Smart Gun Technology, Surveillance and Safety
Normally gun advocates jump on any attempt to impose limitations on what kind of gun a person may want to buy. Not so with smart guns. The fierce backlash against any individual, business, or manufacturer that dares to bring a smart gun product to the “free” market has been impressive. Just ask Andy Raymond, who was quickly death-threatened into compliance:
In a 12+ minute video posted to the store’s Facebook page (NFSW, due to language), Maryland gun dealer Andy Raymond of Engage Armament says that he has reversed his decision to carry the Armatix iP1 pistol.
Raymond says that he was unaware that if he stocked the pistol, that he would trigger a dormant law in New Jersey that requires everyone in that state to convert to so-called “smart guns” once they are offered for commercial sale in any state.
Raymond said that he wanted to stock the gun to introduce “fence-sitters” to shooting, thereby expanding the number of people supporting Second Amendment rights.
It’s also worth watching Chris Hayes’ segment on how effective the response to Andy Raymond has been.
While it might be satisfying to point out the obvious hypocrisy, the paranoia of “they are coming for our guns” that’s fueling this crazy backlash against smart guns is not totally without merit.
There is an insidiousness lurking beneath the surface of keeping Americans safe in our post-9/11 world. For example, there really seems to be no limits to the ever-exanding surveillance state. Just read about the technology the LA County Sheriff department tested back in 2012:
In a secret test of mass surveillance technology, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department sent a civilian aircraft* over Compton, California, capturing high-resolution video of everything that happened inside that 10-square-mile municipality.
Compton residents weren’t told about the spying, which happened in 2012. “We literally watched all of Compton during the times that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,” Ross McNutt of Persistence Surveillance Systems told the Center for Investigative Reporting, which unearthed and did the first reporting on this important story. The technology he’s trying to sell to police departments all over America can stay aloft for up to six hours. Like Google Earth, it enables police to zoom in on certain areas. And like TiVo, it permits them to rewind, so that they can look back and see what happened anywhere they weren’t watching in real time.
If it’s adopted, Americans can be policed like Iraqis and Afghanis under occupation…
Were people informed about this testing of technology to keep them safe? Yeah, right. More from the link:
Sgt. Douglas Iketani acknowledges that his agency hid the experiment to avoid public opposition. “This system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public,”he said. “A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky, the Big Brother, so to mitigate those kinds of complaints we basically kept it pretty hush hush.”
And here’s another gem of a quote from Sgt. Douglas Iketani:
“Our first initial thought was, oh, Big Brother, we’re going to have a camera flying over us. But with the wide area surveillance you would have the ability to solve a lot of the unsolvable crimes with no witnesses, no videotape surveillance, no fingerprints.”
What kind of technological intrusions are Americans willing to accept in order to be safe?