CEO Develops Brilliant Gun Safety Feature, Gun Nuts Threaten Her Life Over It

belinda-padilla-armatixWhen people use hyperbole to describe someone or something it’s usually just meant to add emphasis to the subject.  But when it comes to the term “gun nut,” many of these people really are nuts.

There’s a clear difference between someone who supports the right for Americans to own guns for hunting or self-defense, and gun nuts.  A sensible Second Amendment supporter seems to understand that a handgun or two is ample to defend themselves, or their family, from some kind of threat or danger in their home.  They also seem to understand that you have to be absolutely insane to believe that our Second Amendment was meant to arm citizens just incase some kind of “second revolution” is needed to overthrow our government.

Honestly, no “debate” brings out the most paranoid and delusional among us quite like when guns are discussed.

Case in point, when Belinda Padilla, president and CEO of the U.S. division of firearm manufacturer Armatix, tried to bring better safety to guns by manufacturing a gun that would only fire for the legal owner of that gun.  See, the gun uses a watch to tie the owner to the weapon so that it will only fire for the person who rightfully owns the gun.

Well, this apparently set off some gun rights advocates who managed to get her phone number, posting it online.

She said it started with a “few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers” which led her to stop answering her phone.

Next, photos of her home were posted online.

“Right now, unfortunately, these organizations that are scaring everybody have the power,” Padilla explained. “All we’re doing is providing extra levels of safety to your individual right to bear arms. And if you don’t want our gun, don’t buy it. It’s not for everyone.”

One comment on a gun enthusiast forum said, “I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans.”

Can someone please explain to me how this gun “disarms Americans”?  It’s a safety feature – that’s it.  Maybe whoever left that comment needs to take a good look at the gun lobby as they’re trying to push fear and paranoia to profit off gun sales to delusional individuals like themselves.

Don’t people (responsible ones anyway) already lock their guns in safes with various forms of security to keep anyone but the people who know that code, or have the key, from gaining access to them?  Wouldn’t a safety measure like this prevent anyone but the legal owner of a gun from being able to use it?  I still don’t get how this is an effort to “disarm Americans.”

But that’s the problem when dealing with gun nuts – they lack all common sense when it comes to guns.  Any mention of some form of “regulation” on a gun and they simply lose their damn minds.  “You want to make everyone who wants to buy a gun pass a criminal background check?  Outrageous!”

These are also the people who tend to think the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  My belief is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to try to keep the bad guys from having, or firing, guns.  Something that a “smart gun,” such as this one linked to a watch, would help do.

This is just another example where common sense tries to get applied to gun safety and gun nuts prove just how irrational, disgusting and insane they really are.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Matthew Jones

    “well regulated” means nothing to these people. Rules and laws are meant for other people.

    • Qilue

      The problem is that “Well regulated” part of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the second part that says “The Rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed..

      The Second amendment is basically saying that A well regulated militia is required to keep peace, but the individuals still has a right to have guns.

      • k9femom

        and yet, no one is trying to infringe on your rights to BEAR arms. unless, of course, you want to go sleeveless.

      • Sumguy

        Bear means to carry, bare means sleeveless.

      • Sumguy

        Sorry, replied to wrong person.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        bear arms,,,,,,,, bear arms fella–
        and the word regulated send chills up the limp “spine” of white trash regressive tea party lemmings

      • Larry Laird

        Wrong. The only time you can own a gun is to be part of a well regulated militia.. Punctuation matters.

      • Pipercat

        Not to Scalia…

      • JohnFMayer

        Wrong and just plain silly, Larry. But you ARE right about punctuation mattering (though this amendment seems to contain a couple of superfluous ones, by today’s standards).

        The first part of the sentence is a subordinate clause, with the second part expressing the intent of the amendment. We can properly paraphrase the subordinate clause like this: “Because a free state requires a well-regulated citizen militia whose personnel need to know how to use a gun …” with the second half giving us the heart of the matter: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “Shall not be infringed” could hardly be more absolute. The very notion that in 1791 there might be an intent to deprive frontiersmen and country folk of their guns is laughable.

      • Larry Laird

        Lot of bs. It says…folks can keep guns to run a militia.
        Change militia to ‘truck’ and guns to ‘tools’.
        In order to maintain the truck, you may own tools.

      • Micheal Tarr

        I would submit that the militia and the people are not even intended to be part of one another in this sentence. Indeed, I would submit that the amendment was not intended to benefit a militia in any way, but rather to be a stop-gap measure in case the militia got out of hand.

        Let’s replace a few words in the amendment, and see how the structure affects the meaning.

        “A well trained dog. being necessary to the security of a free home, the right of the owner to keep and bear a leash shall not be infringed.”

        Now, by the structure of this sentence can you infer any of the following reasonably?

        Is the owner part of the dog?
        Is the dog the owner?
        Is the leash afforded to the dog?
        Is the leash contingent on the dog?
        Is the dog contingent on the leash?

        I would submit to you that, especially by the opinion of any modern English experts, grammatical study experts, and historical English experts, the answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO.

        It only takes a simple understanding of English and how the structuring of the sentence matters to see that all of the “gun grabbers” interpretations on this amendment are utterly nonsense.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Right, because the free state requires a well regulated militia, the rights of the militia (All citizens) shall not be infringed.

        Which means gun owners (The militia) are to be well-regulated, and able to be called up with full accountability of gear and skills.

      • bigdog


      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Of course the two halves didn’t have a relationship to each other. Everyone knows our founding fathers disregarded the grammatical laws of the English language, and used commas improperly. And, everyone knows there are clauses all over the constitution talking about two completely disparate concepts.

      • bigdog

        You really need to do some research on this before saying such asinine things!

    • Jeff Mo

      It’s quite simple to look up SCOTUS opinion on the meaning of the phrase. Progressives such as myself can do it just as well as anyone else.

    • Maik E

      I’m sorry but you actually don’t understand what ‘well regulated’ means. I want you to sit back and rid yourself of partisan biases for a minute. First, to think that the Founders who were very much for limited government would have included anything about government intervention in the Bill of Rights, which was a compromise in order to restrain government, is laughable at best. Second, the term regulated in the use of American 18th century aristocracy had nothing to do with government regulation, especially not in the way we know it today. The militia, just as it is in many state Constitutions like my home state of Virginia, was considered to be the people as a whole. It was not the National Guard or only an organized type of militia. It was and still is every able bodied person capable of defending the republic, just as it was during the revolution. The Founders saw the people as the last line of defence to defend the republic they created, some saw us as the first line of defence. Now as for the phrase ‘well regulated’, the fact that you are interpreting it in a modern day sense makes it extraordinarily apparent that you haven’t studied our history. The phrase used in 18th century english means well prepared or proper functioning. It is hilarious every time I see one of you use this argument because you actually think the Founders would include restraints on the people in a document designed to place restraints on the government. I am a liberal by the way. However, I am a liberal that respects the truth and does not form my opinions based on an emotional response to the latest tragedy. I certainly do not take phrases from the Constitution that seem on the surface, to my 21st century mind, to support my positions and use them to get thumbs up on the internet or support my emotional positions without doing a little bit of reasoned, NON ideological research. You are truly no better than the conservatives who do the same in order to appeal to their ‘gang’. The partisanship, gang mentality, and the labels the government and media have put on all of us is truly tearing our country apart. If you feed into it you should really be ashamed of yourself.

      • Philip Mekeel

        “Proper functioning” you say? As in needing to prove you’re not some reckless fool before you get to have a gun?

  • CooperMV

    I have guns for home defense that are hidden but not locked up, also one in my vehicle. I never used to have much interest in guns, that changed when the gun nuts started showing up. They are the reason I now have firearms, not sure what that makes me… Their irrational extremist fanatical thinking is what concerns me, they see everyone as terrorists…

    • rjs

      ‘Hidden but not locked up’
      tells ‘what that makes me’ more than you’ll know.

      • JudgeX X

        It makes him smart. You have what, maybe 15 seconds tops from the time you notice someone breaking into your house to murder you?

        You want to burn seconds messing with gun locks in that scenario? If your argument is that you keep the keys close by, then the children you are protecting can find those keys and start shooting their own brains out as kids are apparently programmed to do in most homes.

      • more compost

        Just how likely is it that someone is going to break into your home to murder you? Isn’t it pretty much not likely at all, as long as you are not a gang banger or in the Mob?

      • JudgeX X

        Does it need to be likely before I should prepare for it? What would happen if I bought a couple of guns and left them around my house and nobody ever broke in?

        The truth is that 3.7 million break-ins occur in an average year.

        You have about a 1 in 116 chance, per year, living anywhere in the USA, to have a home invasion scenario (whether you are home or not).

        Put yourself in the below average places like 49%+ live in, and that chance increases.

        This means that if you live in a community of 50 homes, there’s about a 50/50 chance each year that one of those homes gets broken into.

        Looking at statistics is challenging, because if you can’t apply it to yourself (because you stop at the big numbers rather than applying critical thinking), then you feel safer than you are (by a lot).

        Read your local news. I bet one of your neighbors has been victimized in the past 5 years.

        I’m keeping a gun handy just in case.

      • Dawn Hilton Oliveira

        Here is an idea! Maybe protect your home so that they never get in the door?? I get so sick of people saying that they need a deadly weapon for protection. Your gun should ALWAYS be your very last resort. Having dogs, a well lit home, cameras or a security system is an idea that many people do not seem to grasp. Researchers have proven over and over that you may not react the way you think should you get placed in a dangerous situation. It is not like it is in the movies. Policeman will tell you the more deterrence’s you have for a robbery the least likely you will be robbed. They are in a rush and do not want to be seen, anywhere it is going to slow them down or being seen by someone is a strong deterrent. I myself do not want anyone walking through my door or my window to where I would have to take someone’s life. They may be criminals but they have families and I would have to live with that for the rest of my life. People just do not value life anymore.

      • So now it’s up to you to decide how someone should protect themselves? SMH, you get a dog, I’ll keep my guns because I have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to have them… Perhaps we should regulate voting a little more? That has a greater impact on the lives of everyone else than individual gun ownership does

      • Idc..

        Whoo ‘Merca constitution, whooo ‘Merca. You are the problem, your mentality is the problem, You sir are what this article is talking about.

      • Brett Henning

        No actually he is bringing up a valid point. People like you Idc just don’t get it. Most of you grew up in fairytale land where the bad guys always lose. Sorry to inform you, but that’s not always the case.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        correct!!! witness the election of ted cruz and michelle Bachmann,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        as well as glenn beck and ruch Limbaugh pulling millions from shows which have suckers as patrons listening

      • Dawn Hilton Oliveira

        REALLY???? Voting regulations??? There are so few instances that even Judges are overturning them. No one is saying that you do not have a right to protect yourself nor that you have a right to own a gun. I am just saying that people need to stop thinking that guns and violence are the only answer. I would much rather no one entering my home than having my child watch me blow someone’s brains out! If that is your attitude you should not own a gun. Remember that gun is bad ass not you!

      • SUPER 68 IS DOWN

        You are a complete MORON!! Do you think that just because somebody owns a gun that they are going to forego an alarm system, dog and whatever? Just because there is a gun present, we are going to lure them into our…..lair?

      • Jeff Mitcler

        I live in a very rural area. It would take the Law 20 minutes to reach my house. When you speak of dogs, well lit home, & security system. Those are ‘layers’ of security. Neither one sufficient in and of itself. My guns are the last layer. Folks get killed by dopeheads every day. It may may not happen, but it might. I look at it as insurance. You have homeowners insurance ? Car insurance ? Life insurance ? I have ” Sorry, Scooter, you done picked the wrong house” insurance

      • Tim Hofstetter

        You live 20 minutes from law enforcement but closer to dopeheads that would kill you? Time to move.

      • regressive teaparty trash


      • Pipercat

        I thought so, too…

      • SUPER 68 IS DOWN

        You are too stupid to breed………..

      • JudgeX X

        No one cares what you’re sick of people saying. People say they need a gun to protect their homes because other people have been brutally murdered in their homes by criminals with guns, knives, and baseball bats.

        Most gun owners have dogs and security systems, too, who cares? These things don’t stop someone who is intent on hurting you.

        Not every criminal who breaks into a home does it for the goods.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        I would wager without looking at stats that about 95% do want the goodies inside

      • Justin

        Oh I value life. My family’s lives. My friend’s lives. My life. Just not a criminal’s life. You seem like a nice woman Dawn. Unfortunately the world eats nice men and women for breakfast. What if they don’t care about the lights? What if they wear a mask and therefore make your cameras useless? What if they but a bullet through your dog’s head? A lot of “what ifs” I know, but it happens. Hopefully if such a situation occurred you would be able to defend yourself.

      • Dawn Hilton Oliveira

        You are missing the point!!! When you take those steps you are causing a deterrence! If a criminal were to scope out your house and see those deterrence’s but goes to the next house that does not have those deterrence’s which one do you think he will chose? Any policeman will tell you that they will take the easiest one first. You need to think like a criminal here, they do not want anyone seeing them climbing in your window, because someone will call the police which shortens their time on getting your goods. I am not saying that you should not own a gun to protect yourself I am just saying that it should be your last resort!

      • Justin

        And I am telling you that there are countermeasures to your deterrent. I am not arguing against deterrents, but a gun is the best deterrent. It is also a problem solver. If you kill the robber you also protect future victims.

      • SUPER 68 IS DOWN

        So you want a security system to call 911, you want a dog to make you aware someone is breaking in, so you may call 911. In other word’s , you would rather call 911 and have someone else respond with a gun rather than call 911 and be armed. I won’t like it, but if you or anyone breaks into my home, you are going to die. I could care less about your family. What about my family? Yes Dawn Hilton Delahoya Dela Cruz Cardinal Oliveira, I value life, I value MY life and my family’s life NOT yours. If you choose to break into my home, you forfeit your right for me to value your life

      • more compost

        So, you moved the goalposts. Good job!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        glenn beck and Hannity were ready to (over) eat them again

      • JudgeX X

        Your comment doesn’t even make sense.

      • more compost

        I asked how many likely it was for someone to burst into your house and kill you. You answered with statistics on burglary, but pretended like those statistics responded to my question. That is moving the goalposts, and is dishonest.

        My goal is for everyone to be safe. You, indeed, do not appear to share that goal.

      • JudgeX X

        I am an advocate of firearms legality for more reasons than for defense in the event of a random break-in, though, that reason alone is plenty, in my opinion.

        I’m not sure at what point society became this thing where we all have to have your permission to protect ourselves a certain way or to ingest a chemical.

        My goal is not for everyone to be safe, because that’s not realistic. My goal is to live a free and happy life. You don’t have to make my goal unrealistic just because yours is.

      • John Yesford

        “I asked how many likely it was for someone to burst into your house and kill you. You answered with statistics on burglary, but pretended like those statistics responded to my question.”

        But they do, at least in part. They do answer how likely it is for your home to be invaded, which is certainly part of the answer you were looking for.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        your statement here is illogical and assumes
        kinda like watching FOX “news”

      • JudgeX X

        I don’t watch Fox news. I am not a conservative. I am not a Libertarian or other nutjob that you can easily box up and diminish. I’m rather liberal, but I understand what the root word for “liberal” means.

        You said my statement was illogical. Qualify your statement. Please tell me what I said that was illogical.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        u clearly stated U and more compost share NO (any) goals
        making a statement such as that is not only illogical; it is infantile
        ……………unless::::::::::::::::: you have no goals!
        if that IS the case I stand corrected

      • JudgeX X

        Did you somehow forget the context of the discussion? Of course we have continued homeostasis as a shared goal but why would that enter this discussion?

        If you can’t keep the context of the discussion straight… don’t participate.

        I do not share any goals related to this topic with more compost. He has stated he has some kind of magical “keep everyone safe” goal. I find *that* infantile, plus, his proposed ideas for keeping everyone safe is to restrict gun ownership, which could not possibly make me more safe than I currently am with my firearms.

        Typing those extra characters is “infantile”.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        nice try kreskin—-I answered your crybaby rant,,,,,,,,,,
        and U ( again) spilled a plethora of nugatory writing all over the place here
        FOX “news” archetypal weaponry

      • Jim T

        Do you buy fire insurance, the chances of having a fire are very slim. Here is an idea put a sprinkler system in and get a fire extinguisher for every room or keep a gun and have fire insurance.

      • badspock

        There was a break-in in broad daylight just a block and a half from my home, where the home owner was murdered at his breakfast. He was not a gang banger or in the mob, the killers did not know him. He just happened to be between them and whatever they wanted to steal from his home. So, in my neighborhood, it’s actually fairly likely. I won’t keep my weapon locked up because of that, but it’s also not just sitting out in the open either.
        If that “makes me” something you would sneer at, so be it. I’d rather be derided and alive than a statistic.

      • more compost

        Anecdotal evidence is certainly persuasive.

        What is the “makes me” non sequitur about?

      • Deb N

        Tell that to the family of Kimberly Cates

      • SUPER 68 IS DOWN

        I see, then why call 911 being that said individual is most likely NOT going to murder you or rape your wife and rape your kids and maybe rape you. Just lay there honey, he will be done soon!
        I never believed it when they say that a sucker is born every minute. I take that back, now that I have read your comment

      • The Goob

        so having a gun unlocked and nearby is safer than having keys to a gun safe nearby? in most cases of home invasions the infiltrator comes in unarmed, and actually a gunowner is more likely to be killed by his own gun.

      • JudgeX X

        Let’s see evidence of that. I think you don’t understand how home invasion works.

      • Renee Houston

        I can’t vouch for the claim about intruders usually being unarmed, but it is more statistically likely for a gun owner (or his family) to be harmed by his own gun than protected by it.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        correct,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BYTHEWAY;; U are cute

      • JudgeX X

        That statistic is only true if you include intentional suicides in your statistic.

        If I want to kill myself and decide to use a gun, I don’t think it’s a bad thing, and I don’t think it should count when determining who is more likely to be hurt by a gun. You have to be more careful with statistics when you want them to hold meaning.

      • Renee Houston

        It still matters. A gun is a quick way to die. If the gun isn’t there, and a person has to find another way to kill themselves, they often won’t carry it out. This have been proven with other methods. In Europe, there was an oven that was very popular and common. It was also the most common method of suicide. That oven was eventually phased out, and the suicide rate dropped the exact amount, meaning people did not look for an alternate method. The same is true for a safety feature on a bridge in the U.S. And there more examples, but I don’t have time to expound or look for the article where I reads these things. But maybe you can look into it.

      • JudgeX X

        So, other people’s decisions to blow their own heads off should have influence over how well I am able to protect myself from people who might want to hurt me?

        I don’t like that. I think that other solutions for preventing suicidal people from killing themselves should be sought after, so that I might still have a slim chance of protecting myself in the event of a home invasion or if I am accosted trying to walk to the store and buy a hot dog.

        I’m sorry that my concern for a suicidal person is less than my concern for my non-suicidal family and self.

      • Renee Houston

        I’ll never understand why people are such assholes for no reason. I really try to be calm and mater-of-fact, but I invariably run into jackasses who can’t have a civil conversation.

        I didn’t say that you shouldn’t be able to have a gun to protect yourself. I said that suicides should count in the statistics. I really wish my 21 year old cousin hadn’t had a gun nearby. last year. I think he counts.

      • JudgeX X

        I’m sorry that you don’t think I was being civil and that I am an asshole. I didn’t mean to offend. Sorry about your cousin.

        Because I’m tired of being called an asshole, paranoid, and a “gun nut” for simply exercising a right and wishing to live with a feeling of security from random attack and murder, I will no longer be replying.

        Thank you.

      • Justin

        Your cousin acted selfishly. I know that sounds callous, and I expect that you will be upset at that, but hear me out. As someone who once considered suicide and actually made an attempt at it, I know better than people who never consider it. See I was going to cut my throat with a knife. But I reconsidered. I realized how much it would harm the people close to me and I realized that I could better serve the world being alive rather than dead. Even if my own life sucked. But my point is that even without a gun, your cousin would have found another way. Guns are quick, but knives are quick too.
        Eliminating guns would not drop suicide rates, we would just see in increase in other methods.

      • Brett Henning

        That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        evidently U do NOT listen to sarah palin of michelle Bachmann,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        need some excerpts of what imbecilic stuff they have said over past 6 yrs???

      • Larry Laird

        Paranoia…you should see a good shrink.

      • JudgeX X

        Paranoia (n) -baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

        Having a firearm is not “paranoid” when:
        1) Others, even neighbors, have firearms.
        2) There is a non-negligible homicide rate.

        Thanks for the suggestion to see a shrink, though, I’m glad you’re looking out for my mental health. If I may, I’d like to respond in-kind with a suggestion of my own to you, Larry.

        I think your education might be lacking and that you should learn to use the English language with a little more eloquence before you bother posting again. You should definitely at least know the definition of paranoia and how to identify it before you declare that someone has it.


      • Larry Laird

        My first reply was spot on.

        You want a gun because your neighbor has a gun? Sure seems like ‘suspicion of motivation of others’. Until you have evidence the neighbor is irresponsible, you are paranoid.

        AS far as command of the language—-you lack any semblance of being in a position to criticize.

        “You should definitely at least know the definition of paranoia and how to identify it before you declare that someone has it.”

        “you should definitely at least”?
        Very poor usage of the language. The whole sentence is poorly written:
        “You should definitely, (comma) at least, (comma) know the definition of paranoia and how to identify it, (comma) before you declare that someone has it.”

        Also, you don’t ‘have’ paranoia. It’s a behavior.

        JudgeX X–
        Having spent years as a psych nurse, I can suggest a few good Doc’s for you.
        (it’s best if you know your adversary Judgy)

        see the shrink

      • Larry Laird

        P A R A N O I A

      • JudgeX X

        Hey “psych nurse”, until someone actually exhibits FOUR or more of the signs of paranoid personality disorder as described in the DSM 5, you probably shouldn’t be flying around the internet telling them to see a psychiatrist.

        Seems like a “psych nurse” would know better.

        I keep guns for self defense, like the 30% of the population that currently own guns.

        I keep them also for marksmanship practice.

        If your argument is that everyone who keeps a firearm for self defense is paranoid, you probably should NOT be working in the mental health industry.

        Guess that’s why you’re not a psych doctor 😉

      • Guest

        You do fit–you are worried about your neighbor’s it is possessions. You are fixated on being ‘invaded’.
        You even have it calculated on the likelihood someone might get into your home. (By your numbers each home is invaded 3 times a year)
        You express, in almost all of your posts, the hugely unlikely even you’ll be invaded.
        You have a plan to shoot whatever walks in your door–and you use human silhouettes for target practice.
        You have a totally irrational fear of others. You say you want to own a gun because others might have them.
        I’m not saying ‘everyone’ (–more mental weakness on your part.) Just those that have to brag about it
        Your posts are paranoid, defensive and illogical. (though it is good to see your keyboard has a ‘comma’ key )

        See the shrink

      • JudgeX X

        See, here are some of the problems with your discussion style. You don’t know the first thing about me, so you just SUPPOSE a bunch of crap.

        1) Neighbors possessions? No, just a certain type, if they have a gun I’d like one, too, just in case. 3 doors down someone shot the front windows out of a house from the street last year.

        2) It’s unlikely I will be invaded. It’s also unlikely I’ll be in a car crash but I still have insurance. It’s unlikely I’ll have cancer, but I still have insurance. It’s unlikely I’ll win the lottery but I still buy a ticket from time to time. Likewise, in the event that someone breaks into my home, I am as prepared as I can legally be.

        3) I don’t have a plan to shoot whatever walks in my door… only if it’s armed. My house has been burglarized, no one was shot, I called the police because he was unarmed.

        4) I do not use human silhouettes. I’m not opposed to doing so, I just prefer smaller targets, and ones that pop nicely when I shoot them, like clay targets.

        5) You need to qualify your statements. Why would I have an irrational fear of others if I am fully equipped to handle them? Do you have to fear something to be prepared to deal with it?

        Sadly for you, I’m not a crazy mountain-man or redneck, or weirdo-shut-in who eyes everyone suspiciously through minimally parted blinds as they walk up and down the street. I’m an average suburban Joe who happens to – like 1 in 3 Americans – have firearms for personal defense.

        I’m sorry that your wild attempts at supposition and name calling and questioning my sanity have fallen flat, but, you’ve got nothing…

        And again, you still didn’t highlight which 4 of the DSM 5 guideline behaviors I exhibit that would lead a “psych nurse” to suggest psychiatric consulting for Paranoid Disorder.

        Is that because you’re not really a psych nurse, or that you’re pretty much the worst one ever?

      • Larry Laird

        You do fit–you are worried about your neighbor’s and their possession of a gun. You express, in almost all of your posts, the hugely unlikely even you’ll be invaded. You are fixated on being ‘invaded’.

        You have even calculated the likelihood someone might get into your home. (By your numbers each home is invaded 3 times a year)

        You have a plan to shoot whatever walks in your door–and you use human silhouettes for target practice.
        You have a total irrational fear of others. You say you want to own a gun because others might have them.
        I’m not saying ‘everyone’ (–more mental weakness on your part.) Just those that have to brag about it
        Your posts are paranoid, defensive and illogical. (though it is good to see your keyboard has a ‘comma’ key )

        See the shrink

      • Larry Laird

        One other thing—-paranoid is a behavior where paranoid schizophrenia is a DSM diagnosis.
        I didn’t call you psychotic, (so the DSM criteria are not part of the discussion) just pussy whip scared of everything.
        Let the shrink put the official diagnosis on it.

    • J.H.

      You’re right on the money, Cooper. Keep them close and accessible when YOU need them and keep up the common sense approach.

    • Difster

      You’re in no danger from the “gun nuts.” The danger is from the drug dealers, the thugs, the gangs. There are more murders from hammers every year than rifles.

      Blacks commit more than 50% of murders (most against other blacks) and they are only about 15% of the population.

      Why are you afraid of the average, white “gun nut” that goes to gun shows and vociferously defends the 2nd Amendment?

      • Pro-Reality

        Can you take that keyboard you made that comment with and shove it up your asshole? Thanks!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        visually don’t U think that him hammering broken glass up his rectum with a cactus will be more appropriate?

      • How can you say such a thing then call someone a “gun nut?” Did he threaten violence or otherwise say he wanted anybody to get injured? You and people like you are the problem, not the people fighting for our CONSTITUTIONAL rights, but I don’t expect you to really understand what that means anyways

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey shawn————( ” brotha”)
        I guess parody and sarcasm wasn’t cultivational in your rigid regressive white trash doctrine in (voodoo) church school>?
        who-pray tell- do U refer to as “fighting for OUR(your?) rights”? Hmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,, scumbags such as glenn beck and rush Limbaugh and sarah (sexy idiot) palin? michelle Bachmann? maybe Michael grimm and joe walsh?
        …………or those patriots who lined up gun sights upon federal and state agents regarding scumbag moocher cliven bundy?
        note to oligophrenial lemming sean/shawn:
        if U cannot appreciate the reprehensible visual presented by my 4th dimension prattle that U responded to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        u are indeed in need of serious spiritual and social enemas– immediately

      • Brett Henning

        Spoken like a true lib.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        especially the part about crybaby white trash scum such as you(?) who align with the low IQ idiots who trained their GUNS on federal agents( cliven bundy trash) while the agents were doing their job……….
        if blacks did the same thing U would be in an uproar

      • regressive teaparty trash

        thank U!
        how are those stellar republican policies— of the past 25 yrs AND todays legislation——— doing 4 ya?

      • Ryan

        Uh, because Difster is clearly a racist so it’s be mean to him? You see, moe wasn’t being serious here (as even you could tell, but it’s easier to discredit him if you act like he really meant that). When gun nuts threaten lives, they’re fucking serious, all right, and they’ve got the ordinance to make it happen.
        Love how you guys yell “Constitutional rights” ALL OF THE TIME, but neglect to mention that the 2nd Amendment was NEVER looked at as guaranteeing individual gun rights until our almost satirically skewed SCOTUS made that ruling in 2008.
        Be honest, your precious gun rights come from Scalia, not the framers.

      • Brett Henning

        When have the “gun nuts” killed?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        dude,,,,,,,,,,,,U must be kidding!!!
        U want a list????

      • Wow, great response… You’re dumber than a bag of hammers bud

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        would that include the gun “non” nuts who aimed rifle scopes at federal and state agents regarding the moocher cliven bundy fiasco?

      • David Patrick Maurer

        it’s a simple equation: crime has been dropping like a rock for the past 30 years. gun manufacturers saw fewer people buying guns so, in order to preserve revenue, they had to come up with a way to get people who do buy guns to buy more of them, plus do everything they can to block enforcement of laws that deter the ‘grey market’ – in their case, illegal gun trafficking. and that is exactly what they’ve done – drum up paranoia and fear and block funding for enforcement of existing gun laws, while telling members of congress that they will spend millions to vote them out of office if they try to make illegal gun trafficking a federal crime. i have no problem with you owning a gun, provided that you pass the exam and own it legally, but you should understand that you are supporting an industry that cares only about making money, even if people die as a result.

      • Difster

        David, every business exists to make money. Despite the massive increase (or perhaps because of it) crime has dropped significantly.

        The only fear going on is because the leftists gun grabbers want to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights. When you are threatened with being disarmed, the proper response is to become even more well armed.

        The government has no business knowing what guns I have or making me take a test in order to possess one.

        But I guess you’ll be first up against the wall when it all comes crashing down.

      • David Patrick Maurer

        one point at a time: 1) i have no issue with businesses making money – it’s the second part: ‘even if people die as a result’. 2) there is good evidence that crime has dropped because of the legalization of abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline. gun sales spiked almost 30 years later. 3) do you really believe that the government should not be able to tell someone with a history of mental illness or criminal behavior that they can’t buy a gun?

      • Difster

        First of all, crime rates PER CAPITA are down and abortion rates, as deplorable as they are should not have much of an effect on that.

        Other studies show that where there are fewer gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, the less violent crime there is.

        And yes, I believe that the government shouldn’t be telling ANYONE that they shouldn’t have a gun. The 2nd Amendment states “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        A mentally ill person with murderous can get a gun anyway. Laws don’t stop bad people from doing bad things.

  • Canadian

    If you get mad at the idea of gun safety…maybe someone should be allowed to take your gun away.

    • John Yesford

      This isn’t about gun safety, its about making guns so expensive that most law abiding people won’t be able to own them.

  • Jerry Graybosch

    Have not safety features like this been around a while? I think there’s one keyed to a ring. Didn’t the last James Bond movie show something similar? I can’t imagine why anyone would object to this.

  • Robert Haugh

    On the surface this sounds like a reasonable solution, however, it takes away the immediate availability of the weapon whenever that watch is not being worn. Most people remove their watch at times such as bedtime. If one were awoken from sleep by an intruder, a home invader (and yes, it does happen) does one at that moment ask this person to wait while he gets his watch and gun at least in close proximity to each other? A lot of people react to a statement like this that I’ve made,with insults such as, ” you’re paranoid, you’re a gun nut” well I’m neither of those. What I am is a responsible gun owner who also happens to believe that guns should not be made available to just anybody with the money to pay for them.I live in Massachusetts,where gun laws governing ownership and licensing are strict, as they should be. Unfortunately too many states sell them over the counter to anybody who requests them. I’ve been licensed to carry a concealed weapon for over 25 years. Except for a few family members and friends, other people I come into contact with on a daily basis, are not aware that I am armed. It’s not a toy, so I do not play with it, nor do I flaunt it, but I do take comfort in the fact that this weapon, in it’s holster, is attached to my belt.Of course I never want to find myself in a situation that would cause me to bring that weapon out to defend myself, but I want the option to defend myself should a threat against my life or physical well being take place. When we read of these terribly tragic events that take place involving guns, there always follows, a demand for taking weapons away from the population. To those people I would say, don’t be so naive as to call for the seizure of all personally owned weapons, if you get your way, you will surely live to regret it.

    • robingee

      “When we read of these terribly tragic events that take place involving guns, there always follows, a demand for taking weapons away from the population.”

      I haven’t heard anyone talk about abolishing all guns. There may be people who think that way but that’s not what lawmakers are pushing for.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        funny how the NRA marinated regressives in the tea party always bemoan the finality of ” Obama is taking our guns” when he has no attempt at legislation in the years he is president
        perhaps he will the day Hillary is elected?

  • bieler

    Why is a second revolution a “crazy” idea? I know “progressive” is just code word for “obedient ward of the state” or “mindless welfare parasite,” but isn’t there anything the government could do that could make one of you limp-wristed cowards fight back? It’s kind of sad to think you foodstamp slaves are so enthralled by your government masters that there is no limit to what atrocities you would accept from them without a fight.

    • robingee

      No one is going to take you seriously because you say things like this.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        glenn beck and cliven bundy will

    • Pipercat

      Yes, a zombie-like attack of straw man arguments!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        does ray bolger cringe with that metaphor? :))

      • Pipercat

        Aunt Sally gets pissed…

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        toto UN stuffed???
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, malkin replaces Margaret Hamilton???

    • JAMEJO

      See, it’s comments like this one that make normal folks fear people like you. Essemtially you’ve said that, if we don’t agree with you, you’ll force us to accept what you say”.

    • Lee

      Check your family tree for inbreeding ASAP.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        tree petrified eons ago

    • Duggie

      The better question is “Why haven’t you?” Many people with this idea are just talk. They want others to take action rather than do it themselves.

    • Adam Smith

      The problem is what you “know” is bull shit and the reason you feel you need guns for a “second revolution” is because you can’t win national elections.

      By the way, I own guns and as a combat veteran and a retired Army NCO, I know how to use them. One thing that would make me fight is if idiots like you tried to take by force what you can’t win at the polls.

      Count on it.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        they won some national elections,,,,,
        visit 1980 and 2000. the policies of those two “conservatives” really launched our country into near oblivion financially
        im totototally for the tea party joining the historic value of the whigs

      • bieler

        Finally, someone gives an honest answer. You have no morals. You have no ethics. Putrid lumps like Adam here will fight for one thing and one thing only: Uninterrupted welfare. You would watch a thousand children bombed a day, and laugh at the blood. You would see every nation on earth invaded and conquered for your corporate masters. The government can murder, steal, and pollute across the globe so long as your favorite welfare-dishing party is in charge. But if the gravy ever stops flowing, government brainwashed and trained psychopathic killers like Adam here will go on a murder spree leading you mobs of bloodthirsty welfare leeches behind them. The last days of Rome will seem like a picnic compared to the day the State runs out of bread and circus for you subhuman barbarians.

    • laugh or retch

      Political impotence is all in your head. If you’re proposing a revolution you should ask yourself:

      What exactly will you change?

      If your answer boils down to “who’s in charge” then you’re not a revolutionary, you’re a terrorist.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        take it a step further: what EXACTLY are “conservatives” actually crying to “conserve”???? sounds regressive to me

      • bieler

        If the goal is to dismantle all of the unconstitutional machinations that have sprung-up to disenfranchise the citizens and empower elites, then that is a revolution. The only people who would consider such a revolution to be terrorism would be the oligarchs and their feckless lapdogs. Since anyone who sides with this government lives off the work of others like a common thief, truthfully, you would see a revolution as the destruction of your gravy train. The only “terror” you would experience would be the fear that you would have to actually do real work for a living.

      • laugh or retch

        If you weren’t a fringe whack job you could rally the political momentum to make those changes without a revolution.

      • bieler

        I’d rather be counted with the Founding Fathers and other the “fringe wackjobs” with a love for freedom and a willingness to fight than with the common coyotes lusting for the farmer’s herds and a willingness to steal like you.

      • laugh or retch

        Oh, you’re like the founding fathers in your little dream world. Isn’t that cute.

      • bieler

        I guess if I was a self-loathing little parasite who lived by sucking the blood from people of value, I suppose I would be a patronizing speck of worm droppings as well. There is nothing cute about whatever mask of superiority you wear to hide your disgusting sub-human nature from yourself. But keep drowning reality in alcohol and shows about gay vampires; I’m sure that will distract you just enough. As long as you can keep the self-loathing low enough to make the suicidal thoughts into murmurs, you can collect one more government check.

      • laugh or retch

        A founding father to whom all others are assumed to be sub-human? Come now bieler, your delusions of grandeur are getting out of hand. Perhaps if you tried for simple adequacy you could stop blaming others for you being a failure.

      • bieler

        Here’s the thing: I clean-up after guys like you for a living. When I go clean up the apartments and basements of your brethren, it’s always the same. Copies of the Communist Manifesto, “coexist” stickers, Daily Show on the Hulu, fast food wrappers and pizza boxes, empty booze bottles, violent video games, welfare check stubs, and usually drugs and piles of porn. The Founders would have recognized you in their day as the type who dies of starvation, or exposure, or some other cause related to laziness and worthlessness. These days, useless scum like you are kept alive artificially by the state at the expense of real people. But it is an illusion; it’s as if nature built in a self-destruct for subhumans who aren’t fit to survive. All the shallow things you do, all the false sense of superiority, all the material possessions you hoard bought with stolen money, none of it can mask the realization that you have no place with real humans very long, especially with women. So you turn to worship of the state, thinking your religion will give you purpose. But it is just as evil and useless as you are, and just as vain, and does nothing to make you any less useless. Then one day the mask slips, and the reality that you have no value to anyone or anything comes crashing in, that your entire being is meaningless, and then the rope goes around your neck. Then I have to clean up the garbage you leave behind. When the relatives of you parasites come to collect belongings that aren’t tagged for evidence, they are always sad. Not because they miss you; they are glad you are gone, and sometime they admit it. They are sad because they knew you in the first place. Especially the mothers. They always blame themselves for creating a monster. I doubt if I will be the one to shovel your memorial of garbage into the roll-away, but someone will, and probably soon.

      • laugh or retch

        Oh my god – that is by far the funniest rant I’ve heard in a long time! Welfare check stubs and piles of porn – lol. The Daily Show and Coexist stickers – LOL. But best of all the communist manifesto! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

        Anyway, please do go ahead with your revolution. General Wile E Coyote has a spot in his army for you Mr Cannon Fodder.

      • bieler

        You’re too cowardly to use the rope. My guess is that you’ll end up like the old guys. They stick around for decades, mooching off of the system, oblivious to the reality that nobody cares about them until they end up in the assisted living institutions. Then it hits them like a wall. Old, alone, hated and repulsive in every way. Somehow they get hold of too many pills and that’s that. Sometimes I think the staff leave the pills in their rooms on purpose.

      • laugh or retch

        Wishing your deepest fears upon me won’t change anything for you.

      • bieler

        Keep cinching that mask a little tighter. You are so superior. You’re smarter than everyone, and so much wiser. That’s why you have no friends. That’s why your family detests you. That’s why no girl who isn’t a f’d-up mental case will touch you. That’s why you couldn’t keep a job if you even wanted one. That’s why you drink and get high all the time. Keep telling yourself how much better you are than everyone else while you steal from them and blame them for all your failures. It’s just a matter of time before your lies to yourself stop working and your only escape from the horrible reality that you are a waste of dna is to end it all.

      • laugh or retch

        Thanks for the tour of the twisted psyche of a would be terrorist. It was “interesting” but you’re getting repetitive. And while you have a talent for weaving tired and worn out cliches together, they’re still tired and worn out cliches. Next time I hear “he was a quiet guy” or “he kept mostly to himself” I’ll think of you.

      • bieler

        There is a dash between “would” and “be,” public school. Next time you want to sound superior to someone, try and get your grammar right. Or don’t; since people rarely check the grammar of suicide notes, it hardly matters.

      • laugh or retch

        You finally got something right. That IS new. Congratulations! Yes, you are a *would-be* terrorist. And with that you’ve completed my mental image of you. I can just see you goose stepping with the grammar nazis to the strains of Schoolhouse Rock, yelling “WORD POWER”.

      • bieler

        lol textbook case.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      I agree,,,,,,,,,,,,,after all why should we–as a species– “PROGRESS” when we can “regress” in the form of conserving atavistic outdated and one sided laws marinated in superstition( see: RELIGION?VOODOO)?

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    These folks are not a well regulated militia. They are militants without a cause. Their ideologies are similar to that of militants in the Middle East. Paranoia runs through their veins. How in the world safety features on guns that would prevent others to use it equals disarming Americans? I see it at disarming criminals, which is the same rhetoric used against gun control. In other words, “the only way to stop crime is a good guy with a gun”. I heard that many times. If this feature was available before Sandy Hook, we wouldn’t had a Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza used his mother’s guns in that massacre.

  • Karlheinz Groeger

    Not the most brilliant idea, as I assume most people don’t wear a watch to bed, or 24/7, but the idea of threatening someone’s life over this is indeed idiotic, and I am a gun owner!

  • Wesley Harriss

    I think this “safety” feature is kind of stupid and silly. I doubt it would do anything for safety other than drive up the cost of guns for responsible gun owners. I also believe the writer of this story really needs to read and study the Constitution and the reasons why the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment,Bill of rights ,etc. But then I believe most Americans need to read and study it much more often than most do. People on both sides of this issue need to stop the extremist’s and come to some reasonable common sense rules and laws. This should include gun use and safety education for every American, background checks which include mental health and much more common sense punishments from our justice system for crimes involving guns.

    • JAMEJO

      Be sure you know about our Constitution and its history . . . as I said above, when our Constitution was adopted, there was no standing army, etc., and the reason for the amendment was so that a militia could be raised when needed. Read it, and you’ll see that’s what’s written, clearly.

  • hjones1971

    I don’t see an issue with this “safety” idea. I actually think it’s a cool concept. As for those that argue about the wearing the watch to bed. I don’t think that would be much of an issue, that sounds like someone arguing just to argue against it. I’m sure if they are in close proximity then it will work and if you are too silly to keep them stores close enough to each other then you are probably to silly to own it. You could use the same argument with a locked up weapon or one with a trigger lock. “Hold on sir, I know you’re threatening my family and life but time out so I can unlock my weapon”..of course I would hope that you unlock them for access at night before you go to bed.

  • Scaramongus

    Umm, is anyone requiring that these safety features be forced on every and all gun owners? If you want this safety feature, buy it, if you don’t then don’t buy it. Isn’t that how the so called “free market” is supposed to work?

    • Get all of the facts

      Actually some states, like New Jersey, already have a law that says that once these types of guns are developed, they are the only type you can own.

      So much for our free market.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        and that means that this type of weapon — when developed to its fullest potential– ( and sold by competitors) isn’t free market?

      • Jeff Mitcler

        Huh…..I googled ‘new jersey law on future guns’…..nothing

      • AQ

        Shhh, don’t confuse the Teadiots with facts. Facts make them violent.

  • sherry06053

    Out of all the organizations, the NRA scares me the most. They are pro gun ownership at any cost. They have a lot of money and spend it to further their agenda to the least educated and most hateful of our population. To them, there is no such thing as “common sense laws”. They are against any technology that can and will be available to limit gun usage to only those programmed to the legal user. They are fighting it with everything they have. They are against any laws to make a firearm traceable to an illegal owner. They are against any attempt to keep any sort of guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Aside from the fact that they use the 2nd amendment, which is a 250+ year old “living” document as their excuse and reason to fight against any modern adaptation to today’s environment, their money buys power. They direct their attention toward people who follow and believe people like Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent. This puts people who don’t agree with them at risk and in danger – because they are armed. Ignorance + bigotry + bullying + guns equal more violence and innocent people dying. I predict Georgia is going to be proof of this – and now we can add alcohol to the mix. We need a national law because obviously the states are not capable of taking into consideration our ability to travel freely though out this country safely.

    • robingee

      It’s true. I think of it like this; in a Liberal town/city/state you can have a Right-Wing bumper sticker and not be scared. In a Conservative town/city/state you are in physical danger if you express any kind of Progressive views. Because their side is not the intellectual side; it’s the mindless bullying side.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        it is not mindless,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        it is the command of 21st century jesus and the superstition( voodoo) spawned by those white trash lemmings

  • Pq Ribber

    Why do so many seemingly intelligent Americans refuse to understand the comma in the fifth amendment? the militia and the right to bear arms are separated by one, and are two different things. Learn English and how it works, Our Founding Fathers knew what a comma was and how to use them.

    • JAMEJO

      More to the point, when the amendment was passed, there was no standing army, navy, etc., so the only form of national defense was to have a militia, in this case the “Minutemen”. To raise that militia, people needed to have guns. Now they don’t.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        unless U hate well spoken brilliant African American presidents who are from mars and are out to become our dictator/king/ president for life—–
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and suckle the tete of the NRA and FOX “news”

      • ender098

        Yeah, well, first we need a Well Spoken Brilliant African American President. So far all I have seen is one who is half African in Heritage until he can use it to comment on some issue dividing this nation and make it worse, who lies (remember how I could keep my Dr?) and has made us look weak to the world. Maybe if you weren’t busy making excuses for him and suckling the Teat of MSNBC/Bloomberg and Huffington Post, the Kool Aid would quit clouding your pot smoking, tree hugging criminal rights loving melon and you could think clearly….just saying!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey!!!! I love that as I “nearly” forgot the boorish over-repeated verbosity of the regressive crybaby ignorant rightwingers!!! thank u! I don’t watch enough anne coulter/ judge Jeannie/ glenn beck ET HOC GENUS OMNE so I do get those infantile remarks lost !
        funny– if Obama was named tyrone Jackson and he was the principal in your school U would call him black– more crybaby racism from shitbags ( you) who are delightfully on the (slow) way out of this society
        I don’t read huffington post; I watch msnbc/cnbc( Im heavily invested in stocks and options- thank U Obama for 400% return in my portfolio since “6666” bottom years ago)as well as the cringing backtracking FOX “news” imbeciles who now are using BENGHAZI as OBAMACARE is working and they look uber stupid ( see: Hannity/ cliven bundy) so they have 2 dig up fats & furious,,,,,lois lerner and —- ” B.E.N.G.H.A.Z.I. ” to try to derail the train which our country is riding. They( you) don’t dare bring up spending as our deficit is falling at its fastest pace since a REAL repub pres ( IKE) in the 50’s
        kool aid???? Hmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I prefer YOO HOO’s and occasionally A&W birch beer– which adroitly segues to most of U white trash* regressives are alcoholics.
        criminal lover? naaah– I prefer relatively well balanced people in my life– and I ( ??) am a true criminal as my self employed chef business generates about 90K per year CASH ( taxes paid by my 2 commercial and one residential income producing-rentals- properties here in se florida where Im native and still live ) so technically I am avoiding serious taxation ( which makes me a “HERO” to idiots such as you who hate government) thus I am a criminal. Luckily I know how the IRS does its math and its easy to avoid them– just don’t spend on stuff out of your tax range per year!
        I really enjoy low IQ cretins such as you attempting denigratory aspersions in my direction….. I really do!
        and remember: we will supply a lifetime amount of KLEENEX for all of you lachrymose tea(bag) party twits who will be shedding all2many tears in the 2016 HILLARY victory over,,,,,,over,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        ————- exactly WHO is your ‘candidate ‘ anyway???

      • ender098

        Doesn’t matter…one word….ObamaCare! 😀 See ya at the polls!

      • regressive teaparty trash

        now THATS the infantile reply I have become accustomed to in dealing with white ttrash low IQ regressive crybabies who cannot find any republican policies which have benefitted USA over the past 25 yrs
        the ACA? Hmmmm,,,,,,,,,,, as it progresses and helps MORE “VOTERS” get QUALITY insurance I am with ya on the effect it will have in november
        see? a liberal and a regressive CAN agree!

      • ender098

        you’re being insultive AND combative, and I’m infantile. YEah, I can tell you all about how Reagan Saved the US from Carter and Clinton and Fanny Mae and Ferdie MAc along with NAFTA caused the mess we are in…it’s in your history books.Youjust need to read and think and quit spewing venom.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        well; that pedantic oligophrenial retort U just pooped DID successfully NOT answer my inquiry:
        which was—
        what republican policies – on a federal level– has benefitted americans in past 25 yrs??
        NOTE– exactly HOW did Reagan save us from Clinton?
        mustve been Reagans policies of outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas,,,or selling weapons to IRAN? or— that silly major ADDING to deficit and debt ( which repubs don’t CRY about,,,,,,,,,,,unless a democrat is in office)
        silly lil facts–in THE history books

      • ender098

        The Economic Growth during the Reagan years is history. He sold arms to Iran (which most were AWACs planes and phased out military gear) to fund a war against Communists like you in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Clinton expanded NAFTA and drove Jobs Overseas. Quit huffing meth in the trailer park and do some reading and quit listening to the college kids who sell you dope….they only know what their Communist professors who have never worked a day in their lives and never went to these countries where they say Socialism is working. Wanna talk about Adding Debt ? Look at the CBO and Obamas record. Reagan saved us from Carter and his messed up Policies. (yes, I should have separated my sentences better) Clinton, went on AFTER Reagan set us on the right path and started expanding NAFTA , then forced Banks to give risky loans with Fanny Mae and Ferdie Mac….the economy was about to implode when Bush took over because of Clinton’s shoddy economic Policies, but his trashy foreign policies and his ability to do nothing against terrorism (Kenya/Tanzania/the USS Cole) gave terrorists the guts to try and attack us (9-11) and Bush had to engage the Military Industrial Complex and gear for war….if he hadn’t….WorldComm and Enron wouldn’t have been the only major companies to dry up and crash because Slick Willy was too busy playing footsie in the white house to see make sure the SEC was doing it’s job! The build up for War kept the economy from collapsing…until Obama took over….then, rather than blame it on the man who opened us up with Nafta and Ferdie Mac….he blames it on Bush….well, Vote Democrat again….and when we are as prosperous as Chicago and Detroit you’ll see who knows about finance, world affairs, military strength and economics….and who knows how to “Community Organize”

      • regressive teaparty trash

        lets look at Clintons prosperity VS saint Reagans,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and shall we be pricks and include the comparison in deficits?? (OHNOOOO)
        “gave terrorists the moxie(guts) to attack us” which translates into bush and his cretins IGNORED staunch warnings from our higher-ups about what was to happen,,,,
        blame it on bush? Hmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, its always so “enlightening” when white trash crybaby regressives such as you claim the destruction happening on a democratis presidents watch as HIS fault,,,,yet when some serious sh*t happens upon a republicans watch; its someone elses fault– which mirrors the opposite paralogism: when Clinton policies gave us the RECORD growth it was because of a republican congress,,,,or when Obama has OUR deficit now shrinking faster than anytime since IKE( read it b4 U reply) U have some smoke-and-mirrors answer giving credit to anyone OTHER than this administration.
        Detroit? wow– a CITY! shall we look at what a dem in CALIFORNIA has done??? immediate 4.1 billion dollar ( some say 3.875 billion) surplus,,,, so go f*ck ur crybaby talking points which have no weight in grander scheme — maybe those useless republican policies of past 25 yrs??? are we up 2 chatting about current history? or is Reagan the only thing U got? ( note– his debt and deficit were,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, well: ya’ know)
        vote democrat? Hmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lets all chant BENGHAZI and abortion and lois lerner!!!

      • ender098

        Go drink some Kool-aid and worship your Lord and Savior Obama. You’re not intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        with that reply I MUST acquiesce and recognize that your verbiage here proves that you INDEED have a cable “news” show on FOX
        NOTE: my savior is my hard work at my finances( see: passive residual income) and my keeping my body in very very good physical condition ( which is QUITE thelyphthoric with the ladies. )

      • ender098

        And you really need to get your prescription filled….your meds are wearing off.

      • Adam Hunsicker

        The Bill of Rights was ratified Dec 15, 1791. The United States government realised it needed a well-trained STANDING army following St. Clair’s Defeat on November 4, 1791 which lead to the creation of the Legion of the United States in 1792. If the only purpose for the 2nd was to facilitate national defense then I’m fairly confident that at some point in the 222 years we’ve fielded a standing army it would have been repealed.

    • Anon_tom

      I’m not against you, but I’m glad you understand commas but not the amendments. It’s the second amendment. At least cite the right one you are trying to address.

    • jarandhel

      In English, that comma separates the dependent clause from the independent clause. In this case, the dependent clause is “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” and the dependent clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In this case, they’re two halves of a conditional statement.

      This is, of course, only true of the version that was ratified by the states – the version passed by Congress had three commas: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      So, if you really want to claim that a comma means they’re two different things, then that comma after “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” clearly indicates that “shall not be infringed” is referring to something else.

    • Toggi3

      Arguments like these over what language means are exactly why we were left the federalist papers and have founding state constitutions of the time to look back to. In the context of those, it is obvious it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. For example Thomas Jefferson’s “No man shall be debarred the use of arms”.

      While one might argue the contrary based on technicality, you can actually figure out why the amendments are there in the words of the people that wrote them if you read some simple complimentary material.

  • patti

    There is nothing wrong with safety features however when it comes to a potential blue tooth device that controls a gun there are issues to consider. Things like programs that can be transmitted to watch to prevent use.. created by bad guys or the government. I own several guns for protection, retired mil and in no way paranoid.I am trained in explosives. Safety is paramount until someone is threatening your family. Bad people will always circumvent the system.

  • Sandy Greer

    Well, the lady said it’s not for everyone:

    Concerned about cost? Don’t buy it.
    Don’t want to have to wear a watch? Don’t buy it.

    ^^^It’s the American way, that. To make our own choices.

    Beats me why the NRA & ‘gun nuts’ WOULDN’T want safety features. Save themselves a whole heckuva lotta needless aggravation by working with the Opposition. Rather than just a knee-jerk, reactionary, no way, no how, “outta my cold, dead, hands”, I mean.

    I guess they really do believe the Revolution’s a-comin’. Probably because they fueled it. For Corporate profits.

    ^^^And that, too – Corporate profit (at the expense of people) – is the American way.

    • Understand both sides

      Actually some states, like New Jersey, already have a law that says that once these types of guns are developed, they are the only type you can own.

      So much for if you don’t want it don’t buy it. They have decided for you.

      I’m not a gun nut, I don’t even own one. However, I would hate to have one, and be told to go and buy a new expensive one or be a criminal.

      I agree with you, the profit someone will make if these are mandatory, is outrageous.

      • Sandy Greer

        My understanding is the NJ law says once the guns are FOR SALE in NJ – not merely developed. A gun shop has to offer them for sale – for the law to take effect. I thought I read something about prosecutorial ‘discretion’ – but don’t hold me to it.

        Do you have statute and text of the law? That would be helpful.

        I didn’t see anything about ‘grandfathered’ guns – those we own now. Usually, ‘grandfathered’ are left in place, when laws go into effect.

        I’m not a gun nut, either. Though I am armed. Don’t ‘carry’.

        My biggest nightmare is that a gun of mine be stolen, and used in a crime – and I am prosecuted, for not keeping that gun ‘safe’ from theft. Anybody who is armed, and doesn’t keep guns under lock and key at all times – thinks about that.

        So I’m in favor of ‘smart’ gun technology. Not sure I would buy in – but I’m in favor.

        And, as a gun owner who is not a ‘gun nut’ – I don’t fear my govt coming for my guns.

        Your last sentence is a Straw Man – a misrepresentation of my argument. But I’m sure you knew that. 😉

    • Outraged13

      “Corporate profit at the expense of the people” is the most fitting description of this country I’ve heard in a while.

      • Sandy Greer

        Thank you; I thought so. Unfortunately, as you see from the other Reply to my OP:

        It sails right over the heads of some people.

  • laugh or retch

    It sounds like a oxymoron or misnomer but “lone gunman club” comes to mind whenever I interact with gun nuts.

  • taxed_payer

    Great idea. It’s Gun Safety not Gun Control. Go Belinda. Thank you for your ingenuity.

  • JudgeX X

    “you have to be absolutely insane to believe that our Second Amendment was meant to arm citizens just incase some kind of “second revolution” is needed to overthrow our government.”

    I disagree. The wording itself is all you need to look at. “being necessary to the security of a free state”. If the security of that “free state” is threatened by any form of tyranny, the ownership of guns is clearly to remove it. If the source of that threat is foreign or domestic, the firearms are to eliminate that threat.

    Firearms act as a natural limit to how far a man may be pushed before someone dies as a result. Their presence acts as a very simple to understand “enough is enough” equalizer. They ensure that we handle one another with at least a small shred of respect, and they provide an environment where a physically unimpressive human doesn’t have to obey a physically impressive human out of fear of being savagely beaten.

    If you can’t appreciate that for how useful it is, it sounds like:
    1) You aren’t very clear on how human nature works because you’ve been spoiled your entire life. I could cure you of this mentality with a week of nightly walks in bad neighborhoods.
    2) You lack the capacity to understand the importance of being able to defend yourself from other humans and nature. I could cure you of this mentality with my hands or a stone.

    “But other countries”… yeah, I get it. When our incarceration levels drop to a reasonable level because our violent/property crimes fall below the international average, THEN we can start talking about gun control. When my neighbors are being shot to death in their sleep over $800 worth of electronics, you can bet I’m keeping a loaded gun on the nightstand.

    You don’t live in that neighborhood? Oh. Then how is it your business how the people of that neighborhood defend themselves? Don’t tell people how to live and defend themselves from behind your gated community with your kids all bundled up in a private school.

    And for the record, I think the idea of a wristband that enables a firearm is a decent safety mechanism, but not one I’m interested in. It has applications, though, and anyone who threatens people should probably be tracked down and arrested. Actually, I’ll go ahead and say that if she isn’t pursuing these people through law enforcement, she’s doing a disservice to everyone. These phone warriors and threat throwers need locked away to send a message.

  • sfwmson

    I get it, but it’s a bit silly. all they have to do then is steal or illegally sell gun and watch.

  • Ben Rush

    Sorry, I have no sympathy for her. The lunacy now threatening HER has been carefully cultivated by her company (and the rest of her industry), to help sell her product. She really shouldn’t be surprised the monsters she created are turning on her.

  • Adam Ross

    This safety feature does not recognize or identify the gun owner. It picks up the signal from the watch. A thief that stole the gun, could just take the watch as well and not have a problem (unless the watch requires a PIN be entered to disable the safety on the weapon)

  • Thatguy

    I myself am a gun enthusiast, and I own several of them. I also believe that someone should have the right to defend themselves if the situation arises. but I think this kind of safety feature is a step in the right direction. If this becomes standardized, then we wouldn’t have to worry about guns with that tech being stolen by a whack job who plans on going on a killing spree, or some crackhead looking for some stuff to sell/means to perform a robbery. My only concern however, is that safety system needs to be un-interruptable. keeping it safe from someone being able to jam the link between shooter and firearm rendering it unable to fire. (not something that one would want if ever they were attacked).

    • Clay Clifton

      I have to agree with you there. Would a portable emp be able to jam the gun? though honestly i don’t think anyone would be that smart to use one but it would be something to worry about.

  • Dawn Hilton Oliveira

    I think it is an awesome idea! Many crimes are committed with stolen guns. If this was in place Newton would have never happened and those children would still be alive

  • Sittin_Pretty

    I don’t sleep with my watch on!

    • TerryInIowa

      I do.

  • Toggi3

    Please take this all with an open mind

    I didn’t read deeply into it, but some concern/questions here:

    Who controls the watches?

    Will the watches have to be registered?

    How does the interlock work?

    Is the watch easily disabled by 3rd parties like police, businesses, parks?

    Is the gun easy to modify by criminals to not need the interlock?

    Will police be subject to using this kind of weapon too? Shouldn’t they be able to trust their lives and the lives of their colleagues to this technology? Shouldn’t police have to trust this system first before people can be expected to?

    How about the military?

    What implications does this kind of technology have for existing firearms, politically?

    What if the gun or the watch have their batteries die?

    What happens if a watch is stolen, lost, or destroyed? Is the firearm then rendered useless forever or can it be re-fitted?

    Perhaps most importantly, how do we address the problem of various establishments or groups that wish to harass gun owners, or people with malicious intent to steal guns scanning people for these wireless watches so they know who is carrying a weapon?

    How do we address the problem of people radio jamming the watches so they can more safely terrorize people in their homes if these are to be required? Imagine hypothetically for a moment the Bundy Militia gang with a jammer enforcing martial law and looting houses and threatening people.

    I don’t hate safety technology, in fact I dare say I like this idea and I might even buy a gun with this even if it would not be the only gun I own, but I have questions and concerns for the politics around this and what the states decide to do with it in terms of it being mandatory or not. The inventor has my kudos for thinking outside the box regardless what is done with it, the idea is not bad in its own right.

    • Nocturne

      Great questions, and I’d love to hear the answers.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      does Disney still own mickey mouse watches???

  • Raj Persaud

    Don’t forget to weigh the barriers to accessing guns and heavy regulations against reoccurring incidents of violence against the general public (THERE ARE MORE THAN 80 INSTANCES OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SINCE 2010 ACROSS AMERICA). Balance the competing interests…

  • ben

    As a 36 year old combat veteran who has spent 3 + years in a combat zone, I have only ever needed a gun for defense a couple times. And every time was while I was deployed to said combat zone. That being said, if we never falsely invaded Iraq, I would have never needed one.

  • Pro-gunners are nothing if not confused.

    Actually, it was never intended to make gun ownership a universal right. In the 18th century, “to keep and bear arms” was standard legal jargon for “to serve in a military,” with particular emphasis on militias. It had nothing to do with anyone owning anything.

    When you think about it, it’s pretty stupid to think that the Founding Fathers inserted a plug for a commercial product into the Bill of Rights. But gun guys can believe anything.

    • Toggi3

      You are right the intent was to form a competent militia, but it is crucial to understand they created a militia specifically by not creating a militia. They just got done fighting their own militia for two years, they had concerns with the idea of creating a state militia, so they armed the people as the militia, that and they didn’t really have the resources or the funding to do anything else.

      Obviously, as history will show the people’s militia wasn’t successful for very long, so we created the national guard to be yet more well-regulated (competent and able) to spearhead our defense interests, at which point when it was appropriate the ‘regulars’ (The Militia) would take over, but then we also created the ARMY.

      Also obviously, throughout all of this the 2nd amendment remains on the books, and if it is to be interpreted honestly in the context of what is written in the federalist papers, various letters, founding state constitutions, etc, then you must at least allow the general public enough power that it could be competent as a real militia, which in my mind is large hunting calibers and semiautomatic function, but some people will argue the threshold is more/less.

      • laugh or retch

        The idea of a militia is dependent on a means of calling that militia to duty. The draft law changes of the ’70s have made a draft so unlikely that it seriously dilutes the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

      • Toggi3

        Unfortunately so, as I happen to like Switzerland’s balance between gun rights and constitutional responsibility. I *like* the idea of mandatory government service. We don’t have to send people to war, think of what a year of government service for each citizen can do for our quality of life, we could build so many homes for the poor and build a great sense of community, and we’d get the additional benefit of catching the great majority of the crazies that shouldn’t be allowed to own weapons.

      • laugh or retch

        Army corp of engineers comes to mind.

        But I’d take it maybe one step less and, rather than mandate service, just make the likelihood of being drafted higher. Like a gun owner tier after the reserves but before the general populace.

        Standing Army – first in as always
        Reserves – exactly as the name implies
        Gun Owners – Draft after a conflict lasts a while
        General Populace – Draft on actual declaration of war

        The act of owning a gun shows voluntary participation in the militia. No need to worry about conscientious objection either.

      • Toggi3

        I have some concerns with that, namely that would require a national registry of gun owners, something I think that has potential for more harm than good, also a benefit we would lose out on with that system opposed to a general public responsibility, is people would continue to see war as this vague, distant thing rather than something that could definitely impact everyone, and be more willing to tolerate our interventionist attitude with the rest of the world. Such a system also puts unequal burden on people who just want to protect themselves and feel they have a need for a weapon. So in my head I imagine the worst possible scenario, that we deploy a victim who was stalked or harassed or possibly raped who just wanted to defend themselves before other people, to go die for some unjust war not nearly enough people care about out in the desert.

      • laugh or retch

        No system is ever perfect and you make some good points. Perhaps a conscientious objection could still be raised by a gun owner but I’d think it would receive higher scrutiny than it might from a non-owner. That would cover the case of someone that had been victimized.

        I think it is the very fact that a draft is so unlikely that makes wars seem vague and distant. So I’ll have to disagree with you on that point. Also, in my idea the initial draft would not begin until the standing military and the reserves were deployed. That has a purpose to allow time for those that oppose the war to lobby against it. If a draft had started a couple years after the start of the Afghanistan or Iraq wars do you think we’d still be over there?

      • Toggi3

        I actually think wires got crossed somewhere, because I concur with you regarding how an unlikely draft causes indifference to war, I am just not sure everyone but gun owners should get a pass on the first round of doing that, because that is still a rather wide group to take, and I don’t like the message it conveys that gun owning citizens ought to risk their lives first for all the non gun owning citizens. I do understand what you are saying with regards to keeping gun ownership to its specifically named purpose, but there are so many other purposes to so many that I am just not comfortable telling them to go die for the rest of society just because they dared to seek the means for their self protection.

      • Toggi3

        I’ve gotta say though, of all the comment thread conversations I’ve been lured into, I am happy for once to not be drowned in partisan rhetoric and for a change engage in some meaningful discourse.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        the regressive idea of PRIVATE companies making money ( see: bloated defense budget) wont be adhered to if we do that!!!

      • Toggi3

        Not to worry. Knowing us we will find some way to send the same scumbags the same money. We are nothing if not resilient in our quest to waste tax dollars propping up evil people.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        whether U are left wing or right wing I will concur with that
        and I do hope the “up propping” of elmer gantry-esque evil trash in tax -free churches abates

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      anything except that a woman is responsible for her choice regarding HER own body,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      I wonder: will the NRA back gays having big fancy guns to protect their marijuana?
      (OHNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lets bring religion ( voodoo) into legislation)

  • Difster

    The author doesn’t seem to understand that the 2nd Amendment is PRECISELY for the purpose of protecting ourselves from government.

    No sane person actually believes it’s just for hunting and defending against a robbery at home.

    The author also doesn’t seem to understand that if this device were mandatory, criminals wouldn’t use these types of guns. They’d just use the existing guns that are out there. Meanwhile, legal firearms owners would be vulnerable to a kill switch that disabled the use of these guns at the whim and discretion of politicians and/or police. Making such a device mandatory for all guns would antithetical to liberty.

    • laugh or retch

      One of the first uses of the militia in US history (post revolutionary war) was to put down the whiskey rebellion. So, no the founding fathers did not put that clause in there to allow insurrectionists to be armed but as a tool to allow the government to overcome insurrection.

      • Toggi3

        Depends who you ask, you might get a different response from Thomas Jefferson than from George Washington.

      • laugh or retch

        Perhaps but Jefferson party did follow the legal route in his opposition to the whiskey tax. Legal repeal of the tax rather than arm insurrection to stop the tax.

  • Brian duff

    I Agree There Are But Out There, But There Are Always Nuts Out There, This Article Is Written From An Extremely Bias View And Not Very Educational.

  • geez

    As a retired LE officer I think this would be a great feature. Officers can no longer be disarmed and shot with their own gun or the perpetrator shoot someone else with it. I agree, what about this feature, that isn’t required, is disarming anybody but a person who should not be using that gun?

  • Liberal for all freedoms.

    As a non gun owner, I would like to chime in for the opposite point of view. There are already newer laws on the books in a couple of states that would make these the only legal guns in their state.

    This may sound like a good idea, and I would agree on the surface it does. The issue is the gun you dad gave to you that he brought home from WWII. It would be illegal. It may be a historical gun you own, illegal as well. I can only imagine I would not like to be told I have to get rid of something I cherished.

    It also does not take illegal guns off of the streets. I wish we could get rid if them just like England, and Australia, but we are not an island nation. Undocumented people cross boarders every day, drugs and guns do as well. As long as bad people have guns, I want good people to have guns too.

    I think faising thes types of guns in would be a good thing. Making them the only gun you can own, not so good.

  • Moderation is key

    “They also seem to understand that you have to be absolutely insane to believe that our Second Amendment was meant to arm citizens just incase some kind of “second revolution” is needed to overthrow our government.”

    That is EXACTLY why we have guns. I have no qualms with this safety feature, or others that are on the market or in development. However you must understand that a “second revolution” is why our founding fathers added the second amendment. Go, read the Federalist Papers, read other works by our founding fathers. They gave us this protection because they foresaw a point in time when we might need it to protect ourselves from an overreaching government, just as they needed it free themselves from the tyranny of the English throne.

    I will fight to protect your right to own a firearm (and all your other Constitutional rights), I will fight to protect my countrymen’s rights to own firearms, and I will fight to protect MY right to own a firearm because that is our last line of defense against tyranny.

    No government will ever be my king.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      would your “king” happen to be a long dead jewish carpenter/fisherman?

  • ender098

    It’s all good and well, until the watch short circuits, or the batteries die, and since you haven’t got robbed in a while and haven’t checked them.Or you are involved in a pitched fight with someone who is stabbing you and your wife pics up the gun to save you and …GUESS WHAT? She’s NOT the “legal Owner”of the gun and you both get stabbed to death, this device gets ripped out of the gun and it is used to ill 16 more people in home invasions. All this stuff SOUNDS good, but if you have ever had a smart phone or PC, you know the golden rule of digital electronics…they will fail when you need them most…want that happening when your life is on the line? If they want this stuff sold to us, I think the Police and Military should use them and if they work flawlessly for one year, we will buy them…until then….tough noogies! You would THINK Cops would be all over this, they teach at the Academy that when in a scuffle,one hand on your gun so the assailant can’t get it….with this device, you wouldn’t have to lose one hand in a scuffle….if the guy grabs it….it won’t fire….Right? Or WILL it!???

  • Frank L Ridley

    Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Myth: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
    Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state’s gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

    Myth:: An armed society is a polite society.
    Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
    • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
    • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

    Myth: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

    Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
    • Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

    Myth: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
    Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
    • For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
    • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
    • In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boyswho found a handgun pulled the trigger.

    Myth: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
    Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
    • In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
    • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

    Myth: Guns make women safer.
    Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
    • A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
    • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      ton quote the sacrosanct “saint” Reagan,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      “…………….there U go again,,,,,,,,,”
      —————– annoying regressives with facts!

    • AQ

      I have a gun, but it’s locked up. Why? Because I have other weapons to use for “home defence.” The gun is for target shooting.

    • John Yesford

      “Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0”

      Mass shootings occurring in the presence of armed persons in the last 30 years: 0

    • John Yesford

      “Myth: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.”

      Because the guns just fired themselves.

      • Larry Laird

        No–it takes a person. So no person should have a gun. Extremely simple logic.

      • John Yesford

        With that kind of logic we must also prevent people from having cars, because some people kill other people using cars.

      • Larry Laird

        Licensed, registered, inspected, and revocable just for using it wrong, let alone killing someone. Liability insurance–accident, injury.
        Fine—require gun owners to have annual inspections, registration, tracking of all sales and lose their license for just breaking a small regulation, as well as accident/injury insurance.
        I like it.

      • John Yesford

        Hmm, well hammers kill more people than rifles. So I guess we have to extend this to hammers as well.

        As for cars, you don’t have a constitutional right to have a car and to drive a car, which is when the regulations you cite come into play, you need a publicly funded road.Something you don’t need to exercise your right to bear arms.

      • Larry Laird

        Rifles really don’t enter this conversation—the debate is about handgun safety.

        So, if gun ownership is a right, it can’t be taken away for any reason. That is not the case.
        So it’s a privileged. Your argument fails.

      • John Yesford

        Free speech is a right, and yet there are limits on it too. So is Freedom of Assembly. Gun possession is also a right, just read the 2nd Amendment and read multiple Supreme Court rulings.

  • Frank L Ridley

    Though the CDC has been denied funding for any study deemed detrimental to the gun lobby. Thank Newt Gingrich.

  • Okay, and what happens when you need to reboot your watch so it can connect with your gun right at the exact moment someone is about to kill you? Yeah, safety my ass… Learn a thing or two about guns before spouting off about them

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      hey sean,,,,,,,,,,,
      shouldn’t U be in a tax free ( see: moochers) church begging( praying) to your dead jewish carpenter “god”?

  • Karen_Dedosenco

    I am beginning to think that the only thing that will keep most these wackos from becoming walking arsenals is an IQ test – before being allowed to own a gun these nutcases should prove they possess at least the intelligence of an orangutan. I convey my apologies to orangutans for the homology but one must always try not to be too critical of those lacking in critical thinking skills.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      the orangutan in the clint eastwood 1970’s movies is smiling as he ( clyde) understands completely and agrees

  • kay

    your all idiots Government creates the problem – gun nuts, to impose more restrictions on the people. Furthermore what is a gun nut? say I’m an avid hunter or target shooter with a reloader and say 15 guns am I a nut?

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      nope— guns “nuts” are::::::::::::::::::::::
      cretins who show up to support aproven moocher and racist named cliven bundy. Gun zealots who train their crosshairs upon federal agents doing their job–
      I almost wish one of those white trash rednecks fired first

  • dan

    I figure they’re against regulations on restricting those with with mental health issues from owning firearms is theyvknow they would never pass themselves.

  • Bob

    This article is ridiculously funny. Liberals will buy anything. I have ocean front property in Arizona, if you buy it, I’ll throw the Golden Gate Bridge in for free.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      would that be in tune with rightwing mooching low IQ white trash “HEROS” such as cliven bundy?
      ………… maybe Michael (R) grimm?
      I do appreciate YOU selling that bridge as California—long long in debt– has now a big financial surplus with that socialist democrat governor

  • Larry Laird

    Gee–that would protect the owner of the gun. Gunners really don’t care who gets killed, do they?

  • Stephen Barlow

    A renal scanner in the barrel!!! WOW!!!! only the owner can fire the weapon!!! and he has to look down the barrel to turn it on!!!!!!

    We should make ALL weapons retrofit to a thumbprint scanner on the grip. Simple enough. Make KILLING TOOLS work like a circular saw. Gotta KEEP pressing the button to make your shot.

    • Nephron the Great

      But what if you develop kidney failure and the gun won’t recognize you?

  • Stephen Barlow

    A case like this DEMANDS ATF intervention. This is domestic TERRORISM, plain and simple. The DHS should be no knock FISA warranting these butt monkeys 24/7, herding them in ICE detention centers and shipping them wholesale to one of 70 nations with a secret American prison.

    The MINUTE they decided to become terrorists, they became non citizens and are EXEMPT from the Constitution.

    But then again, who would man the couch at Fox news?

  • David Patrick Maurer

    gun owners are 5 times as likely to commit suicide as anyone else. twice as many guns are used for suicides as are used for homicides. and you are 3 times more likely to use a gun against a family member as against an intruder.

    • John Yesford

      First, its not that high an increase.

      Second, the study in question didn’t look at the rate of suicide attempts, but at successful suicides. And guns are more effective at killing than most other means of suicide.

      And finally, the number of single vehicle fatal accidents that are actually suicides is not known, so most likely the suicide rate is artificially lowered by this.

      As for guns being used against family members, what do you expect given that if you are murdered you are far more likely to have been killed by a family member than by a stranger?

      • David Patrick Maurer

        the study was from the justice department; the numbers are theirs.

      • John Yesford

        And as I said you misstated the amount of the increase, and even so you didn’t address my other points.

    • TyrannyOfEvilMen

      I thought liberals supported assisted suicide. It must just be the assistant part since clearly, you don’t want anybody to make even the most basic decisions about their own lives.

      Liberals today do not support liberty in any form whatsoever.

      • David Patrick Maurer

        i’m a conservative in everything but social policy. it’s a simple equation: crime has been dropping like a rock for the past 30 years. gun manufacturers saw fewer people buying guns so, in order to preserve revenue, they had to come up with a way to get people who do buy guns to buy more of them, plus do everything they can to block enforcement of laws that deter the ‘grey market’ – in their case, illegal gun trafficking. and that is exactly what they’ve done – drum up paranoia and fear and block funding for enforcement of existing gun laws, while telling members of congress that they will spend millions to vote them out of office if they try to make illegal gun trafficking a federal crime. i have no problem with you owning a gun, provided that you pass the exam and own it legally, but you should understand that you are supporting an industry that cares only about making money, even if people die as a result.

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen

        Fair enough. I have no problem with you exercising your free-speech rights as long as I can see the exam paper that you passed in order to post on this blog. Please remit.

        To say that the gun industry ONLY cares about making money is really a poor strawman argument. The idea that the industry would jeopardize legal sales by supporting an illicit gray-market is absurd. There’s plenty of growth in legal sales. Don’t take my word for it, just pull up some gun company stock charts.

        People die every day. Life is risk. Hell, just spending the time sitting still to type a blog post may contribute to heart disease. That does not mean, however, that doing so means that you are “supporting an industry that cares only about making money, even if people die as a result.”

      • David Patrick Maurer

        research your subject. there are only 2 publicly-owned gun manufacturers in the u.s. (sturm, ruger, whose stock was almost zero until 2008, and smith and wesson, which peaked in 2008); all of the rest are private and don’t release sales figures. to figure out that sales are dropping across the board for everyone but people who already own guns, you have to look at justice department applications and sort out the dupes (since those represent multiple buyers and not all applications become sales, which you also have to sort out for). luckily, the justice department is pretty forthcoming about sharing what it knows, and so are almost all of the police organizations in the u.s. there are 2 primary channels for illegal trafficking – gun shows and dealers who sell illegally. the gun manufacturers have blocked every piece of legislation aimed at regulating the first (they say so right in their mailers), and have cut atf staff down to the point that an average retailer sees an inspector no more than once every 3 years. in some states, as long as 7 years. they own senators, body and soul; they’re not afraid of jeopardizing sales because they know there is no enforcement – because they’ve paid to make sure there’s not. they also don’t tell anyone who they sell to directly. we have no way of knowing how many of their sales are ‘off the books’.

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen

        So in three short posts you have gone from asserting that guns are responsible for suicides (ridiculous) to asserting that a gun company whose stock value was almost 0 until 2008 is responsible for a grand conspiracy against the United States government in which laws cannot be enforced against them due to their awesome political influence.

        Yowza! It’s really too bad that the X-Files went off the air. You missed your calling. Truthfully.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        he said guns assist in suicides; NOT “responsible”
        you should get a show on FOX “news”…………… your ability to spin rivals o’reillys

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen

        Guns neither assist nor are responsible for suicides. They are inanimate objects. Much like your mind.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”brilliant” ( I lied) spin away from what you said ( see: above post)
        not assist? that extrapolates into my knives and blenders and shinwa strainers do NOT assist me in my business? ( self employed chef)
        wow– now completely marinated with THAT nescience I must confess I will now shoot myself ( assisted by my cleaver and paring knives)
        keep crying and showing us all how intellectual you are

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen

        LOL… Keep posting. You’re hilarious!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        that’s the best U can do????

      • regressive teaparty trash

        if U think(??) that any OTHER purpose of the NRA and its jejune siblings is to NOT make money……….
        you are indeed a regressive tea party lemming

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen


      • regressive teaparty trash

        novao skoz khaepop vootie!

      • regressive teaparty trash

        I like the LIBERTY that regressive white trash tea party scum offer women and blacks and gays
        shall I specify here; or do U already know of such wonderful legislation offered by state imbued republicans?

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen

        Liberals prefer the welfare state. For blacks especially. Hell, they’d actually PREFER slavery but the welfare state is the best they can get away with these days. As for women and gays, Liberals won’t criticize the radical Muslims who rape, mutilate and kill them wholesale. Why that would be insennnnsitive.

        It’s called moral bankruptcy.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        hey Einstein: ( facts) ,,,,,, 73% of all who eat using food stamps are 13 and under and 65 and over
        ( it gets better)
        78% of THOSE americans are caucasian
        Im liberal and hate the radical muslim,,, I also HATE the radical CHRISTIAN and I HATE all religions.
        GOD? totally cool
        religion? that made BY MAN; FOR man; to ENSLAVE ( power and money) man
        NOTE: the states with largest utilization OF welfare and foodstamps are all republican states
        I do hate facts

      • TyrannyOfEvilMen

        So you’re hateful? Who gives a shit?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        those silly facts do annoyeth thee; don’t they?

  • John Yesford

    Wow, so first the author starts with calling people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson crazy.

    Gee, I also notice that the author never even mentions New Jersey. And the law they already have on the books that will make it illegal in NJ to sell anything other than a “smart weapon” once one is commercially available.

    And then I notice that the author makes no mention of the actual process to enable the gun to fire and how much time that takes! And how difficult that might be to do in the middle of the night when an intruder is present in the house and threatening you.

  • neddycat

    I still can’t figure how we’re supposed to figure out who is a good guy with a gun as opposed to a bad guy with a gun. All I know is that if I see someone visibly armed, I’m getting the hell out of there! Not much anyone can do about concealed carry, though.

  • mike46

    See, the gun uses a watch to tie the owner to the weapon so that it will only fire for the person who rightfully owns the gun.

    Apparently you have a very hard time understanding the American language. The gun is NOT tied to the owner. It is tied to that watch. Regardless of who owns the gun, whoever is wearing that watch can fire it.
    That is a HUGE difference. You make yourself no better than the ‘gun nuts’ when you tell half truths and mislead people.

  • TheYankeeBoy

    Why would they want to restrict my right to buy what I want as long as it’s legal? Or is this just the beginning of their plan for a state by tyrants or mob rule. I thought we were still a free country at least in the marketplace. And what kind of cowards try to intimidate with threats? If this typical of the NRA, I’ll pass.

  • ClemCadidlhoper

    Seems to me that every comment I’ve read about this article hits very wide of the mark. Someone introduced an idea that can make a specific gun safer for someone who wants to buy it. How is that infringement of anyone’s right to own, carry, or use a gun?

  • Maik E

    Gun nuts threatened her life over it? You mean a few idiots threatened her life? Kind of like the disarmament hoplophobe anti gun crowd that have called the police on numerous people who are legally openly carrying in hopes of provoking a violent encounter with police? I’m a liberal but I believe in something called personal responsibility. Violence is violence, there is no specific type of violence(regarding the weapon used). If a gun is used it is the person who used it who is responsible, not the gun and certainly not the millions of gun owners who would never do such a thing and are entirely responsible people. If a young child gets a hand on his/her parents gun and shoots himself/herself or another child, it is the parents fault, not the existence of the gun! Our right to bear arms is a fundamental right in a modern liberal democracy for the same reason it was a right when our republic was formed. Not for hunting, not for self defence, but to give the people a means as a last resort to preserve the republic from government. If you think this is silly or paranoid then I’m sorry for you. You haven’t read or understood the history of governments. Now the typical response is, ‘oh you couldn’t do anything against the U.S. military’. This in and of itself is an ignorant response. Ignorant of history and of how things would likely happen should, in the unlikely event, another American revolution become necessary. If the U.S. government ever got that bad that the Bill of Rights was entirely ignored and the original meaning of the Second Amendment was necessary; much of the U.S. military would fracture and side with the people. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it is paranoid lunacy or not, the Second Amendment is there for us as a people to ensure that every other Amendment and right is preserved. ‘Progressives’ tend to not understand this simple fact. I will tell you the same thing I tell the ‘conservatives’ who rail against gay marriage, you either support the Constitution, its Amendments, and the Bill of Rights as a whole or you don’t support it and our republic at all. Every Amendment is there for a reason and is integral to the worlds first secular democracy, even the Second, and don’t give me this B.S. that those brilliant men who had witnessed the evolution of firearms themselves, and who Jefferson sent Louis and Clarke on their expedition with a rapid fire rifle, couldn’t imagine the weapons we have today. They were about personal responsibility and would never blame our violence, which is on the decline by the way, on an inanimate object. ‘Progressives’ tend to not understand these things.

  • Neil

    John 18: [Jesus said to the Father] “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?” In those days, the sword was a weapon. Jesus never told anyone to discard their weapons. As a rules, no one hears about Republicans in the ghettos or Christians in their churches going around shooting each other.