[Shooter 2.5]

I read your posts and you're trying to make some sort of connection based on a link on a home page of a gun manufacturer. IF you were an NRA member, you would already know their position on so-called "Smart Guns" from all of the articles in the American Rifleman. It's December and the yearly index is in that issue. Look the articles up and report back.

[kcar]

I get America's 1st Freedom. The Jan '03 issue decompiles on the "ballistic fingerprinting" media craze but doesn't yet address the Taurus betrayal on NJ's "smart guns" plans, as this no doubt happened after the date of publication. I expect the NRA to be principled, but years of betrayals from trusted sources have led me to look over my shoulder frequently to verify consistency. And sometimes the manner in which defenders defend is worriesome, e.g., making pragmatic arguements why this or that won't work while ceding the principle that if it did work it would be okay, is a bad defense. I would prefer defenders to aver the absolute principle that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms of their choosing, and then oh, by the way, this particular scheme is also impractical for this or that reason. NRA is okay with me as long as they continue to do that.

The NRA's 5 million members are far more impressive than AARP's 10m because of the NRA's singularity of purpose. Its members vote consistently and have badly stung the Democrats in the last two election cycles.