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The more smart guns that take the place of old, unsafe and outdated firearms the better.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.