The New York Times Wants to Turn Remington Into ‘The Most Advanced And Responsible Gun Manufacturer in the Country’

remington smart gun

courtesy biometrics.mainguet.org

The New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin, a financial columnist for the old Gray Lady, has noticed that the nation’s oldest gun maker is about to emerge from bankruptcy. Remington executed a pre-packaged filing in March and is about to emerge from the process, free of both hundreds of millions of dollars of debt and the disastrous “management” of its private equity masters at Cerberus Capital.

As part of the deal to clear most to the company’s debt, Cerberus is writing off its ownership stake in favor of Remington’s creditors who will take over all of the equity in the company. But Franklin Templeton Investments, JPMorgan and the rest don’t really want to be in the gun business. Unlike Cerberus, they’re likely smart enough to know that they have no earthly idea how to run one of the country’s largest firearms and ammunition manufacturers.

So while the bankruptcy creditors committee is no doubt shopping Big Green and the other companies that comprise Remington Outdoor as I type, The Times’ Sorkin has a better idea: make Remington into every hoplpophobic media guy’s idea of the perfect firearms company.

After some initial columnar onanism spent fantasizing about Michael Bloomberg simply writing a check for Remington and shutting it down, Sorkin figures the better move would be for the investment banks to hang onto the company, and instead turn it into an example for the firearms industry.

What if the big banks that have provided financing to Remington during its bankruptcy were to back — and partner with — one or more of the big private equity firms in an effort to transform the company into the most advanced and responsible gun manufacturer in the country?

Pure genius. And what would that look like?

A reimagined Remington with a new management and mandate could develop smart-gun technology. It could back fingerprint technology meant to prevent anyone who is not the gun’s owner from shooting it, a measure that could greatly reduce suicides and the potential for guns to be stolen. It could add an identity stamp to ammunition fired from any of its guns. It could also establish and standardize responsible sales policies for retailers to sell its firearms.

Why didn’t we think of that? Who needs to invest in modern, efficient manufacturing operations and popular new products when you can instead sink tens of millions into R&D developing a technology that virtually no gun owners want to buy? And pay no attention to the fact that gun buyers object to mandates like the New Jersey poison pill law that’s blocked serious gun industry efforts into biometric technology for a decade. That’s a detail to be worked around.

What gun owner wouldn’t want to buy a Remington 870 that requires a fingerprint match before it will fire when you hear that bump in the night? How could anyone argue with an R1 1911 that will work for its owner and no one else? Think of the law enforcement market out there that’s just clamoring for a duty gun that can’t be grabbed by a bad guy and used against an officer. The possibilities are endless.

Or…here’s another idea…the creditors could sell the company after all, but not to just another gun company. They could go out and find the right buyer. A forward-thinking company. Surely these civic-minded investment banks could offer a socially conscious, well-intended buyer a good deal.

What would happen, for instance, if a consortium were to come together so that the banks offered the buyer a below-market loan, giving a socially responsible investor the advantage of a lower cost of capital? What would happen if one of the big retail chains like Walmart and Dick’s — both of which have already established that they only want to sell guns in a responsible way — were to guarantee distribution, sales and marketing support?

Perfect. Gun buyers (21 and older, of course) would no doubt be lining up outside every Dick’s Sporting Goods across the land to buy the latest responsible firearms Ed Stack had commanded the gun company he owns to produce.

Or maybe the big banks could hang onto Remington themselves after all. Think of the socially responsible possibilities!

Yet the opportunity for Bank of America — which said it had “more than $11.3 billion in assets with a clearly defined environmental, social and governance approach” as of the end of 2016 — could be a perfect candidate to take a piece of Remington. Other banks, like JPMorgan Chase, which also owns a stake in Remington as a result of previous financing, says it is trying to reduce its relationship with gun makers. It, too, has been a big proponent of impact investing.

Hold on, though. Is it possible that the CEOs of these financial giants — not to mention Walmart and Dick’s — don’t really see a good return in trying to create a “responsible” gun manufacturer that sells its products to America’s gun buyers as the “socially conscious” alternative in the marketplace? Could it be that there’s no money to be made in smart guns?

Have no fear. Sorkin, drawing on his vast reservoir of industry insight and firearms marketing experience, assures us . . .

Make no mistake: There is absolutely a market for a gun company focused on safety technology. A poll conducted by Johns Hopkins University researchers and published online by the American Journal of Public Health showed 59 percent of Americans were willing to buy a smart gun.

Well then. Let’s do this. With that kind of demand — Sorkin guarantees there’s a market out there — Remington’s creditors should be fighting off potential buyers with a stick. Count us among those who can’t wait to see how a move like this would shake out.

 

comments

  1. avatar doesky2 says:

    You can just imagine that NYTimes author fapping away with one hand while he types with the other as he creates his sticky masterpiece of Leftism.

    Driven by emotion and stupidity just like the average gun-grabbing tide-pod eating teenager.

    1. avatar Joe Brown says:

      You also just described every die-hard Trump supporter…

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        More like your friends from the bath house.

    2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      Wonder if the NYT’s would support the sale of these new ‘smart guns’ in NYC?

    3. avatar Pseudo says:

      Here’s my problem with this: none of this is leftist, with the possible exception of the suggestion for subsidized loans for “progressive” leaning potential buyers, but the characterization of companies with the stated goals as “progressive” is also not characteristically leftist.

      1. avatar Don from CT says:

        You raise a great point. Its only leftist because these kinds of steps are useful to anti gun people as an incremental step towards BANNING non-smart guns.

        And then all guns.

        If states like NJ and CA had not introduced poison pill legislation that would have outlawed the sale of dumb guns once smart guns came on the market, then a smart gun would just be a “feature”.

        It would be a feature that would succeed or fail in the marketplace based on its merits; something gun owners should have the OPTION of purchasing if they desire.

        Instead it is the camel’s nose under the tent.

        We did not politicize this. The left did by trying to mandate this technology.

        I would have no problem owning, in a depoliticized environment, with a target or range use gun that used some kind of biometrics to sense that it is me using it.

        There is nothing inherently evil about a smart gun. Its the politicians who have made them this way.

        However, I would not in a million years ever carry or keep any gun intended for protection that used a system like this.

  2. avatar Angry19yrold says:

    Please kill me. I would rather see big Green go completely under than be run by a bunch of “Progressive” Libtards. Cerberus ran Chrysler into the ground, they ran Big Green into the ground too. I would be pretty scared if I was one of their affiliates.

  3. avatar john y says:

    I for one would never buy a firearm with so-called smart tech.
    Due to an accident involving a drunk driver, I have circulation issues in my hands and wear therapeutic gloves at night. This would make fingerprint readers useless and therefore the firearm no more than a paperweight. By the way anything else that blocks or alters prints would have the same effect, hand lotion, sweat, grease or dirt(ie working on a vehicle or changing a tire) or minor injury to fingertips.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yup.
      At the shop I work in, the time clock is biometric.
      Today, I was enjoying a cold glass of milk with my lunch, and for some reason, it wouldn’t let me clock in until I had completely dried my pinkie and warmed it back up.

    2. avatar Nigel the Expat says:

      I can’t get those automatic bathroom faucets or paper towel dispensers to work for me, let alone biometic finger-print readers. I’ve tried a bunch, and even have a rather expensive one where I once worked that would NOT read my fingers.

      Oddly, the only ones that I’ve ever gotten to work at the readers on Dell XPS laptops (though those work only about 3 out of 5 times (but my life doesn’t depend on getting that laptop unlocked!).

      I’m not sure what is wrong with ‘me’ and why those faucets and such won’t work. Maybe I died and forgot to lay down and stop functioning, proper-like 😉

      1. avatar That One Guy says:

        Are you dark-skinned?

        Many of those touchless technologies rely on IR to sense your presence, and darker skin tones just don’t reflect as much, so you may never trip the threshold.

        https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-dark-skin-1797931773

        1. avatar Big E says:

          Biometric is racist!!

          Queue Al Sharpton in 3….2…..

        2. avatar Info on “Genesis Project” Capt Kirk says:

          Retinal scans. Just look into the big round hole at the front of the “appliance”.

  4. avatar Secundius says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Smart Guns on the NRA’s “No-No” List…

    1. No, they have never opposed smart guns or biometrics. They’ve only opposed mandates like New Jersey’s law that has done more than anything else to retard the development of the technology.

      If you’re against the development of smart guns, you should give Loretta Weinberg an award for almost single handedly setting the process back decades.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Secundius,

      NJ passed a law that mandated “smart guns” by a specific date. And a lot of gun owners didn’t like that. People tend to like freedom and options and not be force fed the opinions of tyrants looking to dictate your life’s possessions. As a result, everyone turned against “smart gun technology” specifically because NJ mandated it. It’s not that they don’t mind having some electronics in their guns, it’s that NJ demanded that you have it in your guns.

  5. avatar dwb says:

    Bloomberg has the money to buy Remington.

    Put up, or shut up

    But lets face it, Bloomberg is doing nothing more than major virtue signalling in case St Peter asks in a few years.

    But, St Peter may ask: did you do all you could, like throw money at Remington and turn into a virtue machine selling unicorn poop? Instead of the one you built, helping Wall St separate grannies from their money?

    1. avatar Quasimofo says:

      Heh, that reminds me of Matt Taibbi’s take on Sorkin: “a shameless, ball-gargling prostitute for Wall Street”.

    2. avatar That One Guy says:

      While I’m not interested in Remington going away, I’m thoroughly interested in Mayor Bloomberg pissing away scads of money trying to build something nobody wants.

  6. avatar Felix says:

    Absolutely typical proggie response: make a product we don’t want but we want everyone else to want, step 2, a second bankruptcy.

    I sometimes think statists are so devoid of causation that they think speedometers work like thermostats — spin the needle, change the car’s speed.

    Or that they think movies are real life and if an actor can bark lines from a script — “Get Jones on it” — “I want that report on my desk in the morning” and make things happen, they are incapable of understanding that it’s just a script. They are so detached from reality that they think everyone can be Yul Brynner playing Ramses — “So let it be writte, so let it be done” — and bingo, the universe changes.

    tl;dr — who do they think is going to buy these guns?

    1. avatar Felix says:

      I knew an astrologer who I am sure got into it because it had all the trappings of science and engineering — tables, formula, calculations, esoteric data — but without needing four hard years of school. She was smart enough, could have done it, but astrology was so much easier and faster.

      I think that’s what statists do. They are jealous off movie business people who bark orders and get things done, don’t realize that’s not what real business people do, and think to emulate it by passing idiotic laws and writing regulations, as if that alone is enough to change reality.

  7. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Wait, this can’t be right. Socialist (Communist-lite) types don’t believe in powerful banking conglomerate and venture capitalism. Why isn’t this Che worshiping douchbag calling for the Feds to nationalize Big Green and crank out these products for all Americans?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      What if the “buy back” program become the “exchange” program? Instead of taking all the guns away forever the government exchanges the old dumb guns for smart guns.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        You’re talking about a very possible, very scary scenario. Two reasons:

        1) The federal Gov getting that ballsy to actually attempt to remove guns from the hands of millions.
        2) The massive destruction of life as we know it when those millions, or hell, 100’s of thousands, decide that the Liberty Tree needs a drink, and .gov employees, bankers, congressmen’s blood is the best water to nourish it.

        I would much prefer the status quo, in terms of violence. I don’t want to have to wake up, or not sleep at all, and wonder where the next crazy is coming from who’s in need of water, food, etc. However, I feel that we should all keep that thought in the back of our heads, and if something like that ever came to fruition, we could remain safe and alive.

        1. avatar Secundius says:

          One “Slight” Problem! The Suspension Clause (i.e. Article One, Section 9, Clause 2) within the US Constitution prevents acts of Succession and Insurrection in the United States. Which allow the US Government to send in the US Military to Crush any acts of Rebellion. First used in the Shays’ Rebellion of 1788 by President George Washington…

        2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Secundious- that’s the problem with folks like you. They think 3%ers like me want revolution instead of a Civil/Restorative War. There’s a significant difference that you ought to be mindful of. No one is calling for sedition and the overthrow of the most perfect form of government ever formed. Don’t be ridiculous. Those looking for a winner take all, once and for all fight have their sights on defending our country against the “War of Leftist Aggression”. It’s the Liberal Terrorists™️ that have to go. And when it’s all said and done, probably millions of them.

        3. avatar Secundius says:

          @ TrueBornSonofLiberity.

          If you think you have the capability of Doing It (i.e. Armed Insurrection) than Do It, and stop wasting time talking about it (i.e. Shoveling Sh|t)…

        4. avatar Wiregrass says:

          I think if Jon in CO’s second condition comes about, then its likely the provisions of Article One, Section 9, Clause 2 would have already been invoked anyway and therefore just one more thing to deal with rather than something to fear.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Oh, but they DO believe in giant banking conglomerates and venture capital — they believe in themselves being in control of it all.

      The greatest virtue of the socialist/communist system, for these people, is the absolute necessity of putting all resources under the control of an elite few who will shape the ideal society for the benefit of the proles, who are too dumb to do it themselves (and presumably also too dumb to realize that all the benefits accrue to the central committee).

  8. avatar SouthernShooter says:

    And while they are at it, they can also figure out how to make unicorns fart Skittles—about as useful as the other ideas. Silly Leftist!

  9. avatar ironicatbest says:

    If it’s smart gunz, then it’s smart gunz. Trigger block saftey fingerprints no bang bang goes bang bang. Can all be easily defeated. They can not make smart gun tech that can’t be defeated.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      They can make disabling those features illegal thus striking fear in to the law abiding…… however, if they simply made murder illegal, then nobody would ever be killed by a law abiding person ever again /sarc/.

  10. avatar TommyJay says:

    I like the part about preventing suicides with smart guns. They must be referring to the suicide of family members who don’t own the gun. Good thing those family members will never need to defend themselves from an intruder when daddy or mommy isn’t around.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      True, because how will your finger print or magic watch stop functioning in a suicidal situation? Will it ask you some mental health questions or conduct a breathalyzer test, maybe blood test for drugs before it lets you shoot? If you are already authorized, you can still kill yourself or go shoot up a gun free zone, unless they are either made deliberately unreliable, or schools have smart gun block outs….

      I am not against new technology, in fact there is a lot of great new gun technology, red dots, thermal or night vision, tracking point, lasers, improved flashlights. I just don’t want to be told to replace my blu ray player with 4K, or go to jail. Buy the latest Iphone or all your obsolete phones and computers will be confiscated.

      There is no reason to argue the safety pros and cons of smart guns, we and the anti gun crowd are fully aware of the intentions behind it. If anyone thinks this is just conspiracy theories, just go ask a Parkland student what is the motivation for this.

    2. avatar Big E says:

      Lucky there aren’t any other means of suicide other than a gun.

      Get rid of guns and suicide will vanish, just like in Japan!

  11. avatar jackalope says:

    Can someone give a complete list of firearms related businesses that Cerberus owns?

    1. avatar Secundius says:

      Technically NONE! Cerberus is owned by Freedom Group, which “IS” Remington Corporation and also Remington Firearms, Bushmaster Firearms, Advanced Armaments, Marlin Firearms, H&R Firearms and Para USA…

      1. Nope. Other way around. Cerberus bought a variety of companies, including Remington, they combined into an entity they named Freedom Group. They made a hash of some of them, sold a few off, and eventually re-named it the Remington Outdoor Company.

        The companies currently under that umbrella are Remington, Marlin, DPMS, AAC, Bushmaster, Parker Gun, Harrington & Richardson, Barnes Bullets, Nesika, Stormlake Barrels, Dakota Arms, TAPCO and TimberSmith Stocks.

        They’re about to cede ownership of ROC to the company’s creditors and take a total write-off on their investment.

        1. avatar Secundius says:

          All right, I stand corrected. I was trying make it make sense without the aid of Copious Amounts of Alcohol…

        2. Any time you’re dealing with Cerberus, alcohol is a prerequisite.

        3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Barnes bullets too?
          Wow. More the reasone to switch to Berger fully.

        4. avatar Gerbs says:

          Important side note:

          Barnes is the one company that Cerberus purchased and relatively left alone.
          They operate nearly independently out in Utah, and produce some really quality product.

          Almost everything else has been torn down and relocated to Huntsville or Illion and “rebuilt”.

  12. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    “What if” are the two words that a left field loonie uses to signal what he is about to say will be something monumentally stupid.

    1. avatar billy-bob says:

      “What if” is to lefties as “here, hold my beer” is to us rednecks.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      A capitalist fairy tale starts with “Once upon a time…”

      A communist fairy tale starts with “One day there will be…”

  13. avatar Ironhead says:

    And remington would be right back in bankruptcy again as potg would continue not buying their products.

  14. avatar CZJay says:

    If you have physical access to the item that has electronics and software you can hack that device in ways you couldn’t through the internet. A smart gun will not be able to stop someone from disabling the electronics and using the mechanical device in the way it was designed. A serial number on a gun doesn’t stop someone from scratching it off to make it difficult for police to track its history. Micro stamping can be removed with a few strokes of a metal file or a new replacement part without the stamping.

    Steal a gun, remove the serial numbers, remove the electronics, use it in a crime while wearing gloves, then throw it away. Rinse and repeat. From “smart” gun to “ghost” gun.

    California has effectively banned handguns by instituting a “safe” handgun roster and micro stamping. No company wants to build fantasy guns for California, thus there hasn’t been any new handguns for the Californian market and the list of guns they can buy is shrinking. Californians don’t have the liberty to buy whatever handgun they feel fulfills their needs or wants.

    “We are not banning cars! We are just banning engines and requiring cars to fly.”

    Making Remington into a “smart” gun manufacture will make sure they fail and never come back. Just like how California is making it so you can’t buy a firearm that isn’t “safe” and “smart.” It’s not realistically possible to live up to that new standard that is being very slowly imposed. It’s like forcing through law that all cars must have a MPG of 100 in order to make car companies produce the ideal car to save the planet from complete annihilation.

    And what will stop people from framing others with all these new identifying ammunition? It’s much harder to steal a person’s identity, but that happens a lot. How hard would it be to make it look like someone else was responsible for the murder you committed by using all these new fancy “high tech” tracking ideas? How about we just make it so cell phones can be used as a gun?

    1. avatar red_dirt says:

      Unless your a cop here, than you can have an “unsafe” “off roster” handgun, caus you know, they are all trained up and stuff. We are the only state with a safe handgun roster, please people don’t let this spread to your state.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        And since they can own one, they can sell it, too. Thus inadvertently (I hope) creating a whole new channel for public corruption, much like carry permits in NYC.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    Yes let’s all us gun guy’s buy smart(or any) gunz from Remington. Sounds like a plan from the gang who ASSured us plebian simpletons the Hildebeast would win…duh.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      The article made it clear that these new guns are NOT for POTG….. Apparently all POTG (who according to the media only make up 35% of the population) are against smart guns. The vast majority (58%) of the remaining 65% (non-gun owners), would spontaneously embrace firearm ownership and buy a smart gun for some reason….. this idiotic writer is basically saying that smart guns would bring the rate of U.S. firearms ownership up to 93%.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        But the NRA is suppressing this new technology, which is more expensive than, AND twice as popular as, conventional guns because they’re just trying to make money for gun manufacturers. Wait…

  16. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I read the full article this morning. It was bizarre. I am sure the author has absolutely no idea when it comes to firearms, and with this article, I must say, he may have no idea when it comes to business, either. He is mild compared to their other opinion pieces that masquerade as news articles. Sad how far the Times has deteriorated. I am suspicious of all things electronic. Reliability is questionable. Hacking is likely. And much as I like my iPhone, the fingerprint reader is far too slow to be used in a self-defense firearm situation. Ten years from now they may have an instantaneous fingerprint reader that actually works. But I won’t be trading in the manual piece even then.

    1. An uninformed piece like this passes muster at The Times because they don’t know what they don’t know. Almost no one there has ever touched a firearm.

      But Sorkin is smart! He’s read all the right books! He has all the right opinions! He went to an Ivy League school!

      How hard can it possibly be to solve a problem like this?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “But Sorkin is smart! He’s read all the right books! He has all the right opinions! He went to an Ivy League school! How hard can it possibly be to solve a problem like this?”

        That, Dan, is why I fervently hope they manage to pull that off.

        The attempt, anyways. The actual company will be a laughingstock and the subject of full chapters in business school textbooks.

        Please, PLEASE, Progressives, buy Remington! Show us how it’s done!

        Imagine the potential products! ‘Safety Ammunition’, lead-free and non-toxic, using only ‘sustainable’ ingredients in a ‘carbon neutral’ factory, ‘child-proof safety’ packaging…

        1. And when it inevitably fails, they won’t blame it on a lack of industry knowledge or an utter inability to gauge the market for the product they KNOW customers really want.

          Rather, they’ll blame it on the NRA, who somehow convinced America’s gun buyers to boycott their brilliant, ahead-of-its-time product that was destined to save thousands of lives.

        2. avatar DaveL says:

          Not just American gun buyers, Dan, but gun buyers in every market all over the world. One of those amazing, perfectly effective, totally invisible conspiracies that need to be pointed out by Right Thinking People, lest it look as if a cherished doctrine of said Right Thinking People were a load of nonsense.

          Actually, I’m rather struck by the parallels between the narrative blaming the NRA for near-zero smartgun sales and the narrative blaming US saboteurs for the failures of Venezuelan socialism.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “And when it inevitably fails, they won’t blame it on a lack of industry knowledge or an utter inability to gauge the market for the product they KNOW customers really want.”

          Here is the full quote of someone’s comment to the NYT article:

          “There is a big disconnect in the business plan proposed in this article. People who want smart guns are not the people who actually buy guns. The people who do buy guns don’t want a smart gun.”

          The comments, by the way, are running about 90 percent on our side…

          *snicker* 😉

        4. DaveL, I had exactly the same thought as I was typing that. It’s not the idea that’s at fault, it’s the wreckers and conspirators that thwarted the implementation.

          It’s not that socialism is failing in Venezuela, it just hasn’t been been properly put in practice yet. There. Or anywhere else. Ever.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        NY Times has ample demonstrated that they care not even competent to succeed it THEIR “business”. YEARS of peddling BS that their customers don’t want/need has left them a financial failure. But giving idiotic advise is what progs do best.

        1. avatar Secundius says:

          And yet Everyone want’s to have an effigy of themselves permanently placed on the Front Cover. With some “so much” that they’ll pay handsomely to make “Fake” copies for the privilege of it…

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Even though I work in IT I personally think not all change is for the better. I used to drive a late 1980s car. EFI engine with manual transmission. The accelerator linkage was a cable. You put the foot down and the car responded instantly. I’ve been driving a 2006 car with EFI engine and computer controlled automatic gearbox since 2008. The accelerator is controlled electronically and there is often a hesitation between action and response. And the engine computer and gearbox computer often get into arguements resulting in the gearbox suddenly selecting too low a gear and the engine RPM heading into the redline zone.

      And don’t get me started on Windows 7 vs Windows 10. I definitely prefer 7.

      1. avatar Kalvin in WI says:

        Our family minivan is the same way. You put your foot down to pass someone on the interstate, and it does nothing for like 10 seconds, while everyone behind you comes roaring up, and when it FINALLY gets going, it drops 2 gears and floors it. Damn Chrysler BS.

  17. avatar Musician says:

    Give the enemy everything it wants to stop the people from moving against tyranny.

    Uh, no thank you.

  18. avatar Darkman says:

    More propaganda from another wing of the Der Sturmer media group.

  19. avatar Iillinois_Minion says:

    And while the most advanced and responsible gun manufacturer in the country is busy with Smart gunz, they can also perfect microprinting on bullets; smart bullets that only work on bad guys or targets; and more silent propellant so as not to disturb his comatose lifestyle.

    And when they go broke trying, just throw some more federal bailout money at them!

  20. avatar Dan says:

    One thing the NYT author seemed to miss with his point about an $11B bank buying Remington to make finger-print unlockable guns…
    Apple is a $900B+ tech company and they seem to have problems with their fingerprint system being secure, and even more problems with keeping it from messing up with wet hands or situations which are less than ideal. They abandoned TouchID on their latest phones and went to facial recognition… and they’re a tech company working on a product that people baby and take care of.
    If TouchID can’t work on a phone that sits protected in a case in your pocket… how will it work on a gun that gets banged around, stuffed in your pants, and then experiences the forces of gunfire and slide recoil?

  21. avatar W says:

    Gee, and who said that socialists didn’t know how to make companies profitable? Well, besides all non-socialists.

  22. avatar rudukai13 says:

    Hey, it might be an unpopular opinion but I think a Remington handgun that works for the owner and nobody else sounds great! It’d be an improvement over their current handguns, which don’t work for anyone including the owner…

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Mic drop.

    2. avatar Kalvin in WI says:

      Oof. Gottem.

  23. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    He needs to go to a nice warm corner and play “hide and go fvck yourself” while sipping a nice warm cup of “Shut the fvck up”.

    May the old gray mare die soon.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      At least your suggestion might be enough of a distraction for these mentally ill leftists that they’ll stop fvcking or fantasizing about children at their NAMBLA meetings. Gives a whole new meaning to their #metoo movement.

  24. avatar Warlocc says:

    I hate that idiots like this make it hard to incorporate guns and technology.

  25. avatar Greg says:

    Maybe if Remington had made guns people wanted. ACR etc and kept cost down and high quality they might have stayed afloat. But no had to cater to Fudds and let QC slip. No sympathy from me.
    They need to pop smoke from NY as does Kimber.

  26. avatar DaveL says:

    Aaaaaaand the comments are closed. After 22 comments. Because they want to have a conversation.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Aaaaaaand the comments are closed. After 22 comments.”

      This is my surprised face…

  27. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Typical of the Leftist Progressive Utopian v the Capitalist: Spend a lot of time, effort, and perhaps someone else’s (government) money to build a complex, expensive product no one wants, let alone, needs, as opposed to one that is simple, relatively economical and in popular demand by a wide and diverse demographic.

    I remember back around 20 years ago when Smith and Wesson bowed to HUD under Andy Cuomo, I believe, for a short time. https://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/gunagree.html .
    It was hailed by the leftists as the Second Coming. Then, about 2 months later, I stood in a long line of people at the S&W booth at NRA Annual Meetings where thousands of members were letting Roy Jinks know they were dumping their S&W products for anyone else’s. I felt bad for him, he just sat there having to take it. A few months later S&W was bought again and rescinded their agreement. Smart, because they’d be a thing of the past by now if they’d have tried to operate under their “leading edge” policy. Remington will have to do likewise, one way or another. I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

  28. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    “Make no mistake: There is absolutely a market for a gun company focused on safety technology. A poll conducted by Johns Hopkins University researchers and published online by the American Journal of Public Health showed 59 percent of Americans were willing to buy a smart gun.”

    One problem with liars, after a while, they start to believe their own lies.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The other problem with liars (especially the F’ers at John’s Hopkins) is. . .

      THEY FUCKING GET PAID TO LIE, AND THOSE PAYMENTS ARE SUBSIDIZED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

      DEATH
      TO
      COMMUNISTS
      AND
      COMMUNISM

  29. avatar Joe R. says:

    The NYT should be high priced condos above a few sh_t bodegas in about two years.

  30. avatar Joe R. says:

    Is it legal to make your own gun(s)? Yes. Can you even sell a small amount of them without a license? Yes.

    Why? So that it’s never possible for the government to be able to take away all of your guns.

    Don’t let the assholes selling “safety” technology, take away all of your guns (or your right to make them).

    Find out where the fuckers live and kick in their door while they’re sleeping long before that happens.

  31. avatar davida says:

    My unicorn breading farm is a much more likely enterprize .. after all every one would actually like haveing a unicorn.

    1. avatar Kalvin in WI says:

      Does your farm involve glue, horses and ice cream cones?

  32. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    A reimagined Remington with a new management and mandate could develop smart-gun technology. It could back fingerprint technology meant to prevent anyone who is not the gun’s owner from shooting it, a measure that could greatly reduce suicides and the potential for guns to be stolen. It could add an identity stamp to ammunition fired from any of its guns. It could also establish and standardize responsible sales policies for retailers to sell its firearms.
    …..and Remington would then sell no guns.

  33. avatar Jross says:

    This should help them get started

    1) Make a gun that works

    1. avatar Kalvin in WI says:

      Oh, Remington makes guns that work, but sometimes they work all on their own.
      (R700 recall)

  34. avatar Richard Farrar says:

    How about a “GoFundMe” account managed by NRA members to subvert the Anti-Gun Ideology and lobbyist left?

    Back to a Basic Firearm for our 2d Am followers and believers in the Constitution!

  35. avatar Ams says:

    I have a few bucks, let’s get together and buy Remington. Make Remington great again, and Marlin because it’s just sad.

  36. avatar Matt Donovan says:

    Imagine an electronic “smart gun” Remington r51.

  37. avatar Alan says:

    Might I offer to the NYT, it’s Mr. Sorkin, and like minded others, the following course of action. Take your unsolicited suggestions and store them, carefully wrapped, where as referenced in parts of Pennsylvania, The Sun Doesn’t Shine.

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