“Smart Guns” are calling the NRA’s bluff

Filed in National by on February 20, 2014

If it were true that law abiding gun nuts wanted to keep guns away from “criminals” then this sort of thing would be a slam dunk.

According to a Wednesday report in the Washington Post, the era of “smart guns” — weapons that would only fire when their registered user is using them — may be closer than many think.

The Armatix iP1 is now being sold in California and is considered to be the first true smart gun available on the market.

Of course the gun nut community will hate this. Why? Because keeping guns out of the hands of criminals isn’t a real big priority for the NRA, and I think we can all agree that the NRA (literally) calls the shots. So when this is roundly panned by gun nuts here and elsewhere across the Internets, it will be very plain to see that for all of their bluster about legal and illegal users of guns, all gun nuts stand for one thing – more gun violence and mayhem because that the price we are willing to pay for a wildly profitable gun manufacturing industry freedom.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (49)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Flylady says:

    Whether or not the NRA likes it, THIS conservative Republican thinks this gun sounds like a wonderful idea! Of course, I don’t pretend to know all the details or potential pros and cons of it yet, but on the surface it seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides of the gun argument.

  2. Jason330 says:

    In addition to being against this type of restriction, the NRA is also against microstamping shell casings (a technology that is available today) that would make it easier for law enforcement officials to track down killers.

  3. Flylady says:

    Terrible! I strongly support the right of citizens to carry guns for personal protection, including concealed carry, IF they have been properly trained, licensed, etc. I have agreed with many of the NRA’s opinions in the past, but these two options seem to be not only a good compromise but an actual no-brainer! Guess that just shows that while most conservatives are pro-guns, they don’t necessarily always agree with the NRA.

  4. CzarChasm says:

    “Of course the gun nut community will hate this. Why? Because keeping guns out of the hands of criminals isn’t a real big priority for the NRA, and I think we can all agree that the NRA (literally) calls the shots.

    Proof positive that leftists are complete morons. First, the NRA is your best friend. They’ve been responsible for more gun control than even the Brady Bunch….by far. In fact, they helped write the Brady Bill! They are nothing but political whores, friend to nobody but those who wish to sell out the Constitution for either power or money – or both. Leftists and the NRA are simply two sides of the same coin, it’s just difficult to imagine which represents the head, and which the tail.

    Screw the NRA. They sure don’t “call the shots” with me or anyone I call “friend.” Our (as in, real 2nd Amendment advocates) concern is not making for more gun violence, not even against our enemies – the leftist quislings of this country – our concern is keeping the availability of defensive weapons in our own hands – the law-abiding citizens whose God-given, unalienable, fundamental rights mean more to us than your will to try to take them from us – so that we can protect ourselves against the same criminals you dishonestly claim we wish to keep armed. BTW idiot, more than twice as many citizens kill bad guys in this country as cops do, and more than five times as many cops hit innocents when they fire according to FBI statistics.

    The absolute best record any so-called “smart gun” has achieved is a 90% success rate. That means that if you have a 10-round magazine loaded in your carry weapon (whether cop or citizen), at least one round will fail to fire on average, most of the time because of faulty sync between trigger mechanism and “smart” scanners, whether they scan fingerprints or RFID chips in a watch or ring like the one you posted about.

    So in reality, if you leftists foist this exceedingly dumb technology on us, it means you want to see cops and law-abiding citizens die while the criminals who killed them keep whatever guns they want, because you know what moron? CRIMINALS WILL NOT BUY THESE GUNS, THEY WILL BUY, STEAL, MANUFACTURE AND USE ANY DAMNED KIND OF GUN THEY WANT!

    You are in need of a “smart” keyboard, because you lack the ability to use the one you got without making a fool of yourself.

  5. Geezer says:

    ” BTW idiot, more than twice as many citizens kill bad guys in this country as cops do”

    That’s because their job isn’t to kill bad guys. Nor is yours.

    Just by the by, I’m never happy to hear that guns are in the hands of hyperventilating mouth-breathers, and I could hear you mouth-breathing right through the screen.

  6. Jason330 says:

    I appreciate CzarChasm’s total freakout and thank him for proving my point.

  7. pandora says:

    I think Ted Nugent just commented on our site!

  8. CzarChasm says:

    “I appreciate CzarChasm’s total freakout and thank him for proving my point.”

    How on Earth did I prove your point? What you advocate will get both citizens and cops killed by the bad guys you claim we want to keep armed. You had no point to prove. You’re uninformed about dumb-guns and about the NRA, which brings up another “point” you ostensibly “made” – that all “gun nuts” are controlled by the NRA. Do you fantasize that I “made” your “point” for you on that score too?

    Want to know the truly funny thing about this little exchange? I’m sure you can’t wait – I was searching for information on what the NRA’s stance on dumb-guns is. I figured at best, they were fairly neutral on the subject, and I was hoping to find that they actually supported the idea so I could use it on a gun forum to show a bunch of uninformed NRA sycophants how they’ve been betrayed again. For some inexplicable reason, this puny, insignificant little leftist haven showed up near the top of my search results. Imagine my surprise after searching on “NRA supports smart-gun mandates” to see your brainless, uninformed blurb.

    I don’t support the NRA, am in no way controlled by them, am probably 100 times more committed to stopping the illegal use of guns than you are, and know how dumb-guns are supposed to work, and know further that they don’t work. And I “made” some “point” for you? Pffft. Get real.

  9. Jason330 says:

    …am probably 100 times more committed to stopping the illegal use of guns than you are,

    Ha!

  10. Jason330 says:

    I needed to collect myself after that knee-slapper. My point, that gun nuts are not interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, has been proven by your crazy rant.

    Neither smart guns, nor micro-stamping shell casing, or really anything – because it is all a slippery slope, or worse an outright trick by nefarious forces like the …NRA (?) to take away your precious guns.

    I’ve seen gun nuts and I know gun nuts. You, Sir, are a gun nut’s gun nut.

  11. Flylady says:

    LOL Good one, Geezer! As I said before, I’m a 2nd Amendment advocate all the way, but I don’t know enough yet about “smart guns” or “smart ammo” to make a firm decision about them. They still sound reasonable to me, but it’s possible Czar has valid points. I like to think I keep an open mind to other opinions, whether or not I end up agreeing with them. However, a rant like Czar’s (who would appear to be a fellow conservative) does nothing to sway me in his direction, and frankly reminds me of the childish name-calling “debating” tactics that I so often associate with those on the left. Stick to the facts as you see them, Czar, and leave the insults at the door. You’ll have a far better chance of influencing those on the fence than you will by converting a temper tantrum to print.

  12. Jason330 says:

    Also, it looks like you owe uninformed NRA sycophants an apology:

    (The) NRA recognizes that the “smart guns” issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.

  13. CzarChasm says:

    …am probably 100 times more committed to stopping the illegal use of guns than you are,

    Ha!

    You’re probably right, that would be funny to someone who wants to stop the use of all guns, legal or illegal.

    So what are you doing to stop the illegal (or legal for that matter) use of guns? Writing letters to your legislators to have them further usurp the Constitution more to your liking? And if you and your leftist legislators are successful, who’s going to be left to protect your pink little rumps when only the outlaws have guns? The cops? HAHAHAHA! They neither have the constitutional duty nor the inclination to protect people. They only come into the picture after a crime has been committed. Or, at my house at least, after an attempted crime was thwarted because I have the right to protect myself.

    You would deny me that right though, wouldn’t you? That’s why you’re an enemy, not because you’re so blindingly uninformed about the things you (in this post anyway) write about.

    Still, I’d be curious to know what “point” of yours I “proved.”

  14. Jason330 says:

    “…further usurp the Constitution …”

    So you are a member of a well regulated militia? Cool. Oh… You only like the parts of the constitution that give you rights, not responsibilities. Typical gun nut.

    My point, that gun nuts are not interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, has been proven by your crazy rant. If you wan to prove me wrong simply say that micro-stamping technology or smart guns don’t infringe on your rights.

  15. meatball says:

    Micro-stamping is useless when a revolver is employed unless one empties the casings at the scene. Armatrix technology sounds plausible, though I would like to see the failure rate data.

  16. Liberal Elite says:

    It’s guys like CzarChasm that make me feel a little bit better about the high gun suicide rates in the US. A gun is more likely to kill its owner than anyone else.

    Life is cheap for this crowd… even their own. Such a pity.

  17. LeBay says:

    Jason-

    Your opinion re: Constitutional rights is at odds with history.

    Declaration of Independence:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

    The purpose of the Constitution was, among other things, to codify (secure) certain “unalienable” rights in law.

    Long story short, our rights are not derived from the Constitution, but from the “Creator”.

    The FSM is so generous. All hail the FSM!

  18. radef16 says:

    Years ago, my father told me not to believe TV commercials. What you are reading about the Armatix iP1 is pure advertising hype written by the company’s publicists. The technology is also patented. If they can get laws passed requiring this technology, the manufacturer will make many millions of dollars in profit. The idea is a very good one but until it is 100% reliable, retrofitable to all guns and freely available, it is worthless.

    Microstamping appears also to be a good idea but is fraught with flaws & unintended consequences. Most importantly, less than 5 minutes with a Dremel tool is all that is needed to remove it from a gun.

    As a gun owner, I find it very unnerving that the anti-gun crowd is so willing to jump at absolutely anything that can be used to mask your agenda of completely disarming all Americans.

    What if:
    I assumed that the 2 black teenagers standing on the corner are drug dealers.
    That the girl in the mini-skirt down the block is a hooker.
    That the 2 gay guys holding hands are child molesters.

    You would call me a racist, sexist bigot.

    Yet:
    You believe that all gun owners are criminals who will go around endangering children and shooting their spouses.

    Look in the mirror & you will see a true racist, sexist bigot for you do not respect the values and beliefs of others. You are the center of the universe with whom all must agree or face the consequences.

    Do yourself a favor, study what liberalism is really about. Be a true Progressive & support everyone’s right to live their lives as they see fit not as you dictate they should.

  19. Liberal Elite says:

    @r “Be a true Progressive & support everyone’s right to live their lives as they see fit not as you dictate they should.”

    When your ilk learns to control your temper, control where your bullets go, improve your judgement, and stop being so damn stupid in general, then that will happen.

    You know, true freedom also means freedom to not get shot by idiots.

    Your libertarian education should already have taught you that… or are you also immune to education?

  20. radef16 says:

    Typical emotional response. Seems that I really hit a nerve.
    Most importantly ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT for other’s points of view.

    Your generalizations made my point exactly:

    “When your ilk learns to control your temper, control where your bullets go, improve your judgement, and stop being so damn stupid in general, then that will happen.”

    1). I am probably the most non-violent person that you would ever meet.
    (Guns are not violent, people are.)
    2). I know exactly where my bullets are going (also how many I have & exactly where
    my guns are at all times. Feel free to gnaw your way thorough the 1/2″ plate steel
    that encases them.
    3). I’m a genius with the IQ to prove it & an Ivy League education.

    Try actually reading the Constitution, the Federalist Papers & the writings of our Founding Fathers.

  21. Liberal Elite says:

    @r “Most importantly ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT for other’s points of view.”

    Because your point of view is stupid. Look… Total freedom increases if guns are banned. Sure, some people’s freedoms will be decreased, but others and more will be increased. In a civilized society, rights are protected.

    Your rights do not trump my rights, or anyone else’s rights. It’s not just about how much freedom YOU have.

    Try actually UNDERSTANDING the Constitution, the Federalist Papers & the writings of our Founding Fathers.

    @r “I’m a genius with the IQ to prove it & an Ivy League education.”
    Ha!! Do you really want to play that game?… Loser.

  22. radef16 says:

    Please explain how freedom is gained by banning guns.

    Take a look at someplace like Venezuela where civilian ownership of guns is totally banned. Go take a ride through Caracas at midnight & see if you come out alive.

    Even closer to home, Mexico. There it is almost impossible to legally buy a gun yet the drug cartels have no problem getting as many as they want. Even fully automatic machine guns.

    My being armed in no way infringes on any of your rights. My guns are of absolutely to danger to you. However, your desire to take my guns away does infringe on my right to protect my family.

    If you are one of those people who has an irrational fear of firearms I suggest that you get some counciling. Personally, I prefer to stay away from high bridges. Would it be fair that I insisted that they all be torn down?

  23. Jason330 says:

    The type of gun nuttery we see here is just another flavor of reality denying wingnuttery.

    In the gun nuts case, we see immense amounts of paranoia about their “rights” being “infringed” in the face of all logic and reason. The statistics speak as loudly about how ineffective hand guns are for home protection, as they do about how effective denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives.

    And yet. These simple facts are always challenged with heated and emotional gibberish. So, it is obvious that gun nuttery is informed by an ongoing propaganda campaign aimed at keeping gun nuts in a high state of dread. But there is another element, a big dose of the “just world” fallacy.

    Because they think the universe (or God or whatever) punishes the wicked and rewards the virtuous, they don’t really think their communities (or “good” people in general) are touched by our culture of gun mayhem.

    When a child catches a stray bullet in the city, or a spouse is killed by another spouse, they think the victim must have “deserved” their fate. Why did they live in that bad part of town? Drugs? Why didn’t that spouse leave prior to the shooting, or arm herself for her own protection?

    The just world fallacy is a way to relieve cognitive dissonance, but it informs this issue on gut level for these whackos. I think that is obvious from the overheated comments that hinge on myths and their feelings, while turning away from reality.

  24. Liberal Elite says:

    @r “Please explain how freedom is gained by banning guns.”

    When you let 1/4th of the population get guns and then let them shoot at the other 3/4ths with relative impunity via lax laws and corrupt juries,…

    That is NOT freedom! How can you even think that is FREEDOM???

    #1 gun homocide: Spousal murder.
    What’s the typical punishment for that (if anything)? A slap on the wrist?
    How many women need to die before you see this as a problem?
    Or do women simply need to learn their proper place?

  25. liberalgeek says:

    Years ago, my father told me not to believe TV commercials.

    I sort of wish your Dad had told you not to believe the fundraising letters of lobbyists.

  26. LeBay says:

    @r “Please explain how freedom is gained by banning guns.”

    When you let 1/4th of the population get guns and then let them shoot at the other 3/4ths with relative impunity via lax laws and corrupt juries,…

    LE-
    Please back up your assertion w/ SOMETHING.
    The gun nuts win when they have the law and public opinion on their side.

  27. LeBay says:

    @ Jason-

    The type of gun nuttery we see here is just another flavor of reality denying wingnuttery.

    In the gun nuts case, we see immense amounts of paranoia about their “rights” being “infringed” in the face of all logic and reason.

    Please be honest with yourself. The gun nuts have the Constitution, the Heller decision as well as state laws and court decisions to back up their point of view.

    Does your opinion (which I basically share) have anything to back it up?

  28. Jason330 says:

    Heller shows that their paranoia is unfounded. Thats the point of comment. Other than that, what opinions are you referring to ? Cognitive dissonance? Look it up if the reference is lost on you.

  29. radef16 says:

    @liberalgeek
    -I hold lobbyist fundraisers to be one step below used car salesman.
    They will warp any story to line their pockets.

    While it is true that about 1/4 of the population of Delaware are gun owners, they certainly aren’t shooting at the other 3/4. In fact, the incidence of LEGAL gun owners in Delaware shooting someone are infinitesimally small. The occurrence of firearms accidents in DE is even smaller.

    As far as spousal murder, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
    -Only about 6.5% of murder victims were killed by their spouses (still too many).
    -In spousal murder cases, WOMEN REPRESENT 41% of the killers (look out guys)

    You may not believe it but LEGAL gun owners are more passionate about ending gun violence than you are. However, given your attitude about guns, they will fight you tooth & nail. If you really want to end gun violence here are a few suggestions:
    1). Learn to differentiate between safe, legal gun owners & criminals
    2). Quit the ban, restrict, “you don’t need ______” attitude.
    3). Start looking at the social issues that lead to gun violence.
    4). Most importantly, WORK TOGETHER WITH GUN OWNERS TO FIND REAL SOLUTIONS

    As I have said many times, I respect your desire to not own a gun. I expect you to respect my decision to be a gun owner. According to the Constitution, I have the right to “keep & bear arms” I also have the OBLIGATION TO DO SO SAFELY. Should you ever find a legal gun owner who does not fulfill this obligation, call the police.
    (Please don’t start with the “militia” argument, it has been debunked numerous times.)

    I’m sure that you question why people need guns at all. Maybe this news story about a recent incident in Detroit will help:
    http://www.wxyz.com/news/mom-opens-fire-on-home-invaders-in-detroit-to-defend-children

    Anyway, it’s the weekend & I need some gun therapy. I’m going out to the range to destroy a few dozen sheets of paper (recycled of course). After doing all this typing, I might even need to take out my angst on a few empty soda cans. Maybe I’ll really make you angry & take my kids with me.

  30. Jason330 says:

    More paranoia and slipperyvslope jibberish. Totally boring and predictable.

    Anyway thanks for continually proving my point though.

  31. Liberal Elite says:

    @r “Maybe I’ll really make you angry & take my kids with me.”

    Well, try not to shoot yourself (or them). You do know that more than 80% of all gun deaths in the US are family and friends…

    Aren’t those great odds for protecting them with guns? Maybe more guns would help… Right? Then they’d be even safer. Right? Yea…

  32. pandora says:

    Radef16 says: “If you really want to end gun violence here are a few suggestions:
    1). Learn to differentiate between safe, legal gun owners & criminals”

    Please tell me how this is possible? If I’m out in public and see a person I don’t know carrying a gun how do I tell if they’re a legal gun owner or criminal?

  33. Geezer says:

    @the gun rights posters: If you’re trying to make a rational point, it’s counter-productive to claim”the anti-gun crowd is so willing to jump at absolutely anything that can be used to mask your agenda of completely disarming all Americans.”

    That’s total bullshit. This thread was about a promising technology that, true to form, the gun lovers shit all over immediately. While gun haters are often irrational, so are people who claim that any attempt to control guns is “masking your agenda.”

    Indeed, your whole attitude about needing your guns for protection, especially of your family, is just as irrational as anything the gun-fearing segment says.

    I don’t support gun control laws for one simple reason: They don’t work. But I also don’t support gun-rights viewpoints for one simple reason: They aren’t rational.

    Yes, guns are just a tool. But it’s funny, I never meet anybody who has a collection of 20 table saws. People who like woodworking, unlike people who like guns, don’t spend any time talking about their hobby. They just do it — and of course, unlike your hobby, theirs actually produces something useful. Also, of course, very few people play with table saws when they’re drunk, and I’ve yet to hear of a case where someone was killed by an accidentally turned-on table saw.

    Until you realize that your interest in guns is really an attempt to feel in control of an uncontrollable world, there is no reason for the other side to listen to anything you have to say.

  34. Liberal Elite says:

    @G “I don’t support gun control laws for one simple reason: They don’t work.”

    Sure they do. Just look at ANY civilized first world country in this world.

    We could strive to become a true first world country…

  35. Jason330 says:

    @LE. One thing you can say about gun nuts, their basic lack of critical thinking and reflection on why they hold thier crackpot beliefs is a true strength .

  36. pandora says:

    I still can’t get past… “1). Learn to differentiate between safe, legal gun owners & criminals” That’s just 100% nuts. Especially given the number of safe, legal gun owners who turn into criminals in the blink of an eye and a twitch of their trigger finger.

    And I resent that I’ve had to raise my kids with other people’s guns. I made it clear to my kids, at an early age, if they were ever at a friend’s house and their friend were to bring out a gun that they were to leave – to walk out the door, to not take the time to alert their friend’s parents – to just leave. And if their friend ended up shooting themselves… so not my problem. In my opinion, if parents had guns in their house that was their responsibility, not mine… or my kids.

  37. jmarie says:

    Or the guys up in Connecticut who are refusing to comply with the requirement to register assault weapons and magazines… They are now felons. Good thinking there. I wish they could explain how registering interferes with the right to own. It does not prevent anything at all. In refusing to follow a basic law, now they face their own paranoid fear that they actually will be fined or confiscated for having one.

  38. Geezer says:

    “Sure they do. Just look at ANY civilized first world country in this world.”

    Sorry, but those countries don’t have gun control laws. They have laws restricting who can own guns. There’s a big difference. None of those countries has 300 million guns, or even one gun per person, floating around. And none of them has a constitutional guarantee of gun ownership.

    Easy one, LE: Show me the gun control law in this country that has worked to lower the number of shootings. You can’t do it, because the number of shootings stays constant.

    You can call your attitude a lot of things, but you can’t call it rational.

  39. Liberal Elite says:

    @G “Sorry, but those countries don’t have gun control laws. They have laws restricting who can own guns. There’s a big difference.”

    They actually have both… and all rather effective.

    @G “Easy one, LE: Show me the gun control law in this country that has worked to lower the number of shootings.”

    No guns on airplanes. Seems to have worked…

    How about mandatory gun liability insurance? That would also help with victim compensation…

  40. Geezer says:

    “No guns on airplanes. Seems to have worked…”

    Seriously? You are going to point to the thrilling example of going through airport security to show how easy gun control is? Thank you for making my point for me.

    “They actually have both… and all rather effective.”

    Unfortunately, then, you DO want to do what the gun lovers say you want to do — disarm everyone. My mistake. In that case, I’m with the gun lovers. Your solution is worse than the problem.

  41. radef16 says:

    “No guns on airplanes. Seems to have worked…”

    So that is why many pilots are now armed.
    It finally clicked that if the pilots on 9-11 had been able to defend themselves
    many, many lives could have been saved.

    Why not offer the same training to frequent travelers such as business people who fly multiple times per week?

    Effective gun control:
    1). Keep guns away from criminals.
    2). Allow citizens to defend themselves

    We need nationally recognized concealed carry permits including separate endorsements given for advanced training that would allow carry in schools, on mass
    transit, on planes etc.

    This would actually be a great application for smart guns (if they work 100%).
    Program the guns so only the crew could use them.

    Of course the current technology is far from being able to do this.

  42. Jason330 says:

    The thing that puts the lie to your jibber jabber about wanting to keep guns away from criminals is the idea that ANY attemp to do so is viewed as a slippery slope. That’s the point you will not address, because you can’t.

  43. pandora says:

    I’m still waiting for Radef16 to explain this comment:

    “If you really want to end gun violence here are a few suggestions:
    1). Learn to differentiate between safe, legal gun owners & criminals”

    Please, do tell how this is accomplished.

  44. Jason330 says:

    By the way Radef16. Most gun nuts how stick around here for any length of time eventually admit to feeling powerless and like that guns address that feeling of unease. What was it in your background that made you feel so powerless. Divorce? Untimely death of a parent? So bullying instances in school? Really think about it. I think if you get to the heart of it, your feelings of dread and powerlessness can be addressed in more constructive ways.

  45. puck says:

    “Why not offer the same [gun] training to frequent travelers such as business people who fly multiple times per week?”

    Good Lord.

  46. Geezer says:

    “It finally clicked that if the pilots on 9-11 had been able to defend themselves
    many, many lives could have been saved.”

    Don’t be such a moron. The problem on 9/11 was airline protocol at the time, which was to cooperate with hijackers.

    The biggest problem with gun nuts is they see everything through the lens of the tool that calms their ever-present fears.

  47. radef16 says:

    @jason330:
    Gun owners & the NRA will support an expanded background check system if it is structured in a way that that does not include the government tracking gun owners.
    The first step is to modernize the current NICS check system. It would also help to throw in universal concealed carry reciprocity & the ability to buy hand guns across state lines.

    There is one overriding factor that is holding up sensible changes to gun laws. That is the absolutely undeniable fact that certain politicians & others want to disarm each & every US citizen. This is not paranoia:

    Feinstein said on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

    A background check law must first assure that the government will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES confiscate or require the surrender of firearms. This could be done with a “doomsday” clause eg. Should the government attempt the confiscation of firearms, all gun laws will be immediately invalid. (No NICS checks, no ATF, machine guns in private hands etc.)

    Of course, you guys would never agree to this.

  48. Jason330 says:

    I disagree. You and the NRA are the obstacles to progress. But, Why the all caps? What is really at the heart of all your fear and dread? Did you lose a sibling to cancer, and feel helpless as they passed. Lay down your burden. Let it out. Your guns can’t protect you from what you are afraid to face.

  49. Liberal Elite says:

    @J “What is really at the heart of all your fear and dread?”

    Why can’t it be just plain old cowardice? It’s an emotion that seems to come with being a conservative (fear of change, fear of foreigners, fear of other races, fear of homosexuals, fear of death,…). They’re afraid of almost everything… you know… basic cowards.

    Of course they’re not afraid of the things that really do threaten them and their way of life… but that’s just stupidity.