Pro-gun bloggers were furious when they saw James Bond, in “Skyfall,” proudly showing off his new biometrically protected weapon. They were convinced it was a Hollywood plot to undermine their rights.Which 'pro-gun bloggers'? Who is they? Why, one wonders, in an article filled w/ links, not a single one was presented to support this assertion?
No, really I don't wonder. It's pretty obvious, just like the author's bias.And take a look at the comments to see just how well educated and tolerant the NYT readership is when it comes to firearms (or economics, or culture) etc.
3 comments:
Well, over at Marko's just now, I saw people complaining about the biometric PPK.
Not as a sneaky attack on firearms rights (though I frankly would be shocked if someone didn't freak out about that), though.
As implausible in the movie's own terms.
Who gives a top-secret agent a gun
A) uniquely linked to him in a provable way?
B) usable only without gloves?
and
C) inherently unreliable compared to a stock one?
What, is he worried about the armed thugs/professional assassins he fights stealing his PPK and shooting him with it?
Really? James Bond?
I miss Sean Connery. He would have taken one look at that toy and smacked the crap out of that supercilious Q.
Technically, I had posted about the James Bond Smartgun on March 3.
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2013/03/03/smart-guns-dumb-idea/
Post a Comment