Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I wonder how many of the folks who chant "no compromise" as their mantra on gun issues have actual, real-world, practical experience dealing with legislators and other elected officials? How many here have lobbied legislators or testified at committee hearings on various issues? And if so, when you did, did you explain why a given proposal was a good or bad idea? Or did you march in and demand that the people you were trying to influence bend to your will because you will not "compromise"?

Ideological purity sounds really good...but it rarely works as a tactic. There's an old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and that's still true today.

The devices that provoked the creation of this thread are not firearms, nor are they necessary in order for firearms to function as intended. My Second Amendment rights do not depend upon my being able to buy or own one of these gadgets. They are novelties at best, and at worst they constitute a cynical attempt to skirt federal firearms laws. In defense of our rights, we hold ourselves up to the non-gun owning public as law abiding citizens, don't we? And if we do, shouldn't we obey both the letter and the spirit of the law?

Gun ownership is always under attack in this country, with our opponents regularly proposing all sorts of new 2A restrictions. We are in a precarious position. Yes, we have made tremendous progress in many respects (especially with regard to the right to carry for self-defense), but we have had significant setbacks in a number of states, as many of us can attest. Giving our adversaries the rope they will happily use to hang us is just not a good idea, in my opinion.