t_logo_291_black

“President-elect Donald Trump, the candidate of the N.R.A., might be expected to snuff out smart guns,” the New York Times Editorial Board opines. “But if he instead took on the challenge of selling the N.R.A. on this technology, imagine the lives that could be saved.” Wait. What?

The Times and like-minded mainstream media outlets have got it into their collective head that the NRA opposes “smart gun” technology…full stop. Not true. The NRA is against mandating “smart guns.” Laws like the New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law of 2002, which stipulates that Garden State gun shops can only sell “smart guns” once any such firearms is available for sale anywhere in the U.S. A law that’s done more to stymie smart gun development and sales than anything else.

Of this law, the Times makes no mention. Wonder why.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

  1. If you oppose mandated gun safety, gun control, smart guns, you oppose any and all of them. Ipse dixit.

    • Yep. If Trump wants to embrace smart guns, I think that’s awesome, but he should know that he’ll be embracing them all by himself.

      • It’s not the smart guns themselves that is the problem. I know a few parents who would like to have it as another layer of protection for their kids(actually the curious OTHER people’s kids), but they aren’t available, because of that stupid gun law in Jersey. I, myself had thought of building a smart gun by replacing the grip safety of the 1911 with a x-ciever, that would make it go/no-go fire. If you don’t want it, replace it with a standard 1911 grip safety.

        But the law makes me not want to make it.

  4. The biggest part of the pickle we’re in is due to politicians sticking their noses where they don’t have any business being. If the private sector develops smart guns and successfully markets them then so be it. What business is it of the federal (or state or local) government?

    • Something about the “commerce clause” is pretended to make ANY law Constitutional with progressive legislate-from-the-bench jurists.

      • The “commerce clause” theory is simple: anything that is composed of any material that is transported interstate fall under “commerce” between the states. The constitution makes the central government ruler of interstate commerce. Logic then dictates that any activity that is interstate is subject to federal regulation of that activity (ALL federal laws apply).

        The commerce clause was one of the mostly hotly debated subjects at the convention. The ability to subvert the entire constitution via the commerce clause was a significant concern. The alternative was endless economic warfare among the states. Thus, the founders placed great faith and responsibility on subsequent generations not to be evil.

  5. Why would Trump particularly but also anybody with half a brain listen to anything that the New York Times has to say?

  6. Chimps climbing the hill arm stretched, head down in submission begging for a handout from the new chimp with the big nuts, thinking their opinion matters.

    Another chuckle for my day.

  10. “Smart” guns.
    “Common sense” gun control.

    All originating from people that lack both along with any sort of firearms knowledge or semblance of reality when it comes to human nature vs. hoplophobia. That’s my issue. The ideology is fine, but I simply don’t trust these people to preserve and protect American liberty in the process. Nor do I have any illusions that their primary goal will be finding ways to fleece yet more money from the public. See silencers for a case in point. And the TSA. And the NFA.

  11. I’d cost as many lives as it would save. Maybe more. Seriously. Out of the 11k homicides, how many fought over a gun or lost control of it.

  12. Ralph I’m stealing your sobriquet…the NY Slimes have an agenda. And it won’t be followed by Donald J. Trump.

  13. 1. The government is not in the business of designing firearms, nor should it be.
    2. Any law mandating the adoption of smart guns in lieu of “old” technology is bound to stifle innovation.
    3. Anyone who has bought a flashlight, used it once and stuffed it in a drawer, only to find it completely dead a year or two later when the need arises knows the innate flaw of any technology dependent on batteries to function.
    4. Electronic devices are averse to water. Unless and until a “smart gun” can withstand the same kind of abuse that a Glock is subjected to and still functions, it is an inadequate technology.

    • Good points.

      And none of it matters when it comes to keeping children from killing each other, or their parents. Better a thousand people be killed by criminal attackers, than one child kill another while playing with what turned out not to be a toy.

      If it saves one life, a smart gun is worth all the inadequacies.

      Right?

      Right?

    • OK, so every military arms specification is what?
      I guess the Amy needs to get rid of its holographic sights?

  14. Yeah … I subscribe to the “keep it as simple as possible” philosophy, at least for the core functionality.

    If the gun needs electronics to operate – say, if it’s a railgun, coilgun or plasma discharger – then I’d consider buying a gun with onboard electronics that are integral to its function. Otherwise? I’ll wait until there’s a good service record first. If given a choice, that is.

    On the other hand, I now have visions of a little motor and control board that can spin my revolver’s cylinder at 1k rpm or so, with electronic ignition to get the timing right…

  15. So….let me get this straight. A smart gun would require a gun user to wear a ring, a bracelet or some other method that would render the gun operational. What keeps the cops or ANYONE for that matter of developing and then deploying anti-smart gun technology that renders your weapon useless?
    I could see LE refusing to embrace smart-gun technology because the smart-gun system could be compromised thus rendering a law enforcement officers weapon inert. I could see LE developing such a technology and denying that it exists like they do over the cell snooping Stingray, that LE continually denies using.

    As long as I suck air, I will refuse to embrace or use smart-gun technology. I’m just not that trusting.

  16. Remember when Trump said he’d sit down with the NRA to get people on the terror watch list banned from owning guns? Remember how he never brought it up again? Trump listens to gun owners and learns.

  19. NYT = News fakers extraordinaire. Same slimy scumbacks as WaPo and the rest.

    Nobody with half a brain gives two shits what you idjits publish, so do us a favor. Please. Piss. Off.

  20. From the rag that won a pultzer for covering up a genocide.

    Write “Always do the opposite of what the NYT says” lest you forget it.

  22. This is not a news story, it’s an Op Ed, and the up shot of it is that smart guns will save the lives of children.

    Who could be against that, I ask you?

    Who indeed. I’d also like to ask what’s wrong with trigger locks, included with all handgun sales, or secure storage, or any other means of securing your weapon, just like you would secure medication.

    This Op Ed quotes Obama as saying: “If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun”

    Who says a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin? How effective are those bottles? Where are those statistics, NYT?

    The point is, there are numerous and effective methods of securing guns from anyone, and smart gun initiatives are simply government inspired mischief designed to cause trouble for law abiding citizens by weighing them down with expensive and troublesome mechanisms which do no more than existing devices like gun locks and safes. It’s also a slippery slope.

    It’s just like banning lead ammunition on the pretext that it harms the environment. Lies and damned lies!

  25. “Smart guns save lives.” Ah yes, because:
    1) Criminals are too stupid to steal the watch and the gun, so they won’t be able to operate the gun.
    2) Curious kids are too stupid to figure out that you need the watch to make the gun work.
    3) Angry domestic abusers will forget to put the watch on before trying to shoot their partner.
    4) Incompetent gun owners will take the watch off before pointing the gun at themselves while they try to strip and clean it.

    It must be wonderful to be an anti gunner at the New York Times. I hear ignorance is bliss.

    • DetroitMan: Thanks for the examples, to which may I add?
      Suicides (by firearms) can’t happen because people get frustrated and forgetful when challenged by puzzles (like defeating Smarter-than-themselves-gun-locks…”Darn, what was I going to do again?”)
      Bears don’t have opposable thumbs (so they cannot fasten the watch before they attack you)
      Bullseye scores will become equal (nothing allowed on your wrist while competing).
      “Progressives” will go insane making laws about sticks, swimming pools, and rocks; and then coming up with ways to prevent their use & misuse.

  26. Tramp, sorry Trump, should embrace smart people, because he need them. PLUS the people who he is putting in his admin are neo-con, we are frelled.

  27. Every “smart” gun I’ve ever seen or heard of, has so many potential failure points. A bit like flintlock muskets in a heavy rain. The entire point of a firearm is that it will go “Bang” when required. If Police don’t buy into it, why should we? And as for the NY Times? Clinton’s mouthpiece and the red-faced loser in the last election. Totally irrelevant. But nice to hear they still think they have some point to their existence. (Clue: They don’t). SJWs and urban hipster types will have to find something else to whine about until their next tilt at power. The sorest losers in history. And a bunch of whiny little bitches. And dumb as a sack of anvils.

Comments are closed.