Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

March 18th, 2014
06:00 AM ET

Crossfire reloaded: Are smart guns a dumb idea?

S.E. Cupp explains why smart gun technology is not the solution to our country's gun problems.

[twitter-follow screen_name='crossfire'][twitter-follow screen_name='secupp']

Filed under: Guns • Reloaded • S.E. Cupp
soundoff (79 Responses)
  1. D. Dennis

    Does she actually hear the words that come out of her head?

    April 29, 2014 at 4:33 pm | Reply
  2. Chad

    Smart guns, if proven reasonably reliable, will have their applications. For instance, this would be an excellent weapon to arm teachers or prison guards with.

    That having said, the advent of this technology should no be used as an excuse to pass more restrictive gun control laws on a populous with a constitutional right to bear arms.

    March 31, 2014 at 1:40 pm | Reply
  3. commenter

    Dear CNN – Are you sure P. Morgan isnt hiding around the dumpster area (that appears to be the best to drop him) and sneaking into your building at night???

    March 31, 2014 at 10:49 am | Reply
  4. fred ducque

    Many, many more lives would be saved if breathalyzer interlocks were required to be installed and kept operational on all motorized vehicles. This common sense action is easily achievable with available technology.

    March 28, 2014 at 12:46 pm | Reply
    • walkerny

      You NAILED IT! Anytime "smart guns" get brought up, let's demand ALL drivers have to have these installed.

      March 29, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Reply
      • Mavent

        Ha ha, you're so amazingly clever. Hey, since drivers have to have licenses to drive cars, how about we make gun owners have licenses to own guns? Or does your (half) wit only work one way?

        April 1, 2014 at 11:00 am |
      • walkerny

        Look in the mirror for a "half wit", Miss. Pistol owners DO have to have a license to own the pistol, and long gun owners have to pay a fee and have their background checked with the Fed gov, pretty much a de facto license. If you actually owned a firearms you would have this knowledge. Requiring more licensing from an already law abiding group of people (legal gun owners) does nothing to stop daily murder of criminals nor does it address a needed discussion on the rights of the mentally ill vs the rights of society. But it makes liberal doofusi who don't know one end of a weapon from the other feel good about "doing something."

        April 1, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • jp

        owning a gun for hunting or self defence should be protected and is protected by the constitution, but why do u have a right to an arsenal when u really only need 2-3 guns most. a lot of guys i know have 20 or more...thats the real threat.

        April 3, 2014 at 12:22 am |
      • walkerny

        BALONEY! The lawful gun owner guy that owns 5, 10, 20 guns is not the threat. It is the gangbanger thug spraying bullets in our cities. That is where the daily body count is. The progressive left is against tough sentencing laws for gun crimes, because that is a core voting constituency. The other threat is the mentally ill, the majority of the mass shooters, and NONE of the new laws even scratch the surface of tackling the rights of the mentally ill vs the rights of society. ALL of the new gun laws only effect the safest, most responsible group that is NOT the problem: Legal Gun Owners.

        April 4, 2014 at 8:40 am |
      • walkerny

        I own 10 guns (I used to own 14). I haven't taken one out in over a year. I know many friends who own 10, 20, 30. They enjoy them as complicated machines, historical artifacts, or as marksmen or hunters. I know an Englishman (now a US Citizen) who owned at one time over 300 firearms, and he is a lousy shot! And he has never been a thyeat to ANYONE. On the other hand, a thug or nut with "two or three weapons" can do a lot of mayhem. A well trained man with ONE weapon can murder MANY. Stop regurgitating your brainless feel-good nonsense about what "the real threat" is, you don't have a clue. It is NOT legal gun owners, it is NOT how many guns someone owns, it is about the people who commit these crimes. It is not up to ignorant people like you to decide how I legally exercise my constitutional rights with your stupid laws that only harass and annot those that are not committing any crimes.

        April 4, 2014 at 8:48 am |
  5. MikeinMT

    I think a smart gun is a great idea. The last thing I want is to miss a shot and not kill someone, then have them pick up my gun and use it to shoot me. The good news is that I'm a very good shot. That reminds me, I need to go to the gun range.

    March 27, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Reply
    • Derp

      Your comment is hilariously farcical, signifying you know nothing about guns or smart guns.

      March 28, 2014 at 10:43 am | Reply
    • YutYut

      That's what shotguns are for, Sir...

      April 1, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Reply
  6. Oakspar77777

    This is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

    Child access can be equally stopped with a trigger lock for $2.

    Guns being grabbed by criminals is a statistically non-relevant amount compared to the number who would be injured/killed due to the delay in access to the arm or malfunctions. Almost all gun-grabs are from police and security who are open-carrying, not CCW citizens.

    March 27, 2014 at 4:29 pm | Reply
    • walkerny

      Sorry, man. you are using logic, facts and common sense. The Left only uses "feelings", ignorance and hysteria when it comes to guns.

      March 29, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Reply
  7. walkerny

    One of the easiest ways to stop a LOT of crime would be to crack down on the use of "Burner Phones", anonymous prepaid cell phones criminals use once or twice then discard. If you had to register to by these, show photo ID, and be subject to criminal charges for possessing, importing or selling these without proper registration, you would take a HUGE tool away from hitmen, murder for hire, drug smugglers, terrorists, and all numbers of criminal conspiracy. If you had a legitimate need, you would have no problem showing photo ID to purchase.

    But no, let's concentrate on gun laws that don't stop crime, yet criminalize legal gun owners.

    March 25, 2014 at 11:09 am | Reply
  8. Jesse

    The idea of the smart gun sounds cool , a gun that only allows the registered user to fire it. But there's the problem of registering it, chances are a criminal will not buy this gun for one, it's too expensive, and two, there motives would be out in the open. But this does stop the whole problem of a gun being stolen and used to commit a crime. But the other problem that would be also be my problem is the price. Someone my age couldn't afford that gun, so even if I was interested in shooting guns, that wouldn't be my first choice. The whole issue of gun control is crazy, but maybe if everyone owned a gun, less crimes would be committed.

    March 24, 2014 at 10:55 pm | Reply
  9. Frost

    "smart guns" are not just a dumb idea, they're a terrible idea. "But they're more electronic and can only be used by its rightful owner blah blah" – Sure, that may be true. But gun ownership is based upon the 2nd amendment, and the 2nd amendment was created on the foundation that the people would be able to successfully overthrow and defend themselves against their own government when need be. If you start mass marketing smart guns, what's to stop the government from shutting your electronic gun down when they decide to start a hostile take over? The people will have no means with which to defend themselves because those smart guns have now been disabled. And now those smart guns seem like a dumb gun.

    March 19, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Reply
    • Frost

      I want my gun to shoot when I want it to shoot, not when my government wants it to shoot.

      March 19, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Reply
    • phil

      Except that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow for the possibility of overthrowing the government. You are inferring that purpose.

      March 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm | Reply
      • walkerny

        ALL of the framers of the constitution advocated the overthrow of a tyrannical government, and they specifically in their writings admitted that possibility in some future United States.

        March 25, 2014 at 11:12 am |
      • Glenn

        Interesting point. Likewise there is no separation of church and state in the constitution either. Shall not establish does not read shall not endorse. Yet we wisely allow the Supreme court to make that call. In lieu of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter of whether or not the 2nd amendment was to protect the individual from the state we must refer to the writings of the framers for their intent on the 2nd amendment. Over and over it has been documented what they meant and that was to protect the individual from the tyranny of government.

        March 28, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
    • kurt

      " the 2nd amendment was created on the foundation that the people would be able to successfully overthrow and defend themselves against their own government when need be"

      This is totally untrue.

      The declaration of independence was based on that concept, but neither the constitution nor the amendments to it have ANYTHING suggesting that the people should be able to take up arms against their government. In fact, the only mention of that are the laws against TREASON. And the penalty for that is death (according to the constitution).

      The basis of the 2nd amendment is to be able to form a militia to DEFEND the nation. It's is not to take up arms AGAINST your country.

      March 24, 2014 at 1:07 pm | Reply
      • blah blah

        Being necessary to the security of a free state. Anything that threatens a free state is what the 2nd amendment was created for. Tyrannical government falls into the description of something that threatens "the security a free state/"

        March 24, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
      • Martin

        Read the Federalist papers by James Madison (Author of the Constitution) and get back to me about the 2nd Amendment not being about defense against a tyrannical government.

        March 27, 2014 at 10:02 am |
  10. Frost

    So what?

    March 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Reply
  11. Rogue351

    The one thing no one ever brings up, because they don't want to lose votes is – How did so many guns get in the hands of so many criminals in the first place ? It happened because the so called "Responsible Gun Owners" did not take responsibility with their weapons. They left them unsecured in places they could be easily stolen. A closet, night stand, car, under a mattress. It is the "Responsible Gun Owners" that have empowered the criminals. The "Responsible Gun Owners" has no respect or concern for you or your family. If they did they would have secured their guns and not made it so easy for the criminals to steal them. If caught the criminals are punished. What happens if you lose a gun you bought ? Nothing, you just go by another one with the insurance money. Pointing the finger at the criminals is the easy way out. Making so called "Responsible Gun Owners" actually responsible is something no one wants to talk about but the fact is this is exactly how most guns end up on the streets. They certainly do not magically appear in piles in high crime ares out of thin air, now do they. Fast and furious operation lost how many guns and that was a huge scandal. How many guns have been stolen from "Responsible Gun Owners" that did not secure them correctly ? No one knows for sure because they are nor required to keep track of them. How mach lack of respect do you have to have to let this happen. Basically "Responsible Gun Owners" could care less if you and your family live or die as long as they can have their guns. How is this in the best interest of the people of the United States ?

    March 19, 2014 at 1:36 am | Reply
  12. Omar K

    Why don't they just make smart guns inoperable when they are sold, and make it so new gun owners would have to bring the gun to a state agency to be activated, so they can be used only by the individual being issued the gun permit (ie fingerprint technology, the watch thing, etc.)? Is it just me or would that solve the problem Ms. S.E. Cupp is speaking about?

    March 18, 2014 at 8:27 pm | Reply
    • Smart Butt

      Because arsenal lovers load them in the gun shop parking lot in case they need to kill someone. They would argue what If I need to use it on my way to a building of people I already despise. Then they will follow by bringing up Benghazi, the Constitution, Obama care, and just recently added, our Presidents weakness as a leader of foreign policy. I hope this answers your question.

      March 18, 2014 at 10:45 pm | Reply
      • YutYut

        They might, but would they be wrong?

        April 2, 2014 at 4:23 am |
      • Omar K

        No I was addressing the hosts main point about how smart guns are pointless because criminals that used guns can't be held responsible, because they aren't going to go get their guns registered. But if all guns sold are unusable until activated and licensed to a particular individual, then there's no way for a criminal to use a gun that he or she isn't licensed to use. That way every gun that is obtained or identified, can be traced back to the person licensed to use it.

        May 11, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
  13. Smart Butt

    By 2025, computers will put all these illogical nimrods back in school to get the education they so desperately need. Crossfire was great when that fancy wearing glasses, God fearing follower of anyone who will boost her up into a position to present garbage on a great show network such as CNN was on her honeymoon. Her man probably has to bow every time she gets home from work or Divorce. I can only believe she meet someone stupid enough to spend their life with her, because dumb people make up most of our society. Well ladies and gentlemen, the future is fit for those who think much different than this dumb broad. Thank nature for the chance to have a much better news experience for our children in the future.

    March 18, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Reply
  14. Al Murphy

    OK, if smart gun technology is so great for us, will it be mandated for the police and or military?? I can think of a lot of reasons why it would not work as an every day thing. Normal use, exposure to moisture (look at cell phones how vulnerable they are). Also, when you REALLY need it, will you be wearing all the necessary parts? Best thing about kids, is that you can teach them about firearms, safe handling etc. As for Minnie Mouse comment of we do not need more guns in society, I will bet that she will call someone with a gun, to risk his life to save hers, if he can get there in time, instead of taking responsibility for her own protection and learn how to use treat and handle firearms responsibly..

    March 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Reply
    • emskadittle

      so you compare yourself to the military and the police? the gun is more likely to be stolen from you than from them

      March 19, 2014 at 11:32 am | Reply
    • Omar K

      I would MANDATE that all guns manufactured from this day forward be assigned to a particular individual (including guns issued to police officers) and can only be used when the fingerprint of that individual is holding the gun (fingerprint sensor on the handle). If the gun is stolen, it will be unusable by the thief. So you still have the right to bear arms, but your weapon is registered. AND I would make all guns manufactured INOPERABLE until activated by a state or federal agency and assigned to a particular owner's fingerprint (thumbprint of hand since the gun cannot be held without the thumb gripping it). Would this not solve all problems with this issue?

      May 11, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Reply
  15. jod

    Smart gun investors aren’t anticipating organic consumer demand for these weapons, but rather they’re anticipating that state governments — and California in particular — will mandate their adoption, thereby creating a market by fiat.

    March 18, 2014 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  16. bobo

    Yes... smart guns are stupid. Hey, if you want one.... fine, but no way should you be FORCED to have one! Simple reason.... what if my friends and I go to a shooting range and we all want to try each others guns?

    March 18, 2014 at 3:11 pm | Reply
    • Omar K

      Yeah, then you're SOL buddy. You will survive not trying out your friend's gun. The victims of mass shootings will not survive the use of the gun used to shoot them.

      May 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Reply
  17. The GOP Solution

    The GOP Solution: Turn all the Old, Sick, Poor, Non-white, Non-christian, Female, and Gay people into slaves. Then whip them until they are Young, Healthy, Rich, White, Christian, Male, and Straight. Or until they are dead. Then turn them into Soylent Green to feed the military during the next "unfunded/off-the-books" war. And don't forget the GOP all time favorites............TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!........and.........GET RID OF SS AND MEDICARE!!

    March 18, 2014 at 9:39 am | Reply
    • BrianMemphis

      That is such stupid statement on so many levels. YOU are why this country has problems.

      March 19, 2014 at 12:51 pm | Reply
      • Check

        Check the GOP bills and legislation to see the truth.

        March 24, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
      • walkerny

        Ok start by showing us the GOP bill to turn the poor into slaves... No? Ok, show me the one that will turn them into soylent green? No?? Tell me why you have the breathless emotion based debate technique of a middle school teenage girl?

        March 24, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • walkerny

      mom may have told you that you were bright & clever, but she was being nice.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Reply
      • Hertz Doughnut

        The truth hurts don't it.

        March 24, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • walkerny

        You tell me if it hurts, I just delivered the truth to you, momma's boi.

        March 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • walkerny

      emotion based infantile rants, so typical of the capital "L" Liberal mind.

      March 24, 2014 at 3:35 pm | Reply
    • Profile of the typical republican voter

      1. Thinks they themselves are rich.
      2. Makes less than $100,000/yr.
      3. Has a net worth less than $200,000.
      4. Primary residence is on wheels or blocks.
      5. Benefits directly from the ACA but really, really hates Obamacare.
      6. Probably retired and depending on SS and Medicare or will be the person most likely to need SS and Medicare.
      7. Thinks they are religious but they should read the book, "How NOT To Be A Republican" (a.k.a. The Bible).
      8. Thinks republicans are conservatives.
      9. Racist.
      10. Actually thinks republicans represent THEM!!

      March 24, 2014 at 10:46 pm | Reply
      • walkerny

        you are just an emotions based idiot

        March 25, 2014 at 8:33 am |
      • You fit the profile

        I know you do.

        March 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • walkerny

        Let's see......

        1. Thinks they themselves are rich. NOPE, MIDDLE CLASS
        2. Makes less than $100,000/yr. LOW BY ABOUT 80K
        3. Has a net worth less than $200,000. LOW BY ABOUT 800K
        4. Primary residence is on wheels or blocks. NICE COLONIAL ON 1 ACRE (PAID FOR 100%)
        5. Benefits directly from the ACA but really, really hates Obamacare. NO HAD GREAT HEALTH VIA EMPLOYER, NOW DEGRADED DUE TO ACA IMPACT.
        6. Probably retired and depending on SS and Medicare or will be the person most likely to need SS and Medicare.
        7. Thinks they are religious but they should read the book, "How NOT To Be A Republican" (a.k.a. The Bible).
        8. Thinks republicans are conservatives.
        I'M A REGISTERED CONSERVATIVE, not Republican
        9. Racist.
        10. Actually thinks republicans represent THEM!!
        NOT A REPUB, SO I DON'T.

        Looks like you were 0 for 10. You really must have had a poor watered down liberal arts education. Your debate skills are those of a brainwashed womyn's studies sophomore.

        March 25, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
      • I knew I could

        I knew I could get a person like you to tell me your net worth and income. It happens every time. You like to tell people how rich you think you are (all non-verifiable of course). But guess what. Everyone posting here will be on the SAME side when the "real class warfare" starts. The POOR side. But you are just too stupid to realize it yet. It will be fun to point my finger at your types and say, "I told you so" when we are fighting side by side against the real rich people. But hey, keep voting against your own interests. Maybe the war will start sooner that way. I'll bet your parents really enjoy their SS and Medicare. Give them a call.

        March 25, 2014 at 11:38 pm |
      • walkerny

        You really bleat like a middle school schoolgirl. it is tiring. You are dismissed, Miss.

        March 26, 2014 at 11:05 am |
      • You fit the profile

        You know you do. You are NOT rich! Keep voting against your own interests. Does a Colonial come in a "double wide" version?

        March 26, 2014 at 10:05 am |
      • walkerny

        my guess your butt comes in a double wide, Miss.

        March 26, 2014 at 11:05 am |
      • countingdown

        You wrote: "1. Thnks they themselves are rich."
        ** but know we don't have to have wealth to be rich in life!

        You wrote: "2. Makes less than $100,000/yr."
        ** so, why is it you want minimum wage! huh!

        You wrote: "3. Has anet worth less than $200,000."
        **and tired of low lifes wanting a share of what I EARNED!

        You wrote: "4. Probably retired and depending on SS and Medicare or will be the personmost likely to need SS and Medicare."
        ** anyone who works know as its money they paid in and have a right to receive. Guess you don't work!

        You wrote: "5. Primary residence is on wheels or blocks."
        ** My wheels cost more than some houses. Also, we pay for your low income housing.

        You wrote: "6. Thinks they are religious but they should read the book, "How NOT To Be A Republican" (a.k.a. The Bible)."
        ** think you might receive some benefit from reading the Bible.

        You wrote: "7. Benefits directly from the ACA but really, really hates Obamacare."
        Ask the 6 plus million people who lost their insurance and PRAY your not next! Yes, we hate obamacare.

        You wrote: "8. Racist."
        You are filled with so much hate I suggest you read the Bible as stated!

        You wrote: "9. Thinks republicans are conservatives.

        You wrote: "10. Actually thinks rebulicans represent THEM!!"
        ** Republicans and independent conservatives represent all people, including you!

        March 30, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
      • walkerny

        You responded to the wrong guy, I already nailed that clown.

        March 30, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
      • countingdown

        You responded to the wrong guy, I already nailed that clown.

        March30, 2014 at 6:07 pm |

        Sorry, but I wasn't responding to you!

        March 31, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
      • Wankerny's gun

        Wankerny's gun is ALREADY smarter than he is.

        April 4, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
      • walkerny

        Your mom told you you were clever and original, she was just being nice.

        April 5, 2014 at 11:20 am |
  18. Han

    Conservative ideas are useful in that they remind us what have been working and what are worth keeping, but they are totally useless in predicting or improving the future. Obviously, any new technology is going to be expensive at the current stage. Colored televisions, computers, and cellphones were all once too expensive for the common people, yet by now more of them have been created than the total population of Earth. Saying a technology is useless because it is too expensive now just means you don't understand how cost goes down by the combination of R&D and wider consumer adoption.

    The Grand Old Excuse of "XXX doesn't work because criminals won't follow" really serves no purpose. By that logic, we should just let criminals run the country since nothing will ever stop them as they are apparently too powerful to follow anything. It promotes a "fight violence with violence" principle. It basically says, "to fight murderers we must become murderers ourselves, except we murder only those who might murder us soon." This creates a dangerous idea that we must kill all those who look threatening, such as the gas station loud music shooting.

    March 18, 2014 at 9:33 am | Reply
    • walkerny

      Han, your analogy does not hold water on several levels. First and foremost, if I shoot a criminal in self-protection, I have not become a murderer, in the same way that a soldier who kills an enemy in war is not a murderer. Criminals are criminals, and non-criminals are NOT.

      Second 'The Grand Old Excuse of "XXX doesn't work because criminals won't follow" DOES serve a purpose. It is against that very true axiom that all new gun legislation should be checked against. The Left is very quick to enact laws that impact legal gun owners, when most murders are caused by felons and those not legally possessing weapons. It has the two-fold effect of annoying otherwise reasonable law abiding citizens, and it does NOT solve the problem. Case in point: micro-stamping a having a fired round from every weapon does not catch criminals because criminals don't buy weapons they way J. Q. Citizen does.

      Thirdly the anti gun people on the Left are the least knowledgeable about firearms of any group. They swoon for untested or unreasonable fixes that are laughable, such as only allowing 7 round magazines in NY. Ooops. Nobody manufactures 7 round mags!!

      They won't do the hard things: cracking down on criminals using guns (whose families are core Dem constituencies). Addressing the rights of the mentally ill, including those rights we can reasonably curb, such as gun ownership, and addressing the violence and filth coming out of Hollywood & game makers, key Dem voters. Nope, much easier to make useless laws that only crack down on the people that were not causing the problem.

      March 24, 2014 at 3:46 pm | Reply
  19. kurt

    I still come back to the 2nd amendment.

    "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."

    It doesn't say anything about the right to conceal weapons on your person. It doesn't say anything about the right to hunt. It doesn't event talk about self defense.

    You have the right to keep and carry a weapon in order to be part of the militia (or in today's setup... the national guard).

    That's it.

    So I believe you have the constitutional right to own a weapon. And I believe you have the right to keep it in your house (so you'll be ready if we ever call you up for service in the militia). You have the right to carry it to militia training exercises as well. But anything else is NOT covered by the constitution. That doesn't mean we can't have laws allowing for hunting or concealed weapons for self defense... but the constitution doesn't allow for it. THose laws are just regular, run of the mill legislation that can be repealed or changed as any other legislation can. It's not in the bill of rights.

    People need to remember what the second amendment actually says before crying that regulations violate the 2nd amendment.

    March 18, 2014 at 9:00 am | Reply
    • bobo


      March 18, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      Actually a well regulated militia is any group with a chain of command. A militia can be a rebel militia as was the case during the american revolution or as a government organized group. Saying that a militia is only a government organized group completely throws away the context under which the 2 amendment was ratified. since the first 10 amendments were created with the express purpose of limiting government control over everyday citizens the 2nd amendment must be read as such. Therefore, a militia (rebel) being necessary to the security of a free state (protection of liberty), the right of the people (being in opposition to government) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      March 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm | Reply
      • kurt

        Your using today's definition of militia, not the one used at the time.

        When the framers wrote the document, the militia was an organized group of citizens who would occasionally drill together that could be called up in times of war to defend the nation.

        It's today's national guard. Regular citizens who trained in their spare time to be a reserve military force to be called up to defend the nation.

        March 19, 2014 at 9:02 am |
      • Mark

        Since the framers were in rebellion and the so called militia was called forth not to defend the nation but to rebel against it, it stands to reason that they would be considered a rebel militia. Therefore the definition applies to 240 years ago as it does today. I must as a citizen of the United States be entitled to keep and bear arms whether supplied by the government or not. If supplied by the government and a rebellion be necessary to defend against tyranny, the government will not freely supply me with a weapon to use against it.

        March 25, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
    • Al Murphy

      Kurt, please re read the 2nd amendment. The comma right before The right of the people, is there for a reason. In every case in the bill of rights and in the amendments to the constitution, the term "the people" means all of us. It does state the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) shall not be infringed. At the time it was written, firearms were needed for defense (same holds true for today) and as at the time, all able bodied citizens were part of the militia, they were to be well regulated (armed). Read your history, the commentaries made by the founders and I believe you may have a slight change of opinion.

      March 18, 2014 at 4:59 pm | Reply
      • Omar K

        The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from the tyranny of the gov't, (which makes sense since this nation was formed in response to the tyranny of the British Gov't). So I have 2 points:

        a. This amendment was not written so we could have weapons to protect ourselves from each other (personal safety when we're out and about in our daily lives).

        b. This society has evolved enough to allow for the division of roles and duties. So now we have civilians, and military. The civilians are the average joe's and jane's, and the military do military stuff for the good of all of us (in theory anyway, since "the common good" can be interpreted in many ways).

        So if we need guns as civilians, lets not use the 2nd amendment to justify something that it was not written to protect. Have the guts to say- "I wanna carry a gun so I can shoot the poor bastard that's dumb enough to mess with me or my family" because although I disagree with the notion that we should live in a "wild west" kind of society where we all take justice into our own hands, at least I can respect your reasoning. But don't hide behind the 2nd amendment.

        March 18, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
      • kurt

        "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"... or the part before the comma is there for a reason. It's the purpose for which keeping and bearing arms is protected by the second amendment.

        You can't leave that part off when looking at it. You DO absolutly have the right to keep and bear arms... in order for our country to have a well regulated militia. That means you can own arms... so that if we ever need to conscript you into the militia you can provide your own weapon. And you can carry a weapon as well.

        But it DOES NOT say you can conceal a weapon. It does not say you can hunt. It does not say you can brandish a weapon. It does not say that the purpose of the right to bear arms is self defense... it's not. The purpose of bearing arms is to have a militia.

        All of the other stuff (much of which I am fine with... I don't care if you hunt or not and I'm fine with using weapons for self defense).. is NOT constitutionally protected. It's covered by regular old laws, not constitutional rights. You can't have your ability to carry your gun or own a gun taken away. But you can be forced to not conceal your weapon. You can be prevented from hunting with your weapon. Laws that restrict when and where you can USE your gun are completely fine.

        It would be completely constitutional to not allow anyone who is not a soldier or police officer or actively serving in the US militia (known now as the national guard) from discharging their firearms. You are protected in that you can own a weapon and carry it. There is NO protection on use.

        March 19, 2014 at 9:15 am |
      • kurt

        Oh, and the history is exactly the point.

        Every able bodied male was part of the militia when our nation was formed. We actually had a law passed 10 years into our nations forming that REQUIRED every able bodied man to own and maintain a weapon as a militia member (which is actually proof that Obamacare was not the first time the federal government ever forced people to BUY something).

        We still have a national militia today... it's called the national guard. The entire justification of the 2nd ammendment (the militia) is kind of moot at this point. The national guard provides weapons for their members, we don't have people bringing their own anymore.

        That being said, I'm not opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. I'm just saying that's all it gives you the right to do... own and carry a weapon. It doesn't allow for you to discharge it. It doesn't allow for you to conceal it. All of those rules are determined by the government and the laws passed by your nation/state/local government. They are NOT in any way protected by the constitution.

        March 19, 2014 at 9:45 am |
      • BrianMemphis

        He's a low information Obama supporter.

        March 19, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
    • kurt

      You know, its always amusing when the one providing facts and quotes from the constitution is considered "low information".

      Show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to own guns and ammo in order to overthrow the government (as Omar suggested).

      It's not there.

      Where does it say you have the right to own any ammo?

      Not there.

      Where does it say you have the right to hunt?

      Not there.

      Where does it say you have the right to use your firearm to protect yourself.

      Not there.

      Where does it say you have the right to use your weapon at ALL.

      Not there.

      You have the right to own a gun. You have the right to carry your gun. These rights are given because at the time the constitution was written, we wanted people to already have weapons ready for when we called up the militia (national guard) to defend our nation. All of that is spelled out. Anything else is NOT constitutionally protected. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed... it just means you don't get to cry "SECOND AMENDMENT" if someone proposes a law that takes away your ability to hunt or fire your weapon recreationally or even for self defense. You have to make a reasoned argument for it... because it is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment.

      March 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Reply
      • Mark


        the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense was recognized as a 2nd amendment right in two recent USSC cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The supreme court also recognized that the gun can be loaded and ready to fire as part of the 2nd right and therefore owning ammunition along with a firearm is a 2nd amendment right as well.

        March 25, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • walkerny

        show us where the 'right to privacy', so often used by the left, is? It isn't there. The supreme court has interpreted and affirmed this right, just as they have settled MANY times, that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. I guess libs like to pick and choose when they stick by the the president does...only when it suits them.

        March 25, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • walkerny

        show us where the 'right to privacy', so often used by the left, is? It isn't there. The supreme court has interpreted and affirmed this right, just as they have settled MANY times, that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. I guess libs like to pick and choose when they stick by the the president does...only when it suits them.

        March 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
      • adam

        That would be the Ninth Amendment.

        March 27, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
      • walkerny

        Where is the "right to privacy" written? Nowhere.
        Where is "seperation of Church & State" written? Nowhere.
        Right to a lawyer? Right to a Miranda warning? Nowhere, Nowhere.
        It is called interpretation. The supreme court has interpreted this as an implicit individual right many times. Get over yourself, you are not as clever as your mom told you.

        April 4, 2014 at 8:52 am |
      • walkerny

        We DON'T have to "have to make a reasoned argument for it.". That has been done many times in the supreme court, and they always have agreed on that right. Move on, or give back all the other interpretations of the Constitution so near & dear to the progressive lefts' heart.

        April 4, 2014 at 8:55 am |
  20. Minnie Mouse

    Obviously they are dumb because they aren't being sold in the US. There will be glitches in the new gun technology just as there is in any technology. Kids are smart no matter what you place in front of them. No technology is hack proof or fool proof. Why bring any more guns into our society and ask for more trouble. Kids are curious. If they see his or her parents wearing new rings and watches, this gives them more reason to want to play around with and try out the new gun. The idea is ridiculous!

    March 18, 2014 at 7:00 am | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.