President Obama, in one of his latest attempts to remain relevant in his final year in office, is once again embracing “smart gun” technology as some sort of magic elixir to cure society of criminals committing crimes with guns. Obama and his ilk employ the term “gun violence” as if an inanimate object can somehow injure or kill on its own. Perhaps that’s why the President is pushing again for “smart gun” technology.

From the NY Times:

President Obama will use the power of his office to try to jump-start long-stalled “smart-gun” technology that could eventually allow only the owner of a firearm to use it, the White House announced Friday.

Over the opposition of gun rights groups, he also vowed to push ahead with a new federal policy giving the F.B.I. access to more mental health records of some Social Security recipients to better flag people who might be banned from buying a gun.

The dual moves expand on a series of steps that a tearful Mr. Obama pledged to take in January to confront gun violence with or without Congress, which has offered stiff opposition to broader gun control measures.

But the steps announced Friday generated objections not only from usual opponents like the National Rifle Association, but also from some police groups, which raised safety concerns about officers’ using untested smart guns in real-life situations.

The problem with smart gun technology is not that people oppose it, it’s just there is no market for it. People are not embracing the technology. The NRA, contrary to what the NY Times says, is not opposed to the technology. They oppose (as are law enforcement groups) the government mandating it be used. Firearms operate very simply. They are not complex tools. However, police officers and citizens are wary of relying on electronics in life and death situations.

Instead of smart gun technology, it would be terrific if somebody developed Smart Anti-Gun Technology. Something that would prohibit people from saying dumb things about guns. It could be like a FitBit or an Apple Watch. It senses when somebody is about to say something foolish about firearms and zaps them with a little shock or prevents them from putting their feet in their mouths. The list of people making not just ignorant but downright stupid statements about firearms is long, but here are some of the best of the worst.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) on high-capacity magazines: “If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

Wow. Rep. DeGette has long been a proponent of banning high-capacity magazines but has done so apparently, under the delusion the magazines cannot be reloaded. The technology would more likely be able to detect a higher grade of stupidity. This statement would be a good test cast.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California): “We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”

This must have been under some new amendment to the Constitution I am unaware of. The last time I checked, it wasn’t “legal” to hunt humans.

Colorado State Sen. Jessie Ulibarri (D-Adams County): “Congressman Giffords’ life was saved and so many others’ when very valiant folks stood up to defend themselves and protect themselves, and they did it with ballpoint pens.”

I know it’s more difficult to breathe at high altitudes but seriously? Or is Sen. Ulibarri hitting one too many of the marijuana establishments in the state? He is referring of course, to the tragic shooting of Gabby Giffords who was shot and critically injured by a mentally ill Jared Loughner. As much as Ulibarri wants to believe pens were used to finally stop the shooting, it was actually a bystander who hit Loughner across the head with a folding chair. Loughner was then knocked down by a 74 old retired Army Colonel. That is what finally put an end to the carnage.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York): “The Second Amendment only protects the people who want all the guns they can have. The rest of us, we’ve got no Second Amendment. What are we supposed to do?”

She made this comment during an interview with John Fugelsang. Don’t know who he is? You’re lucky. He’s one of those left-wing “comedians” who thinks the only jokes to be told are those that make fun of white men and Christians. That said, Slaughter’s comments are eyebrow raising as the constitution protects the rights of all people. It is not selective, naturally.

Hopefully, the good people at MIT or NASA can think of something and get it to market. Still, amusing as it is, it’s actually quite dangerous when stopping to ponder it for a moment. These statements are being made by people who write laws.

So while we can stop for a moment to laugh at such incoherence and ignorance, those who value the second amendment and the protections it affords, have to remain vigilant in the face of such idiocy. No matter how ridiculous they sound, these politicians will not stop in their efforts to step all over second amendment rights, including attempting to seek to mandate the use of “smart gun” technology.