![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/smart-gun-dumb-move-nra-article-1.1781400
OK, so let's see here: the professional gun lobbies which claim to favor gun safety, object to a gun which only the owner can use. They object, furthermore, to a hypothetical policy that would if anything enhance gun ownership and gun safety by preventing more people like the Sandy Hook shooter from stealing someone else's weapons to go shoot up things. Why is this the case? It seems to me to reflect a combination of 1) the inevitable hypocrisy of the so-called free market advocates, who immediately scream oppression and bloody murder when they have to adhere to their own ideals, 2) that the NRA's understanding the Second Amendment differs rather drastically from the original intention of this particular part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was to fill in the army that the Founding Fathers were too cheap to pay to build, not to serve as a license to insurrection, which is in fact explicitly forbidden under the Constitution.
If someone can come up with a valid reason to oppose new technology like this, or why a government mandate on firearms suited to being used only by their actual owners is a bad thing, I'd be interested in hearing it. Blaming it on various conspiracy theories and simply copy-pasting to someone else's ideas or Youtube videos do not qualify as 'valid reasons' because I say they don't for the purposes of this discussion.
OK, so let's see here: the professional gun lobbies which claim to favor gun safety, object to a gun which only the owner can use. They object, furthermore, to a hypothetical policy that would if anything enhance gun ownership and gun safety by preventing more people like the Sandy Hook shooter from stealing someone else's weapons to go shoot up things. Why is this the case? It seems to me to reflect a combination of 1) the inevitable hypocrisy of the so-called free market advocates, who immediately scream oppression and bloody murder when they have to adhere to their own ideals, 2) that the NRA's understanding the Second Amendment differs rather drastically from the original intention of this particular part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was to fill in the army that the Founding Fathers were too cheap to pay to build, not to serve as a license to insurrection, which is in fact explicitly forbidden under the Constitution.
If someone can come up with a valid reason to oppose new technology like this, or why a government mandate on firearms suited to being used only by their actual owners is a bad thing, I'd be interested in hearing it. Blaming it on various conspiracy theories and simply copy-pasting to someone else's ideas or Youtube videos do not qualify as 'valid reasons' because I say they don't for the purposes of this discussion.
