Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Second Amendment First

“watch that transmits an identifying radio frequency that prevents everyone but its wearer from firing.”

So it’s not specific to the owner, just whoever clubs the owner and has the watch.

I bet transmitting a strong CW carrier would prevent the receiver from getting its signal from the watch.


6 posted on 02/04/2014 7:48:14 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DBrow

You can bet your last nickel that the cops have already figured out a way to disable them remotely.


13 posted on 02/04/2014 7:55:31 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: DBrow
I bet transmitting a strong CW carrier would prevent the receiver from getting its signal from the watch.

Exactly! How long would it take for an enterprising individual with no morals to start selling jammers to criminals? People would end up defenseless even though they had a gun. Sounds like exactly what liberals want.

31 posted on 02/04/2014 9:33:42 AM PST by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson