I can't help but think that gun control activists have, pardon the pun, shot themselves in the foot with the New Jersey law: Once a personalized weapon went on

I can't help but think that gun control activists have, pardon the pun, shot themselves in the foot with the New Jersey law: Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features. How could they not have seen that passing such a law would impede advancements in gun safety by creating opposition which would not have otherwise existed (or at least to this extent), but for this law? I suppose it is possible that gun safety was never actually the goal to begin with, but it still seems like such a predictable result, given the ferocity with which any real or perceived encroachment on the Second Amendment is met. On the one hand, it's kind of amusing, in a way, to watch the instant, reflexive backlash which invariably erupts in response to even the slightest suggestion of tighter gun control. On the other, it might make some sense if one were inclined to take a conspiratorial view of the true purpose of laws like this one in New Jersey.