the NRA wants to take America's smart guns away

The NRA claims to be "pro-2nd Amendment" and "Freedom" so why are they taking my right away to own a smart gun?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5683504/gun-control-the-nra-wants-to-take-smart-guns-away

It's my right to choose whether I want to own one or not. Those that fall for their fear mongering conspiracy theory BS about smart guns don't have to buy them.....simple as that!

 

No its not, Uh uh. The NRA says so, and all the good little NRA worshippers will agree. American Rifleman has spoken, its sheep may only bleat in agreement..

Why, a smart gun wouldn't be able to be sold to illegals through straw buyers, nor would crooked gun dealers be able to supply whole gangs illegally

Go ahead NRAistas, defend this on ANY other basis than the fact that it would keep large segments of gun buyers from supplying criminals (and thus reduce overall gun demand from manufacturers.

And please note all the gun owners that think an acceptable method of political discussion is to shoot your girlfriend and your dog. "Responsible gun owners" is a contradiction in terms IMO.

 

Read the article that you yourself posted. What you are saying is "screw everyone else. If I want it, I should have it". You sir, are NOT a member in good standing of the shooting community.

 

Okay, then.

NRA aside, who in the Hell would ever trust an unknown "smart gun" in a life or death self-defense situation?

Maybe a few poor naive saps and shipdit politicians in New Jersey would, but most Americans would not.

Smart gun, Schmart gun...

 

I just hope his dog and gf are safe

I read the article. How does it affect anyone else if I decide to have a smart gun? No one is saying you have to have one unless you don't have any and live in New Jersey, and even then you can go out of state. NJ has lots of dumb laws that should be repealed. Just ask the governor about bridge regulations

If I want to take that risk why shouldn't I be allowed to? How does it bother you?

 

They are just using the power of the marketplace. They are not passing laws. Why bring up an almost year old editorial?

I would like a smart gun, and will buy one, as soon as all federal police officers (especially the ATF and Secret Service), all state police officers, all local police officers, and all of the U.S. military (on all guns, from sidearms to nuclear missiles and everything in between) only use smart guns.

 

Ayuh,.... As bad as the linked biased opinion piece is,... Yer fully blamin' the NRA as the only opposition is a flat out Lie,....

From yer opinion piece,....

This thread is a Troll,... nothin' more, nothin' less,.....

 

I'm not against private gun ownership.

That being said, if I had small children in my house - my choice for defense would absolutely be a smart gun.
I've been in on the investigations of two child on child accidental shootings (one survived, thankfully). No other crime scene
had that effect on me - horrendous.

The NRA lost a lot of points with me when they did not support the availability of smart weapons for those who wanted them.

 

Follow the money - in this case who is really funding the NRA and the lifestyle of its board of directors

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

The smart gun is a German company

 

If you want the current "Smart Gun", the Armatix ip1, AND expect it to work as a self defence weapon----

then you are "TSTL." The NRA is right to protect techo-geeks and others from a defective product.

 

The problem here is New Jersey's idiotic law that once these smart guns hit shelves then ALL guns sold in the state have to have this smart gun tech. Once that happens your right to own a smart gun erases NJ residents' right to buy guns without that tech. The NRA opposition to this tech is only a band aid that delays the inevitable. Instead they should be opposing the NJ law itself. I support your right to own this tech as much as I support NJs right to not own it while still enjoying their 2nd amendment rights.

 

As are Heckler & Koch, Walther Arms, and a number of others that export to the united states.

 

many of them are manufacturing some of their stuff for the USA market in America. Beretta (Italy) SigSauer (mainly Germany) and now Glock (Austria) are examples. one reason is to get around the idiotic 68GCA nonsense for small pistols: another reason is to try to win government contracts.

 

Just because a product is labeled as "smart" doesn't necessarily make it so. I personally don't care what a person uses to defend themselves and their family. What I don't want is the government to get involved! I don't want government to dictate what should be used by people to defend themselves. And I definitely don't want government to force gun manufactures to "re-tool" and force this technology down their throat. Because the cost will only increase and that increase will be passed on to the consumer. Thus making them less accessible to people of lesser means. If demand by the consumer takes the technology that way...then so be it.

 

You can own one. That is your choice.They have yet to prove their reliability and performance. They are not reliable weapons. The batteries can go dead and all you have is an expensive hammer. I also prefer that my wife can use the same gun/s that I can.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375360/smart-guns-are-dumb-charles-c-w-cooke

http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/smart-guns.html

if you want one, go ahead and get one, for all the good it will do you.............

 

LOL, you can buy the gun. No one is stopping you. Cry wolf much? As the article says, the NRA is against a government mandate where you take away my freedom of choice.

 

The american public should be able to freely own any and all firearms used by civilian police officials since the use of said weapons by civilian police officials is an affirmative statement that said weapons are among the most suitable for civilians to use in self defense in a civilian environment. No public official should have access to or be guarded by firearms that other civilians cannot legally possess

 

I agree!

 

I have no interest in one, but if you do - all the power to you. I prefer big boy guns.

If the NRA is lobbying to make them illegal that's completely wrong.

 

I think that they are afraid the government is going to outlaw regular guns in exchange for these smart guns which can be turned off if the government needs them turned off. It is a possibility and probably likely, seeing the government become more and more tyrannical right in front of our eyes.

 

First of all, there is absolutely nothing in that article that is even close to the NRA wanting to take away guns. Only questioning the laws that mandate the use of an untested technology. They are not the same thing at all, but it tells me the bias of those who wrote that piece of coprolite.

The military will never use such technology in the foreseeable future.

In the military it is all to common for us to be issued another weapon for various reasons. And trust me, I used to be an armorer, so understand how this works. We also often exchange weapons from one person to another when the weapon is assigned not to an individual, but to a specific post. More often then not when I stood guard duty I used a post weapon, not my own personal weapon.

The same thing happens at ranges all the time. We go out to the 9mm range, and we usually fire 20-75 people with 9 pistols. We rarely fire our own individual weapons, we use the same ones over and over again, only the most senior officers will generally use their own issued weapons. And more then once on the M-16 range I have done the same thing, loaned my weapon to somebody else to fire for various reasons.

And in battle, weapons break. When this happens we often take the weapon from somebody who was dead or wounded. Makes it rather hard to do when you can not use that weapon.

Sorry, do not expect that to happen in the military ever. Same with LE, since that is often a mix of issued weapons and personal weapons.

As far as things like special weapons (nukes), there are already huge failsafe measures involved in these, ranging from command codes to a 2 person requirement.

It helps when you have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

It is probably just a gut reaction on the part of the NRA to the useof the term " smart ". That has to be threatening to the entire logical basis of the NRA's positions on guns and gun control.

 

Not only that, it severely restricts their choices of what weapons they can purchase.

If anybody thinks that all guns would ever have this tech, think again. Odds are it would only be a handful of weapons, and likely the most expensive ones available. It would be like passing a law for cars, and the only choices then become any with antilock brakes, full curtain air bags, and hybrid power with US made batteries and run on flat tires.

Since almost no (if any) cars meet that criteria, it effectively would ban cars.

I simply see no reason for anybody to insist upon such insane legislation to purchase a legal item. Like mandating no alcoholic beverage have more then 35% alcohol, or the "Saturday night special" laws which mandated that a firearm must cost a certain price or above. It simply makes no sense, and removes choice from the consumer.

If somebody wants such a weapon, fine. But mandating such untested, unproven and unavailable technology is just stupid.

 

If you need a gun to make you feel like a big boy, it does raise questions.

 

I suggest that those wishing to ban normal weapons be required to equip their bodyguards with such "smart guns".