Quote of the Day: About Face Edition

“I told him, ‘It’s going to be okay. You’re doing the right thing.’ Then it just got worse.” – Armatix US president Belinda Padilla in California firearms shop backs away from ‘smart gun’ after backlash (at foxnews.com)

comments

  1. avatar John L. says:

    I wonder how it feels to personally have screwed over an entire state.

    1. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

      The gun shop didn’t screw over an entire state. NJ’s legislature did.

      One thing that separates us from the gun-grabbers is the ability to step back from our emotions and see a problem for what it really is. There is nothing inherently wrong with “smart” guns. If someone could produce a magical, unicorn, smart gun that would only shoot bad guys, never ran out of batteries, and had perfect reliability in all conditions, I’d buy it (of course, such a gun does not exist). The problem is mandating the use of this technology. Directing your anger towards the gun shop is no different than the gun-grabbers projecting their fear on guns.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        The NJ legislature set a tripwire, the shop owner stumbled through it.

        I am not a firearms dealer nor professional in any sense. I do not live in New Jersey. Yet, I still knew about the tripwire / time clock on smart gun sales. So did a lot of readers of TTAG for that matter. So yes, I am annoyed at the shop owner, he should have known what this would start.

        Here’s the thing. I agree with you about magical smart guns. Right now I have no opinion about this one’s functionality (marketing and caliber are a separate discussion). But I do know that any new technology goes through a period – sometimes long – of refinement, adjustment, etc. after it is introduced.

        Without the NJ tripwire I would say this is great, we’ve started the process towards the guns I read about in science fiction novels. With it, I think it just screws gun buyers in New Jersey because I doubt a reasonable selection of alternate design schemes will be marketable within 3 years – the firearms industry is very conservative for good reasons.

        I wonder if the NJ clock turns off if the guns are taken off the market again. Somehow I’m guessing not; as I recall the language was 3 years after first offered for sale, not on the market for three years.

      2. avatar Michael in GA says:

        You are falling into the trap of believing that the purpose of this gun is safety. Just like many believe that the public schools have education as the first priority. Just like many are lied to that gun buy back programs make neighborhoods safer. These are all Liberal lies.
        The sole purpose of this product is to infringe on the 2nd amendment. Why would you trust Beverly Hills elitists to produce defensive handguns?

        1. avatar Erik O says:

          And you have fallen into the Authoritarian Trap, thinking that Liberalism is the enemy.

        2. avatar JR says:

          And you have fallen into the trap thinking it’s not.

          We can do this all day. 😉

          In all seriousness, though, liberalism as it is practiced today has a lot for which to answer.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          You’re paranoid and confusing the people who are out to get you with the people who want to make a buck.

        4. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Hannibal, I see things clearly. If you don’t see this as an infringement then you are the one confused. This woman rubs elbows with the ultra rich progressive elitists. See the link in my earlier post or Google Balinda Padilla.
          I have no doubt that most of the leftists agendas are financially motivated. There is capitalism, then there is crony capitalism. The cronies use government regulations to achieve financial gain. This product will only become lucrative when the government bans all alternatives.
          Paranoid? Just because I can identify my enemy while others succumb to the media lies does not make me paranoid. It makes me a free thinker.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        We all know such technology doesn’t exist and have no reason to believe that the existing technology is reliable. Sure, it might well become reliable with popular adoption and successive models. Perhaps, but that’s not the point.

        This is about economics, not technology. The purpose is to drive up the cost of firearms, both through the actual complexity of the product, as well as through the reduced supply and competition resulting from the imposition on would -be suppliers of this high technical mandate.

        The effect of all that is to frustrate and thwart the people in exercising their God-given right to self-defense. Policies with that effect are reckless and inherently dangerous and cost people their lives. Shame on any legislator who votes with either malice or ignorance for such a law.

      4. avatar Accur81 says:

        Indeed, I’ve shot at Oak Tree and have done several competitions there. They are solidly pro-gun. I’ve purchased a few guns there as well. I will speculate – based upon my experiences shooting there on duty and off – that they simply wanted a new product. Since Oak agree did not want to lead to gun confiscation / smart gun requirements in NJ (and possibly CA and other liberal strongholds), they dropped the product.

      5. avatar MacBeth51 says:

        First, How di New Jersey come up
        “California firearms shop”
        Oak Tree is on the other coast.
        Second, MS Palinda’s account differs greatly form that of the people at the shop. I ssuggest you read this post at calguns.net
        http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=13603871&postcount=93
        Apparently MS. Padilla faked photos to make it look like the store was selling the guns for a PR release

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Did you not read the background story that was linked in the post? Shame on you. Then you make an ignorant statement and link to another article. Pathetic!

        2. avatar MacBeth51 says:

          Michael in GA said
          “Did you not read the background story that was linked in the post?”
          You mean the one that said “The Oak Tree Gun Club, located outside Los Angeles”?
          The one that describes the event under discussion, the event in California. Is NJ now passing laws for CA?
          “Then you make an ignorant statement and link to another article.”
          That “article” was the report on an interview of the personnel at the gun shop by a member of calguns
          The interviewees clearly indicate that the gun displayed in the WAPO photo’s as being for sale at the shop was never part of their inventory, and that MS. Padilla had apparently had a fake tag printed for it. Since you obviously didn’t read it, what are you basing your ignorant statement on?

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Powerful. Just a guess.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    Comment moderated

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      Matt I hope you are riifing off jwm somewhat dry wit and self deprecation but if not and you are somehow offended by the TTAG modreation policy its really pretty simple: name calling and personal insults are all you got if you dont got the facts. Thats thr left and progressive pr strategy in a nutshell.

      Here at TTAG ee do our best to avoid cheapshots and raise mockery of the anti-gunners poor logic inaccuracies and outright lies to a higher form of art.

      So for you and any other new or gentle readers who might take it personally when you get moderated…don’t. ” Its not about you” as Ralph might say.

      Its about keeping TTAG “the clean, well-lit space” …Hemingway. juvenile and might even be the kind of cheap trick an MDA troll would pull here to say…

    2. avatar rlc2 says:

      P.S. sorry y’sll about that last fragment…kindle cant scroll down inside the edit box sometimes. The point is we could expect juvenile posters who somehow cant get that concept of no “ad hominems” or worse trolls pretending to be legit readers to keep posting slams against the management or others.

  3. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

    This makes me curious as to what that gun shop’s management think of the 2nd Amendment, and the state of gun rights in general in California and the nation. This would seem to be a rather large misstep on that part. “Gee, didn’t think people would get that mad!” Really?

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Or, it could just be that the shop management wasn’t aware of the idiotic New Jersey law, and that selling such a gun would set into motion a huge infringement on the rights of New Jersians (New Jersiods? Jersers?). They probably have enough on their plate trying to keep track of the mountain of stupid California laws they deal with on a daily basis.

      Not saying they should get a free pass, but fucking up out of ignorance (if that’s what this was) doesn’t necessarily mean someone’s soft on gun rights.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Jeeters?

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      That brings up a good point. Unless they have been living under a rock and are strictly gun retailers (i.e., Wal Mart on a smaller scale), they must have realized that putting that toy on sale would start some painful clocks ticking. Could the management really have been that unaware?

  4. avatar the ruester says:

    The reason to oppose this is clear; buying these firearms will give material aid and support to the anti-gun movement. Making grabbers rich will not help the cause of 2a freedom, despite what this owner apparently thought.

  5. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    Wait a minute, the freaking watch needed to fire the gun is sold separately? Could that POS get any worse?

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Don’t say that!

      They might take that as a challenge.

    2. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

      “Congratulations on the purchase of your new Porsche. Do recall that a set of keys will be an additional $5,000. Thank for your business!”

    3. avatar John L. says:

      Yes, they could have made it in one of the least-respected cartridges for personal defe….

      Oh. Never mind.

      1. avatar Michael in GA says:

        You mean the 9mm?

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          .9mm, it’s all the rage.

    4. avatar ropingdown says:

      Forget the little “watch and batteries sold separately” bit. Who thinks a gun is concealed when the person is wearing a visible watch that controls her concealed pistol?

      I do see a great Energizer Bunny ad coming, though.

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        Eh, I think that might be going into the “empty chamber indicators are bad because the bad guy can see when your chamber is empty” area of details that few if any will notice.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          I dunno–that fugly watch is a helluva lot more conspicuous than a loaded-chamber indicator…

        2. avatar ropingdown says:

          When your pistol is concealed the empty chamber indicator is also concealed.

          When you wear that rather large watch-like thing, it is visible to the public. Sure, wear that big clunky obviously-not-a-rolex to your child’s school. Film at 11!

        3. avatar Gyufygy says:

          Most people aren’t all that observant in their day-to-day lives. First, someone would have to notice a person is wearing the watch. Then, they have to check what kind of watch it was. They’d also have to be aware of the existence of the “smart gun watch”. Honestly, the watch-doohickey looks similar to any number of weird tech-y watches I’ve seen.

          If a bystander noticed all of those things and knew of the smart gun watches, then yes, they would know that you carried a gun… sometimes. Perhaps you don’t have your pistol with you and you kept the watch on because you couldn’t be bothered, and what the hey, it does actually tell time (Big assumption there, actually, thinking that the gadget could have any redeeming value).

          Does it possibly give away information? Yes, in a few specific circumstances. I think it’s a minor issue, though. People see something watch-like on a wrist, they assume it’s a watch. People see something black and plastic-y under your shirt? They assume it’s a cell phone and holder, even though it’s actually your GLOCK 19 in a Kydex IWB holster. Hell, how many people on here openly carry a firearm everyday in a hip holster and have people complete miss it.

    5. avatar DownrangeFuture says:

      Yes. The gun only stays authorized for a short time. If the gun leaves the RFID range it automatically locks itself.

      How do you reactivate the weapon, you ask? You must input a pin code into the watch, then put the watch into range. Putting in a pin code requires flipping to a certain screen, then holding a certain combination of buttons for 5 seconds. Then you may input the code.

      Granted, as long as the watch is still authorizing, then the gun will reactivate quickly (no word on how long that is but reading the tag in my passport always takes a few seconds). The problem is that they don’t make it easy to input the pin. And it’s apparently fairly easy to pair with new watches.

      So why wouldn’t the bad guy shoot you with his real gun, then take this and your watch? Then simply reset the watch or something.

      And the Target Response System is scary. It only allows you to shoot at approved targets.

  6. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Let’s not be too smug about claiming any sort of victory here. Armatix will find a way to market their product, then the market will determine its merits.

    Vilify Oak Tree Gun Club if you like, but they did nothing morally or ethically wrong. They tried to offer their customers a choice. It makes no sense to condemn them just because some other state has an unconstitutional law.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Ok, suppose one of those Bill Maher-watching liberals learns about this gun, drinks the Kool-Aid about its safety, buys one, then uses it to defend herself against a rapist. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

        I have no interest in the Armatix technology for my own use, but I’m not arrogant enough to tell other people what is best for them.

        As for who Belinda Padilla hangs out with – I really can’t condemn a company president for reaching out to a previously untapped piece of market share. The head-in-the-sand liberals will not see the light unless someone shows it to them.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          It is not arrogant to see the writing on the wall.
          Once this Lib saver gets on the market, watch the walls come tumbling down.
          NJ
          CA
          NY
          MA
          IL
          CT
          VT
          OH
          NH
          RI
          ME
          MN
          VA
          on and on until the Federal government finally makes it National. THERE WILL BE A BAN ON ALL FIREARMS WITHOUT THIS “SMART” TECHNOLOGY!
          Of course the police will still have the “dangerous” full auto weapons and they will have jammers for your “smart gun”.
          Call me arrogant all you want. I will simply call you ignorant.

        2. avatar Pascal says:

          You assume too much about the “Bill Maher-watching liberals” — Belinda Padilla is not trying to tape into a market as more is in league with the anti-gun crowd. It is well known that “Armatix USA President and CEO Belinda Padilla pledged cooperation with the UN’s global “gun control” efforts”.

          Everything this company has done is more about gun control than self-defense. They are a European company trying to impose their values on us poor uninformed unenlightened USA gun owners.

          Do a little research, they really do not care about your rights.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Virginia really? Maybe you didn’t catch the weekend news report about the House of Delegates stiffing the new Governor’s attempt at imposing some new firearms restrictions. I suspect that other states on your list are also very unlikely to follow California and New Jersey down this route.

        4. avatar Michael in GA says:

          I listed VA last. But that is irrelevant to my point. Look at what is happening in CT…The friggin Constitution State of all places!
          The point is, since you skirted my argument, this device will be forced on the people State by State at first. The legislation is on the books. Then the progressive Federal Government will ban all other alternatives and the Supreme Court will find it Constitutional by a 5-4 margin based on the opinion that the RKBA is achieved with this device.

      2. avatar Andrew says:

        Hold on there cowboy – you keep saying “Liberal” as if it’s some magical hex upon this company.

        First off, as a theoretical enhancement to a firearm this would be a good thing. The execution at its present state leave a lot to be desired, hence the lackluster response to this thing.

        I’m not sure why you equate a firearms safety system with “Liberal” (and ergo anti 2A groups). If this thing worked REALLY well (six sigma levels of “well”), was inexpensive or added minimal cost, and the questions people have posed here were worked out, then yes, by all means, sign me up.

        1. avatar JR says:

          Because it’s not about safety at all. That’s just the hook they are using to sell the idea.

          If the tech exists to turn the gun off, it will be used. There are all kinds of ways this kind of technology can be misused in “unintended consequences” ways.

          Forget the political labels for a few minutes and see the bigger picture.

        2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “… If this thing worked REALLY well (six sigma levels of “well”),”

          Yes.

          But no.

          No matter how well this idea works, it is an electrical technology layered on top of a physical technology. Disable the electronics, the physical is impeded.

          The list of possible ways to disable, or even temporarily disrupt, the electronics is long enough and easy enough to accomplish… EMP, radio interference, radio jamming, battery failure… those are just the easy ones on the list.

          Basically…. I will never have one of these guns for anything other than entertainment value.

          And I will strongly recommend to anyone and everyone to not rely on this technology for your primary defense weapon. If you want one for entertainment value, or to show off at the range that’s cool! To try and defend yourself from a bad guy while your watch and gun reauthorize the connection…. something bad is gonna happen and probably not to the bad guy.

        3. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Says the Liberal.

  7. avatar mike says:

    Seems like they were excited about a new product and the money the company paid them to sell it and didnt really think of the consequences. If they had just said that they didnt realize the implications of selling the gun it would have been fine but to try and say we all imagined it and they never even had it for sale it making us out to be idiots.

    Technology is not going to stand still. This gun or one like it will eventually be up for sale, it is just a fact. What the states need to do is get these stupid laws repealed that make then have all guns be smart guns.

    If having a gun like this available will get those who are on the fence and not really comfortable carrying carry then I am sort of for it as it is likely that before long they will dump it in favor of a normal gun. Have to realize that a lot of people have never been around guns are have been told their whole life they are deadly and scary. But nobody should be forced to buy one.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      It’s time for a review! T&E one-a them bad boys! And a brick of .22!

      1. avatar Michael in GA says:

        For what?

      2. avatar bobmcd says:

        Careful. I suggested this on another forum and got roundly vilified for it. My suggestion was to get one to test how to disable/bypass it.

  8. avatar James says:

    This technology is in an infancy with a long long loooooooong way to go to be viable. Ask this first to anyone who thinks we need to mandate smart guns, will you demand police departments adopt first? After some name calling, you can point out that if this technology was so wonderful, why shouldn’t police be forced to adopt first?. Criminals do go for cop’s guns on occasion and if it saves one life.

    A gun is a mechanical device. Any mechanical device can fail if not properly maintained. With easy simple care any officer will keep their service firearm in good working condition and it will work when that person really needs it, ie a life threatening situation. What this technology does, is introduce another potential and more likely point of failure. To push something like this as a solution at this early stage, is the height of idiocy.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      No…it’s just an infringement.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        No … The gun is just a gun, albeit with some new bells and whistles. Really no different than a laser sight or extended magazine release, in the most basic sense.

        The infringement is in requiring you to buy said bells and whistles in order to buy a gun at all.

        1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          A laser sight or an extended mag release don’t effect reliability. So, no, it’s not the same.

        2. avatar John L. says:

          Jake: sure they can affect reliability, depending on how they’re implemented.

          A laser guide rod might break; any laser sight’s batteries might go too low at an inopportune time. An extended mag release, improperly fitted, could either unexpectedly dump mags or be a PITA to get to let a mag go.

          And so on. In fact, any manmade device has failure modes of some form or another.

          As a purchaser, I’d really prefer to decide which of those tradeoffs I’m willing to accept … or not.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          Jake, yes it is the same thing. You don’t like a product, don’t buy it! That would be just fine and usually we welcome more gadgets in the gun world (intelliscope, anyone?) except someone is stepping in and messing with that equation.

        4. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Necessity is the mother of invention. That is what makes free capitalism successful. This product is another artificially induced product that is a solution looking for a problem.
          Necessity is the mother of invention but inventions with no necessity are mother*%#*#@$.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      Given how amazingly safe this technology is suppose to be, give it to the police, prison guards, FBI, DEA, ATF etc. to use for 5 to 7 years. If none of these police agencies are comfortable with the technology, then why should I be? If no officer dies due to failure, then “maybe” I will try it.

      There is no reason why the public should be used as “guinea pigs” for a technology forced upon us by the government that has zero accountability should someone die due to their stupid decision. If the government so 100% certain of the viability of this technology, then let their own employees be the first to try it.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Hey, I like it! Propose it as a way for prison guards to be armed “in population”–likewise, as a way to keep cops from getting killed with their own guns–and then see how fast they run from it…

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Even if this technology it worked it wouldn’t do much to stop that as the wrist watch would be right there. Ever seen Nelson Muntz play “quit hitting yourself?”

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          No–don’t know who Nelson Muntz is either. But I think that just plays into my point–if they want to tell us how safe and easy to use and effective it is and how it won’t materially interfere with your ability to use the weapon to defend yourself–then let’s make the cops use it too. And then let the cops tell everyone how it really doesn’t work at all.

    3. avatar Cyrano says:

      What happens when the cop loses his smartwatch in the tussle with the suspect. Suddenly his gun won’t shoot because its 3 blocks back in the parking lot. Fail!

      What happens when you are wounded and laying on the ground. Your partner is out of ammo and you toss your gun to him to use in the firefight but wait, he can’t use your gun. He goes down in a hail of bullets. FAIL!

      The burglar breaks into your house. Not only do you have to put on your watch but also ready the gun. The badguy tackles you while you are trying to buckle on the strap. You get your watch on but are bludgeoned to death by your smart gun. The badguy then walks away with your smartgun and your watch.

      One more item… Would we be so nice to the gun shop if they had decided to sell new guns made by Iran or Hamas? Or better yet… Would you buy a gun that would destroy all your other guns? Essentially this smart gun is radioactive in your safe.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        Well hey, we could always implant RFID chips in our hands…

      2. avatar Jack Brown says:

        Wait, wait, wait! You forgot to enter the 4 digit PIN code to unlock the safety. Seriously. It’s not just having the watch near the pistol but you must also have the code to enter into the watch.

  9. avatar Frank says:

    It’s not as simple as it seems. Oak tree partnered with armatix for some range equipment not smart guns. David Codrea has more on his blog.

    1. avatar Jim Jones says:

      I wish it were that simple Frank. Oak Tree’s FFL had the Armatix up for sale. The WaPo had the damning picture:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/03/06/the-smart-gun-controversy-at-oak-tree-gun-club/

      California Gun Girls is the name of Oak Tree’s FFL firearms selling business. Oak Tree thought that they could sell this and that people would actually be happy to purchase it. Big mistake. It’s a free market. If Oak Tree wants to sell it, they surely can. I think he realized that if he did sell though, he would no longer have any customers to sell to or to use his range since the whole “it’s a free country” works both ways. Firearm owners are free to take their business elsewhere, and they will. Such a boneheaded move makes me thing that the owner of Oak Tree either is a big fudd that has spent a bit too much time in CA, and that he doesn’t care very much for the state of the RKBA.

      1. avatar Frank says:

        http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=13603871&postcount=93

        Take a look at this. I’m sure this story is not over.

        1. avatar Jim Jones says:

          That’s good to know. The only salient point though is be careful who you do business with. If what the writer says is true, then his conclusion is likely valid:

          “In my opinion Armatix presented themselves as offering a range safety system and once they had a foot in the door tried to use Oaktree to further their agenda. When Oaktree balked and said they wouldn’t sell them Belinda tried to tie them further to Armatix with press releases and staged photos. Now that Oaktree has kicked them to the curb and they know no one else is going to touch them (Belinda already approached Rettings and was turned down, she’s shopping for an FFL that will do a transfer ) so she wants to make Oaktree the villian and scapegoat so someone will sell her product and trigger the various laws that are pending.”

          Oak Tree were good with setting up a range for the Armatix system. From a gunowner’s perspective, that’s pretty stupid. If they had done their homework, or had not been blinded by the potential income of this “smart” range, then Oak Tree might be in a different situation. The frog really shouldn’t act surprised when the scorpion stings it, dooming both parties to drowning. Pretty apt metaphor for what took place in this instance.

        2. avatar Jim Jones says:

          Armatix is like the taxi medallion system schemes. Crony capitalist heaven. What they’re after is a government mandate to use their technology. They know we won’t buy it otherwise. Just look at the NJ law that requires all older models of firearms to be retrofitted with the “smart” gun technology. If you can’t sell your product on the open market, you can always try to get the government to force everyone to buy it. This is Armatix’s angle, and this is why no one serious about the RKBA should ever mess with them.

  10. avatar Pascal says:

    It should be made loud and clear, that any gun shop or retailer who supports Armatix will get no support from any gun owners.

    We can spend our money at any shop, but none that supports or sells Armatix products.

    If you wish to quickly go out of business, please try to sell an Armatix product. You have the full 100% right to sell whatever you like, and we have the full 100% right to take our business someplace else.

    Hopefully I have made that abundantly clear for others gun shops who are thinking of selling any Armatix product now or in the future.

    1. avatar Alex says:

      So because these guys have made a product we “should” all be scared of then we should ban it? See what I did there? Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        They can make any product they want. If that product then aids the enemy in civilian disarmament, we have no reason to support them. They care about making money. In order to make money they need to satisfy the customers needs. When those needs are not met and instead aid in civilian disarmament, we have every right to go someplace else.

        As the Armatix, representative said its about choice — and we should choose not to support them. It really is that simple. I am not scared, I am exercising my right to choose whom I associate with.

        They made a business decision to choose to make a bad product. Just like any bad product, I am being vocal that nobody should choose to support it. Give me a good product, and I will support it.

      2. avatar ninjaTED says:

        There’s a huge difference between the G banning something and a consumer-driven boycott intended to change behavior.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Some people just don’t get it.
          I never thought I would have to argue so much with people with a liberal mentality on TTAG.
          I think people on here own guns and that somehow automatically qualifies them as 2nd amendment supporters in their minds.
          I have said this before:
          You either support RKBA 100% or you are some degree of ANTI.
          Only about 25% of commenters and moderators on TTAG are pro 2nd amendment.

      3. avatar Michael in GA says:

        No I don’t see what you did there.

    2. avatar Modus_Pwnens says:

      That’s a really bad attitude to take on there, bud. Dost thou forget that this is America? Don’t get me wrong, I think the iP1 is just as stupid and obviously problematic as the next guy. However, you can’t fault someone in a capitalist society for identifying a market niche and filling it, and you ESPECIALLY can’t fault a retailer for stocking a controversial product (hmm, like the AR-15?)

      If you have any links that show Armatix or the president to be anti-2A I will recant, but until then I think you’re unfairly associating the gun-grabbers’ calls for “smart-guns” (an idea that’s been around at least since Judge Dredd) with Amartix’s desire to make money.

      Keep in mind this is a $2000 .22LR pistol, which just happens to be full of untested electronics. I don’t exactly think it’s going to be flying off the shelves, but if someone has the money and desire who are you to prevent their purchase because of your political views? You’re dangerously close to gun-grabber rhetoric.

      Let’s say someone buys an iP1 and uses it in a DGU. I won’t complain, because a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of what gun you use. If someone buys an iP1 and it fails to perform, that’s just one more piece of evidence for our argument that a smart gun is a dumb idea.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/questions-grow-over-gun-range-s-relationship-with-un-supporting-aramatix

        http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tech-foundation-challenges-innovators-to-find-gun-5183207.php

        http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation-july-dec13-guns_10-17/

        See below, spoke with Holder and Obama; Spoke with MA democrats to introduce a bill
        http://fox8.com/2013/04/23/smart-guns-could-be-next-step-in-gun-control/

        When you are pushing so hard and that push is to the government and not gun owners, you don’t give a crap about gun owners — you have an agenda that you wish to force by proxy via government means.

        Talk to me again when governments make these the only guns that you can purchase, starting with NJ.

        Once again, if the technology is so stellar, tell me of one police agency or army that has deployed these with great success.

      2. avatar JR says:

        “If you have any links that show Armatix or the president to be anti-2A I will recant”

        Consider recanting your statement:

        Video and text:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/questions-grow-over-gun-range-s-relationship-with-un-supporting-aramatix

        “Ms. Padilla’s appearance before a UN panel, admitting the company’s shared goals with global disarmament efforts”

        See also: http://www.iansa.org/system/files/UNPoA%20RevCon%20Summary%20-%2029th%20Aug.pdf

        Some interesting reading there.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          creek creek creek creek
          crickets

      3. avatar Michael in GA says:

        America was founded on bad attitudes, Bud!

  11. avatar Rokurota says:

    What’s to stop Shannon Watts from getting her FFL and opening a gun store for the express purpose of selling the Armatrix?

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      First guess? An irrational fear and hatred of ALL things firearms.

    2. avatar ninjaTED says:

      Coffee just came out of my nose at the idea of SW trying to sell a gun…

    3. avatar John L. says:

      Now there’s an image to Photoshop.

      Hey, I even have the name for their Tuesday evening league – the Wattsmen!

  12. avatar Roll says:

    Technology can solve many problems, but gun violence and shooting deaths are a people problem and unless your willing to take away their freedoms(enslave us) like the antis want to do; you will never fully control people.

    If the antis get their way, we will have a concentration camp instead of a country.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      Roll on!!!

  13. avatar Pulatso says:

    They might have gone into this with only good intentions, but we are all at least partly judged by the company we keep, and in this current climate of constant progressive attacks on the 2A, there’s really no excuse for a gun store to not realize when they’re going against the grain of their customers.

  14. avatar lolinski says:

    I bear no ill will against Armatix but I will not use something like that until it is reliable enough for mil use. Main problem is that the legislators want to force everyone to use this.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      To separate the two is to admit you have no idea what is taking place every day in Washington DC between corporations and politicians. One is the lion and the other is the hyena feeding on the carcasses that is the citizenry.

  15. avatar Ben Parsons says:

    Go to Radio Shack. Buy some relatively simple electronic components. Assemble them into a frequency disrupter device. Turn these guns into rocks.
    Why do you think the LEOs bailed out so early?
    They were interested initially ‘cuz of the ‘killed with his own gun’ thingy that, once in a very, very great while, haunts policemen.
    Zero interest today.
    Don’t hurt gun dealers over this. They don’t make dumb laws.
    A home with children may have carefully considered use for a firearm with this technology. Not for home defense, but a backyard plinker maybe.

    1. avatar Esemwy says:

      These guns already are essentially “rocks” for the purpose of self defense. Check out the “TARGET RESPONSE SYSTEM (TRS)”:

      “The gun only functions if you are recognized and on target.
      If you are aiming away from the target area, the pistol is immediately deactivated.
      No misuse against people or objects around you.
      Armatix target shooting with no compromise on safety!”

    2. avatar Publius says:

      Gun dealers don’t make dumb laws, but in this case they did attempt to sell a dumb product and their customers reacted accordingly.

      1. avatar Michael in GA says:

        There is more to it than that. 5 minutes of research will educate you.

  16. avatar Model 31 says:

    I’m so uninterested in one of these guns that I won’t bother to look up how watch/gun combo works/communicates so I will assume it is some type of wireless technology. So how long until the bad guys figure out how to “jam” the radio signals while they are nearby (disabling the gun)? How long until the govmint can disable this contraption on demand?

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      In zero time. The technology already exists to Jam cell phones etc. The technology is most likely not encrypted and has no fail safe should the transmission be jammed. It probably will take a few hours or less for someone at the many hacker conferences to come up with something that would both jam the signal and also allow use without the wristwatch

      It is a technology that makes no sense as long as the government or anyone else can disable it.

      As some have said above, the next logical conclusion is for the government to require these guns to be sold and then to make a device that will disable them.

      We have already seen what the NSA has done the DOJ has done to trample all over the constitution, for the gun grabbers this is simply the next step and given that Belinda Padilla pledged cooperation with the UN’s global “gun control” efforts it is the only inevitable conclusion.

      They will “try” to sell this “for safety” but you need to look deeper.

    2. avatar BillF says:

      The California model will come with an additional layer of safety–a linked mood ring that will disable the gun if you’re scared, angry or feeling a little blue.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        That would never stand up in court.

        scared, angry or feeling a little blue.

        Is a good description of a citizen of California, making it a de facto ban.

  17. avatar Fuque says:

    There will be an app for it Later, when they get the bugs ironed out, you can link it to your smart phone, It will interface with candy crush.

  18. avatar Bryan says:

    I wonder if when the first time a person tries to use a “smart gun” for a defesive use and it fails to work if a couple hundren million dollar lawsuit against the state would wake them up? Perhaps a lawsuit for EVERY TIME it fails? If the pistol fails and they are mandated is that not a mandated repeal of the 2nd ammendment? Seems worth a shot to me…

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      I wonder if when the first time a person tries to ban a handgun for a defensive use and it fails to save lives, if a couple hundred million dollar lawsuit against the state would wake them up? Perhaps a lawsuit for EVERY TIME the law fails? If the unconstitutional law fails and they are mandated is that not a mandated repeal of the 2nd amendment? Seems worth a shot to me…

      See, that ship sailed a long time ago.

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    How about if we all implant a chip with 666 in our hands or foreheads…for the children.

  20. avatar Yalie says:

    Padilla, the Armatix exec DOES NOT belong in this industry. She does not understand her product, the consumer, or the political ramifications of what she does and says.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      Oh boy she knows exactly what she’s doing.

  21. avatar Delbert Grady says:

    Belinda should stick with fashionista events at swanky liberal infested LA soirees, and quit trying to make guns just another chic accessory. The only reason they let her in the door is because she is pushing her “product” as a panacea for “gun violence.”

  22. avatar Maineuh says:

    The fact is, the technology WILL change over time. If we could fast forward a hundred years, I wonder what we’d be carrying for protection. Assuming, of course, that there’s anything left to protect.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      1911’s

      1. avatar Delbert Grady says:

        Glocks.

  23. avatar Hannibal says:

    I would love for reliable, cost-effective guns to come on the market with features like this. I can see several applications for them, even if I am not interested in them, and think that they should be given a chance to sink or swim. It’s unfortunate that ridiculous politics end up stifling technology in this instance rather than promoting it.

    But you know what? I kinda hope this triggers the ban in NJ. Because it’s hard to set up a better court case than to tell someone they have to buy THIS and only this handgun.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      You mean like Obamacare?

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

    V.I. Lenin

    “Gun manufacturers and sellers are Capitalists.”

    Ralph

  25. avatar Guy From V says:

    Wouldn’t it be feasible to buy or construct an RF signal jammer? Or maybe a device that queries or “pings” nearby RFID chips incessantly causing it to respond constantly a massive amount of times within a short period until it basically is weakened of juice enough so the receiver watch no longer can detect the presence of the paired gun?

    Or just work in pairs and have one guy with one of those thermal reflective blankets (ie snuggie faraday cage).

  26. avatar rlc2 says:

    hey. in case yiu didnt read the link in jrs post you need to…
    http://www.examiner.com/article/questions-grow-over-gun-range-s-relationship-with-un-supporting-aramatix

    David Codrea who with Mike Vanderboegh scooped the MSM on Fast and Furious is all over this…UN arms control connection Soros funding…

    Oak Tree has A LOT more explaining to do.
    As does CA DOJ: how did this gun make it on the Roster without micro-stamping months after that requirement was posted for all others. Hmmm?

  27. avatar Liu, Chen says:

    u guys are aware that RFID gets used in every credit card you use? and yet u use them “safely” all the time. to me it is just ridiculous how stupid and brainwashed u guys are. Fuck Armatix as you say but be realistic this technology will come in the future and then what can u do. u guys created the capitalist system the way it is today and u should realize that what this stupid company does is, is just precisely what any company should do in a capitalist state. i agree that its the politicians fault, but i mean most of the comments i read here really just prove to me how thick the general US person is. sayonara

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Why is someone with a Chinese screen name saying “goodbye” in Japanese?

    2. avatar JR says:

      I love posts like this…it’s like someone trained a dimwitted monkey to throw the feces on itself.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email