Bloomberg blames NRA, hysteria on lack of "smart" guns

Posted by  $  blarman 4 months, 1 week ago to Business
29 comments | Share | Flag

There are pieces to the article which are accurate, including the New Jersey law's crippling behavior and the failure rates of various technologies, but the overall tone ignores the fundamental issue: is self defense a right the government "shall not infringe" upon?
SOURCE URL: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-15/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-because-of-new-jersey-and-the-nra?cmpid=BBD041619_BIZ


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by term2 4 months, 1 week ago
    The second amendment was installed to protect US from our own government. Thats why our own government wants guns eliminated.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
      Socialists do, absolutely. It has been the first move of every tyrannical despot from Hitler to Stalin to Mao. All of them first disarmed the populace before enslaving them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 4 months, 1 week ago
        Since they are not getting very far with actually removing guns, they have settled into political correctness to get the citizens to never complain about their government and stay into control.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 months, 1 week ago
    A "smart" gun would signal its owner in the same way that Frodo's sword glowed blue when near orcs. Now that I think of it, orcs may be a higher life form than most libs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
      Orcs were at least true to form: they were evil and they admitted it. Progressives are more like Saruman - they are willing to go along with evil, convinced that they are really doing it for the "right" motivations.

      Geez. I almost put right reasons in there and there is nothing having even remotely to do with reason coming from Progressives.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 4 months, 1 week ago
    I have to ask. What is a 'military style' gun? Georgie Patton carried a .45 cal. Is that 'military style?' He shot it a few times. I have a .22 rifle that looks like an AR 15 and has a 15 bullet capacity cartridge thingy! But it is a Rueger and definitely listed as a .22!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Arthgallo 4 months, 1 week ago
    yup. Just what I want, a USB compatible handgun that requires my apple watch to be on my wrist (LOL). So would it run only on solar batteries as the power source? Would we call it the Glock model "absurd"?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 months, 1 week ago
    This is a technology that would benefit only the state. The real reason that it isn't interesting to gun companies is the customers are smart enough to know that as soon as such technology exists, the government will make any gun without the technology illegal. That would effectively eliminate the real purpose of the 2nd amendment: to give the people unrestricted, "uninfringed" ownership and access to weapons that can be used to stop dictatorial government from stealing all the other rights of the people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 4 months, 1 week ago
      I can't help but think they would also insist on a stealth "back door" which would make it possible for the government to disable the gun - and thus all such guns - at their whim.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
        And that's one of the things many people bring up: this is a "positive action" restraint, meaning that it requires you to meet conditions in order for it to function. Anything which may interfere then introduces a false negative into the system.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 4 months, 1 week ago
    For those who do not understand the meaning of “Rights”, we need to make it clear once and for all:

    The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on the government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms, Period. The “Right” of the people to keep and bear arms, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

    This also applies to the other “RIGHTS”. They are not granted, they stipulate inherent “Rights” that the government may not prohibit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 4 months, 1 week ago
    Self defense is a right the government, any government must not, repeat, must not infringe upon. Once a citizen looses the right to defend themselves they have lost everything because everything can and will be taken away from them either by the biggest bully on the blocvk or the government itself.
    AS far as smart gun technology goes parts of the technology have been proven to work "most of the time". Note not all of the time. If it doesn't work all of the time and the failure more is no "service" then it is useless even dangerous.
    If the smart technology is electronic (and it all is) sooner or later a jammer that prevents it proer working will be developed rendering all weapons (projectile, laser or other, useless. You might as well go back to knives, clubs and swords. they can't be jammed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnWesley 4 months, 1 week ago
      I almost vomit every time I hear/read, "must not infringe upon." The only infringement left is total confiscation. Smart guns would work as well as smart cars (killing people), and smart airplanes (also killing people). Be aware of consequences.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 4 months ago
    The question is how is technology going to retrofit the older type of firearms such as the Raven, Jennings, etc ( I'm a collector of them) or the new mini pocket semi-autos, many of the firearm manufacturers are marketing. It's sad that lawmakers are totally are clueless about how firearms operate. It's not the same as the electronics inside a cellphone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months ago
      One of the things that the article points out is the presence on the books of already passed legislation just waiting for "smart" guns to actually be produced which will trigger a mandatory buyback of older firearms to be replaced with these new ones, such as in New Jersey. California has also (unsurprisingly) toyed with smart gun legislation and mandates.

      The problem with all of these is that they are all infringements on the right of the People to keep and bear arms - especially in a situation with an overbearing government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 4 months, 1 week ago
    They keep using the phrase 'gun safety' because they think we are too stupid to realize they are really talking about gun control. Why can't these loonies concentrate on real business? Crazy Bernie can't even get his 'insurance for all' business straight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 4 months, 1 week ago
    And what if somebody attacks you, and you get his gun, and need to shoot him but can't, because his gun won't work for you?
    And what if the government gets somebody to invent guns that just won't go off without prior government authorization?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 4 months, 1 week ago
    I would trust my "smart-gun" just as much as I trust my "smart-phone".

    Last week, I spent an hour waiting to meet with a co-worker, after driving 3 1/2 hours. We finally connected, via two-way radio, and he informed me he had moved our meeting location.

    When I arrived at the new location, I discovered that my phone had "burped" and never received the 4 texts or 1 voicemail my co-worker had sent, informing me of the move.

    Just wait till you have to "re-boot" your smart-gun, during an intense gun battle...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bbramant 4 months, 1 week ago
    Y’all are ignoring the very root of the problem.

    Symptom:
    The second amendment, yes protects our right to bear arms from government impediment, and it is geared towards potentially overthrowing that same government, so why should they (the ones we will have to overthrow) be given power to restrict our right to do so?

    The real problem:
    Why are there actions (taxation, selective service, etc) that are acceptable for a group of people to vote to do, but are unacceptable for private citizens (robbery, slavery, etc). Why do we say “well if a majority of people say so, I guess that it’s ok”?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
      Because the people who are collecting benefits from the government are also allowed to vote.

      “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

      It used to be that one had to have property in order to vote. This was because these were the people who were actually taxed at the time, there being no income tax. I am all in favor of the reciprocal of "no taxation without representation", that being "no representation without taxation"!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 months, 1 week ago
    The last step for taking a free We The People out of supposedly running our government is for that armed government to take our firearms.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  4 months, 1 week ago
    One thing I just thought of: Progressives have a heart attack when we suggest Blood Alcohol Content meters on their cars. Why is this any different?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by GaryL 4 months, 1 week ago
      You just beat me to it. More people get killed by drunk drivers than by guns if you leave out suicide stats. Drunk and drugged driving should be addressed and they can stick taking our guns where the sun never shines. The progressives plan is one brick at a time where our Rights to keep and bear arms are concerned and we the people should be up in arms about all these BS rules and restrictions. There was a time years ago when I was collecting Winchesters and owned over 35 of them plus my other guns and hand guns and there was not a gun I owned that ever harmed another person while in my possession. Here in NY the simple fact that you might own a gun makes you suspect of criminality. A Magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds can cause you major legal troubles.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo