A very interesting article, Yasha… and a very interesting bit of selective memory.

As I recall, I spoke to you for 30 minutes in the press room about “smart guns,” along with Andy and John from Ace of Spades.

That conversation even made it into a mention of their podcast.

Wherein we heap praise on @bob_owens RT @AoSHQPodcast: New Episode: NRA Annual Meeting Recap http://t.co/3LPzYlNEC7 — The H2 (@TheH2) May 4, 2014

You wanted to talk about “smart guns,” and how in your view, the industry and the NRA are against them.

I explained that very few of people who I know in the industry (and being the editor of an industry news site, I know a few) are against the concept of so-called “smart guns.” What we are against is the mandating of the technology, especially when it is still incredibly new and dangerously unreliable.

I recall mentioning, in great detail, the shortcomings of the current “best of breed” smart-gun, the Armatix iP1, and the separate watch required to make it function, the iW1.

I recall explaining, in great detail, that the pistol fails 100% of the time for the authorized user if he or she must use the hand without the watch on it, and I gave you several examples of why someone might need to do so. I recall explain how that the pistol is reported to have a failure rate of 10% when used with the “authorized hand,” which means that over the course of a 10-round magazine, the failure rate approaches 100%.

I explained that the pistol is only chambered in .22LR, a very anemic round best suited for target practice, and not recommended for self-defense due to its lack of power unless the user is too weak or frail to use something more substantial.

I explained that the technology used in the pistol is so fragile that chambering anything more a low-recoiling .22LR would shake the gun’s electronic brains apart in short order.

I tried to tie it all up as succinctly as I could, summarizing that a firearm that fails repeatedly, doesn’t use an adequate defensive cartridge, and cost three times as much as the best of breed pistol has no natural market… only a political one.

I explained that mandating a $1,400 gun/watch combo is the Second Amendment equivalent of a poll tax, and that limiting citizens to buying an unreliable, inadequate, and prohibitively expensive firearm is incredibly and obviously racist by design, hoping to disenfranchise the poor and middle class in urban areas most affected by violent crime.

Saddest of all, Yasha, I recall that at the end of our conversation I gave you my business card with my email address and my phone number, I remember extending a very sincere invitation to help answer any questions you might have about firearms and technology, at any point in the future… far prior to the publication of this incredibly dishonest attack piece.

Reading this hit piece that you knew well in advance to be wrong, I can only guess you must have lost that business card, those 30 minutes of your life, and perhaps worst of all, your integrity.

Update: Over at Ace of Spades, Andy and John weigh in.

Additional Update: rewrote the 3rd-to-last paragraph for better reading.