SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC is planning to release its second smart gun in the U.S. next year after sales of its first model -- the .22 caliber iP1 -- were quashed by pressure from some gun owners and gun rights advocates who saw it as a threat to Second Amendment freedoms.
Unlike the iP1, which used RFID technology, the new iP9 9mm semi-automatic pistol will have a fingerprint reader. The iP9 will be available in mid-2017, according to Wolfgang Tweraser, CEO and president of Amratix LLC.
How long before the smart guns go all WOPR?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
German Arms Maker Armatix to Release Second Smart Gun in U.S.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 49 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:12AM
Or the people that realize that if you're using a weapon in one of those situations, it's probably best if it didn't work.
It's astonishing to me how many folks have been brainwashed into thinking that a firearm isn't just necessary for every day life, but is a constitutional right. First, it's not necessary for living, most of us don't have one. Secondly, the 2nd amendment is quite clear about the fact that gun ownership isn't an individual right, it's a group right as in groups other than the federal government have a right to firearms. Groups such as the national guard, local law enforcement.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:49AM
The supreme court disagrees with you.
They specifically stated that it is an individual, constitutional right.
Have you read the judgement? I have. It was quite a piece of detailed and specific scholarship, tighly reasoned and lavishly referenced. (I also read the dissent, which was peculiarly less well supported.)
So, in the spirit of extraordinary claims calling for extraordinary proof, I just know you're going to offer a point-for-point analysis and rebuttal to the court.
I await with bated breath.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:20AM
Ok, you provided a nice calm rebuttal, probably the more effective one even. But I had more fun with mine. :)
Sometimes it is a heck of a lot of fun to just spark up the flamethrower and roast an idjit. Especially one that is a demonstrated menace to Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life like Francis.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:00AM
I was going to mod you down for being a scum-sucking yellow-bellied ammosexual, but then:
I await with bated breath.
Holy Shite! You used the right "baited"! Totally impressed, but how can someone who knows the difference between "baited" and "bated" be in favor of such soon to be rebated Supreme Court decisions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:16AM
In the hopes that some will choose to self-educate, "the judgement" referred to is District of Columbia vs Heller [cornell.edu].
As an aside, I note that when the USSC "makes a decision", it has no bearing on the details of reality. Compare and contrast the above with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [cornell.edu] aka the Obamacare case, where the majority in effect declared "water is not wet". Sorry, boys, trying to bury a finding that the Constitution says the fedgov can levy a direct tax in proportion to the census while trying to levy a direct tax without proportion to the census is what the common people term "a lie".
With a seemingly insane USSC (further evidence: Dred Scott vs Sandford aka "black-skinned people aren't human"; Wickard vs Filburn aka "up is down"), what's a peaceable person to do? They can start by recognizing the truism that: if I can't do a given thing to another person, neither can I delegate authority for that same thing to any government - if a government person does it anyway, it is literally a criminal act equal to a mugging, kidnapping, etc.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:06AM
It's astonishing to me how many folks have been brainwashed into thinking that a firearm isn't just necessary for every day life, but is a constitutional right.
Oh I dunno, maybe because IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ya f*cking illiterate fascist?
Secondly, the 2nd amendment is quite clear about the fact that gun ownership isn't an individual right...
Ya, it is so totally obvious that when they write "The People" every other place that they are referring to "THE PEOPLE" but only you super smart, elite people with your super secret decoder ring can see that in ONE place where they wrote "The People" they really meant "The Government".... even though that would be totally retarded since governments have always been allowed to have weapons. Kinda comes bundled in with that whole sovereignty and monopoly on the legitimate use of force thing that -defines- a government. And unlike you, the guys who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually knew all sorts of things about the theory of government so they knew exactly what they meant to say and why they meant it. Remember, these are the guys that spent a long hot summer (without air conditioning) in Plilly arguing the most minor details in a Constitution short enough to be the preface on a modern piece of legislation.
And you will be able to cite zero examples backing up your attempt to retcon the history of the 2nd Amendment. Not one person who helped draft the 2nd Amendment or who voted for OR against it in any of the State Legislatures is recorded as believing it to mean anything but the clear 18th Century English it is written in.
And let me totally blow your ignorant fascist mind by dropping some knowledge on yer ass that will do at least 3d6 damage to your feelz. When they wrote the 2nd Amendment we didn't HAVE a National Guard and we didn't even have much in the way of formal 'local law enforcement.' The militia was every able bodied man capable of responding to a general muster and they were generally expected to appear with their own weapon because we were broke dick mofos who didn't have a vast Department of Defense and large stocks of arms and ammo sitting in depots. And you were expected to already know how to use it too because when we mustered folks up for a fight we generally didn't have six weeks for Basic Training and another six for AIT, they were ready to get marching and shooting, get it over and get back to the fields before everybody starved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:05AM
jmorris, you idiot, not home-schooled, but possibly an autodidact who went to the wrong websites right off the bat, and never recovered, the Constitution is made up! It is a human-created document! It could be wrong! And worse, right-wing nut-job lawyers from the Federalist Society could actually interpret it incorrectly. There is no inherent human right to arms. There is a human right to not be unjustly attacked with weapons. Look up "The Law of the Splintered Paddle". Might be educational, though I know that education is opposed to your general mindset. Looney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:24AM
Just how do you expect such a right to be enforced if most humans are fragile, squishy creatures? Don't bother me with a "call the cops" retort: their job is only to draw chalk outlines around your lifeless corpse and, if they get around to it, throw someone in a cage which may or may not have been your killer.
To have peace, prepare for war.
(Score: 1) by Chrontius on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:18AM
Or the people that realize that if you're using a weapon in one of those situations, it's probably best if it didn't work.
You do realize you're literally wishing death on people trying to defend their lives, right? It's not difficult for you to imagine how - taken like this - what you said could come off as extremely hostile, right?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:56AM
Yes, and they deserve to die, since they are already murderers, if the are willing and prepared to kill in a situation where they only "fear" that their pathetic lives are at risk. Now get the fuck out of here, George Zimmerman, you fucking child killer! You disgust me, as you disgust any decent human being, as you disgust God, and you even disgust Buddha, Joshua, and my cat. Cowardly excuse for a real human being. Pathetic cowardly mass of jelly carrying concealed! I hope your end is quick and merciful, NOT!