I really don’t care for the arguments that those that wish to neuter the Second Amendment with a Trojan Horse: 
The only “smart gun” that exists in even a semi-viable form is the $1,800 iP1/iW1 Armatix combination. It is an electronically neutered 10-shot semi-automatic pistol in .22LR mated to a bulky watch. For the system to work, the watch requires a PIN code to be entered every few hours, and it must be worn on the firing hand at all times for the firearm to work with any sort of reliability at all. Armatix also owns a patent which appears to be a software “backdoor” which allows government agencies to turn off their firearms remotely.
What American shooter wants to spend $1,800 on a gun/watch combination that cannot be shot with the off-hand at all without failing 100% of the time, which requires a PIN code to function, is time-limited before it locks again, which is only chambered in the anemic .22LR caliber, and which may be disabled remotely by the government or anyone else who learns to hack the technology?
No one who is buying a pistol for viable self-defense, that’s for sure.
I hate wearing jewelry – have since forever so about the only piece I wear is my wedding band. No extra rings, no chains, no necklaces – and no watch (much less a bulky oversized one that needs batteries in perhaps a most inconvenient time). I also hate PINS and passwords – I have several pages worth (offline) so the last thing I want is one for which I have to develop a real discipline to use or have to call Tech Support to rejigger it. Sure, the hand gun itself looks sleek and modern but its design is insufficient for to overcome that 80’s looking stupidity. So the hacking quotient doesn’t even apply to my calculus. But this does….
…Marilinda Garcia (running for Congress in NH’s Second District) has it exactly right – the almost total lack of trust most Americans (and I) have in the Federal and State govt. If the govt can turn it off on a whim, who really owns that firearm? Remember, the true purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunting and gun sports, it is for self-defense. And at that, not just self-defense in the typical sense but self-defense in the face of a tyrannical govt. If that were to happen, would you really wish to lay out that kind of cash for something that Government can sit outside your house and make it go dark?
Ask yourself the question: if the definition of tyranny is moving away from adhering to The Rule of Law, and we see our Government on that path NOW (really, the CIA spying on the Senate, the President willy-nilly declaring changes in Law passed by the Congress, and what Susan found this morning), does this thing even make sense to Liberty & Freedom folks?
Nope. We’ll let the Statists go and buy it and let them beta test it.
(H/T: Bearing Arms)
