The NRA is really short for "the National Retards of America", simply put, no one has a need for a gun for any reason. It's a pointless amendment and should be taken out.
Sure, once you get the guns out of the huge criminal organization called The Police, then you can see about getting rid of the rest of the guns. But I bet you think the police are good to have guns. You do know that police have just as high of a rate of criminal use of guns as the general population don't you? I would think it is even higher as they cover up for each other so the stats don't count all the cases where it was deemed to be a justified shooting of an unarmed guy lying on his stomach! Right to life means I have the right to defend myself against aggressors. You don't have the right to take my rights away. If you want to put your survival in the hands of other people who may or may not save you that is your choice. But to me that sounds really irresponsible. If you or your kind die then it is just an improvement of the gene pool, so it isn't a real big loss anyway.
After the police and military have been using this gun technology for at least a decade exclusively with no non-smart weapons, then we can make it a mandate. Until they embrace it, neither will I. Actually, even if they did I probably wouldn't. I would be jailbreaking that thing in a second.
And that's just an excuse to be as lazy as you choose.
"OMG, I can't instantly fix every problem in the world, so I'll just do nothing but carp about it. And, then tell everybody how right I was after it all falls down."
This makes no sense to me. If you want to fix the problem, then fix the actual problem. Don't go spending huge sums of money and take away everybody rights when that doesn't actually fix the problem anyway. It sounds exactly like the TSA and the radiation/nudity scanners. It's just a power/money grab by the politicians for their friends.
The question that actually needs to be asked is, will the people who own the robots let the rest of us have any food?
Or how about the question, will the huge masses of people without jobs let the robot owners live? We are already in a country (U.S.) where voting to get rid of any type of welfare is pretty near impossible as a very large percentage take advantage of these programs. If it progresses further, the politicians will only have one place to get tax money from, the robot owners. So the taxes on the rich will be raised high enough to be able to feed everyone else. Either that or we are in for some violent times.
I had a similar thing happen in L.A., CA. There were no meters on the street but there were parking restrictions. The sign I parked right next to said "No Parking -- Except Sat & Sun". It was a Sunday so parking is allowed. The word "Sun" on the sign had a scratch through it like someone did it with a key or something, but it was still readable. And I got a ticket. I sent in a letter contesting the ticket and they replied saying the ticket was valid. I was moving out of state right after that so I just didn't pay it. Never heard anything about it again.
You just need to throw an old tire set on fire up onto the box. You could fill the tire with oil and tape a lit fuse to it before sticking it up there. There was a site from Europe I saw last year that collected photos of speed cameras that people torched like that. Sometimes they would have a second picture of the replacement camera that gets burnt right after being installed. Once the cameras are no longer profitable, the problem goes away.
I have an inkling that a brain in a jar will never work. If it does not have the uncountable inputs from all the sensations of the body it will not develop as a brain should. Every nerve in the skin giving temperature, touch, movement of air on the hair folicles etc. Plus the vision and hearing, proprioception, internal signals from the heart, lungs, digestion and other organs that we are not even aware of. Even the sight we take for granted is too overwhelming for our mind to comprehend. A great deal is filtered out by our paradigms and other brain functions to give us a perception of the world that is not entirely accurate, but functional. You brain backfills time every time your eyes shift positions. The movement of the eyes gives a period of non-vision, but the brain fills that past time with a perception of sight. That is why the first second when you look at a clock will seem longer than the next ones. So without the brain having to deal with processing all of this input constantly you will not develop AI. You will at most have a computer. Capable of processing calculations or instructions fast, but no intelligence.
You will probably need a body to move also. I am thinking about the robots that people have made that start out with no concept of their own design. They try a movement and see what action happens. They work out a walking method from trial and error. The human brain does similar things while still growing in the womb. Kicking legs and arms out and receiving the sensations of touch from the actions. This continues to develop after birth for many years. The AI will probably need to have a similar learning experience. If it has no way of changing the incoming sensation data stream, it will not be able to sort out what all that data means.
I could be wrong and perhaps it is much easier that I imagine. But the human brain (in fact, all creatures' brains) always exists in a body. I think if you want to copy that you need to create a body also. Or at least a good enough simulation of one to give the brain the data from, and interaction with the simulated environment.