The owner of the gun puts this fingerprint reading device on the back of the gun and only the owner can fire it. It’s so the owner never gets shot with his or her own gun. Sounds like something the OWNER might want installed.

Probably not, if the owner ever intends to use the gun for it’s intended purpose.

The last thing I would want in a life or death situation, is one more piece of technology that could fail or malfunction and prevent my firearm (or that of a policeman) from firing.

Sure, my next of kin could sue the manufacturer ( a win-win for the gun grabbers), but personally I’d rather they not have the money!

K.I.S.S.

Incredibly, I find myself in partial agreement with Mr. Holder on a single point. I think that mandatory safety and operational instruction with testing should be a prerequisite for firearms ownership. I believe that this would go a long way toward restricting legal gun ownership to responsible,law abiding citizens. Such a training program must of course be available, afordable, and no more intensive than the firearms instruction that police trainees receive. This would mean that blanket violation of 2nd amendment rights in places like Chicago and DC could no longer be justified, since urban idiot thug, Obama voter types would be unlikely to take and complete such a course.

The rest of Mr. Holder’s ideas on the subject seem like crap to me.

I have long been puzzled by people’s complete lack of knowledge about firearms handling and safety. I was raised around guns, was always taught proper handling and instilled with a healthy respect for any weapon. What the hell happened to Americans? How did they become so woefully ignorant of such a simple and easily learned subject? And yes, I am being facetious. I know exactly how this has happened, been watching it and working against it my entire life.

Fingerprint scanners on guns would easily be rendered garbage with a nice little EMP blast.

Or a dead or corroded battery. (But that never happens!)