Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Blame The NRA for My Obstructionist ‘Smart Gun’ Law

lor

“I made an offer to the NRA that if they made a public commitment to not stand in the way of research, development, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of any firearm that is limited by technology to the use of only its owner, that I would move to repeal the mandate. I have yet to hear back.” – New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg in Can White House, tech startups overcome gun lobby resistance to ‘smart guns’? [at csmonitor.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

comments

  1. avatar Jack Crow says:

    She seems honest, trustworthy, and smart; maybe this is our opportunity to-

    No. Crawl back in your hole lady, you aren’t half as smart or clever as you think you are.

    1. avatar Next Pres picks the Supreme Court says:

      My advice: Don’t leave that fossil out in the sun for too long. I think she’ll start decomposing as soon as the formaldehyde evaporates.

      1. avatar Avenue Pond says:

        I disagree. Her appearance is that of a woman who has our best interests in mind.

        Well, I guess as long as you are wearing Hillary for President gear.

  2. avatar Swilson says:

    It’s not like politicians lie to get what they want. Besides, the NRA doesn’t need to make a deal regarding smart guns. The market appears to have already decided they are a bust. That’s why Obama’s regime is trying to mandate them for LE and the military, as well as to appease the antis. POTG (who actually know a thing or two about firearms) are unwilling to be the guinea pigs for an unreliable, laughable technology pushed by people who don’t even know which end the bullet comes out of.

    1. avatar Robert Duchien says:

      The US should use India-style waist chain lanyards to secure firearms to LEO’s. Then maybe so many of them would not misplace or lose their weapon.

      1. avatar Todd says:

        Those guns are more of a threat to public safety when the cops have them than when they’re “misplaced”…

  3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Smaller, sooner reinforcement VS larger, later reinforcement…

    Deferred gratification – learn it, know it, use it, LOVE IT!

  4. avatar blahpony says:

    If they would just do what I want, I would stop pushing the law to make them do what I want.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Until the technology is more available and reliable, then we’ll push for a national mandate instead of local ones…

      Sorry, NJ, but we cannot let let down the drawbridge, risking the castle, because a few soldiers were left outside.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ROHC, take a look at this paragraph in the article:

        “According to a summary of the report, the government will complete a set of guidelines by October that set minimum standards that smart guns will need to meet in order to be adopted by law enforcement. It will also lay the groundwork for a smart gun pilot program.”

        This a *Golden* opportunity for us here. It’s just short *days* before the election!

        We need to put the bug in their ear that a key feature *needs* to be one that remote shuts down all civilian guns when law enforcement arrives on a scene. For the safety of LE, of course. Oh, and the shutdown signal needs to be continuously broadcast at schools.

        To a gun-grabber, that will make *perfect* sense. It’s for police safety!

        It’s for THE CHILDREN’S SAFETY!

        To us, it’s the *proof* of what a ‘smart gun’ really is.

        Disarmament…

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Why would anyone ever take a politicians word for anything?
    Why would anyone ever take ANYONES word for anything?

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the world of business big and small it’s that everyone is trying to screw everyone else and one who screws the fastest and biggest gets to retire out of the circle of mutual screwing first.

    Often the screwee is perfectly happy to play his role assuming soon his opportunity to screw will come up.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Dood! Stop with the crazy visuals.

      1. avatar Swilson says:

        He’s right- I’m in HR for a large corporation and I see the heads at work all the time…nothing but positioning to see who can screw who first. I think George Carlin had a bit about that.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      There is definitely a pervasive game of Out-screw You being played out there, like you say, in small and big business alike. However, I see millions of dollars of business done daily on the basis of a phone call or even a text message, with nothing more legally binding than a general understanding between the parties.

      I personally know of two companies: one a major household name, publicly traded, multinational corporation, and the other a modest, privately held, third generation, family-run company. These two companies do about $40 million worth a business with each other. They’ve never had a contract. Never had a lawsuit. Never had an interruption in their dealings. The entire relationship goes back to a handshake in the middle of an oilfield in Texas in the 1930s between the two companies’ founders. There’s a mural-sized, black & white photo of that handshake in each one’s corporate headquarters.

      Goodwill goes a long, long way. Money goes a long way, too, and just like money, some will try to counterfeit goodwill and screw someone over. It happens, daily, but in my experience, it appears in the long run to be a more difficult way of doing business than just playing it straight. So there’s room for a businessperson on whichever path he or she chooses.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        They’ve just mutually agreed to screw others.
        Should a time come when one of those corporations appears to be on the fence or ready to end its run it’ll be a screw fest. Handshake be damned. I guarantee it.

        1. avatar AnarchoCatholic says:

          As long as it’s voluntary screwing it’s not so bad. Government rape is what really worries me.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          So you say, and in general, that’s the way the smart money would bet. In this particular, and admittedly outlier, instance, I myself have seen these two companies cooperate through ups and downs since the mid 1990s; sometimes against their short term interests, even when oil was slutting for $10-12 bucks a barrel. I’ve seen it as an employee of one of them and later as a competitor.

          Again, anything’s possible, but a major city or even an entire industry aren’t all that big. Often, everyone knows everyone, and reputation matters. 40 to 50 year long careers, especially when your name is on the building, heavily influences how you do business.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        That is the old way of doing business. I had a client like that once. His handshake was bond. And if you made a deal with him, you had better not try to go back on it. I (sort of ) handled a case like that for him, but I only handled the legal paperwork. He called the other side one on one and ended up with a better deal than he had in the first place. Smart cookie.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Shire is obviously of the New York/NE “values” rather than the real world.

      I suppose a thief usually does rationalize that everyone else is also a thief.

  6. avatar Robert Duchien says:

    So if the owner of a smart gun is incapacitated or not at home and his wife needs to use the gun on a violent intruder, she is helpless ???

    Doesn’t sound very smart to me.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Well, then, they’ll just have to pass a law in New Jersey to make it easy for everyone to have their own personal firearm, and be able to carry it with the. (As if.)

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    You know what that’s called? Extortion. Throw this idiot in jail.

  8. avatar Dave says:

    An offer??? That sounds more like blackmail to me!

    “Don’t stand in the way of smart gun research or we won’t repeal the smart gun mandate.”

    She can take her smart gun mandate and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

  9. avatar Julio says:

    Of course, you can trust me. Why is my hand behind my back? Oh, no reason. Let’s pinkie-swear. I promise to give you EXACTLY what (I believe) you deserve. What could possibly go wrong, Dearie?

    1. avatar Avenue Pond says:

      I have a rule to stay far away from jurisdictions that vote a person with that type of appearance into office.

  10. avatar RatInDaHat says:

    I think the major problem is that people think the “gun lobby” is the one stifling innovation. In reality, most of the actual users don’t want the technology. I’m sure there is the random gun owning idiot that thinks they are a great idea, but i would hazard a guess that they are far and few between.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      As is often said on this site, “Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain.” Folks believe it’s the NRA b/c every anti-gun politician spouts the same tired lines of blah blah common sense blah blah save one life blah blah NRA bad blah blah gun lobby bad blah blah loophole!

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The ONLY benefit that I can see to a biometric Smart Gun technology is that after the Bad Guys kills your ass it will do him no good to steal your (useless) weapon.

      1. avatar Benzo says:

        Sorry, Cliff – the “hack” will be out a day or two after the “smart” gun.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      She is one of the typical anti-gun idiots who equates the NRA with the firearms manufacturing industry, as if there is some kind of monolithic entity out there pushing for guns. We all know this is a lie. The NRA simply recognizes that smart gun tech is a way for the government to obtain control over privately owned firearms, and also recognizes that the technology is immature and will lead to people dying who are unable to use their guns when needed. The manufactures can do what they like; it is just that the mfrs recognize that people do not want these guns, a and will punish a manufacturer who tires to release such technology.

  11. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Hmmmm….
    Step 1, create a problem
    Step 2, pass a law to address that problem
    Step 3, realize the law doesn’t address the problem
    Step 4, blame somebody else for the problem
    Step 5, rinse, repeat….

  12. avatar DoomGuy says:

    This ugly pile of whale s#!+, is only part of the problem.

    The people of New Jersey keep electing it, they keep voting for it, and the country as a whole.

    Is it wrong to hold many of my fellow Americans with nothing but the utmost contempt and disgust? (save of course for people like those here, and the increasingly few others who actually care about the constitution)

    1. avatar Avenue Pond says:

      Not at all

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        Thank you.

  13. avatar Pascal says:

    She is full of crap and trying to save face for an obviously stupid law. In order to show her base her hate for the NRA, she impedes the technology she says she loves. Screw that! Playing who can piss higher on the tree politics is personal and not serve anyone except her own political agenda

  14. Can we just stop for a second and look at what functionality a smart gun provides and what crimes they are supposed to prevent?

    Smart guns theoretically only activate for a user wearing some sort of identifying device married to some sort of control system that governs the weapon, yes?

    If that’s all a smart gun is going to do, why are lawmakers so interested in these things? I mean, we have child locks. We have gun safes. Hell, we have high shelves. Really all this is going to do is prevent kids from getting their parents guns and shooting themselves or each other. Am I nuts or is the difference smart guns make going to be essentially nil?

    I know the knee jerk to gun control stuff is to start quoting 2A and all, but attacking this argument with some logic would go farther, or at least expose the real problem- namely that somehow lawmakers think smart guns are going to save the world from bad guys or something.

    None of our mass shootings would likely have been prevented by smart gun tech. Crime obviously won’t be affected in any way whatsoever by smart gun tech. What’s the point? We’re going to regulate a billion dollar industry to incorporate safeguards that are going to make a statistical margin of error of difference and force a feature on the end users that none of them even want?

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      This has nothing to do with “keeping kids safe” (I hate this phrase so much because other people’s kids are not my responsibility) the narrative about the “kids” is the same as seatbelt laws, and you know what? My rights do not take a backseat to other people’s kids. It’s disgusting how many people get swayed by “look at this baby”.

      It’s about blackmailing the gun rights movement and incrementalism to move the discussion to the left. One more step towards total confiscation. By saying “I’ll remove the mandate” they get another notch in their belt. Once the law is passed they’ll just quietly put it in later thanking the NRA for “cooperating”, while the non-smart guns are seized. And then ultimately the smart guns will be registered and ultimately seized.

      Opposition, and quoting “shall not be infringed” isn’t knee jerk, it isn’t shortsighted, it’s upholding the constitution and seeing through the commie BS these people have fed us for over a century.

      To support something like this, makes a person come off as either: naïve, someone who’s heartstrings can be played like a strat, or worse complicit in their gun grabbing scheme.

      So people have to ask themselves; if smart tech wouldn’t make a difference in terms of safety, why are the gun grabbers so insistent on mandating it?

      1. Your last paragraph is my entire point. Perhaps I worded poorly, but ultimately smart guns don’t serve a purpose that anyone, gun rights or gun control, is really all that interested in.

        My point re: the knee jerk 2A is gun control people shut down when people start talking 2A to them. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not advocating it, I’m saying it’s reality. These people obviously don’t care all that much for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and they certainly are not at all knowledgeable of it or you likely wouldn’t be having the conversation with them in the first place, right?

        As for why the gun grabbers are so intent on mandating it, my guess is it is the same line of thinking that creates things like gun free zones or including suicide by firearms stats in with homicide stats. There’s a complete and total disconnect between the idea that you have law-abiding gun owners and criminals who commit crimes with guns.

        Somewhere, gun grabbers have this notion in their minds that somehow smart guns are this amazing breakthrough that’s going to keep everyone from getting shot or something. I don’t know- I can’t explain it because I’m a rational person, but it’s obviously there in their heads. And as I said, and as you reiterated in your own reply to my original post, that doesn’t make any sense. Smart gun functionality, that is- only the intended user being able to operate the weapon, is already available in many, many different forms that don’t have any of the shortcomings of using software and hardware technology.

        1. avatar Avenue Pond says:

          While I appreciate your many words attempting to logically analyze the relevant facts, this issue really can be summed up in a few less words:

          Statists gonna state

    2. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

      It’s Joisey. “nuff said. Interesting website Clint!

  15. avatar Cerickson says:

    One thing no one seems to mention About smart gun technology:
    It is based on electronic components that are programmed. I’ll bet that 6 months after one came on the market, criminals will find a way to either hack them oor remove them in such a way as to make them useable. After all, I can install a reader at a gas pump and collect credit card information, or use a reader to simply walk through a crowd and collect smart chip equipped cards’ info.
    The only time this idea could be useful if if someone were to gain control of my gun during an assault, and I bet that a very rare thing, although I don’t know of the stats.
    Useless and expensive. An Edsel of an idea. No one wants it.

  16. avatar AnarchoCatholic says:

    I believe the smart gun is their newest obsession for any number of reasons and I’ve included some general past examples:
    1. Retired LEOs or other politicians have a stake in the technology and are attempting to get granted special favors from government. (Failed solar power companies)
    2. A belief that the technology may be a way to centrally control future gun use. (remote readable electrical meters and thermostats)
    3. Raising the cost of weapons production in an attempt to bankrupt most gun manufacturers. (micro-stamping)
    4. Simply toting a progressive agenda out of sheer ignorance. (everything else).

  17. avatar H says:

    I’m sorry but after reading the emails between Adam Lanza’s parents, the mom would have given Adam his own smart gun with watch, ring etc. He would still have been able to wreak havoc. There was a check in the house for him to buy another gun. He had full access to the safe.

    An article states that those who don’t secure their guns aren’t likely to buy “smart tech.”

    Last year in Detroit a man kills his entire family by running a gas generator in the basement of his town house. He killed over 4 people so that qualifies as a mass murder. Can we pass a law? Background checks for generators?

  18. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    If the anti-gun tools are so hot for this technology then why doesn’t Bloomberg hire the techs and develop the device, build the factory, and bring it to market? Answer: because he would burn through his entire pile of cash and in the end have something no one wants. They are just fine with bankrupting someone else, especially someone they don’t like, but they sure aren’t going to put their own money at risk for something that likely won’t work.

  19. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    Do what I say or… MORE LAWS!

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      And then when we use the word “tyrants” we get ridiculed.

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    You know, the politi-critters refer to the NRA as an “industry lobby” because that’s how they see the world. Industries n lobbying for favors from this ministry or that.

    It is time we started referring to the NRA as a membership organization of a few 10s of millions of gun users in the U S. It has a lobbying arm because politi-critters like the N J person above keep trying to restrict, erode, and eliminate by law what the org’s members choose to do. It’s purely defensive, pardon the term. Hobby, habit, recreation, history, tradition, safety, and yes legally codified natural right are all “pro gun.” There’d be nothing to argue about if the politi-critter there would leave it be.

    There’s a marvelous, snarky, on-point reply the NRA could make that would leave this N J politi-critter, and their whole position on the back foot. I wonder if our membership org will be bright enough to find it.

  21. avatar Anon in CT says:

    She’s mad because the NRA won’t help her fix her own legislative f*ckup?

  22. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Why should the NRA make a deal with her? It was bad law and she knows it, it was obviously to everyone that it prevented the very thing she advocated from being developed. Claims that the NRA refuses to kill her ass is just whining on her part.

  23. avatar Parnell says:

    I love the way she uses the NRA as an excuse for the idiotic mandate she pushed through in the first place. Did the NRA ever take a position opposing research into “smart” guns or did they just oppose mandates?

  24. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    This is one more freaking reason why NJ will never be a place where i spend my money or own a home!
    I get the difference of opinion concerning this technology but when so many are against it due to it’s flaws…..move on politicians.
    Just because you can make laws doesn’t mean you should.
    Spend more energy stopping the deaths caused by malpractice, if you really care about lives saved!

  25. avatar Rog Uinta says:

    Isn’t this the same … person … who wanted to pass a bill to “confiscate, confiscate, confiscate”?

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You, Weinberg?

  27. avatar Wright says:

    When you can’t get a real job, run for office.

  28. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Some where on the Internet there is a picture of this American Jewish woman lawmaker visiting the Jewish state of Israel, with isreal soldiers holding their fully automatic weapons, standing on her left and right sides. Everybody is smiling.
    I’d send the link if I could find it.
    At least she is consistent. The socialist government of isreal does not allow it’s citizens to own guns. She is happy with that as well.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I believe this is what you are looking for:

      http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Gun-Banner-Loretta-Weinberg-600×320.jpg?19853f

      Guns are fine. As long as they are protecting Lorretta. You and me? No. We don’t “need” guns, and our lives should be dictated by what we “need.” Right??

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Thanks for the link.

  29. avatar Jeric Chua says:

    It’s not that we didn’t hear you the first time. We’re just ignoring you. Now, go away, and take your retarded ideas with you.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    She shot herself (and her movement) in the foot and wants to blame the NRA for not helping her?

    https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/66157736.jpg

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Well. When a liberal stubs their toe – they blame the NRA.

  31. avatar Anonymous says:

    I made an offer to the NRA…

    NRA is made up of 5 million or so members – it’s more than just a handful of people in one room. Not a simple request.

    Furthermore, her premise is a lie. The NRA has never been interested in blocking smart guns until she mandated them in NJ. People don’t want to be force fed garbage from controlling opinionated politicians. Leave the people alone Weinberg.

  32. avatar Jon B says:

    How kind! If we give up our right to free speech and petition government, she might not force us to buy smart guns for some undetermined amount of time. Such a deal.

  33. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Looks like that podium is holding her up. Give her another chocolate eclair, maybe she’ll have a diabetic seizure and spare us all the stupidity.

  34. avatar Will Drider says:

    I wonder what will happen when a Identification Restricted Firearm needs to be balistically tested in a crime lab without the owner (5th AMMENDMENT)? Pay some hacker to break the code like they did with the IPhone? I’m pretty sure the Gov will be able to turn it on….. so they will also be able to turn them off!

    There is a Case right now of a Judge ordering a women (not a suspect) to put her fingerprint on her Iphone and open it for police that Do Not Have A Warrant for the Iphone or its contents, because her boyfrind is a suspect in a Case. Hows that for due process and several Rights violations.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Blame The NRA for My Obstructionist ‘Smart Gun’ Law http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/daniel-zimmerman/blue-force-gear-quote-day-blame-nra-obstructionist-smart-gun-law/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email