|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: How New Jersey's Smart Gun Law Backfired
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Many Second Amendment advocates view smart guns as a step toward draconian restrictions on firearm ownership. Raymond, a passionate gun advocate, wasn't willing to risk his life for a few sales and decided to strip his shelves of smart guns. Fearing similar pushback, if not necessarily death threats, other retailers have likewise steered clear of smart guns. No major U.S. arms manufacturers are offering the weapons.
The current smart-gun scarcity can be traced, in part, to the enactment 13 years ago of a New Jersey statute intended to promote high-tech handguns.
|
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/12/2015)
|
They still don't get it.
Leaving the reliability issue aside, the main objection is twofold, both prongs of which are constitutionally based.
1) The technology can be defeated by electronic disabling.
2) If they are mandated and standard firearms are made illegal, the government can simply turn them off whenever it desires effectively disarming the people in direct violation of the constitutional guarantee.
Those two facts are insurmountable, rendering any further discussion moot. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/12/2015)
|
| There is a worthwhile application for this technology, particularly in hoplophobic states like NJ. Equip all LEOs with them as their weapons are always in public and the loss of control of their weapon poses the greatest immediate threat to the officer. Everywhere it would remove the threat to the general public from weapons left unattended by officers. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
