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…