Saint, Showman or Charlatan?

Representative Trey Gowdy (R/SC) is a politician, and I instinctively distrust politicians of every stripe.

But I've been watching a lot of videos lately featuring the Honorable Gentleman from South Carolina, and Mr. Gowdy is one hell of an orator!



This is a representative melange of his in-house speeches.

I like a lot of the things he has to say.

(If you haven't the patience for a one-hour video, search youtube or google.)

Clinton as gun control candidate

This sort of campaign rhetoric will NOT hurt Clinton during the elections.

Email: Clinton's 'Forceful' Gun Position Had Some Democrats 'Freaking':

Clinton has supported an “assault weapons” ban and expansion of background checks to gun sales between private parties. She has praised Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program as a “good example” and something that is “worth considering” in the United States, something no other major party candidate had previously done. She also told donors the Supreme Court is “wrong” on the Second Amendment, calling into question the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(H/T "New Jovian Thunderbolt")

In what may be acknowledged as the most radical presidential election in American History, a radical stance may prove to be the best technique for the Liberal candidate.

“Already, she has been more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president,” 

People who are opposed to her gun control plans won't vote for her anyway, so she has nothing to lose in this demographic.

She is positioning herself with the "Radical Left", and they love it.

On the other hand, they already love her ... so it's not clear that her Gun Control stance is likely to gain her more than a few votes.

And nobody loves "The Donald".

In voting for Trump over Clinton, the American electorate may find themselves in the position of the naval officers in the movie "Master and Commander":

October 19, 2016 4:43 pm
Hillary Clinton’s “forceful” stance in favor of gun control caused some members of the Democratic Caucus to freak out, an email exchange published Wednesday shows.
Campaign staffers and outside strategists discussed the best way to approach issues such as President Obama’s handling of foreign policy, Wall Street, and gun control during a back and forth over an internal strategy memo in December 2015. Much of the conversation focused on how Clinton could differentiate herself from Obama in ways that would be advantageous to the campaign. One consultant pointed out during the exchange that Clinton was already “more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president” and some unnamed Democratic Caucus members were “freaking out about it.”

Hillary quote: Yes, we DO want to take your guns! (history)

Clinton Won't Say if Right to Bear Arms is Constitutional Right:  (Video in link)
June 5, 2016 9:58 am

 Hillary Clinton couldn’t definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment.
While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn’t true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left. “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” he asked.
 “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” she said. “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Translation:  Yes, we DO want to take your guns.

(Quote Provided  for people who want to prove her actual words vis-a-vis 2nd Amendment Rights.
Yes, someday she will deny and/or quibble about her statement: you have proof here.)

It gets worse!

And then it gets MUCH WORSE!  (Toddler Alert!)

How NOT to market "Smart Guns"

German arms maker Armatix to release second smart gun in U.S. | Computerworld:

Yes, it's another article about how great Smart Gun Technology is.

The only problem is, nobody wants to buy them.
Even as new standards are being considered and proposed, nobody wants to buy them anyway.

This article mentions the 'problems' the makers  (Armatix) are having, trying to get someone to BUY their product.  But in the text, it's the bad things about Smart Guns that jump out at the reader.

(1) Useless Caliber

German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC is planning to release its second smart gun in the U.S. next year after sales of its first model -- the .22 caliber iP1 -- were quashed by pressure from some gun owners and gun rights advocates who saw it as a threat to Second Amendment freedoms.

There's not a lot of people who are looking for a teeny .22LR pistol.   So maybe it is a good idea to build one with an actual usable caliber.

Oh, and BTW?  Nobody likes RFD which might conceivably be over-ridden by "outside agencies"!

Armatix finally figured this one out all by themselves:

 Unlike the iP1, which used RFID technology, the new iP9 9mm semi-automatic pistol will have a fingerprint reader. The iP9 will be available in mid-2017, according to Wolfgang Tweraser, CEO and president of Armatix LLC.

Good for you.  You're making a 9mm .. which is still (in the opinion of 'old school' pistol owners, a "Poodle Shooter".  But it's a step in the right direction.

(2) Overpriced!

So, why would someone want to pay over $1,000 for a tiny pistol?

The iP9 is expected to retail for about the same suggested retail price as the iP1 -- $1,365, which is more than twice the price of many conventional 9mm semi-automatic pistols. While smart gun technology will always bring with it a price premium, Tweraser said that's to be expected, and he compared it to a Tesla electric car.

Yes, well ... the advantage of electric cars is that they will probably, in the long run, save money because electricity is cheaper than gasoline.   But that's a fallacious comparison because you'll never get a return for your dollar by buying a 'Smart Gun'.

(3) Arrogant marketing!

But the manufacturer thinks the introductory price is reasonable:

"Always the latest technology comes with a higher price tag. As you make hundreds and thousands of units, then the price will change also," Tweraser said. "We're not going to replace regular guns because of the price point also."

And you wonder why you can't sell your guns in America?   You are so cocksure in the value of your product you ignore the fact that you have to build a market almost before you build the product.

You're not doing that.

Hell, you can't even find dealers!

When your firearms are competitively price, you will at least get a few people to buy the gun.   Maybe they will try it, discover that it's worth more than they paid for it, and tell their friends.

 You're not going to replace regular guns until you can COMPETE with regular guns!  Your marketing strategy today ... sucks.   Today, you can't afford to  "make hundreds and thousands of units";  when you start SELLING "hundreds and thousands of units", that's when you can start jacking up the price.   It's also called "The Law Of Supply And Demand".  Right now, you have too much supply because you have no demand for your product.

(4) Identify, and Sell to  your market

Who buys guns?

Hunters, Home & Personal Defense folks, plinkers, competition shooters, collectors, military and police, Governments, new firearms owners .. that's the potential market.

This product appeals Plinkers and New Firearms Owners in the .22 caliber configuration.  Not a big market for a small pistol which costs almost $1,400.

In the 9mm caliber, you MIGHT get some "Home & Personal Defense" people interested.

Hunters, Competition Shooters, military & police, they're not going to ... I think the expression is "I wouldn't touch that with YOUR dick!"   So, your market is probably limited to Home & Personal Defense buyers.

That's a very SMALL niche market, especially since the sub-set of that group will probably be "New Gun Owners", and they need to be romanced carefully.

You're doing okay with emphasizing how SAFE your gun is, and probably many most buyers are  will be young homeowners with children in the house.

Your niche just became much smaller.

Now all need to do to sell to a sustainable market (hopefully, more than 100 a month, nationwide) is to get them into the hands of this group, and let them do your marketing for you.

Did I mention  young, homeowners, children?

They're dealing with bloated mortgages and childrens' college trust funds, and you want to sell them a pistol for $1400 (plus plus ... license, taxes, permits, etc.)  Thank Goodness you brought it out in 9mm, which at least justifies some of the cost.

New Jersey!
New Jersey was the 11th of the original 13 colonies.

And it was the first in America to pass a state law that, as soon as (well, 3 years after) a "Smart Gun" became available for civilian purchase an America, only "Smart Guns" would be eligible for purchase in the state.

Unfortunately, the ARMITIX was the only gun in America that met the criteria, so after it came on the market the entire state of NJ was locked into selling only YOUR firearm ... what a great marketing moment for you!

Too bad your version was untrusted, and the available make/model/caliber was so limited, because suddenly you started a whole new revolution.  

Dealers who attempted to retail your gun were threatened because of the precedent which was set by ONE idiotic NJ Salon, and ONE underfunded manufacturer  (cough *Armitix*) was unable to meet the demand, provide a sufficiently wide range of desireable make/model/caliber, and the world came to an end until the NJ Governor nixed the whole damn thing.

Not a great publicity moment for Armitix.

So, I am guessing that the corporate gurus in Armitix are trying to figure a way to dig out of this black hole.

Here are a few suggestions, if you wish to continue making a "Smart Gun":

• make it in many calibers
• find a better platform
• get it tested AND ACCEPTED by LEO and military ... because if they won't trust their life to it, no civilian is going to trust their life to it in a self-defense situation
• find a price that will allow you to get it on the market, even if you have to take a loss
• about New Jersey ... sorry about that.  You lose.

Hope you have a large number of investors with very deep pockets, because you need to rethink your concept, design, marketing, vision and leadership

And after that?  

You're still screwed.

You're building a product which just isn't good  enough  to meet a market which just isn't big enough to justify the effort.

And very few people who are BUYING guns wants it, anyway.  They don't trust it.

Only state legislators want it, and they're all a bunch of pusillanimous idiots that nobody listens too!

"Maybe in six or seven years" ... (as John Wayne said to Ben Johnson in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon").

The Weapon Shops of Isher

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

That is the theme from a book by A.E. van Vogt, ca 1941.

A.E. van Vogt wrote a series of short stories (or almost novelettes) starting in 1941, and eventually all three were compiled into this single novel:

The Weapon Shops of Isher (eBook): A. E. van Vogt

Here's a blurb from AMAZON website:

With the publication, in the July 1941 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, of the story Seesaw, van Vogt began unfolding the complex tale of the oppressive Empire of Isher and the mysterious Weapon Shops. This volume, The Weapon Shops of Isher, includes the first three parts of the saga and introduces perhaps the most famous political slogan of science fiction: The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free. 

Born at the height of Nazi conquest, the Isher stories suggested that an oppressive government could never completely subjugate its own citizens if they were well armed. The audience appeal was immediate and has endured long beyond other stories of alien invasion, global conflict and post war nuclear angst.

Bear that in mind, as you read this segment from President Abraham Lincoln's immortal 1863 Gettysburg Address:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

Unfortunately, the world (and America) have forgotten "... what they did here ...".

And we have largely forgotten why those men dedicated their lives to either preserve the union, or to divide it.

The Gettysburg Address begins: "Four-score and Seven years ago ...", referring to the number of years (87) between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and his current date (1863).  

Van Vogt wrote his seminal novel starting in 1941 ... only days before the beginning of the Pearl Harbor Attack on December 07, which initiated America's entry in what became World War II.  In Lincoln's parlance, that would be "three score and 15 years ago"; not quite as impressive as Lincoln's reference to the gap between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Gettysburg (1863), but still it is a significant period between 'then' and 'now'.

If Americans had not thought about "Defense" since The Great War (WWI .... 1914-1918), they were certainly beginning to think about it after Pearl Harbor.   Perhaps Van Vogt's novel, which detailed the value of 'personal responsibility' and 'personal defense' found a more receptive audience than it might otherwise have received.

Now we find our country divided again.  Amazingly, the issue now is much the same; what vision for our country must we support?  The Constitution, or appeasement of those who would undermine our rights?

And if Americans cannot find the energy to consider whether their current political climate might be the precursor to Tyranny, they might pay more attention to the Party of Exclusiveness which is striving to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights ... now, more than ever.

"... Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta feared “blowback” from their own supporters if they pushed gun control in Arizona".

Regardless, the book has been hailed as a classic for decades,   Not just because of its timeliness, not just because it's well-crafted, but because it delves into the heart of the America Experience.

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

The next time someone asks you "Why would ANYONE want to buy a [name the currently least politically correct firearm]", you might consider using those eleven words.  
It's easier to remember, and much shorter than an extended dialogue with a gun-grabber.

(And ...yes, I DO have a paperback copy of this book, somewhere in a box in a shelf.  I'll have to dig it out and read it again.  As I recall, it's well worth the read.)




xxx

EDNDO and Gun Control

Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot
This has already been published, but if anyone who reads this doesn't read EDNDO (I know, silly)
... you probably will be informed, or at least entertained, by the simple Democratic Imperative:


YOU DO WHAT I SAY!!