Jon Stewart Brilliantly Calls Out Hypocritical NRA on Their Opposition to the “Smart Gun”

jon-stewart-nraPerhaps some of you have heard of this movement by some gun manufacturers to come out with guns that will only fire for the actual gun owner.

Seems like a pretty common sense approach for people who want to own a gun but worry about gun safety in their home, right?  Make it more difficult for children to accidentally harm themselves with the gun, along with making it much more difficult for a gun to be used against its owner – and if the gun is stolen it could potentially be useless.

Well, not if you’re part of the NRA, which has feverishly opposed these “smart guns.”

It’s a point Jon Stewart called out, saying that the NRA has finally found a gun they don’t want Americans to own. Somehow these smart guns are a “threat” to the Second Amendment.

He also talked about a gun store owner in Maryland, Andy Raymond, who received death threats not from anti-gun advocates, but from pro-gun nuts because he chose to sell these smart guns.

Which goes along with a story I did a few weeks ago where the CEO of a gun manufacturer who makes smart guns also received death threats over the gun.

Stewart then showed clips of various NRA spokesmen talking about how it’s the greatness of this country for American citizens to be able to buy any kinds of guns they see fit to protect themselves and their family – followed by a reporter recently saying that the NRA refuses to budge on their opposition to smart guns.

Apparently, “any guns the owner sees fit” doesn’t really mean “any gun” according to the NRA.  So if someone opposes the right for people to own AR-15’s, that’s “un-American” – but it’s patriotic for the NRA to oppose the right for Americans to buy smart guns if they so choose?

Like with most things right-wing, they only like freedom when it provides rights for things with which they agree.  When it doesn’t, suddenly they’re not such big fans of it.

This hypocrisy prompted Stewart to finish the segment by saying, “Holy shit. Finally the NRA’s fight to protect the Second Amendment has met its match – the NRA.”

Once again the NRA proves it’s nothing more than a paranoid group that opposes any common sense approach to gun safety.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Shadow8088

    There are reasons why people don’t want a “smart” gun floating around out there… perhaps it’s the 10% failure rate… that’s always good in an emergency. Or the price tag, $1400 for then gun, and another $400 for the watch that goes with it… or maybe even still it’s the caliber… yes, you can kill with a .22, but it doesn’t have much in the way of stopping power. I really don’t give a crap about why the NRA doesn’t like it as I’m not a member, nor will I ever be, but as a gun owner, this gun scares the crap outta me and should do the same for everyone else… A tool, reliant on technology that can fail at least 10% of the time is not something I’m willing to bet mine or my family’s life on.

    • Cole Raney

      Well, this is new technology. A lot of technology has kinks in the beginning. Over the years they coukd drastically bring down the failure rate.

    • June Goetz Lynne

      regular guns jam all the time as well!

      • Shadow8088

        tell that to my revolver. 0 jams.

      • Watt Smith

        Not once every ten rounds. If it does it is broken.

    • usorthem3

      So you support a gun dealer receiving death threats for trying to sell a gun. Fascinating.

      • Shadow8088

        pretty interesting deduction considering I said nothing of the sort. Troll much?

    • FD Brian

      so the weapon is not for you, great, but it may be what someone else wants. Let the market decide.

      • MLR

        The right only likes the free market when it suits them.

      • Shadow8088

        luckily for me, I’m not on the right…

        and he’s right… the market WILL decide.. until law forces you to do otherwise… like in NJ… Besides, who wants to spend $1800 on a .22 when they could buy 3 S&W .45 revolvers for the same amount…

      • FD Brian

        When that law is taken to the courts it most likely will be judged unconstitutional.

      • MLR

        Well I don’t agree with the NJ law either. Again, trying to control which guns we should have. Neither side should control. Let us decide which guns we want.

  • June Goetz Lynne

    If I have the money and want to buy this gun why is it I can’t? Where is my 2nd amendment right to purchase it???

  • Watt Smith

    IMHO the biggest reason to oppose the sale of these, “smart guns” is the NJ state law requiring that all NJ firearms be “smart” a certain time period after the first one is sold – with a law enforcement exception, of course.

    • FD Brian

      that law, most likely, when taken to court would probably be ruled unconstitutional.

      • Watt Smith

        Yes, but would you take that risk? For all you know it could proliferate and spread like kudzu or gay marriage bans while you languish in federal jail awaiting a trial date.

      • FD Brian

        It should be challenged now. I’m not sure what the NRA is waiting for.

    • sdm123

      You say you would oppose the sale of this kind of gun because of a state law (in one state) that you disagree with? Shouldn’t you work to repeal the law and let the free market decide about this kind of gun?

      • Watt Smith

        doesn’t possess your superior funding and political connections, but were it within his power there a few laws that need repealing. The problem is that NJ, has tied the law to the sale of this first “smart” gun. The second it is sold the herculean feat of citizenry also gets an unrealistic deadline. This particular “smart” pistol has no value except as a collector’s item or a particularly expensive and troublesome plinker. The free market would probably crush it, but it’s far too risky to try.

    • Jillz

      The NJ State Senate Majority leader has offered to introduce a bill to repeal the smart gun law in NJ if the NRA agrees to back off interfering with the free market sale of smart guns. The NRA, so far, has refused. It’s pretty hypocritical, really – aren’t they the ones running around screaming about the freedom and liberty for every American to purchase whatever kind of gun they want? Do Americans who would like to purchase a smart gun somehow not enjoy the same freedom and liberty? And what’s the problem with the smart gun anyway? It still kills, but it might actually have some impact on lowering the number of accidental shootings, especially children shooting themselves and each other. The NRA is really showing its true colors on this one – seems they must really prefer the carnage.

      • Watt Smith

        can’t find any article with an actual response from the NRA on that. Judging by the quoted request it makes sense why. There are plenty of reasons to abhor this particular “smart” pistol, but the NJ law and the possibility of similar laws are the only good reasons to prohibit it that come to mind.
        You do not appear to be knowledgeable about firearms. This particular “smart” gun only comes in .22lr . This is a caliber most people consider inadequate for self defense because the bullet is so small and so slow, it can be stopped by such unlikely things a pocket-notebook, a watch, a cell phone, or even a tennis ball. It is also considered too small to hunt with. In the state of NY it is illegal to hunt turkey and anything larger with a pistol or rifle chambered in .22lr because it will probably suffer, but not die. The Armatix Ip1 is only useful for shooting paper targets and beer cans. No it does not still kill. The only way this pistol is going to kill anyone is if it’s used in a self defense situation and the battery’s run low or the kill switch is triggered; or by accident.
        By the way, do you know how many children are killed by firearm accident in the US every year? On average it’s about 200 according to the CDC. No need to bring up the hundred or so other things that kill more children is there?

      • Jillz

        I don’t need to be knowledgeable about firearms to recognize hypocrisy when I see it.

        The NRA is screaming and crying all the time that all Americans should have unrestricted access to whatever guns they want, yet somehow if an American wants THIS type of gun, the NRA has a problem with that? You don’t see that as a little hypocritical? Really? Is this not a restriction on my right to purchase a gun?

        No, there is no need to bring up the hundred or so other things that kill more children here – I was replying to a comment on an article about guns.

      • Watt Smith

        How can your recognize hypocrisy when you don’t know what the individuals you accuse of it are saying? The Devil’s in the details, you know.
        And how are you so knowledgeable about what gun owners want if you don’t know firearms?
        It would be a lot easier to explain to you why this particular pistol should not be sold if you would bite the bullet and deign to learn a thing or two about firearms. Technically it falls in the category of, “gun”: it propels a projectile by the deflagration of a chemical charge and is thus a fire-arm, but, as previously explained, it doesn’t do the things most people would want a pistol to do, it costs ten times as much as a comparable pistol (or air pistol), and it sets a poor precedent. On top of that this we have to deal with the community’s fear of change – you’re familiar with fear of change, aren’t you?
        Your argument is purely semantic. This is about as hypocritical as an all-you-can-eat buffet running out of food while you are still physically capable of eating. If you refuse to consider facts thats the best explanation I can give you.

  • MLR

    I get tired of saying it but I’m going to say it again. The RWNJs are nothing but hypocrites who cherry-pick both the Bible and the Constitution to suit their own agenda. They say they’re for freedom but they want to decide for all of us which freedoms we’re entitled to. Whether it be guns, the right to marry who we want, the right to our own reproductive choices and medical decisions, and even the right to be free from religion. They want to stuff their beliefs down everyone’s throats and I hope people get tired of this and it can’t happen soon enough.

  • Mezcale

    Wow June, guess you should actually read the article before you comment! You can buy the gun. The whole friggin point is that the NRA is against it.

  • gregz

    Jon Steward is a liberal piece of material that makes no sense all of the time. Jon. you are a complete waste to a free society. Please go to a Socialist country, be arrested, beg for mercy, and be deposed of.

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      I’m not even going to bother with your spelling, but do you even watch the daily show? He calls out anyone who does or says something stupid or hypocritical, be they left, right, center, or any other political affiliation not covered above. He just spends more time attacking the right than the left because the right does more stuff dumb enough to make it onto his show.

  • Matthew Reece

    The NRA is wrong here, but there is a problem with smart guns. Any electronic device that sends signals can be hacked. The concern is that agents of the state or other criminals could disable one’s means of self-defense.

  • Stephen Barlow

    This technology could be the end of the black market, Saturday Night Xpecial “Georgia to Northern City Gangs pipeline!!!! Imagine cutting off the supply of FRESH guns for drive-bys and holdups!!!

    This technology allows ONLY the BUY to use the gun. Unless the BUYER changes the ID for the new owner. Which can be REGISTERED @ time of sale. Part of the backround checks. (OOPS!!! THE GNRAOP quashed THAT against the wil of 90+% of the people in all 50 states!!!!) Better luck next time…

    ALSO, there could be a self destruct explosive built into the grip of these KILLING MACHINES that would leave a sizable DNA marker at a crime scene INLESS THE USER was the registered owner.

    I like the idea of allowing a weapon, unsupervised and out of the owner’s care and responsibility to be a 7-15 year Felony! Mandatory sentence and all weapons forfeit on the first conviction. Surely ‘losing’ or not reporting a ‘stolen gun’ is much more dangerous then selling 5 joints to your girlfriends brothers on Prom Night.Guns KILLL PEOPLE WHO HAVE GUNS POINTED AT THEM!!!!! Pot makes you daft enough to not be able to squirt a water pistol.

    I would also like to see an Annual Congressional “Stone your elected officials” Day. Like the National Smokeout in DC each summer… we corral all those people making $176,000 + staff, travel and benefits… and MAKE THEM INNHALE.

    BEcause frankly, Rob Ford in Toronto has made more sense smoking CRACK than Ted Cruz, Eric Cantor, john Boehner and john McCain have with their Alzheimer’s, Alcoholism, Christophenia and Tiny Dick Complexes.

    SO The NRA MUST admit to LYING ABOUT IT’S MISSION. Gun SAFETY is NOT what they are after. But we ALREADY KNEW THAT!!!! WHy do you think they promote Tec-9’s and MAC-10’s more than hunter safety courses?

  • Kerry Dean, NWA.

    Way to go Jon!! Second amendment should only apply to militias.

  • Joseph Rogers

    The second amendment is obsolete. When the Constitution was written there was no national armed services or police force. There is no need for a “well formed militia” When the second amendment took effect people owned muskets and needed to hunt to eat . The amendment has not kept up with technology or the times.

    • Shadow8088

      …and yet no one has tried to amend it… I wonder why? and if you really want to go this far, start checking the REST of the amendments as well… not just the ones you don’t like…

      • Joseph Rogers

        There are groups trying to amend the second amendment. Just the wording of the amendment. Guns will still be legal. In as far as the other amendments, the first, fourth, fifth and eighth in the bill of rights need to be amended. There needs to be an amendment for a balanced budget and voters rights.
        I have done my research on these, I do believe people should own guns but do not hide behind the second amendment when the world was a different place when that was written

    • Libs are PCs

      The second amendment is designed to protect all of thr others against “threats foreign and domestic”.
      Hillary is a Domestic threat to the Constitution.