The government programs and spending never stop under Bill Clinton.
His latest proposal is to commit $10 million of taxpayer funds to
test and develop "smart guns" that can only be fired by their owners.
Advertisement - story continues below
Like all federal government plans, it's difficult to know where to
begin criticizing such an ill-conceived idea. But let me give it a try.
No. 1: Show me where in the enumerated powers of the U.S.
Constitution, the federal government has the authority to allocate such
funds. Of course, this is a challenge that can made of perhaps 99
percent of federal initiatives and, unfortunately, will not be used as a
debating point in Congress.
No. 2: We live, supposedly, in a market economy. If you believe in
free enterprise and there is a natural market for such guns, why
shouldn't those manufacturing firearms develop and test such weapons? Do
we really believe the government has a more efficient mechanism for
developing and testing products than private industry? Is there really a
demand for such guns? And, if not, how does the government plan to
create one? And why?
No. 3: Are so-called "smart guns" really a good idea? I seriously
question that. I wouldn't want one. If, for instance, such a gun could
not be fired by anyone but me, it would be of no use to my wife,
presumably, my kids or anyone else I would like to use it in an
emergency. Suppose I wanted to sell my gun or give it to one of my kids
some day? Could it be reprogrammed? Who wants the hassle? The point is,
there are definitely downsides to the "smart gun" idea. They are not
nearly as versatile as a dumb gun and will certainly be more costly.
Advertisement - story continues below
No. 4: Could it be the real reason government is getting involved in
this issue is because they can be controlled -- perhaps even disabled --
by the state? Remember, the central reason the founders of our country
prohibited government from infringing on the natural right of citizens
to bear arms was because of their strong belief that only a vigilant and
armed populace could, ultimately, hold the government accountable. The
Second Amendment wasn't a bill designed to protect the rights of
hunters. It was not, so much, an effort to ensure that citizens could
defend themselves from criminals -- though that was clearly a
consideration and a legitimate concern. The primary issue for those who
truly care about liberty and preventing government oppression was and is
preserving the ability of the people to defend themselves from state
terror -- either an invasion from abroad or an invasion from within. If
government maintained a "key" to smart guns, wouldn't that just be so
What this proposal boils down to is gun control. It's just the latest
effort by the state to increase its power over the people. The gun
grabbers will use any argument they can to destroy our God-given,
constitutionally protected individual rights. They'll use any
camouflage. They'll use any and every method. They'll use any argument.
And this is just the latest in a long-range plan to deny you and your
children their basic civil rights.
You can be assured that after the government conducts some research
and some tests, the next phase of the plan will be legislation that
requires all firearms to be equipped with such technology. Do you have
any doubts? That's why this plan must be opposed as fiercely as an
effort to ban the sale and possession of firearms. Don't let this camel
put its nose under the tent. Understand what the real goal is.
It's time for freedom-loving people to rise up in anger and tell the
government enough is enough. Government has no authority making laws
abridging our right to bear arms. Period. End of story. We don't need
any more restrictive laws; we need to repeal those already on the books.
Take the offensive. Reframe the debate. Don't let the issue be obscured
by those with an agenda for more state control over our lives.
Not only are we all safer in a well-armed community of self-governed
individuals, we're also freer.