Belinda Padilla: Freeze, personalize and polarize (Pres, Armatix 'smart gun' company)

[pfl101]

We need to fight fire with fire. Per Saul Alinsky, the " 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' approach is the way to go. Therefore, let's dig into the question:

"Who is Belinda Padilla?"

All people have issues they'd rather not discuss publicly. This lady, through her attempts to subvert our civil rights, has declared herself to be an open target for investigation.

What is her background?

Ever been arrested?

Bankrupt?

School problems?

Relationship issues?

She needs to be focused upon as the "face" of the "smart gun" issue. She's attractive--and therefore easily identified.

She's made statements conflating rights with privileges. What errors has she made with her privileges?

Everyone has stuff to hide. When they poke their heads into others' business, they better hope it's nothing too embarrassing...

[Dan More]

Why restrict this investigation on Belinda.
Investigate the entire picture...so start at the origins of the Armatxi Smart Gun, that is here in germany.

I posted links to several documents, that give background information on the company itself, how they work, how they have worked here in germany, how they buy themselves into the gun grabber groups, etc.

But here is the link to the english dossier about armatix, written by Katja Triebel, who runs a hunting supply- and gunshop and her husband is a very talented gunsmith in Berlin.

http://www.triebel.de/2011/_Armatix-engl.pdf

This will give some intel about the history of the company here in germany....

Belinda ist just a figure, that can be replaced if she becomes a problem.
She isn`t the main issue. The main issue is the company and they have to be discredited.......

[Dutch3]

LOL.

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Belinda-Padilla/1264596096

How do you go from being "Director of Entertainment" to "Director of Global Sales"?

[Dan More]

http://www.poa-iss.org/RevCon2/state...tix_GmbH-E.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/23/technology/smart-guns/

http://getmindsmart.com/S1_STOP_SMART_GUNS.html

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/77131.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-face-edition/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVVD7-StRMg

https://www.google.de/#q=Belinda+Padilla&start=30

[RobertMW]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

How do you go from being "Director of Entertainment" to "Director of Global Sales"?

It is literally just moving from one Sales job to the next. "Director of entertainment" is simply "How do I get more people here to spend money?"

[shovelon]

Katja Triebel.

We owe this lady alot. She has unearthed a deluge of deceit and lies by Armatix, and pretty much laid out their global strategy. Looks like deep pockets are financing the destruction of our 2nd amendment under our nose.

So Belinda was a director of entertainment huh? What better place to launch an entry in the US than Hollywood.

[Dan More]

it`s only a 2nd issue in CA or NJ, armatix is pushing this world wide and yes, Katja is a person we all need to thank.

[Cyberion]

Interesting read by Katja Triebel.

I posted this in another thread but the Armatix US patents are worth a look.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=163

[Dan More]

As a matter of fact, the technology of the armatix smart gun was implemented in the side arm from James Bond in Sky Fall, I think it was....so it already made it to Hollywood and just after airing that, it was pushed again in the media.....

[Volksgrenadier]

Perhaps a break through role in a Hollywood remake?

[The Gleam]

Consider this...

Calguns.net is the most prominent, influential, and conjoining hub for social camaraderie, reporting on events, legislation, litigating news in all of California, and has taken up the reins and replaced that which CRPA dropped, as far as connecting gun owners in California. Even the questions surrounding this issue started as far back as August 2013 right here on Calguns, long before it became wider-spread media fodder and a band-wagon meal.

So. Anyone in California wishing to be a part of the bigger picture of gun owners and gun enthusiasts especially seeking to cater to them as a specific demographic, would be remiss, if not simply quite stupid, in not coming here and joining Calguns.


So.... where are you Belinda? WHO are you here on Calguns?

Come out, come out, whomever you are....

[ProLibertate]

A quick search of the California businesses yields:

Entity Name: ARMATIX U.S.A., INC.
Entity Number: C3544379
Date Filed: 02/05/2013
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: DELAWARE
Entity Address: 269 S BEVERLY DR STE 1427
Entity City, State, Zip: BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212
Agent for Service of Process: BELINDA PADILLA
Agent Address: 269 S BEVERLY DR STE 1427
Agent City, State, Zip: BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212

This is "Beverly Hills Postal Place"
http://www.mailboxesbeverlyhills90212.com/

[shda5582]

Looks like you guys in this thread got noticed: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us...gun-lobby.html

[sealocan]

That was fast.^^^

(I am sorry, I did not see that this thread was already more than amonth old.)

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by shda5582

Looks like you guys in this thread got noticed: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us...gun-lobby.html

From the article linked above:

Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.

That alone makes it completely unviable for self defense. If I have the gun holstered on my belt and reach up and scratch my head or bend over and tie my shoe....the gun and the watch are now more than 10" apart and the gun would lock up. That pretty much as bad as carrying unloaded in a locked container.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by shda5582

Looks like you guys in this thread got noticed: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us...gun-lobby.html

That's a paying section. Could you pull out a short paragraph and post it? (note that there are copyright issues, so you can only post a short few sentence summary.)

[JackRydden224]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

From the article linked above:



That alone makes it completely unviable for self defense. If I have the gun holstered on my belt and reach up and scratch my head or bend over and tie my shoe....the gun and the watch are now more than 10" apart and the gun would lock up. That pretty much as bad as carrying unloaded in a locked container.

Or if you are grabbing the kids with your left arm (with the watch) and pointing the gun with your right hand. Or if your left arm has been immobilized. Or a ton of other situations where this device would not work.

This is such a dumb idea.

[shda5582]

Originally Posted by IVC

That's a paying section. Could you pull out a short paragraph and post it? (note that there are copyright issues, so you can only post a short few sentence summary.)

Works for me, and I don't pay for that liberal rag. Try going to google, type in the search field:

cache:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us...gun-lobby.html

and see if that works

[IVC]

Originally Posted by shda5582

Works for me, and I don't pay for that liberal rag.

Thanks - it made me realize they wouldn't let me read it because I had them on "restricted" lists and my browser wouldn't accept their cookie. Most of online news are on my restricted list due to the "dancing infomercials" popping up all over the place...

Once I removed them from the restricted list (temporarily, of course) I can read it.

[IVC]

Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”

Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it.

That's hilarious.

When a NY yellow journalists published interactive map of all gun permit holders it was considered a "good thing" since "people need to know" even though those people were forced to register with the state and were exposed through a FOIA request.

When it's done to a business person who is willingly, intentionally and for profit involved in the anti-gun movement, they imply that exposing her personal information is a punishment to a sarcastically stated "offense of trying to sell a gun."

Well, which one is it? Should we or should we not publish personal information? If anything, it should be fair game when voluntarily attacking our rights (Belinda) and off limits when it's a government mandate (registration information.)

[IVC]

Another gem:

And despite support from the Obama administration and the promise of investment from Silicon Valley, guns with owner-recognition technology remain shut out of the market today.

They are not shut out of the market. It's that people who glorify this technology need to start buying those guns.

Now that's a contradictory dilemma: do they hate guns enough to start investing in the type of gun that would result in a ban on all other guns, thus getting them closer to their dream of unavailability of guns, while at the same time making them gun owners? The irony...

[shda5582]

Originally Posted by IVC

Another gem:



They are not shut out of the market. It's that people who glorify this technology need to start buying those guns.

Now that's a contradictory dilemma: do they hate guns enough to start investing in the type of gun that would result in a ban on all other guns, thus getting them closer to their dream of unavailability of guns, while at the same time making them gun owners? The irony...

Here's the question that I really want to hear them answer:

Why are they not mandating this wonderful technology for police? Surely if it's good enough for civilians to own, then the police should be on the front line since it would prevent them from having their weapons taken away and being shot with them.

[Spyguy]

Originally Posted by pfl101

She's attractive--and therefore easily identified.

I would disagree with that characterization of her.

[IVC]

Heh, the end is fitting:

“This is my mission in life,” she said, vowing to keep looking for customers. “If they really understood our technology, they wouldn’t be afraid of it at all.”

Ms Belinda, who's afraid of technology? Certainly not gun owners. We are afraid of your constant visits with the legislators. Say it ain't so, but it appears that you would FORCE us to use that technology through legislative branch. Otherwise, we'd see you at SHOT show, not in Sacramento.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by shda5582

Why are they not mandating this wonderful technology for police? Surely if it's good enough for civilians to own, then the police should be on the front line since it would prevent them from having their weapons taken away and being shot with them.

It's been said many times on these forums - CA is a great litmus test to determine whether a law/regulation is an infringement or not. If LEO-s are exempt, it's almost certainly an infringement. If regular people are banned, it's almost certainly an infringement:

Roster: LEO exempt, people forced. Infringement.
SBR/SBS: LEO exempt, people forbidden. Infringement.
Bullet Buttons: LEO exempt, people forced. Infringement.
Microstamping: LEO exempt, people forced. Infringement.
Magazine limits: LEO exempt, people forced. Infringement.
National Carry: LEO allowed, people forbidden. Infringement.
Smart Guns: LEO exempt, people forced. Infringement.

On the other hand, when it comes to real safety, it's also obvious:

Criminal background = no guns: LEO and people the same. Good.
No brandishing: LEO and people the same. Good.
Self defense: LEO and people the same. Good.
Those who manage to get CCW: same as LEO-s who CCW. Good.
Restrictions on carry in certain places: LEO and people the same. Good.

etc.

[LOW2000]

Thank you members of Calguns for acting swiftly on this issue and giving pause to any other company or range or gun store who would associate with companies or persons such as this.

[The Tiger]

Originally Posted by pfl101

"Belinda ist just a figure, that can be replaced if she becomes a problem.
She isn`t the main issue. The main issue is the company and they have to be discredited......."

You're correct in that the overriding issue is that of the anti-2A movement towards "smart gun" technology.

But our cause will need a fulcrum, which is where Belinda comes into play.

She's got to have personal missteps we can use to discredit the idea by association, something the left is always looking to do to us.

I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans.

Whoa, you got quoted in the linked article. They are watching…

[Exnihilo]

Her only goal is making money through getting "smart gun" laws passed. Trampling on people's rights along the way is secondary to her and the company she is affiliated with.

[Warrior King]

From the NY Times article

They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix.

When newspapers dig for dirt on people its called "investigative reporting"...when citizens do what reporters do they call it "vigilante style investigations"

[BrokerB]

That's fine..vigilante reminds me of Mr . Charles Bronson.., cant remember his movie name.

[Dan More]

Originally Posted by BrokerB

That's fine..vigilante reminds me of Mr . Charles Bronson.., cant remember his movie name.

Death Wish

[Cloudchaser Sakonige]

Originally Posted by pfl101

"Belinda ist just a figure, that can be replaced if she becomes a problem.
She isn`t the main issue. The main issue is the company and they have to be discredited......."

You're correct in that the overriding issue is that of the anti-2A movement towards "smart gun" technology.

But our cause will need a fulcrum, which is where Belinda comes into play.

She's got to have personal missteps we can use to discredit the idea by association, something the left is always looking to do to us.

I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans.

How does someone selling a gun that can only be fired by its owner threaten your right to carry a gun?

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Warrior King

From the NY Times article



When newspapers dig for dirt on people its called "investigative reporting"...when citizens do what reporters do they call it "vigilante style investigations"

Yet another lazy, incompetent "journalist" uninterested in doing actual research.

Pretty typical. The NY times doesn't actually pay journalists, just trolls who write outrageous hyperbole to attract the few remaining eyeballs available to monetize their dying business model.

[joe_gman]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser Sakonige

How does someone selling a gun that can only be fired by its owner threaten your right to carry a gun?

The problem is not about a gun that can only be fired by its owner. The market can decide if such a concept is wanted or not. The issue with "smart" guns like the Armatix system is the high possibility of it becoming a government mandated system like what is occurring in New Jersey, which will make illegal to own and operate millions of currently legal firearms owned by citizens within that state. If such a law was made mandatory today throughout the US, it would limit gun owners to just the 1 or 2 extremely expensive firearms currently available. Effectively rendering 300,000,000 firearms currently owned by Americans illegal to own or carry.

"Smart" gun technology also has an extremely poor track record of reliability. While that may be a nuisance at the range, it can become a fatal flaw when it comes to self defense. If law enforcement embraces and uses the technology for officers on the beat, then it might be considered by the rest of society. My guess is that they won't due to the failure rate to fire and the inevitable loss of officers' lives.

The third and hardest sell for "smart" gun technology is the ability through outside technology, to render the firearm unable to fire. In the Armatix catalog, they have their "target response system" that will only allow the firearm to fire if it recognizes the target. Combine that with other RFID blockers, and a firearm loses any value for anything outside of approved gun ranges. What would be the point of owning a firearm that can only be used at a designated shooting range? That would be removing any and all rights to keep and bare arms.

[Dan More]

And don`t forget the possibility for LEO`s to get the technical chance to deactivate firarms remotely.

So lets say the people would stand up and fight, but the goverment doesn`t want them to, so they just push a button and the people are left defenceless....

Kind of a kill switch for firearms and that is in my eyes the biggest danger.

If I wouldn`t know the history of that company, and if I would believe Belinda, then I probably wouldn`t have a problem with smart guns, as long as I am not forced to buy them. If I want one ok, but not if it`s the only system legal.
But I know the history of the complany and what they are after.

They know, that nearly nobody with brains between the ears will buy a .22 electronic gadget for $ 1899,- out of theyre own free will. So the only chance they have, is to get them in the market by force of law, like New Jersey. And that is what they are after.....don`t believe one single second, that they are interested in the 2nd amendment oder your rights on self defense, etc.

[Baja Daze]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser Sakonige

How does someone selling a gun that can only be fired by its owner threaten your right to carry a gun?

Is that you Belinda?

[Lifeisgood]

Let her try to sell it to the military. This product has absolutely no redeeming features, and its supporters only mission is to take away 2A rights.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

...to attract the few remaining eyeballs available to monetize their dying business model.

Yet another thing they have in common with Ms Padilla.

[Dan More]

Here with regards form Katja some more Info.

It seems, Armatix stated, they want to sell the technology to LEO to prevent "Friendly Fire"..

http://www.google.com.mx/patents/US20050115386

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/filea...ence-Paper.pdf

[ZirconJohn]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser Sakonige

How does someone selling a gun that can only be fired by its owner threaten your right to carry a gun?

Cloudchaser Sakonige

Mini Statistics
Join Date
04-28-2014
Total Posts
1

Originally Posted by Baja Daze

Is that you Belinda?

That actually probably not funny because it could very well be Broom Belinda Padilla (HAHA-I added the Broom part) - What... look at stats (above) joined Monday 4/28/14

GREAT idea... perfect thing to do is create a panel of qualified members and take this to PM... BUT confirm identification for entry and then make sure you 'Reply All' when sending messages.

That ^^^ is only a thought... hardly doable, the PM's would be... longgggggggggg...!!!

There is a news article about Padilla, and in the article there is a quote taken from a post right here on the CGN Forum.

Some/most of you have seen it, here's the link http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...2#post13971352

As you are very well aware of, ANYONE can join and monitor this site; DOJ does it, BATF does it, Leland Yee did it... you can bet'cha hundred dollars to a mole hill Broom Belinda is RIGHT HERE amongst us CGN'ers RIGHT NOW...!!! - Good time to tell her what you REALLY think of her and that idiotic excuse for gun the iP1.

Now, if you going to take this to the PM and confirm ID for entry... let me know.