Mandatory Smart Gun Bracelets: Reliable or Inadequate?

Coming up with the idea of a gun that works only by activating it through use of a battery-operated device sounds far from reliable to me. Think of how often your iPhones or your Nike Fuel bands die. Would you let your life depend on the life of your phone? I sure wouldn’t. So how is this any different?

Not to mention, this technology is for one purpose and one purpose only: To track and disable your firearm whenever it seems fit. Did you know that authorities are requesting permission to gain access to Smart Guns and the devices that kick them into gear? That means, they want access to override your Smart Gun if they feel it as necessary. So tell me, if there is technology that can allow a police officer to override your gun, what makes you think that a criminal can’t access YOUR GUN in the same way?

Let’s also think of it this way. Do you honestly think criminals are going to allow their lives to depend on a gun in which law officials obtain the technology to turn off?

People like Eric Holder are talking this up like it is actually for your own safety. That’s not the case. Gun control has always been about one thing: CONTROL. They want to make it seem like they are compromising and letting America keep their guns. This is far from it! Tell me, can law enforcement officials deactivate your gun right now? They sure can’t. Can they deactivate it if Smart Guns become the only legal gun in this country? Yup. So tell me, how is turning off a Smart Gun any different than confiscation? And what’s even better for them is that Smart Guns have a GPS tracking device so they will know exactly who has it and where it is.

Get with it America. Smart Guns are not ‘safer’ or made for your best interest. It is an easy way for very bad people to restrict your right to bear arms before completely taking it away.

Obama Asks for $1.1 Billion for Gun Control

Yup, you read that right! Our ever-so-economical president wants $1.1 BILLION to protect Americans from gun violence. $182 million of Obama’s request is to support the “Now Is The Time” gun safety initiative, which includes:


Let’s take a closer look at these so-called “gun safety initiatives”. First, background checks are already required for any legal purchase of a firearm. This isn’t how criminals are getting a hold of guns. It’s people like Leland Yee who are illegally trafficking guns into the country and placing them into the hands of very bad people. This will happen regardless of what our background check requirements are. Do you think Senator Yee and ‘Shrimp Boy’ performed background checks on any of the Muslim rebels they so willingly armed?

Passing a stronger ban on assault weapons. Look, I’ve already done an article on how Obama, Feinstein, and other anti-gun advocates are misusing terms in order to scare uniformed American citizens into supporting their agenda. He wants to pass stronger bans on guns in general and will do so by manipulating you into thinking a modern day sporting rifle is a military weapon. Which in turn makes a legal gun an ‘assault weapon’.

Banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. I also mentioned this briefly in my post about misuse of guns terms, and I will mention it again. Limiting the amount of rounds a magazine can hold WILL NOT prevent or stop gun violence. Statistics say that criminals on average only fire about 4 rounds, which is well under the 10 rounds held in a supposed ‘dangerous’ magazine. Not to mention, PoliceOne did a survey in which 96% said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce crime. And last but not least, just because you have a limit on the amount of rounds your magazine can carry, doesn’t mean a criminal won’t have another fully loaded magazine on his/her person. An experienced shooter can unload and reload like it’s second nature.

Get “armor-piercing bullets off the streets”. Oh how I love this one. What exactly is an ‘armor-piercing bullet’? Where can I buy them? If I go to a store and ask for a box of armor-piercing bullets, will the counter clerk know exactly what I’m talking about? Not really, because there is no such thing. It is yet another term that Obama uses to scare you along with his favorite phrase “police are being out-gunned on the streets”. Which I also showed to my readers is not true in previous posts. Basically what Obama is wanting to “get off the streets” are regular bullets. You know, bullets that actually have more than 100 grains of powder and not the rinky-dink ones you use to practice at a shooting range. So not only is he going after guns, he is going after ammunition.

Giving law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. Ok, like what Mr. Obama? Another $382.1 million has been requested by the Department of Justice, $2 million of which will be for Smart Gun technology grants. Did you know that there have been recommendations for police officers to have access to Smart Guns owned by citizens? Yes that means that your little chip/bracelet/fingerprints can be overtaken by a band that any law-enforcement official can wear. They also would like to put GPS tracking devices in each Smart Gun. Now why would a gun need a tracking device? Could it be because the government wants to know exactly who owns a gun and where it is located so that they can confiscate at any given moment?

End the freeze on gun violence research. Seriously? End what freeze? You can do research any time you want to. All of the data, statistics, polls, and crime ratings are all there. It just doesn’t match up with his claims against guns, therefore he wants to make uniformed people believe that any of the research that has been released is invalid since apparently there is a freeze on the real research. Give me a break.

Make our schools safer. Ok fine. I’m all for my future children going to a safe school, but his definition of safe and mine are not the same. Being from Texas, I have heard all of the stories about Charles Whitman shooting from the clock tower at the University of Texas in 1966. Did you know that it wasn’t just police officers who fired back? Other armed citizens, both students of UT and locals around the area at the time opened fire. A couple of these citizens even went with the officers into the tower to get to Whitman. With the extra help from these armed citizens, lives of students, faculty, and even police officers were put at a lesser risk. Because of the return fire from multiple directions, Whitman was forced to hide behind a wall to avoid shots which in turn prevented him from having good aim to harm any other people.Taking guns away and providing counseling instead is not going to help make schools any safer.

Lastly, of course he has to enter ObamaCare into his anti-gun plan. Don’t even get me started on that one.

To wrap up my post, why are we going to spend money we don’t have? Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt, yet he wants to spend another billion to take away our Constitutional right? How about we use that money to REMOVE laws that infringe on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms instead and be done with it.

SMART Guns: Is Smart really safer?

Most of you know of “smart” technology because it is becoming extremely prevalent in our society. Go into any electronic store and you will see smart TVs, smart phones, even smart paper! Ok well maybe not that last one but it sure seems like it to me. When bringing up gun safety, the idea of a smart gun came into the discussion. The idea was to have some sort of radio frequency in the form of a ring or bracelet that would activate or deactivate the gun. A handful of people believed this was a great idea especially for those who have little loved ones at home.

However, groups like the NRA criticized this new idea because it is seen as yet another way for the government to try and control citizens’ ownership of guns. According to the post on their website, the NRA does not have any opposition against the technology but instead the government mandate that requires a grip with a finger reading technology.

The smart gun has now been made available for purchase in California.

Smart gun

Before we get ahead of ourselves and jump for joy over another smart product, let’s take a look into the pros and cons.


*Child safety: Having a weapon that can only be activated if it is in a close proximity to its registered device is a really neat idea to help prevent child accidents, teenage suicides, and homicides.

*Will make it harder for stolen guns to be used by criminals.

*Protects law enforcement from having their guns used against them in a struggle.

Arguments against the pros:

*If parents leave a loaded, unlocked gun in an area in which a child can access it, who’s to say the parent doesn’t then leave the watch laying around? I understand that it is an extra preventative step but carelessness when it comes to gun safety will always be a factor. I think even more so if the parent thinks that it is safer.

*It will make it harder for stolen guns to be used by criminals, but for how long? People already know how to hack into phones, computers, tablets, and even rewire a smart car to get it to start without the remote key. It is only a matter of time before it becomes the same way for guns. Not to mention, there will still be regular functioning handguns in the mix. When it comes down to saving your life, would you rather rely on physics or electronics?

*Smart guns do have the possibility of lessening the odds that a gun will be turned against law enforcement during a struggle. However, in a recent test, 1 out of every 10 shots failed. This is not a reliable weapon for neither law enforcement nor for you.


*Price. A smart gun starts at $1400. Then tack on another $400+ for your special new watch. This could potentially decrease the number of citizens who will purchase a firearm because it is 3x more than a Glock or S&W.

*Your self-defense weapon is now dependent on a battery-operated device. If your watch/ring/bracelet malfunctions, gets hacked, or looses battery power your gun will not fire.

*Unable to use someone else’s gun if you are in trouble. “Honey, shoot my gun! Here take my watch.”

*The watches/rings/bracelets can be recognized by an offender which can take away the element of surprise during an attack. Also takes away the whole point of concealed carry.

Arguments against Cons:

*Price is high now most likely because it is a new item, and the first of its kind. When other manufacturers come into the mix, prices are expected to drop.

*If you have a friend or family member that you trust with authorization to your weapon, you can grant them access by syncing their fingerprints to the grip on your gun if that is the model you chose. If you purchased the watch, it may be more of a struggle for someone to use your gun if needed.

*Different manufacturers can make different models and provide different electronic options to activate your gun. The electronic devices can be concealed if needed.

In conclusion, I feel that the cons are outweighing the pros. One of the main reasons that I am researching what guns would work best for me is because I want something that is reliable. I don’t want a gun that can die, malfunction, get hacked, or stop working if I lose the device. I understand why this could be a good idea but this is not for me.

What do you think about smart guns?