IMI Systems Quote of the Day: Human Impediment to Smart Gun Adoption Vows to Continue Her Work

“I still believe that government has a role to play in protecting residents from preventable gun deaths by helping to bring (smart gun) technology to the market, but I am also more optimistic than ever that we are on track to see major developments in the near future. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue with the next governor’s administration, and toward a time when no child can get their hands on a gun and unintentionally carry out a shooting, no resident can have a gun stolen and used in a crime or a suicide, and no law enforcement officer can have their gun taken and turned on them.” – State Senator Loretta Weinberg in New Jersey should embrace smart gun technology [courtesy northjersey.com]

IMI-Israeli Ammo

comments

  1. avatar FelixD says:

    Dear Senator, We are not residents. We are citizens. Perhaps this best describes the reluctance of the free born to allow government to impose the will of one person over us. So, piss off

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Well said. ^

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Dear Senator, We are not residents. We are citizens, AND YOU ARE ONLY A FELLOW FING CITIZEN TOO” (although someone should flip her over and check her tag, she may be from Kenya like Ohole).

      Fic’d it for ya.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Not real sure I’d want to flip her over, but I suspect if you found a tag you would find she has passed her expiration date and someone should notify the electorate of that fact.

    3. avatar The Punisher says:

      “I still believe that government has a role to play in…”

      This is the problem right here. The government has no role to play in almost anything. If and when it gets out of the way then liberty and society flourish.

      Too many people still believe what she’s saying to be true. That is the premise for all the ridiculous regulations and statutes.

      The the private and truly free market work it out.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        No…. insurance companies and what my drill instructors called the “mothers of america” are behind this kind of crap. That was 20 years ago but it was as true then as much as now. Every law backed by insurance companies has a special intrest public face group of mothers shrilling for “change”.

    4. avatar Some Guy says:

      My wife is a legal permanent resident. She is not, however, a citizen. The only two basic rights she does not have is the right to vote or get a concealed weapons permit.

      All other rights are in tact. Not being overly pedantic, I get your message, and agree with the spirit of the argument.

      1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

        Not sure what state you’re in but I can assure you that a permanent resident (aka greencard holder) can get a license to carry here in Texas.

        1. avatar Bradley Ward says:

          Unfortunately for my wife, the same is not true in Oklahoma. That said, I would argue if the RKBA is truly a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right that is merely guaranteed by the Constitution then citizenship (or even legal residency, for that matter) should not be a barrier. Are only citizens protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. amendments?

          Voting is another issue entirely, as that right is tied to citizenship and is not a natural right.

      2. avatar GunDoc says:

        SomeGuy,

        Voting is not a right. It is a privilege. Getting a CCP is also a benefit/privilege, since you are waiving your rights by asking for permission.

    5. avatar GunDoc says:

      I’m not a resident OR a Citizen.

      I am one of The People.

      I like my rights and immunities.

      You can keep your benefits and privileges.

  2. avatar Wiregrass says:

    When has government ever brought anything of value to market? This woman has actually prevented bringing alleged smart guns to market and is too stupid and too arrogant to admit it

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Mylar, and silicone in tubes (originally a top secret filler for missiles).

      1. avatar Bob Lazar says:

        Oh now Cliff, everyone knows those things were back-engineered from stuff found in the Roswell crash!

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Necessity, it is said, is the mother of invention, and in war, technological development is a necessity. There are a huge number of products that were originally developed for use by military forces that have ended up being of great commercial viability. Just look at aircraft and all wheel drive vehicles for obvious examples.

    3. avatar ORCON says:

      45-70 Gov’t ?

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    If you really want to work on the issue, I would recommend starting by getting education equivalent to degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering, perhaps minoring in ergonomics. (Online learning is a thing now…) Then get to your CAD software and workbench and get cracking.

    If, on the other hand, you just want to pontificate about how it ought to be, with no technical credibility or practical insight other than that awesome BA in history, then by all means carry on.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      This^

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        I disagree.
        That argument is meant to shut down the person it’s addressed towards, but it’s not really a valid argument, especially when the person is an advocate rather than a designer.
        I’ve worked on Japanese motorcycles (back in the day); I know how they work, and how to make them work ‘better.’ But I have no degrees in anything automotive; does that mean I can’t explain how the cam drive in a Honda CB350 differs from that in a Honda CB450? Of course not. What it does mean is that I really shouldn’t try to lecture an actual engineer on how to design the cam drive for a new bike still on the drawing board.
        But that’s not what she’s doing. She is saying that (in her opinion) smart guns should be brought to market under New Jersey’s current laws (meaning if that happens, they would be the only guns sold there), saving an unspecified number of lives, especially of children (always, it’s for the children!).
        I’m certainly not saying I agree with her, but she’s allowed to speak her mind without spending years and money getting the degrees you think she should have.
        See, that’s how the first amendment is meant to work. Let her speak, then counter her points.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      FURTHER . . .

      As long as you can’t keep yourself from spouting off about smart guns, start your sentences with “in the future people will have a choice and opportunity to __________________ “, instead of “in the future people will ________” because the latter gains you an FU and full middle-finger-salute, and a F- on prognostication. You want to determine the absolute future? Kill yourself.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      And here’s an interesting point missing in the discussion: Even if she got exactly what she wants – all future guns MUST be smart guns – WHAT ABOUT THE 400 MILLION PLUS GUNS ALREADY OUT THERE?

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      And here’s an interesting point missing in the discussion: Even if she got exactly what she wants – all future guns MUST be smart guns – WHAT ABOUT THE 400 MILLION PLUS GUNS ALREADY OUT THERE?

      She probably thinks they can mandate that you have to exchange them for one of her Smart Guns.

  4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    For all the reasons obvious to anyone with a brain, she could never live to see her wish. In fact, due to the critical nature of a defensive handgun I doubt my unborn grandchildren will live to see it.

  5. avatar Ryan says:

    >> no law enforcement officer can have their gun taken and turned on them

    What’s odd is that the bill exempts law enforcement.

    So Senator Weinberg is either:

    #1. Lying
    Or
    #2. Has no idea what she put in her own bill?

    Either one of these possibilities is bad for an elected official.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Very typical of bad gun laws is that there’s an exemption for law enforcement. They need effective guns to avoid being outgunned by dangerous criminals, while the average citizen never confronts these very same criminals.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        0 > = Pigs

    2. avatar Omer says:

      I wouldn’t say bad, but I would say typical. But it is also bad, as are (practically) all things from or of the government.

  6. avatar dlj95118 says:

    impediment: a hindrance or obstruction in doing something

    So, this lady who is an impediment to smart gun adoption vows to continue her work?

    I say, “let her be!”

    (maybe the article title is boo-boo)

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      The title uses the word correctly. New Jersey’s law actually prevents the advancement of such technology because of the mandate that would be triggered when a “smart gun” is actually brought to market.

      She is her own worst enemy. I say, don’t interrupt her.

      1. avatar dlj95118 says:

        …not dissing the use of impediment, but noting that the subject of the article title is “human impediment…vows to continue her work.”

        In other words, the article title structure is boo-boo.

    2. avatar Somebody says:

      She set up the restriction to be triggered by the introduction of smart guns. Now she is whining that no one has introduced smart guns.

      To a normal person, that would be what you call a clue.

  7. avatar Parnell says:

    Loretta doesn’t want “smart” guns, Loretta wants NO GUNS. “Confiscate, confiscate, confiscate”, her open mic slip. Her and the Corzine clone, Murphy will make NJ a living hell for us gun owners. And before you all suggest we leave, remember everyone is not as financially independent as you. I look forward to the day I can, but I make too much $$ to walk away from my job.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      She’s probably OK with guns that can be remotely deactivated by police or other agents of the state.

  8. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Like it or not the technology is coming and will be forced upon everyone…hopefully after I’m in the ground.

    Note the ads and TV commercials pushing for smart cars that parallel park themselves, brake themselves, alerts that you are outside the lane and auto steering back into lane. All with happy millennial airheads enjoying the care free drive.

    “I didn’t crash into you, my car did, not me!” “Batteries died on my smart gun sensor” noted the police officer after failing to stop a maniac who killed 14 people.

    Like I said, hope I’m long dead when Idiocracy comes about.

  9. avatar Kyle says:

    “I still believe that government has a role to play in protecting residents from preventable gun deaths by helping to bring (smart gun) technology to the market, but I am also more optimistic than ever that we are on track to see major developments in the near future.”

    Well…

    I still believe that the people have a role to play in protecting residents from preventable government constitutional overreach by helping bringing civil rights violation charges to select members of various state legislatures and executive branches, but I am also more optimistic that ever we are on track to see major developments in the near future.

    🙂

    submitted 9/20/17 @ 8:03 PST

  10. avatar Jack Moore says:

    She said ” and no law enforcement officer can have their gun taken and turned on them.”. I’m curious how specifically exempting law enforcement from this law accomplishes this end.

  11. avatar Timothy says:

    I don’t want my kids to hurt themselves or someone else with a gun. No one wants that.

    I also don’t want to own a gun that can be disabled remotely leaving good guys defenseless. Is that what she wants? An intruder with a signal blocker who encounters no resistance because the “smart” guns in the house no longer work? That seems awfully callous of her to enable criminals like that.

  12. avatar JasonM says:

    …a time when no child can get their hands on a gun and unintentionally carry out a shooting…

    So she has no desire to prevent intentional shootings like Columbine or Newtown? In that because they help push the gun control agenda forward?

  13. avatar neiowa says:

    I look “look forward to” the day when there are no crazy old progtard shebats in government. The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants.

  14. avatar little horn says:

    im not opposed to them developing smart guns like in Judge Dredd or something. I am against them forcing that choice, which is what democrats seem to do now.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      There’s the rub. Luckily for us, anti-gunner virtue signaling (re: NJ law circa 2002) has already proven that is their intended desire with this type of technology. Statism and opposition to Free Market principles is the default position of most politicians today.

  15. avatar TStew says:

    I look forward to – should the unfortunate day that I pray never comes but might – my firearm working when I really, really need it to work…

  16. avatar Texas Gungal says:

    I prefer smart people and “dumb” handguns.
    With smart people, no reason for smart guns
    If it comes to seizure of all handguns, would prefer the government has to require military or Law Enforcement to go door to door to confiscate guns
    than have some candy a** turn on an electronic blocker.
    But, before any other legislation send boots to the hoods with the gangs and take their weapons first and good luck with that 😳 Actually to get my vote, need documentation that any gun control laws apply to your security people as well

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    Smart guns? First, let’s elect some smart representatives.

  18. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    People who answer questions with “the government should…” never really understood the question that was asked.

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    FLAME DELETED

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