A tip for Andy Raymond.

When you have to set up straw men this big to defend your position, that might be a sign that your position is untenable:

Earlier, Raymond had said he’s on the “right-wing vanguard of gun rights” but is vehemently opposed to gun rights activists arguing against the idea of a smart gun — or any gun.

“To me that is so fricking hypocritical,” Raymond had said. “That’s the antithesis of everything that we pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment people should be. You are not supposed to say a gun should be prohibited. Then you are being no different than the anti-gun people who say an AR-15 should be prohibited.”

Not supposed to say a gun should be prohibited, whaaaat? As David Codrea pointed out, no one’s saying smart guns should prohibited — just that they shouldn’t be mandated, as they’re now going to be in New Jersey. There’s a not-insubstantial difference between those two positions.

And ultra-safe gun? I’m really not sure what that means, because if you know and follow your Four Rules, your gun is as safe as an ink pen.

As far as arguing against smart guns —well, that is actually a pretty smart thing to do, because the last thing a self-defense tool needs is yet another failure point, let alone an entire new set of failure points within failure points. And this does bring up another interesting question for discussion: Let’s just say somebody has one of those “smart guns” and it fails them in a critical self-defense situation and they end up dead. And let’s say the investigation showed that the gun failed specifically because of the “smart” components. Would that allow for a lawsuit by the dead person’s family against the  dealer and/or the manufacturer? After all, while the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did by and large put a stop to frivolous lawsuits against the gun manufacturers for alleged “negligence,” it does still allow for lawsuits against manufacturers for defective products. Something for Mr. Raymond to think about, for sure…



4 Responses to “A tip for Andy Raymond.”

  1. AndyN Says:

    I think the problem with you hypothetical lawsuit is that it couldn’t possibly target the right people. I’m sure the manufacturers know what the failure rate of their product is, and I’m confident that they’ll market their products with a disclaimer announcing that buyers assume responsibility for the 1 or 2 or 3 times out of 10 that nothing will happen when they pull the trigger.

    It won’t be the manufacturer’s fault if their product performs exactly as advertised, warts and all. As you said, residents in some states are facing the real possibility that they won’t be able to buy anything but smart guns in the near future. The real question should be, when a smart gun fails at a critical moment, will the smart gun owner’s heirs be able to sue the state government for stripping the dearly departed of an effective means of self-defense? Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s possible to bring a RICO suit against a state legislature.

  2. Crotalus Says:

    And let us not forget that these will be designed to receive a shut-down signal from the goobermint.

  3. southtexaspistolero Says:

    It won’t be the manufacturer’s fault if their product performs exactly as advertised, warts and all.

    While you’re absolutely correct, Andy, I have no doubt that with the mendacity of the current administration, lawsuits would be allowed to proceed. The rule of law means nothing to these people.

    It would be nice to be able to sue the entities responsible for making smart guns mandatory, though.

    And let us not forget that these will be designed to receive a shut-down signal from the goober mint.

    Yup. More than a few people have been mentioned that, too.

  4. GomeznSA Says:

    Can you say ‘set phasers on stun’? I knew you (Andy Raymond and others of his ilk) could. The technology simply does NOT exist, and may not ever.
    I don’t think that any of us are dead set against so-called ‘smart’ guns – but we DO have enough common sense to want, nope make that demand – that they are as fool-proof as possible – and that would definitely include NOT having a secret shut off feature…………

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: