A few pooh-pooh-ers don't make a consensus.

The purpose of the legislation in the link is so that auto manufacturers can do some real-life testing. The manufacturers are responsible for the performance and liability issues associated with their product.

an issue. Then they are very tenacious in their advocacy.

But in all other debates about guns they are very anti-gun. No amount of advocacy for training classes or engineering will move them from their absolutist claims that all guns are bad all the time.

I think they envision a smart gun technology that will allow their keepers to remotely disable all guns at whim and they find such thoughts comforting.

that the comparison i wanted to make. this poster (7962) was worried about the tech being hacked

"9. Imagine the lawsuits if one is at fault in a wreck. Imagine one being hacked,

or several in the same area being hacked. And you KNOW damn well someone will do it
i see nothing but trouble"
Reply to this post

yet we made the same argument about smart guns, and we were labeled paranoid gun nuts.

They see each incremental step as one closer to a total ban. If you stand in the way of any idea no matter how dumb or ineffective you're a gun nut who values rights over lives. They can't even grasp that we value life above all things, that's why we fight.

as a marine in vietnam. we had a conversation in which he claimed god created peacekeepers and warriors. peacekeepers are the people that go out of their way to bring peace, love and happiness to the world even if it costs them their lives. the warriors job is to protect the peacekeeper.

A computer assisted firearm with an artificial intelligence capability exceeding that of the mandating legislators.