Quote of the day—Marc Lane

This needs to be enforced and standard on all guns. Not only does it make sure we don’t have unintentional shootings with children, but also completely eliminates gun resales. Standardizing this technology and reinforcing background checks is part of the way to cure American’s gun problem.

Marc Lane
2014
Comment on this video:

[The stupid is strong with this one. Every single thing he said is wrong.

  • As long as there exist functional guns and children it will be possible and probable there will be unintentional shootings with children involved.
  • How can it possibly eliminate gun resale any more than it would original sales? Apparently he is of the belief there is some sort of pairing between the original owner and the gun such that the bond can never be broken.
  • It appears he equates “standardization” with mandating. These are two completely different things.
  • I have no idea what he means by “reinforcing background checks”. I know how to reinforce a physical structure or even an argument or theory.
  • His last statement assumes facts not in evidence as well as being nonsensical. He must first demonstrate American has a “gun problem” then he must articulate the problem in a manner in which there exists the possibility of multiple solutions.

But what do you expect from an anti-gun person? Ignorance and stupidity is their currency.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Marc Lane

  1. Another example that just because they can speak English Word Salad it doesn’t mean they should be in any position of authority above burger-flipper or fry cook (well, maybe order-taker).

    And to his semi-articulate mind, is the gun problem not the same as an “alcohol problem”, or a “car problem” *or a “crowbar problem**”? If not, why not? I’m sure he can say, well, those are DIFFERENT!!!! Louder and louder.
    1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a how-to manual!

    Two people like this guy arguing about something would sound like Newspeak:
    “You ungood!
    “NO, YOU UNGOOD!
    You plus-ungood!
    Well, YOU DOUBLE-PLUS UNGOOD!
    YOU F*****G DOUBLE-PLUS UNGOOD!
    NO! YOU F*****G DOUBLE-PLUS UNGOOD!
    At which point they start punching and pulling hair.

    * E.g. speeding.
    **E.g. burglary (You know, registry of crowbars and a background check would go a long way towards reducing burglaries. Serialize those big scary hunks of steel which can crush a skull like an eggshell. [/leftist idiot])

  2. I think by “gun problem” he means the fact that Americans have the right to own and use guns.
    As for the resale thing, yes, I suspect he assumes that a gun is tied to an authorized owner by some process that requires a dealer to do some magic. Perhaps a bit like a locksmith setting the combination on a safe, or changing the pins in a conventional lock.
    Interesting point, in fact. How IS an authorized owner introduced to a hypothetical “smart gun”? Does it require a “licensed gunsmith”? If yes, what tools does such a gunsmith use for the task, and what limits the availability of those tools? Does it mean I have to go visit a gunsmith and fork over $100 if my wife decides she wants to be able to use my gun?
    If it doesn’t require a licensed gunsmith, if it’s something the owner can do, then what keeps anyone else — like a thief — from doing it? Perhaps the owner has to unlock the gun with his grip as the first step to introducing another person. That’s a bit like repinning a lock, which starts by opening it (normally with the current key). If so, that’s ok for family members, but now how do you deal with selling it? You’d have to unlock it for the gunshop owner. And how would you deal with a locked heirloom?
    So yes, it sure looks like Marc is right and part of the purpose of this machinery is to prevent gun transfers.

  3. Once the technology is mandated and in place, it’s not a stretch to imagine that your authorization will eventually be limited in time, and will automatically expire unless you pass another background check (the terms of which can always be “updated” and “improved”), psychological evaluation and pay a fee.

    “…what keeps anyone else — like a thief — from doing it? “
    Irrelevant. You’re thinking about it the way Progressives would have you think about it. Don’t fall for the distractions. This is not and has never been about mitigating crime and accidents. We’ve conclusively proven that over the years. It’s about mitigating the Redneck Problem in America and the America problem in the world.

    Did anyone else notice the pained, forced, robot-like delivery of the sales pitch in the video? In his younger, more alive days, he probably learned enough to know that most of what he’s saying is designed to deceive and distract. The guy acts like he’s being held hostage, tortured, like someone just off-camera has a gun to his head. Maybe I should go back and watch it again, looking for his eyes blinking out, in the Morse code, a desperate plea for help.

    • “Don’t fall for distractions”. You’re right of course. It’s hard to be consistent even when I know better.

  4. Pingback: They want to destroy us

  5. The person chosen to demonstrate the apparatus is using the “thumb-over” grip, which is probably okay on a revolver or a single-shot handgun, but not on a semi-automatic pistol. He runs the risk of having the recoiling slide break his thumb.

    This observation may not be primarily pertinent to the discussion, but it does serve to dramatically illustrate that these … people … don’t really know shit about shooting. (As if there was any doubt.)

    • I cringed at that too. I think they were having the media and/or politicians try it for themselves.

      In my conversations with them it was very clear they were not gun people and they thanked me for bringing some of that expertise “to the table”. All I did was suggest some test cases which I’m pretty sure they hadn’t thought of.

  6. The more I think about this technology, the sillier it seems. You’re trying to integrate a fairly complex electronic system into an extremely simple mechanical one. The problem is that you have very little volume to work with and an operating environment which is pretty unkind to delicate little microprocessors.

    They’d be better off extolling the virtues of trigger locks and gun safes for crying out loud.

Comments are closed.