It seems that today people desire short, simple statements and solutions that work all the time. Likely the vast majority has those desires, but a difference is that some expect and demand as they believe absolutes always exist or at least exist when appropriate. Unfortunately I doubt if life is that simple for most of us. Some situations are complex, and even in the aftermath with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we still question and debate our actions at the time. Is anyone really immune to what if?
I’m a rural reared boy and guns were always a part of life. They’re tools which if used correctly and responsibly are assets. Guns do however have great power. Carelessness or callousness can result in irreparable harm. In a general sense, one can say the same about an ax, a truck, a car, a chainsaw, a machete, a shovel, a fork, and so on. Each exudes its own degree of power and the potential, not the actual threat, but the potential of injury or death resides in the improper usage of each.
I’m not opposed to you owning a gun. I do hope that you own the correct gun for the purpose in which you intend to use the tool. For example, I don’t want you hunting large game with a .22 because the size does not have enough power for most individuals to execute a clean kill shot to limit prolonged suffering. Personally I think it’s too much firepower, but if you want an AR-15 for a possible cottonmouth while fishing for Sac-a-lait, that’s your choice.
You see I’m not trying to take away your right to buy or purchase a gun.
I’m simply asking that you consider and respect my rights to purchase or not to purchase the gun which best fits my needs.
I lost you? Well can you answer this question?
Why should someone be able to sell or buy an AR-15, but be harassed and prevented from selling or buying a .22 Armatix?
Please do not subject me to the NRA line “…we have tested the Armatix—and found it greatly wanting. Again, NRA only opposes the imposition of technologies via government force, and is happy for the marketplace to pass its own judgment,” or similar lines that so-called smart guns only open the doors to gun grabbing.
Please because that line of reasoning is blatantly false? Sorry, but the NRA has lobbied and succeeded in having the Federal government restrict and ban weapons. The original Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 passed by the 100th Congress, and the extension passed by the 113th Congress.
Please refrain from assertions that those restrictions are for public safety arguments.
Remember that it’s not the gun; it’s the person who is dangerous.
If you make the public safety argument about Armatix or future weapons constructed of yet to be determined materials, how is that argument any different from those say limiting magazine capacity enhances public safety?
Yes I’ve also heard the so-called smart gun technology might create a false sense of safety leading to unsafe handling practices contentions?
That’s a foolish argument because isn’t the most basic lesson learned with any gun is that until you verify for yourself, every gun is loaded? Every power tool is on and can start immediately? Sadly through carelessness or stupidity a false sense of safety can result in tragic consequences with a knife, electric drill, Armatix, Kimber, or anything for that matter.
Sure in 1988 technology had limitations, but who knows what 3D printers may be capable of producing next week?
Just about anything as long as it’s not a gun which is the position of the gun lobby. If it did not predate 1988, would a Glock be legal in the United States?
Yes the official line is to let the free market decide? Well the gun lobby isn’t willing to take that chance.
Do you know about what happened in California?
Watch and read what happened to Andy Raymond and his store Engage Armament in Rockville, MD.
How much did the NRA invest to influence the free market with Smith & Wesson 15 years ago?
Before one starts infringement talks in regard to Engage Armaments or Smith & Wesson, these were businesses making a decision that they felt in the best interests of their respective companies. The government was not forcing other manufacturers to do the same things which S & W decided.
Arguments about the legality and enforcement of a New Jersey state law on the rest of the United States is conjecture. Might of, would of, could of, are speculations and if given an opportunity the free market may have made any and all guesswork moot.
If it’s really about protecting the 2nd Amendment, why do many vocal advocates believe anyone should be able to purchase that AR-15 but not an Armatix or new technology gun?
The argument that people like me hate the Constitution, are trying to destroy rights, are focused on punishing law abiding instead of criminals, may sound good amongst those of a similar mindset, but why are those claiming they have a right suppressing my right just because I’m interested in trying the new technology?
Any claims that the government might use my rights as an opportunity to suppress yours should also take into account that the very organizations who claim to support your right have lobbied the government to suppress mine.
That’s not a possibility. That’s a fact.
If Smith and Wesson almost ceased to exist before ultimately surrendering, what chance do you have if your choice of a gun gets deemed unacceptable by the same non government people?
Could it be that specific people are more concerned about protecting their financial interests?