Using tragedy to push smart gun technology.


The liberals are getting more creative in their attacks against guns. James Alan Fox writes this among other things in his dumb column:

Apparently, the NRA’s School Shield program isn’t good enough because “…what about the ball fields and playgrounds, like the one on the Sparks Middle School campus where Monday’s shooting occurred? Are we going to arm gym teachers and referees in case some student gets out of hand? And what about the fleets of yellow school buses? Are we to equip bus drivers with licenses to kill on sight?

Wow, if you’re that scared, why not just homeschool your kids? Frankly, I’m not against school bus drivers or gym teachers carrying guns, it’s a RIGHT after all, but I also know school shootings are rare and 99.99% of kids will never be exposed to them.

Which is why the liberal writer has to get creative:

In both the Sparks and Fayetteville shootings, the guns belonged to a parent. The only solution to tragedies such as these is to require “smart gun” technology so that it is not possible for an adolescent, child, or toddler to have unauthorized access to a loaded firearm — that is, anyone but the properly licensed and sufficiently trained gun owner. We must close the “beg, borrow or steal” loophole, whereby immature, trigger-happy minors acquire dangerous weapons from irresponsible adults. Too many bad things can happen when handguns get into the wrong hands.

Source: Idem

This is the collectivist thinking we see from Democrats all the time. Whether it’s green cars, healthcare, or smoking bans, we must all do the same damn thing. One-size-fits-all, and if you don’t like it, too bad comrade, you’re just being selfish and not putting the greater good ahead of your own.

Here’s why Mr. Liberal’s solution won’t work.

1. There are more than 300 million guns in this country, we’re not going to turn them all in and replace them with smart guns.

2. The technology isn’t there, and their proponents exclude cops and the military from it. If the authorities won’t embrace smart guns for themselves, why should we embrace them for us?

3.Government mandates never work. Obama has spent billions of our money on subsidies and other goodies to green/electric car makers, the results have been disastrous. Just look at the Ethanol boondoggle, farmers get paid to transform corn into Ethanol, the result is higher corn prices, higher good prices, and even environmentalists admit that Ethanol isn’t really green. See? If he would just let the private sector work it’s magic, we would have real solutions that aren’t corrupted by government, instead of lower gas mileage thanks to Ethanol and green cars we can’t afford nor do we want to buy.

The only people that benefit from smart guns are the rare smart gun company and their lobbyists. Smith & Wesson tried that game years ago when they were owned by the British, the outcry was so loud that they’re not a proud American company.

The liberals accuse us of not being open minded, of being resistant to change. Sure, and now the same liberals that defended Obamacare are complaining about a website that doesn’t work. See? It’s always the same story, the socialists don’t think about the long term consequences of their actions, they just want to experiment on all of us, and the “let’s do something new” people go with it while forgetting they’re simply repeating the mistakes of the past.

Now I’ve seen Judge Dredd, so it’s not I’m against that kind of smart gun, but I refuse to be forced to buy something I don’t want. It’s bad for me, bad for society, and it won’t refuse school shootings just like the war on drugs doesn’t reduce drug trafficking. If anything, gun traffickers love gun control, it increases the price and demands of their products.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.