of defense. The vast majority of gun owners understand that to use a firearm against another human being is the last thing to do when all other options are exhausted. Not only is it the law, it's the right thing to do even though killing another human being is never right. Guns represent both life and death, moral certitude and a moral dilemma, hope of success and the worst of human failures.

The symbolic power of a firearm affects not only the individual that owns it, but anyone that might consider harming them. It represents the potential of a spirited and effective defense. The knowledge that they exist can be as powerful, if not more so, than the firearm itself.

It is almost impossible to legislate the rules of engagement that surround an event may last only a few seconds and even then very rarely. That event will occur within a fluid socioeconomic and cultural milieu that would rapidly evolve in response to any legislation designed to contain it. In the end, the person with the weapon, no matter his or her intent, will be the final arbiter of what should be done with it.

[poboyross]

23. You forget....

That the only thing that insures your vote will remain a vote is firepower. A vote can always be taken away, manipulated, or forced in lieu of that ability. If I take away your ability to take my life, or any way to physically threaten me, then somehow gain power....how hard is it for me to then tell you how you're going to vote? People will always work on the premise of control, and who has it. The ability to defend your liberty through physical means is the only thing that protects your voice. How many leaders around the world are "voted" back in to power by an overwhelming majority, yet the voters have no ability to change it if they wanted to do so?

[Mithreal]

31. Wake up. Lawyers cannot even protect the vote.

The Democrats aren't doing diddly about Republican election fraud either.

If you want to help ensure your vote, how about becoming an election observer? Or is that civil option something you are too busy to do?

No, you wouldn't want to do that because the workers may get nervous with you swinging your gun around.

I read several posts of yours here. Is there a chance that you are really angry that President Obama was elected? The only people that I have heard talking like this are of a certain bent.

No one is talking about taking your guns or ammo away.

You and so many were too cowardly to fight the tyranny of Bush with those guns of yours but now that Obama is elected, the rightwing nuts are losing it.

Montel Williams has no power. The idea isn't going to work, so why all the rage from rightwingers recently about guns. And I am not calling you a RW'er.

[Mithreal]

9. Your post represents an inaccurate understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment was meant for there to be local militias in place of a standing army, not a way to keep your government in check.

We have control over our government with our vote and other various civil opportunities.

You might have what you think is common sense, but you are wrong and propagating rightwing nut ideas on a progressive forum.

[fascisthunter]

12. thank you

[X_Digger]

20. *bzzzt* Try again..

The whole idea of militias instead of a standing army was to keep federal power in check.

Check out the federalist #46.

The precursor to a militia- a check on federal power- is an armed citizenry. Can't have a militia without citizens being armed. We are all part of the unorganized militia.

[poboyross]

26. THX Digger

Mention gun rights and you're auto-labeled a right wing nut job. Let's write some revisionist history so that we can shame the founders and framers as d-bags while we're at it.

[Mithreal]

27. Being labeled a Rightwing Nut is different than being accused

of spouting a rightwing talking point.

And the rest of your post is obnoxious as well, but if it makes ya feel better, then keep on.

[poboyross]

34. It's only right wing if you decide it is so?

Healthcare is a legitimate concern, so perhaps it should be labeled a left wing talking point? There's common sense in what's being proposed, so what's the problem? Same thing goes for this one.....history, context, and our founding charters and documents support the claim. Truth is free of a side. More adjectives...nice.

[Mithreal]

38. Cherry pick historical arguments and think you possess the truth?

The right to bear arms is not a RW or LW talking point. It is a freedom.

"Healthcare is a legitimate concern..." I have no idea what you mean by healthcare, so I will not assume.

Truth is free of a side, unless one side possesses the truth and the other ignores it. Truthiness on the other hand...

I will take adjectives over logical fallacies and rightwinger arguments any day.

[Mithreal]

28. While arguably that MAY have been accurate at the time

it is no longer.

I am about to say something crazy to make a point. The only way to fight the federal government of the United States is to use the same tactics terrorists use. I do not advise doing that.

Citizens cannot be as well armed or trained as the US military. When you can change things to allow ordinary citizens to buy all sorts of bunker busters, surface to air missiles, tanks, submarines, what-have-you, then maybe I will agree that the second amendment means what you say it does.

The second amendment was about the security of the US government. Some argued that it was more, right. We are not going to resolve that argument here though and you know it.

In practice, you all that support your take on the second amendment are not exercising that power so you have given it up. Yes, you have given it up. So, you all that say it is about overthrowing a government when it becomes tyrannical like during the Bush years are a bunch of cowards if your words mean what you say.

But they do not.

The second amendment is clear. You can use all the supporting documents you want and I can use supporting documents against.

Your representatives are not fearful of an armed insurrection. If you get some kind of nocturnal emissions thinking about it, then wake up. You will be crushed.

[X_Digger]

33. I agree, that today, that would have to be the tactic of choice..

Doesn't mean that the right isn't relevant, no more than the fact that printing presses were the media of the day means that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to computers.

The federalist / anti papers are an interesting read on the mindset of the political leaders of the day- the balance between state and federal power was a tricky balancing act. I'd not hesitate to say though, that both sides agreed as a matter of course, that citizens being armed was to be encouraged. PA & VT's constitution, and early drafts of the BoR spell it out better than I ever could.

If you get the chance, check out memory.loc.gov- many many many scans of collections of original docs (though the site is soo 1995 and needs work.)

[Mithreal]

39. Thanks for the tip on memory.loc.gov

And I think you missed my point. A power that is never invoked is not a power. Those same founders included at least one that said an armed uprising every couple decades would keep government healthy.

And if I can use your metaphor of printing presses and computers, here is the way I would rephrase it to make my point. If for hundreds of years we never printed books, newspapers, html, what have you, there would in effect be no freedom of the press. Or if there is no reporting, there is no freedom of the press. Or same goes for speech, know what I mean?

The threat is kinda toothless if all it does is remain in historical documents.

[X_Digger]

45. Use it or lose, it, eh?

The case could be made, I'm sure-

To that end, would 1946 be recent enough to 'refresh' the right?

http://tinyurl.com/dcdfhn

[Mithreal]

47. Too local and too little known nt

[poboyross]

35. Pls list these documents.....

I would be interested in seeing them.

[Mithreal]

41. See my post #36. nt

[poboyross]

25. Your understanding is worse than your post.

It's hard to believe that you've somehow cultivated an understanding of original intent that is so far from reality. If you're going to make those statements, you should back it up with historical evidence. I'll save all of my lengthy paragraphs showing how your perceived definition of militia is in no way consistent with the actual meaning or intent of what was laid out by the framers of the document. I'll whip them out later on, if something a little more lively ensues.

The power of your vote, at its root, is only as powerful as the ability of the population to enforce it should leaders decide to ignore it. How do you think people like Kim Jong keep power? Yes...that's it, they "vote" for him to the tune of 90-some-odd percent. Give me a break.

Civil opportunities? .....give me a minute while I stop laughing.

You might have what *you* think is common sense...along with an ego, so I'll leave you with context regarding the 2nd Amendment from men that were smarter than either one of us. Personal firearm ownership is not a rightwing nut idea...drop the pretentiousness of being elite and try actually engaging someone in debate for once. If you define "progressive", I wonder what that is progressing towards.

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Henry sneered,

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.




I can go on and on. The burden of evidence is against you. You don't have to go any further than the Declaration of Independence to see that it is our right to have the ability to alter our government by means that have been delegated to us, including those that can be considered extreme.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Mithreal]

29. Your argument is meaningless and impotent as well.

I laugh at anyone who thinks they can take on the US government militarily.

When you didn't raise up your militia against Bushy, you lost all credibility.

[poboyross]

30. Wha...no facts...arguments...or contradictory findings?

Better to have had and lost...than never to have had any at all, I suppose. Throwing adjectives in your comments doesn't help, btw.

Do you honestly think that the military are drones? The benefit of our free thinking society is that if any leader were to try and abolish the rights of the people through ordering military intervention, you would see a great portion of our military turn on that leader....democrat *or* republican. We're a loooooooong way from that occurring, if ever; however, the possibility is always there.

Enjoy your laughs, it's good for your health!

[Mithreal]

36. You can look up all the REAL legal cases on your own.

You can read the second amendment for yourself as well. You really think we can resolve your take and mine with quotes?

Since the American people do not exercise the authority you claim they possess, they in practice do NOT have that power.

The only people slobbering over armed insurrection at this moment are rightwing nut jobs. If that is what you are threatening here, then go right ahead and good luck with that.

Did you hear of how the national guard was used to kill college students, or what about the miners who were slaughtered for striking whose anniversary of that event is today. US soldiers will kill Americans, some more easily than others and there are ways to make it easier than you imagine it would be.

My health is fine, thanks for asking.

[poboyross]

43. It will never be resovled.....

On here at least. Forums tend to be places of huzzahs or wtf?'s. I do enjoy the debates and snarkiness, though. I disagree about having not exercised a right, you don't actually have it, though. Millions of people don't vote, but they still have the right to do so whenever the choose or deem it absolutely necessary. Nuclear weapons are a pretty powerful deterrent, even for countries that haven't used them. The U.S. has thousands, other countries only several, but we still tread with caution when dealing with them. Extreme point, but it applies.

It's regrettable that the assumption is made that I somehow agree with some sort of armed insurrection. I do see how that connection was made, taking current events into consideration. My intended point is one separated from that, though. Besides, threats are empty things anyway. An interesting counterpoint to the insurrectionist argument is what went on in Iraq since we've been there up until the "Anbar Awakening". Look at how a group of largely untrained people created absolute chaos when faced with the massive power of the US military. I'm most definitely glad we've gotten that under control, with the help of people who better understand counterinsurgency and diplomacy.....but it was still an example of simplicity over complexity.

I am familiar with what happened at Kent State. I would put forth; though, that people don't accept things at face value any more, including those in our military. The days of govt. trust of any type are over. People tended not to question things then, as much as they do now.

[Mithreal]

44. I agree with your sentiment but not the examples.

Some people always do vote, so using the vote as a counterpoint is incorrect. If since the founding of this country no one voted, then I would accept the point. Same with nuclear weapons, they have been used and they have been tested. The threat is real and recent. Maybe a week ago there was a story on DU about a man who survived Hiroshima and went back home to Nagasaki and experienced the second bombing as well. The Cuban event was even more recent. The real threat of nuclear annihilation is alive and well. You are correct, we do tread cautiously with other nuclear powers for good reason. But these are not good examples of what I mean by a power that is not exercised because they have been within living people's lifetimes.

Just so you know, I made no assumption that you were advocating insurrection, that is why I asked if you were doing that.

And your point about Iraq doesn't precisely apply either. The insurgents do not have to face our soldiers openly in armed conflict but did practice guerrilla tactics, the only rational armed response to a comparably massively overpowered occupying force. We paid people to stop fighting us and even armed former enemies as well. Guerrilla tactics are not what the second amendment is about either, the second amendment is about freedom to bear arms.

Soldiers will do what they are trained to do and those who choose not to follow illegal orders will do so at their own peril. I do not agree that the days of government trust are over. The approval ratings of Congress have climbed since the Bush admin and President Obama's overall approval ratings are high. People want to trust their government. You might be seeing ebb and flow of trust but trust in government is alive and well.

[AlbertCat]

66. an understanding of original intent that is so far from reality

And an understanding of what the original meaning of a gun was (in 1789....or 1879 for that matter) as opposed to what a gun is today is so far from their reality I'm surprised you can ignore it. The Founding Fathers had no idea!

So you can freely keep your flintlocks, but your Mouser should be registered....and your AK47 should be illegal.

[poboyross]

71. *yawwwwn*

I make a motion that we also ban all automobiles, as they get in the way of my pursuit of happiness and my second hand smoke asthma. The only reason the framers didn't ban them is because they didn't know they would ever exist!

That's how lame your statement sounds.

Don't worry though, people will always have their AK47s (which are actually illegal in the U.S., only clones that have the same look but are semi-auto are available to the masses) AR15s, BMG 50s...etc etc. I love it how people focus on AK clones....when they are so few and far between compared to mainstream modern firearms like the AR. BTW, No law will ever *really* affect ownership. 250 million guns in the US....easily several million ARs....they're not going anywhere. People won't hand them over either, the police can search all they like, they'll won't find many, just ask the Canadians....but here they don't have records to show what people in most of the country own....thank God. Commence head explosion.....3....2....1.....

[iamthebandfanman]

57. yikes, dont take swipes at the mans military record. n/t

[poboyross]

72. It's not a swipe at his military record....

Just a swipe that he didn't absorb the fact that you shouldn't be shooting at rocks for fun! :0

[baldguy]

7. Anyone who sees no problem with OnStar should have no problem with this.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. How are you going to make

the gun owners charge the GPS device?
How are you going to make it small enough to hide inside a firearm? (IIRC, even large 'GPS' ankle bracelets for home arrest folks use Cell towers, not actual GPS for positioning and reporting data)
How are you going to keep bad people from putting a drill bit through the GPS device?

There are so many problems with this plan it doesn't even make sense. Maybe in 10-20 years when a small RFID chip that doesn't need power can be located from orbit, then you'll have something that can be used to tag these weapons. Something small enough to be randomly inserted into different components or areas of the firearm like lowjack.

And of course, this is useless if the owner identifies that part, and changes it out.

[baldguy]

13. RFID doesn't need an internal power source.

Haven't for about 5 yrs.

And they're getting smaller all the time.

[rrneck]

14. Can you hear me now?

http://www.savi.com/rfid.shtml
Range
Range is defined as the maximum distance for successful Tag-Reader communication. Read range difference will vary and can be very-short, short, or long.

Very Short Range: approx. up to 60cm (2 ft)
Short Range: approx. up to 5 m (16 ft)
Long Range: approx. 100+ m (320+ ft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
Similarly, the Clarke Belt is the part of space approximately 36,000 km (22,000 mi) above sea level, in the plane of the equator, where near-geostationary orbits may be implemented

[X_Digger]

22. Yes, RFID gets power externally..

Now how are you going to supply that power? And since RFID is short range, where are you going to put the detectors?

So much fail.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Ok, but GPS satellites are thousands of miles above us.

That chip is powered by a magnetic field emitted by the reader, at a very short range. For the smaller versions, the range is feet. The reciever is also an emitter, so, again, the range is a few feet.

Right now the RFID chips we insert in our pets need near-contact range of a foot or two to pick up the chip ID. If you could do this with guns today, you could find poor lost fluffy with a on-star like system that tracked the pet chips. But you can't. And you won't for the foreseeable future.

Also, that picture is ridiculously out of scale, the dime is almost 18mm in diameter. It's also about 6 times longer than it is wide, so that throws off the whole 1mm x 2mm dimension thing just a tad.

Correction: I described inductive power transmission above, the RFID chips work by resonant inductive power. Still, the range is miniscule, considering what Montel advocated. It simply won't work.

[rrneck]

19. 'A Ton More People Were Wiretapped Than We've Been Led to Believe'

http://www.alternet.org/rights/137260/%27a_ton_more_people_were_wiretapped_than_we%27ve_been_led_to_believe%27%3A_fbi_whistleblower_thomas_tamm/

This week the New York Times revealed that the National Security Agency has continued spying on Americans well into the Obama era, with government officials listening in on phone conversations and monitoring e-mails on a massive scale.

Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau -- who broke the story of the Bush administration's domestic spying program in December 2004 -- reported that "in recent months," the NSA has engaged in an "overcollection" of domestic communication, far exceeding the already broad legal limits Congress established when it passed legislation to legalize the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program and granting immunity for the telecoms that enabled it.

[X_Digger]

21. Yes, anyone willing to give up one right might be willing to give up another..

Your point?

[X_Digger]

15. That's about the most asinine idea I've ever heard..

-Forced registration (after all there are already 250M+ weapons out there)
-invasion of privacy (self-incrimination) - and yes, I refuse to have a vehicle with onstar for the same reason.
-making adequate self-defense available only for the affluent - wouldn't want the underprivileged to get uppity
-technically unfeasible - he's talking about a receiver (to receive GPS) and a transmitter (to relay position). Huge package, high power draw. Defeated by not letting the gun see daylight (ever have a GPS lose position on a country road with trees?) or disabling the unit.

If the goal is to stop the southward flow of semi-automatic scary rifles, then search cars going southbound.

[AlbertCat]

17. What a great idea!

[Crowman1979]

42. yeah all of these people buying guns like crazy may be threatening at first...

...until they run out of bullets! And does billy bob the gun-nut know how to make a bullet, HELL NO! So there is hope over the hysteria. Plus even if they did, accidents would be frequent without proffessional training.

[X_Digger]

46. Actually, the 'billy bobs' are more likely..

.. to know how to reload their own ammunition. Just an fyi.

[Crowman1979]

48. That unless they drop a cigarrette in the black powder.

Or tryout some dangerous method of making bullets that will cause them to lose a limb.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Wow. Ok, so that wasn't sarcasm.

Let me just stop you here, you don't know anything about either guns, or apparently, the people who typically own them.

Making bullets is easy. It's just a piece of lead. Optional: coat it with copper or some other metal to reduce fouling in the barrel. Heat, mold, separate. People have been doing this for hundreds of years, it's not hard.

A 'bullet' is just the piece of lead projectile. A Cartridge is the complete package, primer, powder, casing and bullet.

Black Powder is generally not used in cartridges anymore. It's smokeless powder, that really shouldn't be called 'gunpowder' anymore, it's really 'propellant'.

I'm not a 'redneck' I guess, but you are being pretty silly about this whole thing. Humans aren't saturday morning cartoons, you know.

[Crowman1979]

61. I was talking about the RW radio listening nutjob gun owners.

Not all gun owners.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Yo, is that post missing the sarcasm tag?

I can't tell.

[iamthebandfanman]

58. people equating tracking in guns

to tracking IN/ON people...

have no ability to reason or use logic.

sorry.


but hey, if the fear helps ya sleep better at nite...

[ecstatic]

59. I love the idea. Murder would become a lot

more tricky.

[The Animator]

74. If there going to go that route...

The gps could send out a signal indicating when the gun has been fired. A computer could then filter and flag fired shots and report them as necessary.

At a gun range.. those can be ruled out... (well theoretically)

anywhere near a bank... might want to pass this one along to the cops.

a private residence at 2:30 in the morning... definitlety send the cops, and maybe and ambulance...


It would certainly make prosecuting gun crimes easier with a time and location stamp on the discharge of the weapon.

This could be considered an extra layer of saftey, like a trigger lock, or safety catch. It could mean the difference between someone bleeding out from an accidental self infliction, and getting the paramedics there in time to save your leg.

For all it's potential though, I'm not sure I like this idea. Anytime I think how technology could be used to make this world a better place, these days I also ask myself "How comfortable would I be with the Bush Administration having access to this information?".

I'm not sure if this was Jefferson or not but it does sound like him. "The cost of liberty is constant vigilance." Sure we could use this technology to save lives, and more accurately prosecute offenders, but in many cases the easier it is to do, the closer it comes to violating your personal liberties.

I'll have to think on it.