Washington Post: NJ Should Mandate “Smart Guns” Now

 Armatix Smart Gun

The majority of firearms owners are not against “smart guns” per se. They’re against mandatory “smart guns.” In specific, the New Jersey law mandating that all guns sold in the Garden State must be electronically locked (except to a pre-programmed user or users) three years after “smart gun” technology becomes commercially available anywhere in the U.S. Aside from the loss of consumer choice, the PoTG fear . . .

that the NJ law is a slippery slope to a complete ban on “dumb guns.” They also worry that the law will go national. And they’re concerned that the government and/or criminals will be able to use the technology to render firearms inoperative. All legitimate concerns.

Of course, there’s a simple way to alleviate their objections to the sale of “smart guns” while allowing the technology to flourish for those who choose them over existing “dumb guns.” Repeal the law. Then smart gun makers and sellers can develop their product without earning the enmity of justifiably fearful gun owners.

The washingtonpost.com almost sees the value of that strategy. But, true to their unrelenting, illogical, indefatigable commitment to civilian disarmament, they can’t go there.

The more smart guns that take the place of old, unsafe and outdated firearms the better. Because there is no technological reason that smart guns aren’t already available for sale, New Jersey lawmakers should try to deem the mandate already enforceable. Doing so would take the pressure off individual stores interested in carrying the smart-gun products, and it would promote the rapid introduction of the technology into a big state.

According to the Post’s unnamed editorialist, when We The People are concerned about Big Government ramming something down their throats, something that directly threatens one of their Constitutionally protected rights, the solution is . . . ram it down their throats.

The government has a long record of mandating basic safety controls on dangerous products, as with seat belts and air bags in cars, often in the face of overblown warnings about their drawbacks. Applying this logic to guns does not insult the Second Amendment or gun owners; it minimizes the dangers associated with an armed populace. The gun lobby would like to treat those dangers and the deaths that result as inevitable or unworthy of serious response. They are neither.

Do these guys even think this stuff through? Or is this the dictionary definition of knee-jerk liberalism (note in the classic sense of the word)?

Mandatory “smart guns” most assuredly are an insult to the Second Amendment, just as New York’s assault weapons ban is. Something about “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Infringed as in regulated.

There is no data proving that “smart guns” would minimize the dangers “associated with an armed populace” – a phrase that betrays the Post’s belief that an armed populace is dangerous, rather than a bulwark against criminal predation and government tyranny. Then again, if the government could shut down “smart guns” with a flick a switch the danger of civilian opposition to government tyranny would be greatly reduced. Maybe that’s what the Post meant.

As for “The gun lobby would like to treat those dangers and the deaths that result as inevitable or unworthy of serious response,” I’m having a hard time avoiding writing the phrase, “screw you.”

We, The People, are the gun lobby. To suggest that Americans who cherish their gun rights are insensitive to the dangers and deaths that result from firearms ownership is a slur against our humanity. More than that, American gun owners know that the greatest threat they face – the greatest threat they’ve always faced – is the loss of their liberty. It’s too bad the Post is too dumb to understand that.

comments

  1. avatar DaveL says:

    And they’re concerned that the government will be able to use the technology to render firearms inoperative.

    More to the point, I’m concerned that just about anyone will be able to use the technology to render firearms inoperative. With just about any system relying on RFID, you’ll have common criminals building jamming devices using instructions off the Internet. When you know your target’s power source has to fit into a wristwatch and last for months or years, and yours has to fit in a backpack and last for 5 minutes, we’re not talking about a groundbreaking feat of RF electronics engineering.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Yes sir.

      I recently spoke with someone on the topic of hospital operating room technology (patient vital statistics monitors, video screens, robotic arms, etc.) and she mentioned that some people want to use wireless connections between all of that technology. My brain screamed, “NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!”.

      I do not recommend wireless technology in any life-or-death situation. There are simply too many variables beyond the operators’ control. Caveat: I am referring to systems that are immediately and totally disabled if something disrupts wireless communication.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Or even better, systems that are susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks. Let’s jack up grandpa’s dosage – we NEED that insurance money!

    2. avatar A. Nuran says:

      I can go one better: Within hours of smartguns becoming available someone with an Arduino will come up with a program to find the key and clone it. You can bank on it.

  2. avatar Roscoe says:

    Minced no words; thanks Robert.

  3. avatar full.tang.halo says:

    “Because there is no technological reason that smart guns aren’t already available for sale”

    Yes, please show me where the 45 ACP, 357 magnum and 44 magnum “smart guns” are, oh wait, they are a pile of parts on the floor because a “smart gun” can’t handle the stresses of firing anything more than a 22lr.

    Also when did NJ become a “Big State”….I guess only if you never leave the north east.

    1. avatar A. Nuran says:

      I’m pretty sure these will be all solid state which is pretty durable.
      New Jersey isn’t big in terms of size, but it has a large population.

  4. avatar General Zod says:

    Yes, there’s a single, unproven, overpriced, nearly-useless from a self-defense standpoint example on the market from a company nobody has ever heard of. Let’s mandate it!!!

    As soon as law enforcement is required to use it, I’ll consider trying one out at the range. But I’m never going to buy that piece of junk.

    1. avatar JimmyDelta says:

      ^^^ THIS ^^^ is what I’ve been saying. When it’s ready for the police and military, I’ll think about it.

  5. avatar Joe Dougherty says:

    Applying this logic to guns does not insult the Second Amendment or gun owners; it minimizes the dangers associated with an armed populace. The gun lobby would like to treat those dangers and the deaths that result as inevitable or unworthy of serious response. They are neither.

    The idiocy in their stance is reflected in this quote. The minimization of danger with an armed populace is both the desire and the responsibility of that populace. The majority of us who own, shoot and carry guns do it for the desire to hone our skills and readiness and we understand the full responsibilities of using those weapons. I have yet to hear the “gun lobby” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to be) making any statement or public declaration that dangers and deaths are “inevitable” or “unworthy of serious response.”

    Personally, I can’t think of an interest that’s more concerned with these issues and problems than gun owners and the organizations that support them. All of us, as lawful enthusiasts, strive to educate new gun owners, as well as one another, in the proper care and safety of firearms. None of us wants to see anyone injured or killed because of mishandling or misuse of any firearm, and we do far more to prevent that the Post is willing to admit.

    But admitting that would strike at the heart of their agenda.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Somebody in NJ has to suggest the gubt mandate smart guns for cops, that’ll show us dummies how great they are. Can you even imagine the screaming?

  6. avatar JeffR says:

    These posts would be considerably shorter, but perhaps more enjoyable, if they contained a simple link to the article followed by “Screw you!”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Admit it, Rich, that was FUN!

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Ach, I vass only folloving oh-dass! 😉

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          What’s to admit? I already did the three BSEG smileys!

  7. avatar Dev says:

    Ok, let me get this straight. The same people who freak out when their internet is down for a few minutes or their cell service is spotty in some areas are demanding that an unproven technology be mandated for firearms. Words cannot adequately describe the depth of stupidity with this line of thinking.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      It’s generally not good to assume ill intent when stupidity is sufficient to explain, but here I’m going with evil rather than stupid. They probably regard all the problems with “smart” gun as features, not bugs. At the very least, they don’t care if someone is raped and killed by a home invader while they are looking for the matching watch.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I agree.

    2. avatar William sullivan says:

      Oh no! They have not sunk to a new low in stupidity, these idiots are a special KIND of stupid.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    There is one, and only one, “smart” gun–and it really isn’t very smart. first of all, it comes only in .22LR, which although effective at point blank range, is not caliber most anyone would chose as a first line–actually only line–of defense, particularly in a pistol, for lack of effectiveness. Second, this particular gun can be fired only by the hand that has the special wristwatch that disarms the locks–because it has a range of only 10 inches. Further, the watch “times out” which means that in the middle of the night you have to access the watch in order to arm you pistol. With the time that takes, you probably don’t have enough before it is too late. And we haven’t even gotten to the cost- I seem to recall that the gun is $1200, and the watch another $300, pricing an awful lot of people out of the gun market. But I suppose that is the goal.

    The Post seems to think that a mandate will impel manufacturers to step up and start building smart guns. Just as California thought that mandating microstamping would compel manufacturers to spend millions of dollars on an unproven technology in order to keep selling guns in California. Funny thing–the Armatix was the VERY LAST pistol to be added to the roster since the microstamping mandate went into effect. And that was almost a year ago. What we are seeing instead is a boycott.

    So New Jersey, we all know how hard it is for you to get handguns as it is–soon it will be impossible because there will be none to buy. Don’t you just love a free society?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I know – let’s start with WaPo Management! Let’s see just how committed they are.

    2. avatar Paul G. says:

      This does help explain the shortage of 22lr in the marketplace though. Smart gun, no ammo, dead gun owner.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    Smart guns are great because no thief would ever steal that gun and the “watch,” right?

    And think of the children.

    “Hey little Johnny, what are you wearing?”

    “My dad’s watch. Wanna see what it does?”

    WaPo editorialists are insane.

    1. avatar Alpo says:

      ^This!!

      The addition of a watch that will most likely also stay with the gun makes the whole thing insanely stupid.

      And additional regulations requiring that the watches be stored somewhere else would violate the core issue in Heller.

      What a fuarkin joke.

    2. avatar A. Nuran says:

      More to the point, there WILL (no doubts whatsoever) be a cottage industry in cloning the keys to the gun within a couple hours of them hitting the market.

  10. avatar Dustin says:

    As soon as the Secret Service, Police, Military, and all other “armed” government officials convert over to the exclusive use of the tech, then I might get one for the range. Might.

    If it is not good enough for the police WHO SHOW UP AFTER MOST SHHOTINGS, it isn’t good enough for me.

    1. avatar MiniMe says:

      “As soon as the Secret Service, Police, Military, and all other ‘armed’ government officials convert over to the exclusive use of the tech, then I might get one for the range. Might.”

      Amen. 🙂

      1. avatar BDub says:

        I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the gun only cares about proximity to the watch and not the direction its pointed, so there is that too.

  11. avatar Friendly Neighborhood Gunsmith says:

    Calling firearms that lack their bogus technology “unsafe” is patently offensive to gun owners, smiths and the designers who over more than a century have developed complex mechanical devices into incredibly safe tools. Firearm safety is at an all time high, and arguably going too far on the mechanical end with ILS devices, shoehorned in loaded indicators and magazine disconnectors. To preach otherwise out of ignorance is… well, something all of us already expect out of that camp, quite frankly.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Well, it does make sense according to the gun grabbers’ own language, in which “unsafe” means “not under my control.”

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Actually, it means “still able to fire.”

  12. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    “…are not against ‘smart guns ‘ per se ”

    RF please don’t make statements on my behalf. I am against smart guns. Period. Full stop. End of story. Ever.

    Have I made my point?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Text amended.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      You have not made your point. You are not the People of the Gun, you are a person who owns guns.

      RF’s statement is debatable, but doesn’t falsely speak for anyone. Maybe the POTG as a whole aren’t against smart guns per se, or maybe they are. That has nothing to do with whether you or I, as individuals, are against them.

      (For the record, I’m not against them as such. I think they’re a dumb idea, but people should be able to buy them…if they want to, not because they were forced to.)

  13. avatar Cknarf says:

    No way this will fly, even in NJ.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Too late. It is ALREADY the law in NJ that as soon as the tech becomes commercially available anywhere in the US, the mandate (law) that all guns in NJ be “smart” goes into effect. All that anyone is waiting for, I think, is the AG to certify that availability of such firearms. Which is why Robert talked about repealing the existing law.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You already have the law? Somebody read that bad boy and see if LE is exempt.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          You ARE joking. Just who do you think is automagically exempt from all these annoying laws? Hint: It certainly isn’t you or me.

        2. avatar Jake F. says:

          Not only is LE exempt, but RETIRED LE is exempt as well.

  14. avatar Thomas says:

    Make me get a smart gun and I’ll just render the ‘smart’ part of it inoperable.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Indeed. It’s still a mechanical object at heart. There’s an electronic device blocking part of the mechanical action, but how hard would it be to replace that part or just rig it to an “always on” state? Not too difficult, I’m guessing.

      I’m looking forward to hearing the responses from “smart gun” advocates after the first crime is committed with a stolen, hacked-up, security-bypassed “smart gun”.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I doubt that, I would bet the gizmo ENABLES the gun to fire, not prevents it. As in, remove everything, down to the battery, and there is no way to enable the gun to fire, it is an anchor. Which is, of course, what it will be when the tech fails or is disabled by the bad guys. Think of it as spring loaded to the “will not fire” position, not the “will fire”.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          ah, so engineers, fabricators, and talented tinkerers don’t exist?

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Hell, just short circuit the arming gizmo. With a staple or something. DONE! Next…

        3. avatar Stinkeye says:

          It doesn’t much matter how the system works. At some point, some voltage is applied across some element that allows the gun to fire. Some mechanical thing happens at that point: a lever moves, a pin retracts, whatever. Lock that mechanical element in the “OK to fire” position, and you’re done. Or trick (or just replace) the electronics to provide the arming signal all the time.

          These things aren’t magic. They’re just electrons and metal.

  15. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “it would promote the rapid introduction of the technology into a big state.”

    Would it, though? To paraphrase another bit of hippie bullshit: What if they held a “smart gun” sale and nobody came?

    What happens when this mandate goes into effect, and nobody buys these shitty guns, and the manufacturers go out of business? I’m legitimately asking here, because I don’t think the idiots who make this crap up have thought all the way through about how markets work.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      “What happens when this mandate goes into effect, and nobody buys these shitty guns, and the manufacturers go out of business?”

      Bloomberg will open a bottle of expensive champagne.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I mean when the boutique manufacturers like Armatix go out of business.

        The big dogs in the gun manufacturing business won’t touch this shit with a ten-foot pole. It’s an untested area of liability lawsuits (what happens when somebody gets killed when this “safe” technology fails?), for one, so their lawyers won’t be too keen on being the first deep-pockets company to make one. Two, the first big player to bring one of these to market will get ostracized and boycotted to within an inch of their life.

        Unless this mandate becomes a federal thing (not even remotely likely), the only people making these guns will be firms that specialize in them.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The big dogs better not touch this, I and huge numbers of others would stop buying their regular guns, too, their gross would make a beeline toward zero.

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Exactly. Some of the big players are already letting their guns fall off the CA registry, by not re-certifying them after model changes. If they’ve decided that the CA market, with its 8-10 million gun owners, isn’t worth the hassle, then there’s no way they’re going to spend the R&D money for the tiny “smart gun” market.

  16. avatar CLarson says:

    There is a place where the government has full authoritarian power. Federal and State executives could mandate today that the military, paramilitary, and police forces must purchase and use “smart” gun technology. You would think our betters would be salivating for a world where the enemy couldn’t use captured weaponry, arms could be sold to nations or “freedom fighters” then switched off later, where military coups are impossible. Maybe they haven’t because smart gun technology is complete bullshit.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      +1000

  17. avatar LJM says:

    To WAPO Editorial Board.

    FOAD.

  18. avatar Jay says:

    That God awful watch is a clear indication that someone is carrying. Supposing a bad guy is not a complete idiot, the watch screams “shoot me first.” So much for subtlety.

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    New Jersey should mandate “smart” guns right after the state mandates forced sterilization of Progressive voters, politicians, and bureaucrats.

    What’s that? Mandating forced sterilization of people against their will is obscene? So is forcing people to use “smart” guns — or anything else for that matter — against their will.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Kinda like overpriced, hyper-deductible health insurance

  20. avatar crm114 says:

    Hey RF; I think you meant not, instead of note, regarding classic liberalism.

  21. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    I’m looking forward to the tortured logic of the first judge to uphold a law that essentially bans almost all handguns, assuming this ever goes into effect.

    1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      Please, this is NJ. Of course it will become law at some point. I can see it now, the 3rd circuit court ruling that as per their interpretation, the 2A allows for “reasonable” restrictions, which in this case would be banning and/or confiscation of all ‘dumb’ guns for civilians and allowing sales of only the ‘smart’ guns. Oh, and reduce magazine capacity to 5 rounds while you’re at it. Also, don’t forget the usual exceptions for police, military, etc. Can’t wait.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      AND someone telling that judge to FOAD.

  22. avatar WI Patriot says:

    And I mandate that ALL media outlets tell the complete truth, no omissions, no misrepresentations…

  23. avatar neiowa says:

    Except this is a tardgun.

  24. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    As for repeal of this law leading to the acceptance of smart guns, no deal. The NJ legislature and the WAPO have let the cat out of the bag.

  25. avatar Gyufygy says:

    If this gun is so smart, why’d they go with a dumb slide-mounted safety?

    *runs away from the Beretta fans*

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      because it’s a rebranded GSG/Umarex design, based on either the P22 or Sig Mosquito, both of which have a slide-mounted safety that is part of the firing block.

  26. avatar ckirk says:

    As if I need yet another reason to leave NJ…..

  27. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Oh my god here comes the rapist,gangbanger,drug lord ,crook,car Jacker,murderer,thug with a hoodie,hmmm!? Here’s my gun!? Crap where’s my watch……Damn It!!

  28. avatar Renegade Dave says:

    The idea of a “smart gun” revolver cracks me up.

    It seems if they want to fight over incrementalism they could fight over gun storage/transportation laws and make that more of a PITA than going straight for smart guns. Maybe NJ already has lousy storage/transportation laws.

    Either way, this is garbage.

  29. avatar Cubby123 says:

    The problem with all the ignorant writers like those at the Post is that they are just that,Ignorant,not stupid but ignorant about guns,civilian training,and anything to do with guns.Now…that being said,if to try to write about or pass judgement on something you know nothing about,then you are Stupid and yes that is with a capital ‘S’.

  30. avatar Peter says:

    Smart Cars!
    Every car sold in the Garden State should be equipped with a breathalizer interlock to prevent drunks from killing innocent people.
    Only people who don’t care about our children would be opposed to this law!

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Wouldn’t that either be racist or an infringement on the rights of alcoholics? ;-D

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        How ’bout your Jeep’s system malfunctions way out there, you have no car and the temp is dropping… WTF are we thinking?

  31. avatar the ruester says:

    “Regulate” means to them what “infringe” means to us.
    In actuality “regulate” in the founders dialect is what we modernly refer to as “gun safety.”
    But of course, “gun safety” means to them what “confiscation” means to us.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “In actuality “regulate” in the founders dialect is what we modernly refer to as “gun safety.”;”

      I’d say, much more than that – a well-regulated gun should be able to hit its target consistently. I compare it to the 115V 60.000000 Hz electricity at the wall socket. The 115V has about a ±10V tolerance, but the 60 Hz is so well-regulated that you can run a clock off it!

      I’d like to see the whole government so well-regulated! (well, actually, I’d rather see it gone, but oh well.)

  32. avatar slowermonkey76 says:

    It would take a teenager 10 min to defeat this technology. There would be videos posted within a day of them going on sale showing how to do this.

  33. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Hey WAPO, GFY. Way to not use your brain for critical thinking.

  34. avatar knightofbob says:

    I’ve seen a few mentions of how forcing this tech makes firearms prohibitively expensive to the “underclasses,” but how about that giant scarlet “A” of a watch?

    First off, it is huge, ugly, and conspicuous, so it’s immediately noticeable. That’s compounded by the fact that most of the population is right-handed, meaning they’d have to wear it on their right wrist, but most watches are worn on the left wrist (so a right-handed person can access the stem in order to wind the mechanism or set the time without removing it). It’s basically the same as open carry.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      All the objections to open carry would instantly disappear if all were assured the guns so carried would not work. Wasn’t that easy?

  35. avatar Jeff says:

    This is usually the same logic used to advocate for bans of “assault weapons” and magazine capacity restrictions – that is, the government has a “long history of regulating unsafe items”, and that gun or gun accessory XYZ is obviously so unsafe that it not only is the government’s right to restrict it, but that it’s their responsibility.

    Oh, and of course it doesn’t affect the second amendment. You still get to keep your guns, right? I mean nobody owns the types of guns that will be banned. They’re just so uncommon, only the gun extremists own those things. (sarcasm)

    It’s REALLY hard to apply this argument to regulating plain old pistols. The authors of this piece are taking what’s already a faulty premise for arguing for more government regulation on firearms, attempting to extend it greatly, and are really reaching here.

  36. avatar Flyboy says:

    If this technology is so great, why isn’t Law Enforcement using it today?

  37. avatar Jus Bill says:

    The more smart guns that take the place of old, unsafe and outdated firearms the better. Because there is no technological reason that smart guns aren’t already available for sale, New Jersey lawmakers should try to deem the mandate already enforceable.

    OK WaPo Editorial board, I have a couple of points to make with you.

    1. There is no such thing as an old, unsafe and outdated firearm. There IS such a thing as an antique firearm. Which you probably couldn’t afford and/or figure out how to work anyway.

    2. The last time I looked, Washington DC was not located within the borders of New Jersey, so mind your own business. There is plenty for you to pontificate about within the borders of the District, so get to work fixing your own house before you go telling someone else which curtains are allowed in theirs.

    You have now purchased a seat on the express bus to Morbidly Stupid. My best advice to you is STFU before you make even more of an ass of yourselves in public.

  38. avatar Burford Clunchman says:

    New Jersey should make their cops use these guns. Instead, they exempted them from the law. What does THAT tell you?

  39. avatar racer88 says:

    I submit we should implement a “smart voter” law. If you’re stupid, you can’t vote. 😉

  40. avatar Larry says:

    Ok as a watch guy,I’d rather eat a sand dial the wear that plastic pos watch.

    For less then that one can get a Sieko diver automatic skx007, a well,proven nice watch at its price point.

    So now I have to wear that plastic thing on my right wrist and my Black face Explorer II on my left ?

    How about a big clock like Flavor Flave or who ever.

    1. avatar avtomat says:

      I will now refute your argument using their logic and reasoning.

      You said black, you racist!!!!! Why do you hate black people and women you racist, sexist pig!? You want to kill minorities, so why would any sensible, reasonable person listen to anything you have to say, LET ALONE on the subject of common sense gun regulation? You are the type of person who should be banned from having guns! No racist should be able to tote these dangerous weapons of mass destruction on our streets. And since all gun owners are racist, that means we should just ban them all.

      Not to mention that “Eating a sand dial” is OBVIOUSLY a Republican ‘dog whistle’ for hating Muslims. Where’d you learn it? Faux News? Rush Limp-butt? Glenn “boo hoo” Beck? Hey Billy Bob, why don’t you go back to your trailer park and marry your cousin! OH WAIT… i bet you already did. Racist!

      So how did I do? 😀

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “So how did I do?”

        Meh.
        .5

  41. avatar crzapy says:

    I have no problem with the advance of technology. In a perfect world this product could be brought to market and those who wished to buy it and own a “smart gun” could.

    However, I would never own a smart gun for the reason I would never own a self driving car. Eventually the gov’t will get it into their mind that they should control the technology, and then whenever they feel like it they can shut of your transportation and your defense.

    The founding fathers were right to give people the ability to stand up to their own .gov. We need to keep that power.

    Oh, and isn’t there less than 1000 accidental gun deaths a year? Many more people die from ladders, or pools, or doctors. I think the old designs are perfectly safe if used correctly. Just like cars.

  42. avatar g says:

    When the military / LE start using them, maybe regular gun owners can trust the technology.

    Until then… nope.

  43. avatar Jay F says:

    Many articles, columns, and editorials on “smart guns” lately. For pre-screening, I recommend the keywords “Jersey” and “Police.” If both words are present, go ahead and read. But if either is missing (which is often) then the piece is either clueless or propaganda. Ignore it.

  44. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Let’s see a standard 1911 $800.00′ a smart pistol cost? Yeah right, I’m running out right now to buy one, hope it works, all BS.

  45. avatar Jay says:

    Ms. Padilla the chief spokeswoman for Armatix stated that firearm owners were afraid of the technology. No one is “afraid of the technology” ma’am. Firearms are intrinsically “technical”. What we’re saying is we don’t trust your agenda. We smell a wolf in sheepskin. As a matter of fact, we smell a wolf with genetic modification to allow it to actually grow real sheepskin…..and the funding for such a costly endeavor comes from the likes of your silent friend Georgy Soros….who would like nothing better than to overthrow this country like he has others. He knows he can’t pull it off here because there are still a substantial group of patriots who will resist being denied our inalienable Rights. We resist your technology because we have a particular brand of mistrust for government….it’s an American birthright that hundreds of thousands of our ancestors and current family members have fought for, and bled for, and died for. And as you are secretly but acutely aware of Mzzzz. Padilla….the main goal of your agenda is for some small elite control group to dictate who may own a firearm, and when those firearms can be used and for what purpose. In other words, restrictions and regulations designed to serve only the State’s idea of what is proper and hence only to those who are Statists or those who worship such a State. What you either don’t understand or don’t care for is the fact that humans are born in a wild state with inherent rights including the right to arm themselves for reasons which include self protection, hunting, sport shooting and yes even revolution. It’s that last one, revolution, the power of the people to throw off those that try to enslave them, it’s that proper threat that your masters fear and hate. All tyrants and potential tyrants do. So no ma’am….no thanks. Go sell your ball and chain to the rest of the world.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I wonder just how many they HAVE sold worldwide to date?

      I smell an answer in search of a question.

  46. avatar Stephen says:

    That shows the bold face lies gun grabbers say. Smart guns have been around since the 1980s. I remember reading popular mechanics as a kid showing a smith and wesson with the same technology a watch.

    Electro-mechanical locks with current and the foreseeable future can only handle .22 and maybe 25acp

    All of these use some form of RFID mixed with a solenoid that blocks the sea. You know what solenoids hate? the same thing goes with linear actuators and servos? SHOCK

    Even the smartest gun can be rendered dumb in maybe 5 min after you get the slide off. You see that little white ceramic thingie with wires coming out take it out
    .
    .

  47. avatar JSF01 says:

    Does any one know how specifically they prevent this firearm from firing with out the watch? I ask because (well besides just being curious) depending how it’s set up we may be able to completely poison the idea in the anti’s minds. Imaging some one figuring out how to hacking the electronics by adding a simple microchip to make it full auto. (sort of like how hackers hack video game consoles to play pirated games.) The rumor of something like that happening would instantly kill the political push for these things. Hell they might turn around and start trying to ban them. The idea of using the very technology they are pushing so hard to infringe on our rights to defeat it, has a nice bit of irony to it.

  48. avatar GS650G says:

    “The more smart guns that take the place of old, unsafe and outdated firearms the better.”
    Let start with trigger happy cops and see how the pilot program goes.

    1. avatar William sullivan says:

      never gonna happen. those smart guns are only for us beer swilling bullet spraying butchers.

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