The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 1, 2016, 06:55 PM   #1
hartcreek
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,549
Looks Like the President did it again.

I was just checking my email and saw the post that the President has done another executive order. To me this order really shows how clueless our current president is about firearms.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

What next can we expect out of him? Have any of you seen this yet?

I see the link Aqua Blanka but I would expect that a president would understand that in the battle field a soldier needs to be able to use any weapon including captured weapons to achieve their objective not just be able to use the one issued that day.

Last edited by hartcreek; February 1, 2016 at 07:39 PM.
hartcreek is offline  
Old February 1, 2016, 07:10 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 8,574
You don't see the link?

Development of the so-called "smart" gun has stalled, and states won't adopt it until the technology is commercially available. By ordering the military to develop the technology, it will thus become commercially available and (he no doubt hopes) more states will then mandate it.

What we need to do is to write senators and congressmen/women to derail this idiotic proposal. I'm a Vietnam veteran and a member of the VFW. The monthly VFW magazine routinely recounts significant battles, and describes heroic actions of various individuals. Just as a general impression, I'm sure manhy of these tales of heroism involve the soldier shooting his own weapon dry, then picking up a weapon from a fallen comrade and shooting that dry, then picking up yet another ...

If he pushes "smart" gun technology on the military, I think the result will be fewer medals of honor and more dead soldiers. Not an ideal trade-off, IMHO.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 1, 2016, 07:29 PM   #3
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 569
Quote:
To me this order really shows how clueless our current president is about firearms.
Seems to me that he's making 'clueless' sound as if it would be an improvement.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 06:11 AM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 8,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartcreek
I see the link Aqua Blanka but I would expect that a president would understand that in the battle field a soldier needs to be able to use any weapon including captured weapons to achieve their objective not just be able to use the one issued that day.
You are giving Mr. Obama more credit than he deserves. He hates the military. He never served in the military, not even as a lowly Private E1 for a single day of KP. I imagine that he does understand what soldiers need on the battlefield, but he is an idealogue, so soldiers are expendable in the pursuit of his goal of disarming and destroying the United States of America.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 10:37 AM   #5
tirod
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
Reading the link most of the criticism comes from Gen. Scales, a Vietnam era ARTILLERY officer.

Therefore, neither are subject matter experts and have no valuable input in the discussion.

As for the directive it will get buried in the Pentagon paper process and some kind of response will come out for the NEXT President to address. On the surface it seems like some nice to have measures - but it still boils down to
"this is my safety" and tying the loss of a weapon to some serious career damaging repercussions, which nobody wants. Some Agencies of government lose 2-3 guns a MONTH. Why pick on DOD when they do track guns closely - periodic serial number inventory, plus controlled issue and check in? Unlike the more civilian oriented carriers who keep them for years at a time and yet lose them on the job - repeatedly. Those agencies have come to accept that working in the field means accepting losses. While some are just dumb, others, such as shootings, incur the loss of the carrier, too.

The only ones who don't get it are the ones who use it as a political device.
tirod is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 10:52 AM   #6
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,799
The article states that the 'automatic' fire of the Spencer rifle might have changed the course of the Civil War. OK

Given the speed of Pentagon actions, this will be buried in the time warp and some low grade officer will write a report that goes nowhere.

I don't think you should run around in circles thinking millions of smart guns will be issued to troops.

They can't even figure out how to buy some Glock 17s or a newer Beretta without an endless process.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 12:05 PM   #7
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,843
I believe the military can just do a feasibility research paper, then advertise and award a 'design-build' contract. Once a vendor has submitted a prototype, and testing occurs, that may meet the legal definition of 'commercially available' that the left wants to mandate.

Then get ready for a major political fight that will make Heller and the AWB politics look like preliminary discussions about gun control.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt this E.O. to be the failure we believe it to be. These folks aren't stupid.

In a year or three we could be in for a big surprise.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 12:16 PM   #8
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 9,968
Quote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt this E.O. to be the failure we believe it In a year or three we could be in for a big surprise.
This is just Obama covering his butt on making stupid claims that he is going to pursue his gun control agenda via executive order. It's nonsense and it will be completely forgotten, ignored, and shoved under a huge pile of electronic paper when Obama's gone, regardless of who becomes the next president. He might as well be peeing in the wind with this.
Skans is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 12:20 PM   #9
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro
I believe the military can just do a feasibility research paper, then advertise and award a 'design-build' contract. Once a vendor has submitted a prototype, and testing occurs, that may meet the legal definition of 'commercially available' that the left wants to mandate.
This assumes (a) that it's funded, and (b) that design requirements exist.

Given that this President has deliberately stripped away the generous GWB Iraq-era military budget slush funds, it's unclear how funding will work, and given that very few (possibly zero!) senior military officers likely have any interest in this technology, I suspect Tirod is correct that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tirod
...it will get buried in the Pentagon paper process and some kind of response will come out for the NEXT President to address.
It's been repeatedly proven that the military can stall unwanted projects for years or even decades with bureaucratic machinations. The 9-month time period between now and 11/8/16 ain't nuthin'.

This is going to be an issue for the NEXT President to address, and this is likely the main impetus for issuing the EO now.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; February 2, 2016 at 01:15 PM. Reason: fat finger mistake
carguychris is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 01:25 PM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 15,482
Quote:
I believe the military can just do a feasibility research paper, then advertise and award a 'design-build' contract. Once a vendor has submitted a prototype, and testing occurs, that may meet the legal definition of 'commercially available' that the left wants to mandate.
While this is a possible outcome, there is another, one where the feasibility study comes back with the honest answer that smart gun tech is unsuitable for military use.

I realize the odds are high that any such report would just be lockstep agreement with the political masters, but it is remotely possible that such a study might actually report the truth (that "authorized user" tech for small arms is a VERY BAD idea), despite the fact that the politics of the powers that be won't like it.

The principle is long established, going back well before WWII with motor vehicles. Something not usually recognized by those who have never served in a combat class unit or support for one. I wasn't aware of it, until the 70s, when I served. Civilians don't event think about it, until you bring it up, and then, they agree.

KEYS.

The original "authorized user" tech for motor vehicles. Familiar to every civilian car owner and user. Other than sedans (commercial cars painted army sedan green) none of the Army vehicles I ever saw (and I saw most), none of them used ignition keys.

Tanks, APCs, SP artillery, 2.5ton trucks, all the other vehicles even down to Jeeps, NONE OF THEM needed ignition keys, and for very good and sound reasons. Unlike civilian cars & trucks the military needs any and everyone to be able to start (and move) the vehicle in an emergency. A truck, or a tank that needs an individual key to operate is just so many tons of inert metal when that key is unavailable.

The same principle applies to small arms. EVERY soldier NEEDS to be able to use EVERY weapon without any kind of "authorized user tech" stopping them. History abounds with examples, troops not "authorized" (or even trained) needing and using weapons not in their job description. Cooks and clerks using machine guns, because there were there, it needed doing, and they could figure it out (or already knew, despite no formal training).

I suggest you look up Doris Miller for one example. A mess steward, won the Navy Cross for his action with a .50 caliber machinegun during the Pearl Harbor attack.

There are many, many such examples documented, and uncountable numbers more that never were documented, but happened, none the less. Smart gun tech (authorized user) as it exists now, and in the foreseeable future is simply highly counterproductive in a military environment. (meaning, it degrades their ability to perform their missions, and very likely gets our sons and daughters KILLED.)

Ordering the military to study something (authorized user/smart gun tech) is well within the power of the President, as commander in chief.

Adopting that tech is another matter, and as far as I can see, not one covered by the recent Executive Order.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 01:42 PM   #11
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 845
The Army will never do the study in-house. It will take nearly 2 years to let the contract to a outside consulting firm.

1. Develop budget and technical requirements - (6-8 months)
2. Develop the request-for-proposal (RFP) - (6 months)
3. Send the RFP to procurement for publication - (1 month)
4. Advertise RFP - (1 month)
5. Evaluate RFP responses - (1.5 months)
6. Award RFP - (0.5 months)
7. Negotiate contract - (1-2 months)

18 - 22 months minimum just to get a contract in-place - and they still don't have a report as the contactor still has to do the work.

If they really wanted to drag it out - it could take 36 - 48 months.

Basically, this will get buried in the Army's procurement system.

If the program is not cancelled by the next president, the report will show that making the guns "safer" through any type of "smart gun" technology will make the gun less usable in war and is not practical.
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 04:18 PM   #12
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 8,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilimanjaro
Maybe I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt this E.O. to be the failure we believe it to be. These folks aren't stupid.

In a year or three we could be in for a big surprise.
That's exactly my concern.

My hope is that the military will dislike the concept sufficiently that the pace of development is so slow as to be endless. That said, I don't have any doubt as to the motive behind the order, and IMHO it sure isn't about keeping soldiers safe from NDs.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 04:34 PM   #13
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,799
I'm waiting for the GAG (did I say this before?). The Google Autonomous Gun.

You have a sensor on your head with an AI that scans 360 in visible light and IR. The gun is mounted on your belt with an electric arm that can fire 360 around you. The AI determines if you are under attack and fires as needed.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 05:21 PM   #14
357 Python
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 847
I would almost be willing to bet a month's pay that those guns are smarter than he is.
357 Python is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 05:22 PM   #15
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 569
Quote:
If the program is not cancelled by the next president, the report will show that making the guns "safer" through any type of "smart gun" technology will make the gun less usable in war and is not practical.
The possible cancellation of the program depends on who wins the presidency. What if we wind up with yet another anti?
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old February 2, 2016, 05:39 PM   #16
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,799
Well, a good research program into the ergonomics of safety usage and what makes a RDS usable or not - would be a good thing.

There are studies of how various rifle safety positions interfere with aim when removed as the rifle is in shooting position.

That would be smart. However, that wasn't the idea.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16269 seconds with 9 queries