Quote of the day—Charles Santagati

What if every public venue had a remote transmitter on its premises which sent a signal to the safety lock locking the trigger making any gun within its protected zone unable to be fired? What if any attempt to tamper with the lock or interrupt a signal from a transmitter resulted in automatically locking the trigger, which then could only be unlocked by a bonded gunsmith?

[W]e already have this technology. All that remains is a serious commitment and collaboration among government leaders, gun manufacturers. the NRA and concerned citizens.

Charles Santagati
January 2, 2014
Letter: Remote locks could provide gun control
[I don’t know how Santagati crosses back and forth between his reality and the one I am familiar with but I suspect it involves not taking his medications in a timely manner. He has no idea what he is talking about.

The stupid and ignorance is so rampant in his blatherings that I’ll only hit the high points of the ones that might not be obvious to casual observers.

  • To “interrupt a signal from a transmitter” would involve little more than piece of aluminum foil.
  • No mechanism could distinguish the addition of a piece of aluminum foil from nearby pop can and/or simply being outside the zone of influence of the transmitter. Hence there would be no way for the gun to disable the trigger due to such an effort to block the transmitter.
  • There is no way to build a mechanism that “could only be unlocked by a bonded gunsmith”.
  • There is no way to retrofit the hundreds of millions of existing guns with such technology even if it existed and even if the owners were to cooperate which they wouldn’t.
  • If such a gun could be built and retrofitted to all existing guns the transmitters to disable them would widely available to the bad guys via either normal channels or the black market. Your ability to protect yourself in your own home could be neutralized by any thug with more than a half dozen functioning brain cells.
  • The Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear functional arms when authorities decide it is in the “public good” to “turn off the transmitter”. That right exists at all times. To require guns be disabled at the command of others would be a violation of civil right and punishable by law.

This is part of why we win. The other side thinks they are so smart and so clever when in fact many of them really are this stupid, ignorant and/or delusional.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Charles Santagati

  1. Someone was reading ‘The Trigger’ by Arthur C. Clarke and Michael Kube-McDowell, I see!

    It’s actually not a bad read, with a VERY pointed kick to the crotch of the gun-control crowd at the end. Yes, there’s a rather appalling strawman ‘right wing militia’ bad guy, but the delicious irony of the last chapter makes it all worthwhile.

    But yeah. I am amused by this guy’s magical worldview of technology.

  2. Truly awesome. On the other hand, maybe this Santagati person is only four years old, his parents took his cute idea and sent it in as one of those “Kids will say the darnedest things” bits. That would explain it perfectly.

    Hey, I got one! How about we pass a law telling the auto makers to build only cars that run on water instead of gasoline? It would solve so many problems. I can hardly believe no one’s ever thought of that before. I must be the smartest person in the world!

  3. Truly effective gun control is having guns that can only be fired where and by whom we want them to be fired.

    I’m curious who this “we” is. Just off the top of my head I can think of dozens of people in the past year who have fired guns where I don’t think they should have, but who Santagati, and presumably his “we”, would explicitly exempt from his gun lockup. There are any number of cases where Santagati’s “we” would have prevented responsible gun owners from stopping a crime in progress. Please forgive me for not being overly comfortable with a self-selected panel of my betters deciding whether I deserve the right to defend myself.

    And maybe you just didn’t mention it because it’s so common that pointing it out is redundant, but there was the obligatory “I’m a gun owner, but…”
    Wouldn’t private citizens be totally free to use their guns for protection and recreation (I am one of them)…

  4. My standard response is “if we mandate the cops and military use them for a while FIRST, and they are OK with it even when there are harsh penalties for tampering with it, then I will consider it.” Until then, it’s not robust enough.

    • I’m not that generous. My standard response is: the originator of the idea, all of its supporters, and those who voted it into existence MUST be the ones who personally go out into the inner cities and PERSONALLY (not a “group” or a “police-sponsored event” or even “honor system because we passed a law and we all know how law-abiding criminals are”) apply these controls to each and every single gun in possession by a criminal. Once they can 100% (with proof) guarantee that every criminal has one of these devices, and is 100% completely incapable of acquiring ANY firearms without one of these devices (either an older weapon, or something imported via black market), then I will allow one to be applied to my own guns. Until that happens, back the ‘eff off.

  5. It’s part of a fantasy of total control. All leftists have it.

    “What if We could remotely control life and death at a whim? Wouldn’t that be great?”

    In essence it’s a declaration of hostility toward Mankind. So what’s new?

  6. What if this brainiac had a big electrode shoved up his rectum that gave him about a 500mA jolt whenever we decided he had said something idiotic?

  7. If you want to send a signal that disables a trigger, the easiest way to stop that is to have a jammer broadcast on the same frequency so that the message is lost in the noise floor.

    We call that “jamming” and it is how we stop people from using all sorts of wireless devices, from telegraph to satellite phone. There are other techniques for denial as well, but jamming is the simplest.

    • If you have a transmitter then jamming is a viable means in most cases. But essentially everyone has access to aluminum foil.

      And the trigger lock could be constructed in such a way such that any signal within a given frequency range disables the gun. Hence any attempt at jamming would result in disabling the gun.

Comments are closed.