And while we are on the topic of "getting away with murder" laws and gun fanatics who want to test the limits of those laws: let's look at the case of Andy Raymond, owner of Engage Armaments, who wanted to sell the Armatix iP1 handgun, but ended up backing down due to threats made against him, his girlfriend, and even his dog.
Dude, I can relate they make their threats against us as well.
Although, I have to admit that actual threats of physical violence from the "pro-gun" crowd don't reflect well on them. And it would really hurt the "gun rights" cause if they decide to "Second Amendment" on of their perceived enemies.
And in the case of Andy Raymond, he is indeed a perceived enemy since this is a person who sells custom assault rifles. In fact, his reason for selling the iP1 was that he thought people should have that option. In fact, he thought more people might warm up to gun ownership if the possibility of accidental injury were reduced.
Of course, that's not how the "pro-gun" side sees this whole thing. Anything which might infringe the right of a disqualified person from access to a firearm is something which should be viewed with suspicion: even if it comes from someone who is so obviously "pro-gun" that you would need to be a total gun loon to not see it.
In fact, Andy may just have learned the difference between a gun loon and a responsible gun owner.
The problem with this topic is that some people are too swayed by their emotions (gun loons) that they cannot tell the difference between reality and their fears.
And, boy are they one crowd who is scared shitless.
And they have guns.
Laci is again on his strawman hunt. I realize that he finds it taxing intellectually, but every once in a while he ought to come here and discuss the positions that we actually take on the subject of gun rights.
ReplyDeleteIt now sounds like some change might be in the works,
ReplyDelete"On Friday, New Jersey's state Senate majority leader offered a compromise that might allay fears that smart-gun technology will become a backdoor form of gun control.
Democratic state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the landmark 2002 law, said she would ask the legislature to drop the mandate if the National Rifle Association, a fierce critic of smart-gun technology, pledged not to stand in the way of the weapons' development and sale. "'I'm willing to do this because, eventually, these are the kinds of guns people will want to buy," she said.
In response to questions about Ms. Weinberg's proposal, the NRA issued a terse statement from Chris Cox, executive director NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "The NRA is interested in a full repeal of New Jersey's misguided law," he said.
Johns Hopkins University public health expert Stephen Teret, a smart-gun proponent who helped with the New Jersey law, said "bullying" gun store owners was "reprehensible." But he said it might be better for New Jersey to get rid of the mandate and let market forces dictate the future of smart guns.
"At the time, the New Jersey law made a great deal of sense," he said. "But a number of things have changed. Most importantly, the technology has improved. And, No. 2, there's a market demand for these kinds of guns. Given those changes, if New Jersey wants to rely on market forces instead of legislation, that's certainly a reasonable approach."
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2014/05/03/Smart-gun-s-future-now-uncertain/stories/201405030107
I do see some parallels between this and tactics used by labor unions. Both seem to involve the use of intimidation through threats of violence. However in this case, its been confined to mere threats. Labor unions have actually followed through on their threats.
I personally think that the use of threats of violence to be reprehensible. The threat of not doing business however is quite acceptable. In fact, this was the very threat used by the MOMs with Starbucks.
I am glad that a solution is being worked on that will allow the continued development of this promising technology. Lets also not forget that not all gun control advocates weren't on board with this item.
"Many of the issues addressed by a smart gun can be addressed by a trigger lock," says Josh Sugarman, founder of the Violence Policy Center, which lobbies strongly for tighter gun control. "I think we have to be honest about what percent of gun violence this might affect—most homicides are committed with a person's own gun."
"Sugarman says the peace-of-mind offered by "safer guns" might be enough for some people who wouldn't normally own a gun to buy one.
"The industry is always looking for new ways to market guns to non gun owners—people who previously wouldn't own a gun might think about buying a smart gun," he says. "Instead of pinning our hopes on this technology, I think there are better ways to spend the millions of dollars it takes to develop this technology."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/01/why-both-the-pro--and-anti-gun-lobby-are-against-smart-guns
Thanks for those updates.
DeleteIntimidation like the gun loons who brought their guns to the public health care town hall meetings, which when you consider some of them were responsible for starting physical pushing within the meetings and attacking people with pro health (ACA) care sings, becomes a real threat.
ReplyDelete