The California gun store that put the nation’s first smart gun on sale is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.
Attacks in online forums and social networks against the Oak Tree Gun Club have prompted the store to back away from any association with the Armatix iP1 smart gun. The protests threaten the nascent smart-gun industry, which received a jolt of support recently when a group of Silicon Valley investors offered a $1 million prize for promising new technology.
The vitriol began almost immediately after The Washington Post reported last month that the Armatix iP1 smart gun was for sale at the pro shop. Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be bought with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun-control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.
“These people are anti-gunners,” someone said of Oak Tree on the store’s Facebook page, adding, “I will never step foot in this dump.” On Yelp, a user wrote, “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place.”
The protests are fueled by worry that being able to buy the iP1 will trigger a New Jersey law mandating that all handguns in the state be personalized within three years of a smart gun going on sale anywhere in the United States. Similar mandates have been introduced in California and in both chambers of Congress.
Collaborate with the enemy and see where it gets you. Oak Tree Gun Club does not deserve any gun owners' business after this treachery.
ReplyDeleteExactly. See the example of what happened to Smith & Wesson.
DeleteWell, that's something. Add this to the recent gains for legal carry in California, and we may be seeing the beginning of victory in that state.
ReplyDeleteThe Armatix is a promising prototype and has the potential for the development of a new technology for firearm safety. However, as is often the case, America's political landscape has possibly doomed its acceptance in this country.
ReplyDeleteA .22LR pistol cant really be realistically be considered a defensive firearm, however, if it had been successfully marketed, it would have enabled the manufacturer to work out the bugs in the design to the point where it would have been potentially credible as a defensive firearm if made in a decent size. (remember, never engage in a gunfight with a caliber that doesn't begin with the number 4)
But, the gun control lobby's accomplishment of getting New Jersey to mandate sales of the technology before its reliable enough for defensive purposes has likely doomed, or at least greatly delayed its acceptance.
For example, lets look at electronic sights on rifles. Someone thought an electronic sight might be useful for military use. It was developed and came into widespread use in the military. Now they are flying off the shelves in the civilian market because if the military trusts it, it must be a good thing.
Now, imagine if smartgun technology had taken the same route in say, law enforcement. If it had taken a similar track there, there would have been no need for such laws. The market would have done its work and it could have quickly become a viable technology.
However, the inclusion of an exemption to the law for law enforcement and the military shows both that the technology isn't yet reliable enough to bet your life on, and that the government of New Jersey believes that its citizens don't deserve the same level of reliable protection as its government employees.
Congratulations are in order for the coordinated effort at setting back this technology and possibly relegating it to history like Betamax.
It's a sad unintended consequence of the gun control laws. If we didn't have those laws, many of us would be happy to see people working on this technology, but as you pointed out, with the laws that are in place, one company working on this on a .22LR runs the risk of disrupting the market and forcing this technology, and perhaps this company's gun, on people before they're convinced that it's reliable enough, or before it can work on larger calibers.
DeleteCourse, as Glenn Reynolds would say, that's not a bug--that's a feature.
ss, why are congratulations in order. It sounded like the tone of your comment was that such technology is good and should be properly developed.
DeleteAgain with the inability to follow what people say.
DeleteBreaking it down, the law has created a system whereby people's choices in firearms may be limited to ones utilizing a buggy, unreliable system. For this reason, people are banding together to kill the tech before it can trigger this undesirable situation, and Ssg was applauding this effort, in spite of the fact that it means stifling the development of technology.
Had it not been for this law, the tech could have been developed without such reactions, had the bugs worked out, and then been marketed--perhaps even in such a way as to become a dominant design. However, by demanding that we adopt the tech before we're comfortable with it, your side has guaranteed resistance.
Very nicely stated, Simon. Even Mikeb might be able to comprehend that.
DeleteNo matter how reliable they manage to make this tech (not very, so far--you can count on the Armatix failing at least once per 10-round magazine), I'll have nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteAny gun that has to receive electronic "permission" to fire can be blocked from firing using a jammer. One company working on this technology even advertises that as a good thing, because jammers could be set up at schools.
As soon as this crap becomes mandatory, expect every police (and FBI, DEA, ATF, etc.) raid team to bring the jammers along on every raid. If there's civil unrest, expect large scale jammers to shut down guns over blocks, or even whole cities.
It gives the government an "OFF" button for the Second Amendment.
Oh, hell no.
Since there are millions upon millions of guns that don't use this technology currently in circulation, and since more of those will be made in places that don't require such foolishness, I doubt jammers would be effective. Of course, that won't stop the government from spending money for new toys.
DeleteAgreed on all counts, but, of course, the jammers will be effective against any dumbasses who do rely on this ridiculous gadgetry to defend their lives.
DeleteYeah, let's talk about the day when EVERYONE is constrained to have these gun/watch thingies and the evil government has secret jammers to defeat the unsuspecting citizens.
DeleteI don't know if that's paranoia or delusion or maybe just too much bad science fiction. But leave it to Kurt to put it out there, and in all seriousness.
Yeah, let's talk about the day when EVERYONE is constrained to have these gun/watch thingies and the evil government has secret jammers to defeat the unsuspecting citizens.
DeleteNot "EVERYONE"--just private citizens, as is the case in New Jersey's law. That, by the way, despite the fact that in the beginning, a big selling point was supposedly that it would protect cops from being shot with their own firearms by suspects who manage to grab the gun out of the officer's holster.
Are you not aware that there are federal bills, both in the House and in the Senate, that would require all handguns be "smart" (although both bills are doomed until someone amends them with the cop exemption--cops will never
go for that). The Senate version even requires that already purchased handguns be retrofitted with the tech (good luck with that, just from a technical standpoint)--and the manufacturer would have to do it for free.
And there already is a "smart gun" system that proudly advertises the government's ability to jam it:
The second part of the system is the ability to create safe zones [Ha!] in certain areas such as schools where smart guns coming into the area will be disabled remotely..
We may be debating the wrong subject. At this point, it's worth considering whether legislators ought to be required to demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of the subjects about which they pass laws.
DeleteWe might not get any laws written for a while, but that is a feature, not a bug.
Of course, I suspect that many gun control freaks actually do know what they're talking about and deliberately write laws badly in an effort to ban more guns and create more burdens for good citizens.
That may be correct, Greg, but in my experience, ignorance seems to be the primary driving force. I had lunch at a conference a few years back where I was seated at a table with 2 new Brady Campaign staffers who were working on the roll out of some new proposals by Rep. McCarthy. We actually had a pleasant conversation, and provided they listened and looked things up later to check on what I told them, they may have learned a few things about how guns work. (Or they may have discounted the source and remained ignorant, now wilfully.)
DeleteI encountered similar ignorance from a Feinstein staffer last year when I was talking with him about the AWB they were drafting. He was apparently a hunter, but he didn't even know what kind of rifle he used other than it was a semi-automatic, but not an Assault Weapon. He also didn't know what various guns were and was searching for them online and telling me if they would be banned based on looking at pictures of them and asking me how many shots they could hold. This was the staffer I was connected to because he was in charge of helping draft the bill.
These type of ignorant young people do research, write memos, and do the initial grunt work on most projects including legal drafting. It's possible they're being given specific instructions intended to create bad, illogical laws and rules, but I think this is more a result of collective ignorance that is willfully maintained.
You're right, Simon. The default assumption is ignorance and stupidity before active evil.
DeleteSimon, do you have any idea how arrogant you sound. The picture you draw is that everyone is an idiot except you, or everyone who disagrees with you at least. Do you really think all the gun control people involved in the debate are ignorant about that which they speak?
DeleteDo you really think all the gun control people involved in the debate are ignorant about that which they speak?
DeleteI don't presume to speak for Simon, of course, but that statement certainly tracks quite closely with my own observations.
Mike, I don't claim to know about all of the people involved. I'm sure some know quite a bit. There are the cases like the old VPC publication that admits that their "assault weapon" category is poorly defined but says that they should push it because they can scare people into supporting the proposed ban--that's the deliberate writing of bad laws Greg mentioned.
DeleteHere I was trying to be generous and suggest your side has some people who are merely ignorant rather than deliberately supporting poor policy, but apparently that's arrogant of me.
Also, if you take a step back from all of your offense, you'll note that I never called these people idiots. I said that they were ignorant on the topic--which they were. I also spoke about the cordial conversation I had with the Brady staffers. One wasn't very interested and had a sour face when she looked at me, so I left her to her conversation with others at the table while the other staffer and I had a nice conversation over lunch discussing policy and some of her misconceptions of how semi-autos functioned and how powerful they were.
She didn't get all offended, and we even exchanged contact info afterward--pleasant all around. Nothing like your reaction to me here.
On that note, I have a question: why are you so upset at your notion that many gun control advocates are ignorant of what they speak? Just last week you were admitting ignorance and declaring that you still could have your opinion. In past discussions you have opined on the need for "sniper rifle" bans while admitting that you don't know enough to say what differentiates between a "sniper rifle" and a "deer rifle" and refusing to look into it. You seem to be a champion of ignorance on the part of gun controllers.
You seem to be a champion of ignorance on the part of gun controllers.
DeleteHmm . . . "champion of ignorance." I like it. There could never be a better deserved title for Mikeb--and I don't see anyone successfully challenging him for the championship belt.
"Just last week you were admitting ignorance and declaring that you still could have your opinion. "
DeleteI've just about had it with you too, Simon. As you fucking well know, I admitted some ignorance about black-powder weapons. That's a little different from what your spin job implies, that I was "admitting ignorance."
And this is an outright lie: "while admitting that you don't know enough to say what differentiates between a "sniper rifle" and a "deer rifle" and refusing to look into it."
I'm afraid you've merited the wrath of the comment moderator like your friend Kurt. I won't publish any more comments that contain hidden or overt insults to me. Keep it clean and you'll see 'em. That's it. Oh, I also won't publish any remarks about the comment moderation policy, you know how I misuse it to win all the arguments and all that nonsense.
When we see gun control advocates making statements that are plainly wrong, we're left with two conclusions: They don't know what they're talking about, or they're deliberately confusing things to expand the reach of the laws they propose. How else are we to explain things like the shoulder thing that goes up or the notion that magazines can only be used once?
DeleteSpin job, huh? Yes, your admitted ignorance at that time was on the topic of black powder weapons, but your ignorance was affecting other issues--your comment that drew criticism was when you asked if a black powder gun could be left loaded as was claimed to have happened in the case. It seemed like you were questioning the story and implying that something else was going on and being covered up with the story of the accidental shooting.
DeleteThat was why I considered it a bigger issue than mere ignorance on how a type of gun worked--you seemed to be drawing bad conclusions based on your ignorance--and on an issue that a quick Google search could have left you enlightened on.
As for the next claim that my comment about sniper rifles was an outright lie, must I delve into the deep archives to find that conversation?
DeleteVery well, I found one of the discussions--it can be found here.
The discussion started with you taking a position that the excessive range of the .50 cal was why it needed to be banned. Various commenters pointed out that other rounds had similar effective ranges and asked where the line should be drawn.
You eventually claimed that all "long range sniper rounds" should be banned, ignored people's attempts to help educate you about the rounds--attempts being made to try and help foster the discussion--and eventually told everyone that you didn't have know where to draw the line.
I think bits of that conversation were repeated other times, but that was the clearest example I could remember and find.
I'm not trying to insult you or lie about you. I was just listing occasions where you have pleaded ignorance and stopped discussing laws. Maybe you know more than you're letting on and just didn't want to get into the details at that time, but when you say you don't have enough knowledge to know where to draw a line and you refuse others' attempts to impart that knowledge, how are we to take it other than as you pushing laws based on less than completely thought out ideas?
"I'm not trying to insult you or lie about you. "
DeleteThat's exactly what you do. And you do it when I put you in a corner with your twisting and lying. The link you provided to did not contain my admitting that I "don't know enough to say what differentiates between a "sniper rifle" and a "deer rifle"" and that I refuse to look into it.
You and Greg are birds of a feather. You twist and lie and never ever back down. Play it straight, man, especially since you seem to think you have right on your side.
. . . since you seem to think you have right on your side.
DeleteHe does, consistently. You ought to try it some time.
Take your own advice, Mike. Yes, you did not admit those exact words, but if you read through the comment thread you identified the long range of the .50 BMG round as sufficient reason to ban it. Multiple people asked you where and how you would draw the line by pointing out that various other cartridges including some used fore hunting have similar ranges. You refused to engage on the topic claiming insufficient knowledge on the topic.
DeleteI'm playing it straight, giving links that you can look at and try to argue against, but you're just refusing to give a straight answer, merely discounting the evidence and resorting to ad hominems.
Obviously you're not playing it straight. You even admitted "you did not admit those exact words." Well, why did you use those exact words than? Was it not to make me sound stupid or ignorant? Was it not to exaggerate just a tiny bit how ill-informed I really am? That's not playing it straight, my friend and when you do that shit I'll be calling you one it.
DeleteIt was a summary. You admitted ignorance and refused to delineate the difference between the rounds fired by "sniper rifles" and "deer rifles;" It's simpler to say that than to list the rounds and rehash the entire conversation that is there for anyone to see.
DeleteThere was no intent of making you sound stupid or ignorant, just of summarizing the previous conversation for the sake of referential brevity and simplicity.
If there is such a difference between admitting ignorance on the topic of what differentiates a sniper rifle from a deer rifle and what differentiates a caliber used in hunting deer and a caliber that is impermissibly long range, please point it out, because I'm not seeing it, but I'd be glad to learn of it so that we can get to discussing the actual topic.
By the way, one very interesting aspect of this is that David Codrea has noticed that although the Armatix seems to have been introduced to the California market after the time by which all new handguns to be approved for the California roster have to also be equipped with the "microstamping" abomination, the Armatix appears not to include that "feature."
ReplyDeleteThat would indicate that the California government is breaking its own laws to bring guns to the market that can be rendered useless electronically.
The more I think about this, the bigger it gets. The first attempt to market a "smart gun" in this country was an unmitigated disaster--one that might destroy the business of the store whose management was stupid/unprincipled enough to collaborate on this abomination--in California no less. If there's one state where that sort of thing might fly, California would seem to be that state.
ReplyDeleteDo you think any gun shop in the nation is going to make that mistake, after seeing what happened? Do you think any gun maker who depends on sales to American private citizens will?
Even the most rabidly anti-gun government would be hard-pressed to justify requiring that guns be equipped with technology that no one is selling--which could arguably be seen as violating D.C. v. Heller.
Yep--mandated "smart guns" may already be dead in the U.S.
Hell, this is probably an even bigger win for gun rights than the Bloomberg Moms' (BMs) ignominious, abject failure to bully Facebook into giving them anything more than a weak-assed consolation prize, instead of their objective of a total gun sale ban.
You're so unoriginal it's embarrassing. One of the traditional NRA tricks is to take a questionable or actually false point and repeat it so often that it SEEMS to take on some semblance of credibility. That's what you're doing by repeatedly calling the Facebook thing a win for gun-rights.
DeleteAbout the smart guns, I admit it's quite premature to call for any mandatory application of the technology, but to call any attempt at technological innovation and advancement an abomination is really silly. With that stunted thinking we'd still be sending faxes as the cutting edge of communications capabilities.
More projection. The Brady Campaign acknowledged that this was not a win and would not have the sought after effect. However, you, Mom's demand, etc. keep repeating that it's a major victory on the grounds of symbolism. You've repeated it enough that you seem to believe it in spite of your allies at Brady telling you otherwise.
DeleteAside from that, your second paragraph is intriguing--you're actually admitting that this technology isn't ready for prime time? So would we be correct in guessing that you would agree with us that the California law is a bad law if it would have required this technology be used before the tech was ready? And would you agree with our contention that California's poor law has backfired and stifled the development of the technology?
I admit, Mikeb, that I only characterized the Facebook War as a major victory for the gun rights side because I so enjoy your hoof-stomping outraged indignation--and boy you don't disappoint.
DeleteBut seriously, it's not really a major win for gun rights, because we were fighting a strictly defensive battle. The anti-gun fanatics were the ones demanding change--we just wanted the status quo maintained.
The fact remains, though, that Facebook's "new" policy (the one, remember, that you have trouble distinguishing from the "old" policy) is far closer to the status quo than it is to what the Bloomberg Moms (BMs) demanded--(a total ban of private gun sales on Facebook and Instagram).
You never answered my question about what kind of percentage drop in gun sales on Facebook and Instagram without a background check you estimate will ensue from the policy "change."
C'mon--you love to toss numbers around without any basis in, well, anything, and this time, you're invited to do so. So waddya' think? Two percent, maybe?
Despite you're lying misrepresentation of what I do with "tossing numbers around," I can't answer your question because I have no idea what the answer might be.
DeleteThe numbers I do "toss around" are based on logical assumptions of reality, the Famous 50%, for example. Of course you guys, who have no relationship with the truth continually deny that. But in the conservative estimate I made of lawful gun owners who are really unfit to own guns I provided links to bona fide sources of each of the disqualifying categories.
Keep lying though, Kurt, by all means.
No "lying" on my part. I'll tell you what, though--get any peer reviewed journal, even a transparently agenda-driven biased one, like the Johns Hopkins School of Bloombergian Forcible Citizen Disarmament Propaganda, and I'll say not another word about you needing to wipe your ass every time you pull out a new number.
DeleteSimon, what I got from the Brady statement was that the Facebook policy change did not go far enough. I agree with that but it's still a win for us. They DID NOT tell the gun control folks to fuck off and leave their gun-rights customers alone, did they? It's just like the Starbucks thing. It didn't go as far as we'd like, but it acknowledged the gun control concerns at the cost of you fanatics.
DeletePoint of correction, California does not have a "smart gun" law (for now). They do have a microstamping law, which as Kurt pointed out, this gun was allowed to not comply with.
DeleteMikeb, you have never shown that your infamous fifty percent is based on anything but guesses.
DeleteTS,
DeleteThanks! It had been a few days since I read the post--I forgot that the law was in Jersey and had only been proposed in Cali, but not adopted.
Mike,
I get the symbolic nature of the victory. I just don't see much difference in your claims that the symbolic victory is a major victory and a gun rights person claiming a major victory on the grounds of symbolism when pro gun control democrats say they respect the second amendment rights of their constituents but continue supporting the same restrictions they supported pre-Heller.
But I'm tired of the back and forth on this--What I'd like you to address was the second paragraph of my comment above--with the correction that the law in question is a New Jersey one as TS pointed out.
"I admit it's quite premature to call for any mandatory application of the technology"
DeleteThere lies the challenge Mike. Once this single firearm is available for sale, the clock starts ticking and in three years, we'll get a stand-off similar to the micro stamping requirement in California. The difference being that instead of just being something that will in the long run be ineffective, this technology will actually make the firearms less effective for defensive purposes in light of its reliability issues that even you concede to.
Also lets not forget that with this technology, there are two potential modes of failure. All of the debate has been centered on it failing to fire when its supposed to. No one seems very concerned about the potential for it to fire when its not supposed to. Not too long ago, you posted a story about someone shooting himself while he was demonstrating that his gun was unloaded.
There is a very real danger of this technology making people complacent about firearm safety by counting on this unproven technology. First you'll get those practicing evolution in action by demonstrating that the gun wont go off and killing themselves. Then you'll get the not quite that dumb crowd leaving the gun out where children can access it in the belief that the technology will keep the children safe. Both situations guarantee a bad outcome.
And what's with you calling Starbucks a "victory" (though it didn't go far enough)? You recently told us you don't oppose carry any more than you do gun ownership. So what does that mean? You don't oppose carry so long as we don't...you know, go places? Or is this a "coffee and guns don't mix" kind of deal?
DeleteTS, quit looking so hard for gotchas. It's a drag, especially because you know as well as anyone around here what I think and what I stand for. Pretending that you're confused about that and presenting apparently contradicting things I've said is a waste of our time and a drag.
DeleteSimon, what I got from the Brady statement was that the Facebook policy change did not go far enough. I agree with that but it's still a win for us.
DeleteI'm still not getting what it is you think you've "won." Do you think it will have any significant effect on private gun sales (a very dubious prospect, I would argue), or do you see it as merely an indicator that society wants guns regulated (a connection I find slightly more plausible)?
Because if that's all it is, how can that be so exciting for you? I mean, after all, you accuse gun owners of being "hidden criminals," for violating the spirit of gun laws (with innovations like bump-fire stocks, "bullet button" magazine releases, etc.). If you think we're willing to thwart the intentions of lawmakers, how worried do you think we are about the sentiments of the management of Starbucks, Facebook, etc., when the practical effect of those sentiments is so small?
I know you consider me an antagonist, but that's not my intent with this comment. I am genuinely trying to understand where you're coming from, because it genuinely baffles me.
Guess you're not going to get around to answering the question?
DeleteKurt, the question was not what was won or will it have "any significant effect." The question was simply was it a win for our side or yours. Your extensive efforts to downplay the victory and your pretending to be baffled by my calling it that is evidence that you really know that's just what it is. Keep playing games. Keep pretending I've not already answered all these tedious questions. Remember the "symbol" discussions? Remember the definition of "win" that I offered as being anything other than a Facebook statement to the gun-control folks to fuck off and stop bothering their gun-rights customers? Sure you do.
DeleteYou guys lost this one. Let's move on, shall we?
Have it your way, and by all means, please continue to achieve such "victories" (snicker).
DeleteMike, I keep giving you an opportunity to back up your statement that you “don’t oppose carry any more than you do ownership”, but I just can’t seem to get anything out of you. Is it that you completely oppose both? In your heart you believe that’s not true, but then when it comes down to any specific instance, you come down on the side of prohibition. If you don’t oppose carry, why can’t people stop for coffee while carrying? This isn’t even a “Oh my God, alcohol is in the building!” situation. It's like that with ownership too. You keep talking about the 50%, but then we see it’s really 100% when it comes to pistol grips on a rifle, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, or .50BMG single shot bolt action rifles that have NEVER been used to kill someone in this country. It seems you have a basic distrust of everyone. So back to carry, I ask; when and where is it appropriate for one of your good 50%ers to carry?
Delete"I keep giving you an opportunity to back up your statement that you “don’t oppose carry any more than you do ownership”, but I just can’t seem to get anything out of you."
DeleteSorry, TS, but that sounds like a good bit of bullshit. You know better than most how I feel, but just to clarify a bit, I'll say this. I feel that about half of you lawful gun owners are really unfit and need to be disqualified. You've heard that before, right? Based on that, half of you who are legally carrying in places like the movies or the shopping center are dangerous people who are endangering the safety of the rest of us. With me so far? Here's the bottom line: as long as gun ownership and concealed carry is as easy to qualify for as it is now I believe guns do more harm than good and I oppose their proliferation. I don't oppose gun ownership any more than I oppose concealed carry AS LONG AS the people doing it are qualified. That's not the case now.
Your segue into pistol grips and magazine size is a bit clumsy. The 50% that I talk about is about people not things or characteristics of guns.
Now, about the good 50%, since they are impossible to distinguish from the bad 50% we need to have as many restrictions as possible to minimize the danger.
Now, about the good 50%, since they are impossible to distinguish from the bad 50% we need to have as many restrictions as possible to minimize the danger.
DeleteHahahahaha! Good luck with that, chump.
They're impossible to distinguish from the bad 50%?
DeleteBut I thought you were always claiming that your wishlist would be able to ferret out the difference. You used to say you'd be happy with your list, but now it seems clear that you want it, and an unknown number of "danger minimizing" laws telling people what guns they can and can't buy on top of your wishlist of "proper gun control."
So you oppose all carry until we have proper gun control? Then we'd see you push for a shall-issue type of system because we know those who own guns already passed all your tests. Is that about right?
DeleteWhat about Starbucks carry in May-issue states like California? I get that you want Starbucks to ban carry in states like Florida where you say their permitting process is too easy, but what about states that already have "proper gun control" in the way they issue permits?
I keep bringing up pistol grips because you say the good 50% have nothing to worry about, but that's not true. You'll throw them in prison and ruin their life over the shape of a handle. There are many restrictions you want on everybody.
DeleteKurt, the question was not what was won or will it have "any significant effect."
DeleteUm, actually, Mikeb, my question was precisely that, because I tend to concern myself far more with real world practical effects than with subjective "symbols."
But anyway, I accept your refusal to talk about that as a tacit admission that the real world practical effects will be very close to nil, and that you're simply enjoying the massive relief of not facing the humiliation of Facebook not even taking you seriously enough to pay transparent lip service to your concerns.
Just think, though, how much happier you would be if you could be as sanguine about the ineffectualness of gun laws that don't have as much power as you think they should, as you are about the toothless rules put in place by Facebook, and the meek request from Starbucks.
TS, You're getting to be a real drag, man. This is melodramatic, tedious and deceitful.
Delete"You'll throw them in prison and ruin their life over the shape of a handle."
Kurt, neither the "meek request" from Starbucks nor the "ineffectual" policy change on Facebook were in support of gun rights. No matter how you twist it or how often you repeat it you just cannot change that fact. And it must really burn your ass given the effort you're putting in to spin it otherwise.
DeleteKurt, neither the "meek request" from Starbucks nor the "ineffectual" policy change on Facebook were in support of gun rights.
DeleteI don't claim that they are. I just guffaw uproariously that you're side is so pathetically desperate as to paint them as major victories for your side. To hear you and the Bloomberg Moms (BMs), the Starbucks decision to enact a policy of not requiring armed patrons to leave was the new VE-Day, and Facebook's decision to continue allowing private gun sales was VJ-Day.
I love it.
What's deceitful about it? That's exactly what the law does where there is felony possession of an "assault weapon". You even said you're not a big fan of these bans, but support these felony provisions anyway- even for the good 50%. It is quite disconcerting that you’re not a true believer in the scourge of handles, adjustable stocks for different arm lengths, heat protective shielding, and solid pieces of metal at the end of the barrel, like your cohorts- but STILL support felony possession of guns with these items. Would you support bans on guns with serial numbers ending in an even number too- just for the hell of it?
DeleteOops--"your side," not "you're side." Insufficiently caffeinated--sorry.
DeleteYou're so unoriginal it's embarrassing. One of the traditional NRA tricks is to take a questionable or actually false point and repeat it so often that it SEEMS to take on some semblance of credibility. That's what you're doing by repeatedly calling the Facebook thing a win for gun-rights.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm imitating the NRA by agreeing with the Brady Campaign? Man--that's pretty tricky of me.
The technology is an abomination because every advance it makes brings us that much closer to it being mandated. Anyone involved in that needs to be stopped, by whatever means necessary.
"By whatever means necessary." Aren't you the threatening, inciting, wheel-chair bound, keyboard warrior.
Delete"By whatever means necessary." Aren't you the threatening, inciting, wheel-chair bound, keyboard warrior.
DeleteIf you say so, although if I were trying to either threaten or incite, one would hope I would manage to come up with something vastly less tame than that.
Thanks, though, for heading off the danger of me forgetting my health status, which has, of course, precisely zero to do with my Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right to keep and bear arms.
But, we weren't talking about your right to bear arms, we were talking about your making threats and inciting others to do the violence that you would never do yourself. It's like what your hero did with the smashing windows incident, remember? Your being disabled has a lot to do with why you make threats from the safety of your keyboard.
DeleteWhat "threats" have I made? What "violence" have I incited others to do?
DeleteYou. Fail.