search
top

Pro-Gun Bloggers Were What?

Apparently the New York Times says that “[p]ro-gun gun bloggers were furious” over the apperance smart gun in the movie Skyfall, and “were convinced it was a Hollywood plot to undermine their rights.” I haven’t even seen the movie, personally, and I don’t recall any controversy hitting the gun blogosphere. Also, does anyone believe staff reporters at the New York Times spend their spare time trolling gun blogs?

Doing a quick Google search, I can find only one gun blogger writing about it.  I noticed that article was reprinted in a few places so my guess is that the reporter did the same Google blog search I did, and didn’t bother to notice the same article was reprinted by the types of publications *cough* Ammoland *cough*, who are wont to reprint other people’s material and grab the SEO for it. Personally, I’m surprised that a NYT staff writer even knows that there is this thing called gun blogging, and thought to search on it. Perhaps we should be flattered.

As far as this “smart gun” nonsense goes, well, Bob Owens has more to say about that.

14 Responses to “Pro-Gun Bloggers Were What?”

  1. NUGUN Blog says:

    I am all full smart guns. I mean, give me a RELIABLE gun that will only fire in my hands or the hands of those I authorize. Amen. Sounds great to me….

    I just don’t want my gun to fail because of a dead battery, short circuit, etc.

    Fix those issues and I am ALL for a smartguns. But I don’t want to look dumb standing there pointing a gun that wont fire at a criminal intent on causing harm to me and my family.

  2. Other Steve says:

    I remember that scene, I remember being more “furious” than they ditched the P99 and instead of putting a PPQ in the movie they went with the PPK (-SS super safety? -ES Electronic safety? PPK-HYDNSETUI Hope You Don’t Need Someone Else To Use It?) instead. Historical and traditional whatever, the rest of the movie is ultra modern and they stick him with that 32acp or 380 relic? Come on, let it rest!

    Heh…. “furious”.

  3. Personally, when I saw it in the movie, I dismissed it. I’m sure no one expected all the cars to come out with machine guns and ejector seats after the Astin Martin DB5 in Goldfinger.

    • Badbartimus... says:

      LOL! Right along with transporters, flux capacitors, and light sabres.

      • McThag says:

        Wait. Are you saying we’re not going to get light sabers?

        Next you’ll be saying the moon colony is cancelled and there’s no flying cars.

        • Felix says:

          You can be sure there are no flying cars at the moon colonies, unless they do it indoors.

          • Ian Argent says:

            Flying cars would be easier on the moon, assuming you could get there. Ballistic flight, anyway.
            In fact, I’m minded of a contraption from one of the Gil the ARM yarns…

  4. Does it count if I saw the movie and thought about writing a post about it, but decided it wasn’t worth it?

  5. TS says:

    I am still waiting for my submarine car.

  6. Asdf says:

    I believe the smart gun was written into the script with a propaganda effect in mind. But it would be silly to claim that gun bloggers were FURIOUS about it without providing even a single example.

    • TS says:

      I didn’t see the movie. Was it said in passing, or worked into the script (smart gun saved the day when bad guy got a hold of 007’s gun and tried to shoot him with it)?

  7. Rob says:

    I thought it introduced a serious plot hole, but I wasn’t furious.

    I mean, you’re sending a secret agent into a country that bans guns, where he may be called upon to use a gun to assassinate or kill somebody, and you make that gun something that not only has to be handled without gloves, but can positively identify him as the only possible user? What kind of moron thinks that’s a good idea?

top