Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: The Funhouse Mirror World of the New York Times

dp

“(T)he NRA, in its own words, ‘doesn’t oppose the development of ‘smart’ guns, nor does it oppose the ability of Americans to voluntarily acquire them.’ Only in a New York Times editorial could you construe an explicit statement from the National Rifle Association to mean the exact opposite of what it means.” – Daniel Payne in Sorry, New York Times, But ‘Smart Guns’ Are A Dumb Idea [via thefederalist.com]

bfg-long-logo-blue-jpg-220x39

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:

    Gee, is there a reason that the antis keep muddling the difference between “option” and “forced”? Hmmm…

    1. avatar James says:

      Well, for the NYT, it’s all about the narrative. In other words, #FakeNews.

      As for the liberal mindset in general, option generally equals forced. Take transit for example. Progressives want to ban cars, forcing you to live how they want you to, but they say you have an option, walk, bike or government cattle car run by public sector unions.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    I don’t oppose the development of smart guns. It’s the mandatory, forced purchase of smart guns that bothers me.

    Let the free market sort out the smart guns.

  3. avatar Chris Morton says:

    They must be a great idea, after all cops are clamoring to be REQUIRED to use them, aren’t they? They ARE clamoring for them, AREN’T they…?

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      So called “Smart Gun” technology should be mandated for law enforcement, that will immediately end this anti’s nonsense.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Give the cops a break, mandate not smart guns for all libtard’s “protective details/guards”. Starting with Hillary and Barry.

    2. Because cops often get into close contact with perps, they, more than the general population, encounter situations where their gun could be taken from them.

  4. avatar Tym O'Byrne says:

    The smarter the gun, the stupider the owner. Never in my inventory, what you put in yours, up to you butt, refer back to my first sentence please.

    1. avatar John says:

      Not sure I totally agree. I admire the purity of iron sights, but a Tracking Point would be pretty cool if it makes my shooting more accurate.

      Guns with an electronic disable feature. Not so much.

  5. avatar mk101008 says:

    The only safe gun is the one a citizen is carrying properly.

  6. avatar MiniMe says:

    NYT wants them stupid “smart” guns so bad? Have their security, bodyguards and the NYPD use them first, so how they like ’em. 😉

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Mandate “smart” guns for cops, the Secret Service and the military so that the government agents can be the crash test dummies for this so-called technology.

    When enough of them die because their guns fail, we will hear no more about this bullsh!t.

    I also note that NY Slimes profits are falling fast. My suggestion is for them to cut the price of the periodical so that it becomes more competitive with Charmin.

    1. avatar Badwolf says:

      Id like to add to your crash test dummy list… All the owners and executives of NYT and their body guards.

  8. avatar JasonM says:

    I disagree with Mr. Payne. Any major media outlet in the country could intentionally misconstrue a direct quote from the NRA.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Sad but true.

  9. avatar DaveL says:

    I think smart guns are a great idea. So are universal translators. It just doesn’t follow from the premise that the technology would be great, that it actually exists in a realistically usable form. Such is the case with smart guns: in its current form the technology suffers from several fundamental engineering limitations (e.g. battery rundown, jamming for RFID-based systems, gloves for fingerprint readers, ease of criminal bypass), for which there are no solutions on the horizon.

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