NSSF: Obama Administration’s Smart Gun Saga to Go out With a Pop Not Bang!

Graphic of a smart gun showing an error

The topic of smart guns is always a contentious discussion that pits gun control advocates against supporters of the Second Amendment and law enforcement. Smart guns are anything but smart. Gun control advocates claim it is common sense technology and pro Second Amendment forces point out the dangers and flaws in the technology. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently published an article about the operational “Baseline Specifications for Law Enforcement Service Pistols with Security Technology” that is well worth the read.

Here is the full story from the NSSF: A completely predictable thing happened on the way to the Obama administration’s political promise from January that the federal government would put its considerable weight behind the development of authorized-user technology—more often called “Smart Guns.” In fact, we predicted it.

By Steve Sanetti With the release just a few days ago of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Report, Baseline Specifications for Law Enforcement Service Pistols with Security Technology , we were reminded of what we said 11 months ago, pointing to the White House’s own words that eventual acquisition of firearms with this technology “would be consistent with operational needs.” Graphic of a smart gun showing an error Indeed, operational needs as described in the NIJ baseline specifications seem to have ruled out for law enforcement several of the technologies so often cited in the media, including the fingerprint technology endorsed by President Obama with the rhetorical question “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same for our guns?” The “working group of firearms experts in firearms technology” from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security specified in their report that “The (firearm’s) security device shall not inhibit the operator from firing in either hand, one-handed or two-handed, with our without gloves, in any orientation” (Sec. 4.18.4).

Similarly, the report instructs, “The security device shall not increase the time required by the operator to grasp, draw from a holster, and fire the pistol as a pistol of the same design that is not equipped with the security device.” This specification would seem to rule out having to enter any numeric codes or even to have to wait for an external signaling device to synch up with the firearm unlocking mechanism” (Sec. 4.18.6).

Further, we read, “The security device shall not emit audible sounds or visible signals” (Sec. 4.18.7). We have seen video of handguns equipped with lights to indicate readiness to fire. You can count these designs out for law enforcement use, apparently.

Lastly, and most troubling we read, “If the security device malfunctions, it shall default to a state to allow the pistol to fire” Sec. 4.18.3). How is that so? We have heard that one of the proponents’ concerns was a law enforcement officer’s gun being taken from him. If the device failed in this way, then the officer’s life is at risk. If it defaults to non-firing, of course, an officer would be unable to defend himself/herself or others. It sounds like a technological conundrum.

We point out all this not to say, “We told you so,” although we did. We do so because unlike the early 2016 pronouncements from the White House that were picked up uncritically and trumpeted by the mainstream media, the release of this promised report has yielded no coverage – except for the endemic media that covers our industry. Then, we fielded many media calls some resulting in coverage , some not, and several delivered with a reporter lecturing regarding a position that the firearms industry does not hold.* To date, we have received exactly ZERO media calls regarding this report. Not surprisingly, we have not seen a headline “Government firearms experts throw cold water on White House ‘smart gun’ hopes.” We have seen one short and decidedly vague story , so far, under the headline, “Obama administration’s new specifications for smart guns only voluntary plan” appearing in the vehemently gun control favoring New York Daily News. It quotes a Justice Department spokesman as saying, “The specs give ‘clear guidance’ to manufacturers.” On that, we can agree. We read that guidance and will characterize it as indicating that no law enforcement agency is likely to be ordering any “service pistols with security technology” anytime soon.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (40)

  1. Doc, I agree with you completely, but point out that your vision of the future is already happening. There are rifle scopes that allow you to tag a marker on the target, with automatic ranging and wind adjustments. Once one is happy that the tag is correct, you indicate that and the gun shoots itself a moment or two later when the shot should be good. Sorry I cannot remember the manufacturer.

    The army(?) Is also testing smart ammo. Designed for when the target is behind a wall, ditch or whatever, you range the shot onto the wall or other suitable object. Then you fire just over off to the side of the wall or ditch The bullet’s rotation is measured internally to determine when it has just past the ranged item, and then the bullet explodes, sending shrapnel behind the wall or down into the ditch.

    This is smart gunsmithing I can support. The fingerprint or chip reader go/no go type devices are just sellouts to gun hating idiots, about as useful as illegal drug dealers and less so than ladies of the night.

  2. Smart gun technology will not be another way to lock a gun
    We do not need electronic gadgets to just lock a gun
    Smart guns will have something like tracking point built into them
    You will select a target and it will never miss
    At any distance, even on moving targets
    You will likely even have smart bullets in the future
    You will point the gun any direction and the bullet will steer itself to the target.
    “Smart guns” and smart bullets are still far in the future
    Want to lock your gun?
    Buy a lock.

  3. Just my 2 cents worth about so-called smart devices saving lives: perfect the “smart car” (automobiles are responsible for waaay more fatalities) & then get back to me.

  4. I have to agree with John on this one I own multiple guns that have no kind of electronic junk in them and I never will I work for the local cable company and I can tell you that something as simple as a cable box can’t even be reliable nor can a damn remote ,to control it. sometimes they just quit not a battery problem they are just made with electronic parts that fail. I feel that for my family’s saftey I will not rely on any electronic junk . If your phone freezes your TV don’t respond for a second or two or your Internet lags how fast and reliable do you think an electronic firing mechanisms would be .??

  5. Smart guns should not be a political issue. Many gun owners welcome research into this field, and some of us are even working to advance the state of the art. Just because the technology isn’t “there yet” doesn’t mean it never will be. All technologies takes time to perfect.

    You cannot halt firearms technology sometime in the late 1800s, when the last major development occurred. Luddites and technophobes always end up buried beneath the sands of time. It’s the way of the world.

    Unless you plan to buy a cabin in Montana and start mailing bombs to people, you may as well learn to love smart guns. They are coming whether you want them to or not. Which is a good thing, because they will be the first major development in firearms technology in over a century.

    By all means, criticize the idiots in NJ for voting to restrict their own rights, but don’t knock a new technology until you’ve tried it. Smart guns could be the greatest thing ever. Nobody really knows yet. It’s clear to me that people on both sides of the aisle are too politically biased to be objective about this, so we will have to let the engineers be the tie-breakers.

    1. “we will have to let the engineers be the tie-breakers”

      Really? As a practical computer systems engineer and senior manager in the real world and also as a university professor with post doctorate certifications, now retired in my seventies, this statement scares the smelly brown stuff out of me. I do not own a single engineered item that I would guarantee cannot break down, and doubt I ever will. My digital alarm clock broke down this weekend, less than six months old. My iPhone relies on hundreds of engineers rewriting the OS every few days, to fix bugs they say, and still locks up regularly. My computer based television can take 30 seconds to respond to a controller command. My wife has the effect on batteries such that any battery device flattens batteries in minutes instead of hours (no scientifically known reason for this, but most of us know someone who can’t wear watches or rely on phones keeping their charge).

      I am not scared of smart guns, pro se, but I am terrified what ignorant politicians and emoting liberals could legislate for them. “Smart” features are not needed to make guns more accurate, or easier to shoot, or faster shooting, or more bullets in the magazine, or longer life, they are there purely to pander to ignorant people. My favorite gun, on my hip now, was designed over 100 years ago. It does have a laser sight, but it still has backup sights and will still be 100% effective if the laser fails.

    2. Dr. Spencer,

      I cannot find fault with anything you said, except that generally I think the attitude toward smart guns is overly pessimistic from the Right, and overly optimistic from the Left. Putting a bloatware OS on your gun (e.g. iOS) is obviously a bad idea, but as you know, a microcontroller is all that’s required to build a basic smart gun, and many of those don’t even run operating systems per se. I see the potential for abuse by overzealous legislators (it’s already happening in some areas), yet I maintain that a staunch opposition to smart gun development is not a viable stance.

      I live in a fairly free state, where firearm transfers between private individuals are unregulated. I think this is great. However, burglary rates are high where I live, and the heroin and meth addicts who commit these crimes specifically go after firearms. In this state, there is a huge black market for stolen guns, since there is no registration requirement. Selling guns out the back of your van isn’t a crime, per se. One of my neighbors had a bunch of handguns stolen, and two of them wound up as crime scene evidence in two different locations. Most “gun crime” is committed with stolen guns, by people who aren’t legally allowed to possess firearms anyway. Smart guns offer one possible way to deal with this problem. A stolen smart gun is theoretically a paper weight.

      Yes, there is no shortage of obstacles to overcome, but that’s what R&D is for. Smart guns are too promising in terms of the number of innocent lives they could potentially save. Nobody is going to abandon work on them, no matter how much the pro-2A crowd complains. Sadly, the Left is not doing a very good job of giving this tech room to breathe. They are already trying to mandate it; even before viable options exist. So I blame them just as much.

      I strongly prefer reliable guns as much as the next guy. My carry guns are a Smith & Wesson Model 15 .38, Glock 19 9mm, and Ruger LCP .380. There may never be a smart gun in my lifetime that matches the reliability of the above. That doesn’t mean the effort is fruitless. We have to learn to crawl before we can walk. I don’t fear the specter of a smart gun mandate because I have the tech skills to design and manufacture firearms myself. Hacking one to remove the “smart” feature would be an easy task for any amateur gunsmith. This may be an unpopular view on here, but maybe people who don’t even have basic knowledge of the inner workings of guns shouldn’t own them. You know very well that all those idiot gangbangers fall into that category.


    3. I agree with you about allowing progress to occur; but, it sounds like you’re scolding the author of this post (or the responders) for some reason? I don’t understand why.

      All gun-owners WANT better things to happen with firearms and in the firearms industry in general…but the way for this to occur is by free-thought and free-action (i.e. free-market); not government mandate/control.

      Allow new inventions to come about through freedom – b/c that’s the only way it’s going to be good, safe, cheap and a whole host of other great things. If government is behind it, it’ll be clunky, slow-going, and extremely expensive, plus, there won’t be any freedom behind it.

      No one is knocking the “smart-gun technology”….we are knocking government FORCING us to use it, buy it, carry it, permit it, and whatever other scheme these elected (and un-elected) tyrants conjure up.

      It’s the same thing with health insurance. Having health insurance is a good thing to have; but government forcing it down people’s throats is not – that’s dictatorship, not freedom; and we either have freedom or we don’t.

      So…smart gun technology I’ll stand behind. Maybe one day we’ll actually have lazer pistols? Regardless, government must stay out of it, pure and simple.

    4. Hey Erick,

      It sounds like we are in complete agreement, except I’ve been involved in this field for awhile, and I’ve seen what people on “our” side are willing to stoop to in order to sabotage the free market for smart guns. Read up on the Armatix iP1 debacle. Supposedly “pro-freedom” people threatened the lives of gun store owners to force the German-made smart pistol to be withdrawn from the market before any could be sold. That is the very definition of terrorism! The people who did that should be getting waterboarded in Gitmo, but many in the gun community seem to think that the ends justify the means here. This prevalent attitude makes all of us look bad.

      You and I agree that the free market is the ideal solution to this impasse, but neither side seems to be committed to allowing that to happen. The Left thinks it’s okay to mandate smart guns before they are even available. The Right thinks it’s okay to threaten to murder people who sell them. The stalemate is temporary, though, and very soon, someone is going to break it (with a commercial smart gun). Then there will be no putting the genie back in the bottle.

      Unlike laws, which come and go (RIP federal “assault weapons” ban, 1994-2004), technology is here to stay, and only gets more advanced with every passing year. So while opposing bad laws can be an effective strategy, opposing technology is fruitless. It sounds like you and I are on the same page here, but I know for a fact that others aren’t. They need to hear this argument.

      Smart guns are coming, but they won’t be shaped by obstructionists. Anyone who has something constructive to say about their development should probably pipe up. Developers are trying to listen to the wants and needs of the gun community, but the voice of reason is being drowned out by a chorus of (sometimes hateful) armchair criticism. People who make tech for a living don’t have time for negative Nancies. Highly productive people learn quickly to tune out abusive criticism entirely. I get a pile of hate mail every day for the various things I’ve done. It goes straight into the round file.

      The only lesson I’ve learned from interacting with smart gun haters is that the tech isn’t there yet, so therefore, more R&D is needed. The converse (i.e., “The tech isn’t there yet, so we may as well give up on it!”) just doesn’t make any sense. Imagine if the Wright brothers had just given up at the first sign of adversity! No, that isn’t the American way. Work will continue, and the results will be far more spectacular than anyone realizes. Moreover, the availability of smart guns may actually deflate arguments in favor of more regulations. “What if a child gets ahold of it?!” “What if it gets stolen and used in a crime?!” Oh yeah — it’s a smart gun. Never mind.

      ~ Peter

    5. Great, and who will compensate me for the confiscation of my largish collection of dumb guns when these marvelous devices are made mandatory? Sorry, but my interest is in delaying this (and maybe it will eventually happen, and then – whether you believe it or not – gun haters will still want to ban them just as vehemently) until after I am dead and gone. Sorry, as well if this impacts your income, but tough. Innovative and inventive you may be, but you are no friend of mine, or any other enthusiast I know.

    6. Ouch. Well, seeing as we aren’t friends by your assertion, that actually makes my job easier. I won’t lose any sleep worrying about how my tinkering might theoretically cause some butterfly effect that somehow inconveniences you in the distant future. Also, if you hold me accountable for the actions of politicians, I’m going to insist on receiving a politician’s salary & benefits package.

      I was raised to believe in an old-fashioned thing called individual accountability, but I’ve come to realize that this is a foreign concept to many people; including many fellow gun owners. If we instead embrace socialized accountability, maybe I am responsible for what politicians do in the future with my technology. But by that rationale, gun manufacturers are DEFINITELY responsible every time some little boy blows his sister’s head off with his dad’s gun…

      Is that the philosophy of accountability you advocate?

  6. Hopefully this goes away forever. I don’t see how how smart guns would be regulated. Whats to stop me from removing any technology from any firearm I purchase? Everything can be modified if you have avg technical skill.

  7. Just a comment about this site: I enjoy getting it and reading it. Thanks Cheaper Than Dirt for taking the time to put it together weekly and posting it.

  8. I gave up on using fingerprint id with my iPhone. Too many times I had to reset it. That’s only an annoyance with the iPhone, but it would be deadly with a dumb gun.

    My Kindle works 99.9% of the time. It actually works better than my iPhone as far as reliability goes. Yet every once in a while it goes dumb and I have to turn it off and restart it and reset it. Of course, I only depend on my Kindle to entertain me, not defend my family. A baseball bat is more reliable than any of my electronics equipment. I am an atavist. When it comes to saving my family from peril, give me time tested, reliability proven devices any day over the latest gee whiz device. I have a princess phone hooked up to a land line in addition to my iPhone. And I pay for land line service just as a backup. As long as the generators are working at PacBell central, I’ve got some kind of phone service.

  9. Not sure why anybody freaks out over the technology per se. I think we don’t want mandated smart guns. It wouldn’t matter anyways with over 300 million (at least) non smart guns in the U.S. alone. This issue is about #1000 on sh%^ for gun owners to worry about.

    1. @ Keven,

      You asked, and then answered your own question. However, the reason you still lack surety in knowing – “why anybody freaks out over the technology” stems from your willingness to downplay the actual deadly repercussions contained in your own answer.

      The development of these technologies as free market options alone are quite welcomed and of little concern or threat to anyone by themselves. However, such wondrous technological implications change immensely at the hands of the anti-gun legislators – whose personal goal it is to force it upon every citizen by law.

      I see you appear to understand that much, but still seem to write it off as though it were little more than a minor annoyance. Instead this should be of a much greater concern than you are apparently willing to give it. Hopefully the following will heighten your awareness to the increased levels of alarm which such concerns appropriately deserve.

      First allow me to direct your attention to a real law, not proposed or working its way through legislation, but a law that was actually on the books and had been in effect in New Jersey since 2002. In short, the law stated that once a smart gun became available for sale anywhere (emphasis “anywhere”) in the country, that within 30 months all future handguns sold in the State of New Jersey must be smart guns from that point forward.

      A single smart gun didn’t even have to be sold. It merely had to become available for sale anywhere in the Nation. The law was enforceable without regard to error or malfunction of smart gun technology. This not only threatened the safety of the citizens of New Jersey, but their law served as a model that was poised to quickly sweep the Nation throughout anti-gun leaning legislative bodies at all levels of government everywhere.

      If the extensive dangers of such hasty legislation aren’t suddenly and abundantly clear to you at this point, then I ask that you stop reading now. However, should you continue reading, I ask that you also consider how tyrannically ruthless these legislators must be, given they fully understood the consequential dangers of their law, yet made the cognizant decision to simply ignore placing citizens into harm’s way and implement it the law anyway.

      Their actions takes on a life of its own and should give great pause for serious consideration as to what other Constitutional rights these so-called lawmakers have been willing to ignore in pursuit if their tyrannical oligarchy. If that is not enough, I wish to make a point from something else you wrote which really surprised me. You stated, “It wouldn’t matter anyways with over 300 million (at least) non smart guns in the U.S. alone.” The following is my attempt to impart the overtly serious flaws in such thinking…

      Similar to their very real ban on all future guns if they failed to meet their whimsically exclusive approval, let’s imagine for a moment they also applied the same philosophy to all future free speech if it also did not meet with their approval. Using your own anecdote about existing guns would be the same as saying – “It wouldn’t matter if they banned free speech anyways because there are over 300 million books that used to contain free speech.”

      I truly hope my words resonate with you and help you understand why this really does matter more than you’ve allowed yourself to realize.

    2. God lord. Spare me the drama. Again, stop wasting time fighting the tech and spend more time fughting the laws that mandate such.

    3. @ Kevin,

      Forgive me, as I thought I was responding to someone a bit older who may possess the wisdom to possibly comprehend what I wrote. Your response clearly shows otherwise, as you completely failed to grasp my point. Aside from stating the obvious, it would be unfair of me to chastise you for inabilities which may be beyond your control. However I will leave you with a tip…

      Regardless of your actual age, your juvenile mentality becomes exposed when you immaturely avert the complexities of adulthood by writing it off as “drama” that you need to be “spared” from. I expect my high school children to speak like that, not mature adults. So in your case I will agree – it is best to “spare” you the harsher realities until such time that you are better prepared to comprehend and deal with them like an adult.

    4. California also has legislation. We have this stupid law preventing so called “unsafe” guns being sold. An unsafe gun is any firearm where the manufacturer has not paid a bribe fee to have the firearm tested. If a black model is tested, and you want exactly the same gun but with a camo finish instead of black, that model is not allowed unless the manufacturer pays a second bribe. The manufacturer has to renew the listing (I think it is every two years?). Once a safe gun is “approved,” the others will not be renewable so shortly thereafter that there will be nothing but “safe” guns on the list and that will be all you can buy.

      My guess is that once that happens, in the same way that we have been allowed to keep grandfathered magazines holding more than ten rounds, but they have just passed legislation demanding that these will have to be destroyed or surrendered by January 2017, fresh legislation will demand that so-called “unsafe firearms” are also destroyed or surrendered.

      People must not become stupified by the “it’s only a small change, it really does not affect the overall picture” argument and realize that the main intent of creeping incrementalism (one of the left’s most powerful and carefully crafted techniques), is to boil the frog without it noticing.

    5. I am not sure why all of this text has a strike through, but that is how John Spencer submitted it.~Dave Dolbee

    6. Sorry, Dave, but I also five times tried to submit a follow up explaining that I mistakenly used the wrong end tag and my app does not have an edit link. Only the first struck out word in each struck out section was supposed to be struck out. I have to say, I do not like “capture.” When I started getting a message “you have already submitted this post,” I gave up.

    7. I was thinking of that NJ law as I read Kevin’s post. Thank you, G-man, for such an incisive response to Kevin. Many gun owners think that way too, without taking into consideration the danger of acquiescing to the seemingly “common sense” argument of anti gun NUTS. My own sister brought this argument up, and I had to bring her back to reality by reminding her that computers, cash registers, smart phones, and tool or equipment relying on technology, fails. To have a gun fail at a critical time facing rhe threat of violence, even death, places the citizens at very high risk of death.

      We must continue to be ever vigilant of the “steps” anti gun NUTS continue to take on their continuous march toward a total gun ban.

    8. Kevin, I sent the following to G-Man and then thought you might like to consider it also. G-Man, Thank you for taking the time, making the superior effort and wisely stating the issue so well. Some folks just do not get it easily. For example, some continue to allow invasion into their lives by stating, “If you are not doing anything wrong why worry about privacy issues?” Another example, a school system on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, my state, not my neighborhood, just removed, prior to the mandated review, two books from the community shelves. They suspended “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Huckleberry Finn” due to a parental complaint. Should I just sit back and not protest this based on the premise, “Oh well, that’s OK,I can still get them by the thousands at Amazon?” Once the camel has it,s nose under the tent wall you can count on it squeezing all the way in and stinking up your environment. Yours Sincerely and in Christ, Dorien de Lusignan

  10. G-Man. I think you have hit the nail fair and square on the head there.

    The first time I had heard of Obama, IIRC, it was finding his(?) book on my mother-in-law’s coffee table. I skimmed through it and was horrified. “You cannot be seriously considering him?” I asked and got all the usual drivel about change and fresh starts and how everyone would get free health care. By 2012, she was not as excited, as he had somehow failed to stop all the war in the world. However, he was still not an evil republican, so I expect she voted for him again.

  11. While my comments here may seem off-topic, they relate to this article’s citation of yet another of the many Obama failures. Allow me to share a childhood memory from a moment in time which I feel captures the current spirit of America, despite Obama’s shameful reign…

    In high school the focus was friends, girls, and partying to numb the realities of the impending adulthood soon to be thrust upon us pre-graduating teens. As such, politics was never a topic in teen social circles and best left for the adults.

    But through it all I seem to recall one distinct element of banter amongst all adults, and that was something to the effect that Carter would go down as the worst president in U.S. history and how badass Reagan was because the moment he took office it put such a fear of Allah in the Iranians that they immediately released the U.S. hostages they’d held captive throughout Carter’s failed administration.

    All I remember is that seemed to create a natural high that permeated amongst most adults which then translated into very happy parents, the benefits of which trickled down to us teenagers. Whether real or imagined, there was a renewed sense of hope and prosperity that Reagan brought forth upon our Nation.

    I take the time to poetically recall this memory because for the first time since that era, I feel the same exact way again. To my teenage children, Obama is their Carter – who will go down as the worst president in U.S. history; and Trump is their Reagan – who seems to bring forth the renewed hope that this Country has so desperately been in need of for a very long time.

    So as another chapter in the history of our great Nation comes to a close, I think we are owed an explanation as to what in the hell Obama thought he was doing. And for that I feel the best answer is this…

    It was never a secret that Obama was raised abroad and by persons with extreme influences which flowed from belief systems far outside the U.S. While most people can draw from such worldly experiences and still maintain a healthy allegiance to the U.S., for Obama it instead served to make him incapable of truly comprehending the American experience and thus he failed to understand our fundamental values and core principles which are precisely what makes us the great Nation we are.

    Simply put, Obama’s inability to ever get anything of significance done for the American people is because his interests were not invested in the American people and our values. His lack of allegiance manifest itself as rather large and constant failures with implications that I don’t think even he fully understood.

    The stark reality is that Obama sacrificed our Nation to conduct his own personal global social experiments based on his foreign ideologies, and we paid dearly for that. We may spend years debating the ill-effects of Obama’s actions, but the cause was clear – it was the direct result of his self-serving impotence drawn from warped philosophies of who he thought we were, or should be, as a Nation – rather than what we really are.

    Unfortunately the totality of Obama’s wayward social experiments and unprecedented failures will not be fully realized for years to come. But as a Nation, we will heal.

    1. @ moondog,

      By all means, feel free to distribute as freely as possible. I don’t need any credit. All I desire is for as many folks as possible to begin the healing process. A good start might be in sharing my words so that others may finally come to know they were never really alone throughout this nightmare we came to know as Obama.

      We all felt how nasty and corrupt things were becoming, but most of us frustratingly felt alone or couldn’t find the words that could describe what we knew was really going on. Now maybe we can.

      Likewise, my words should serve as a scolding to the supporters of Obama and the likes of Hillary. Even now, they continue to implode into oblivion, utter disbelief, and in-fighting over how they lost this election. Clueless as they are, maybe my words will help them as well – to put things into proper perspective.

    2. G-Man, Thank you for taking the time, making the superior effort and wisely stating the issue so well. Some folks just do not get it easily. For example, some continue to allow invasion into their lives by stating, “If you are not doing anything wrong why worry about privacy issues?” Another example, a school system on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, my state, not my neighborhood, just removed, prior to the mandated review, two books from the community shelves. They suspended “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Huckleberry Finn” due to a parental complaint. Should I just sit back and not protest this based on the premise, “Oh well, that’s OK,I can still get them by the thousands at Amazon?” Once the camel has it,s nose under the tent wall you can count on it squeezing all the way in and stinking up your environment. Yours Sincerely and in Christ, Dorien de Lusignan

    3. G-Man: Your comment should be the source of an article, not merely a comment. You have crystallized the issues and situation as eloquently, concisely, accurately and unemotionally as I have heard. Keep up the good work. I would like to hear more from you. Reid Walker from Houston

    4. @ Reid Walker,

      Given this past eight years and then to feel such sudden elation and positivity, I became overwhelmed with inspiration to write something as genuine and sincere as I possibly could. I felt compelled to share a definition of my experiences in words that I’d hoped everyone could truly feel.

      However, there would be no sure way for me to ever know to what extent I was able to accomplish that – were it not for the depth of your kind response. What you just wrote was one of the most meaningfully composed compliments I could ever have hoped to receive. I thank you kindly for taking the time to allow me to know this.

  12. When a neighbor asked me why gun rights groups oppose “smart guns,” all I had to do was ask him “how many times has your home computer misbehaved or blue screened on you?…and your life and loved one’s lives don’t even depend on it!” His reply was simply “okay, I get your point.”

    End of argument!

  13. The anti-gun commies keep trying for the wrong things. Why can’t they realize, it’s not the guns that are the problem, it’s the criminals. The leftists are always trying to fix the wrong part and we keep trying to point out their mistake. Wicked circle.

    1. Because they don’t truly care about the lives they claim to protect. Their goal is simply to remove guns from civilian hands, any and every way they can. Long long ago it was proven armed populace saves lives, even Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus believed in this principle. Regressives dismiss all of our written history in the attempt to create a doomed social experiment.

    1. I’m extremely estatic that Trump won, but at the same time campain promises do not equal campain promises delivered.
      He is a unknown that said and did what he needed to do to get elected.
      If we take all his policies at face value, then yes, he should do well, but only time tell. In the meantime this is not a time to relax an active stance against laws and policies that would try to disarm the American public.
      If this past Black Friday’s NCIS background checks are a good indicator then I don’t believe I’m in the minority in my views.

  14. Even the FBI cannot read my fingerprints, and nor can any of the smart phones I have tested. Do they propose to disarm me?

    Raving loonies, the whole lot of them.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.