our own worst enemy

[NFrameFred]

My apologies if I missed this and it has already been posted.

I went back and forth on even considering posting this. Not my intention to stir up in-fighting . . . though I know there are a few here that are liable to throw grief my way. And 'not for nothing', for reasons I really do understand. But I can't split the hair fine enough to agree with their arguments.

Under the heading of "Things that are legal but probably not a really good idea" . . .

'Gattling trigger ?'

No stronger advocate for the Second Amendment than me, and I (like almost everyone else here) chafe and grit my teeth over the hyperbole, mis-characterization and down right lies that the anti-gun hand wringers engage in. But when I got an email advertisement for the "product" being hawked on the link offered I involuntarily reacted negatively and asked myself why I felt that way among other questions including, "what practical reason (other than a thumb up the nose to our foes) is there for even offering this?" and "other than the 'thrill' of burning up crazy amounts of ammo without having to go through the expense and hassle of going Class III, what is anyone really gonna do with this that they can't do with a standard AR and extended mags?" and "if it's legal and I'm not hurting anyone else, whose business is it anyway ?".

In a perfect world I'd have to agree with those who would take the position of the last question. It shouldn't be an issue. But the fact of the matter is, it is an issue. Bump stocks, binary triggers . . . legal . . . then not legal . . . then legal . . . innocent . . . then a nut job uses bump stock rifles to shoot up a concert (although it really had no efficiency except to give the other side something further to get hysterical over). In their zeal to protect the rights of the mentally ill, the leftists, gun haters, and socialists hamstring the ability of the courts and police to prevent such abuses.

We're not getting beat up or losing because the law is on our side, but on the emotional battlefield of the mothers and fathers of victims of accidental and criminal misuse of guns who vote, who organize, who donate to leftist activists that will never give in and see their crusade as just and righteous. Their views are theirs and the median with ours will never be reached. A lot of people here put on the uniform and served to protect the rights of both sides; a lot of folks here my age have worked, supported, donated and faithfully voted to defend our rights. I don't foresee a circumstance where my views will be changed. Unfortunately I've learned many of our counterparts feel the same way. But . . . if we are ever to have a chance to win the hearts, minds, and votes of those on the fence and sway them to increase our numbers and elect representatives that hold to our constitutional protections we have to consider the public relations side and our image. Right or not, fair or not - that's the reality of it.

Some of the concerns of those who oppose us have merit, such as keeping guns out of the hands of those who misuse them. Unfortunately even the solutions to these problems cannot be agreed upon and are fraught with peril because of those who are willing to give in to emotion over reason and are intractable in their views.


The laws are construed to offer such "innovations" and "products" that navigate legal twists and turns, resulting in (rightfully so) the individual states deciding if such products are to be acceptable in their jurisdictions. As in most things "progress" comes from 'pushing the envelope' . . . but I have to wonder if pushing the limits with offerings like this ultimately hurt us more than help us in the final analysis.

[Sevens]

I hear you, but there are a few bits that also need to be said... perhaps for clarity? Some will not agree.

--the folks who make these products and dip/dive/duck/dodge the laws, looking for loopholes, well, they have a goal in mind. It is simply to profit from the manufacture and sale of something. I don't believe they are looking at the larger picture and I don't believe they care about the emotional component and frankly, I also don't think it's really their responsibility to fret over the emotional component.

--you cringe when you see these products. I cringe when I read about someone (anyone's) "take" that a lunatic shot up a concert with a bump stock. Fact of that matter is that sooooooo much janky cover-up and absolutely egregious chicanery went on with THAT situation, there is no reason I should agree that bump-stock actually did indeed "happen" at that event. There's more outright lying and fakery with regards to that event, I have no real idea of what/who/exactly where all of that happened.

--bump stocks... I have had the chance to use one, I can report that it was absolutely -FUN- but what made it truly fun is that the rifle, the bump-stock and the ammo belonged to someone else. I would never burn through ammo all willy-nilly in that way, and I would never want to heat up a barrel and gas system in that way if the equipment were my own. The whole rig was a cooker after a couple of 30-round magazines. Fun?! Oh yes, absolutely, but not so much fun that I would want to ever do it to my rifles. But my point is that when we did it, it definitely was LEGAL and it was a legal way to have fun and it's never going to matter to me whether or not someone else doesn't think it was fun enough to be worth having if it also made a gaggle of soccer Mom's pee their knickers. Those soccer Mom's are *GASP* scared enough that I already own firearms, so I won't lay awake at night hoping that a bump stock doesn't scare them too much.

but I have to wonder if pushing the limits with offerings like this ultimately hurt us more than help us in the final analysis.

Brother, there exists no middle ground where we get to keep our rights and the other side "feels good." So their feelings about how something free & legal looks or sounds... yeah, I do not care. None/zero, nor will I ever.

[Rustyt1953]

re winning hearts and minds and our public image:

[lihpster]

As we have already seen, the anti-gunners have decided that collapsible stocks, pistol grips and freakin' bayonet lugs somehow make a gun incredibly evil and super deadly. The thing is, no matter what it is, if it's for a gun or even gun adjacent, they think it's got the mark of Satan on it and should be exorcised from the planet. Facts don't change their minds. Because they have feelings, which everyone knows are much more powerful than facts.
I'm gonna say something that I'm sure won't be popular here. We are gonna lose our rights to own guns. Period. It may not happen in our lifetime or our grandchildrens lifetime, but it's gonna happen. It's a simple numbers game. The cities are gonna have more people in them. People whose only experience with firearms is criminal activity. They've never hunted, target shot or competed in firearms sports. The only time they see a gun that isn't part of a crime, it's the in the hands of the police, and look where their approval rating is.
Their numbers are growing exponentially faster than ours. And they're making it harder to raise our numbers every day. Age restrictions, possession permits, ammo restrictions, magazine restrictions, and now even the possibility of training restrictions. We have to fight all that. All they have to do is procreate and let peer pressure and fear do the rest.
Those laws can be struck down and have been, recently. But eventually the numbers advantage will win out. The Supreme Court won't always be aligned as it is now. 2A support in Congress will dry up as it will be a hindrance to reelection. And those laws, plus new ones will take their place.
So I say, if it's legal and it's being used legally, I don't care what they think about it. Because it's gonna be negative anyway. Our worst enemy? It's them, and there's more coming every day.

[Beemerguy53]

In any debate about a contentious issue, it's often not enough merely to have the law (or the Constitution) on your side; the weight of public opinion is very important as well.

The in-your-face posture and attitude of so many 2A advocates hurts us far more than it helps us. Inspiring fear or suspicion in the non-gun owning public...or, as in this case, spitting in the eye of government regulators by creating something that is technically "legal" but clearly violates the spirit of the law...does us no good at all.

[ReloadforFun]

The antis already think of gun owners as ignorant red nexks and gun owners reinforce that view using terms like "boolits" inplace of "bullets".

[NFrameFred]

Unfortunately reading comprehension takes a back seat in threads such as this - someone's 'hot' button gets pushed and instead of reading what was actually said the posturing begins.
I inadvertently posted this in the wrong place and moved it here, but some of the initial reaction failed to note I acknowledged that there are those on the other side that will never be moved in their opinion and I don't waste my time trying. Placating them or 'making nice' isn't just way down my list - it doesn't even show up on my list.
The ones we need to be concerned about are on the fence and could possibly be persuaded to our view, but such things as the topic of the 'new product' tend to push them in the other direction.
I'm not deluded about changing a lot of minds . . . just making observations.

[fordson]

I agree with just about everything you posted. To my mind, it’s the “fence sitters”, the swing voters, the people in the middle, that we have to win over or at least don’t turn them into the opposition. And to do that, our community needs to change their precipitation of our community, which has been created by the opposition. Our community needs to re-brand ourselves as it were. And manufacturers developing and hawking gadgets, accessories and even firearms that are legal (such as your example) and skirt the intent of the Law doesn’t help us one bit. Don't get me wrong, I’m not advocating a surrender, but a more strategic and less tactical fight. And we can’t do that till we have Leadership at the National level (another pet peeve of mine). Nationally recognized Leadership could, in theory, advise a manufacturer about their gimmick, how it might perceived, how it might help or hurt us, and how we want to present ourselves to the public. A pipe dream, I know…….

[BE Mike]

There are more than enough laws on the books regarding guns. The problem is that the anti-gunners want to outlaw guns. They believe that the only way to to solve misuse of guns is to get rid of them and they don't care that the vast majority of guns are only used for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Compromise means give and take. Anti-gunners only believe in taking. Why should we only believe in giving?

[S-W4EVER]

Originally Posted by BE Mike

There are more than enough laws on the books regarding guns. The problem is that the anti-gunners want to outlaw guns. They believe that the only way to to solve misuse of guns is to get rid of them and they don't care that the vast majority of guns are only used for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Compromise means give and take. Anti-gunners only believe in taking. Why should we only believe in giving?

Well said!

[Borderboss]

Unfortunately, many people look at these trigger cranks and bump stocks, which are ingenious products, as cringeworthy because those same people think of Class III licensing as just fine. It's not. The GCA of 1934 is completely and totally unconstitutional.

Instead of being afraid of what the anti-gunners will think about these interesting products, we should be spending all our time working with the groups like GOA to get the GCA of 1934 overturned in its entirety. I do. Do you?

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by Borderboss

Unfortunately, many people look at these trigger cranks and bump stocks, which are ingenious products, as cringeworthy because those same people think of Class III licensing as just fine. It's not. The GCA of 1934 is completely and totally unconstitutional.

Instead of being afraid of what the anti-gunners will think about these interesting products, we should be spending all our time working with the groups like GOA to get the GCA of 1934 overturned in its entirety. I do. Do you?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I look at products like bump stocks and trigger cranks as "cringeworthy" because they invite nothing but trouble for us. They inflame the anti-gunners; they bolster the stereotype of us as "gun nuts"; they provoke legislators and regulatory agencies to take action against us; and they give the news media one more sensational story they can use to bash us.

I am not an attorney, let alone a constitutional scholar, and I don't play one on television. I do know that the the US Supreme Court has the final word on what is or is not constitutional, and I am unaware of any ruling or pronouncement from them declaring the GCA to be unconstitutional. I might not like it...I might not agree with it...but what court has found it to be unconstitutional? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves now what is or is not constitutional?

in the realm of political endeavors, there are things that are possible and there are things that are not. In the same way that the anti-gunners will never get rid of gun ownership in this country, no matter how fervently they want to, Congress is not going to repeal the GCA. I don't care who is president, or what party controls Congress...it won't happen. After ninety years, we're stuck with it. And creating clever products that are designed only to get around GCA, to evade the clear intent of the law, makes it harder, not easier, to advance the cause of Second Amendment rights.

[Heinz]

In politics image is important. Image brings in money, Image draws support, Image collects votes.

I do not think ATF accidentally approved Bump Stocks. They do not like gun owners or automatic firing weapons. They do know fully auto fire is exciting even if not effective or efficient in most situations. And they knew some idiots would do some stupid things giving gun owners a bad image

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by Heinz

In politics image is important. Image brings in money, Image draws support, Image collects votes.

I do not think ATF accidentally approved Bump Stocks. They do not like gun owners or automatic firing weapons. They do know fully auto fire is exciting even not effective or efficient in most situations. And they knew some idiots would do some stupid things giving gun owners a bad image

Every federal government agency has regulators and inspectors. The Federal Aviation Administration; the Food and Drug Administration; the Transportation Security Administration; the Department of Transportation; the Federal Railroad Administration, etc., etc.

Those regulators are not ideologues or provocateurs, nor are they motivated by politics; they are government bureaucrats whose job it is to enforce the law and the Code of Federal Regulations. They don't like or dislike the entities they regulate, nor do they have an agenda to promote. ATF is no different, in my opinion and experience.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by Heinz

In politics image is important. Image brings in money, Image draws support, Image collects votes.

I do not think ATF accidentally approved Bump Stocks. They do not like gun owners or automatic firing weapons. They do know fully auto fire is exciting even not effective or efficient in most situations. And they knew some idiots would do some stupid things giving gun owners a bad image

I became a gun owner after help from a fairly senior gent in the ATF. At the time I was living here on a visa. I called to find out if the "non-resident alien with a hunting license" provision restricted me to "hunting" weapons. He chuckled and said, "Does it say that in what you're reading? If it doesn't, there's your answer. Stay safe with whatever gun you buy". Creating a new gun owner did not seem to be a problem for him.

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

Every federal government agency has regulators and inspectors. The Federal Aviation Administration; the Food and Drug Administration; the Transportation Security Administration; the Department of Transportation; the Federal Railroad Administration, etc., etc.

Those regulators are not ideologues or provocateurs, nor are they motivated by politics; they are government bureaucrats whose job it is to enforce the law and the Code of Federal Regulations. They don't like or dislike the entities they regulate, nor do they have an agenda to promote. ATF is no different, in my opinion and experience.

Having had some experience with feds, I can confidently say that the heads of agencies and even some lower level supervisors are politicos. They bend the way the political winds are blowing. The goal of bureaucrats is to please those above them and impress them so that they can expand their little kingdoms and, as a result, get more personnel and funding, thus "justifying" a raise and/ or promotion. We have only to look back at the Waco raid to see just how far ATF supervisors will go to try to look good. The supervisors put agents into harms way unnecessarily and it cost, not only the lives of agents, but women and children. Bureaucrats can be dangerous. Don't get me started about the FAA or the FBI.

[cmj8591]

Explain to me. What is the difference between a crank that I turn with my hand actuating the trigger and my index finger actuating the trigger?

[Rustyt1953]

Originally Posted by cmj8591

Explain to me. What is the difference between a crank that I turn with my hand actuating the trigger and my index finger actuating the trigger?

You can't sell your finger on EBay.

[Bald1]

There are no fence sitters. There is no common ground and there sure as hell is no compromising. Those who say they don’t have an opinion are not being truthful. I can tell you I have no desire to own a bump stock, binary trigger or even a suppressor. I’m not an “AR Guy” . But I will not compromise on my right to own them. I don’t care about the optics. Go ahead and compromise. It will result in a death by a thousand cuts. S&W compromised with locks. How’d that work out.

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

My apologies if I missed this and it has already been posted.

I went back and forth on even considering posting this. Not my intention to stir up in-fighting . . . though I know there are a few here that are liable to throw grief my way. And 'not for nothing', for reasons I really do understand. But I can't split the hair fine enough to agree with their arguments.

Under the heading of "Things that are legal but probably not a really good idea" . . .

'Gattling trigger ?'

No stronger advocate for the Second Amendment than me, and I (like almost everyone else here) chafe and grit my teeth over the hyperbole, mis-characterization and down right lies that the anti-gun hand wringers engage in. But when I got an email advertisement for the "product" being hawked on the link offered I involuntarily reacted negatively and asked myself why I felt that way among other questions including, "what practical reason (other than a thumb up the nose to our foes) is there for even offering this?" and "other than the 'thrill' of burning up crazy amounts of ammo without having to go through the expense and hassle of going Class III, what is anyone really gonna do with this that they can't do with a standard AR and extended mags?" and "if it's legal and I'm not hurting anyone else, whose business is it anyway ?".

In a perfect world I'd have to agree with those who would take the position of the last question. It shouldn't be an issue. But the fact of the matter is, it is an issue. Bump stocks, binary triggers . . . legal . . . then not legal . . . then legal . . . innocent . . . then a nut job uses bump stock rifles to shoot up a concert (although it really had no efficiency except to give the other side something further to get hysterical over). In their zeal to protect the rights of the mentally ill, the leftists, gun haters, and socialists hamstring the ability of the courts and police to prevent such abuses.

We're not getting beat up or losing because the law is on our side, but on the emotional battlefield of the mothers and fathers of victims of accidental and criminal misuse of guns who vote, who organize, who donate to leftist activists that will never give in and see their crusade as just and righteous. Their views are theirs and the median with ours will never be reached. A lot of people here put on the uniform and served to protect the rights of both sides; a lot of folks here my age have worked, supported, donated and faithfully voted to defend our rights. I don't foresee a circumstance where my views will be changed. Unfortunately I've learned many of our counterparts feel the same way. But . . . if we are ever to have a chance to win the hearts, minds, and votes of those on the fence and sway them to increase our numbers and elect representatives that hold to our constitutional protections we have to consider the public relations side and our image. Right or not, fair or not - that's the reality of it.

Some of the concerns of those who oppose us have merit, such as keeping guns out of the hands of those who misuse them. Unfortunately even the solutions to these problems cannot be agreed upon and are fraught with peril because of those who are willing to give in to emotion over reason and are intractable in their views.


The laws are construed to offer such "innovations" and "products" that navigate legal twists and turns, resulting in (rightfully so) the individual states deciding if such products are to be acceptable in their jurisdictions. As in most things "progress" comes from 'pushing the envelope' . . . but I have to wonder if pushing the limits with offerings like this ultimately hurt us more than help us in the final analysis.

This is a problem among gun owners and the antis take full advantage of it. Those who shoot shotguns don't think that anyone needs an AR. Hunters don't think that anyone needs a plastic pistol that holds more than, you fill in the blank, rounds. Competitive shooters don't think that anyone needs a fully auto gun. Antique gun collectors don't think that anyone needs a firearm built since, you fill in the date. Revolver collectors don't think that anyone needs anything but a revolver. Another problem is that most gun owners don't belong to any pro-Second Amendment because____________. If we indeed stood united, nobody could infringe upon our rights.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by Rustyt1953

You can't sell your finger on EBay.

Vintage Keychain REALISTIC HUMAN FINGER Key Ring Fob RAT ROD CREEPY BLOODY | eBay

[rockquarry]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

In any debate about a contentious issue, it's often not enough merely to have the law (or the Constitution) on your side; the weight of public opinion is very important as well.

The in-your-face posture and attitude of so many 2A advocates hurts us far more than it helps us. Inspiring fear or suspicion in the non-gun owning public...or, as in this case, spitting in the eye of government regulators by creating something that is technically "legal" but clearly violates the spirit of the law...does us no good at all.

Good post, but the wording "2A advocates" might be giving some people undeserved credit. Regrettably, many go far beyond sensible advocacy to the point of being fanatical and intolerant reactionaries. Such folks are quite self-serving and not bright enough to realize or care how they damage the cause of true Second Amendment advocates both within our own realm and as seen by the rest of the public.

[Borderboss]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I look at products like bump stocks and trigger cranks as "cringeworthy" because they invite nothing but trouble for us. They inflame the anti-gunners; they bolster the stereotype of us as "gun nuts"; they provoke legislators and regulatory agencies to take action against us; and they give the news media one more sensational story they can use to bash us.

I am not an attorney, let alone a constitutional scholar, and I don't play one on television. I do know that the the US Supreme Court has the final word on what is or is not constitutional, and I am unaware of any ruling or pronouncement from them declaring the GCA to be unconstitutional. I might not like it...I might not agree with it...but what court has found it to be unconstitutional? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves now what is or is not constitutional?

in the realm of political endeavors, there are things that are possible and there are things that are not. In the same way that the anti-gunners will never get rid of gun ownership in this country, no matter how fervently they want to, Congress is not going to repeal the GCA. I don't care who is president, or what party controls Congress...it won't happen. After ninety years, we're stuck with it. And creating clever products that are designed only to get around GCA, to evade the clear intent of the law, makes it harder, not easier, to advance the cause of Second Amendment rights.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the GCA of 1934, but they can and will when it's brought to them. But a defeatist attitude is why we keep losing ground a little at a time. Never give in, and never give up. Keep fighting.

[Bald1]

Appears that there are several here that don’t mind a good old fashioned compromise. The problem is gun owners are the ones that do the giving. When the hell was the last time the anti gun crowd gave anything in a compromise or otherwise. You guys better open your eyes. Having lived in NY all my life I see what compromise gets you. They take a little at a time and before you know it you got nothing left.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by fordson

And manufacturers developing and hawking gadgets, accessories and even firearms that are legal (such as your example) and skirt the intent of the Law doesn’t help us one bit. Don't get me wrong, I’m not advocating a surrender, but a more strategic and less tactical fight.

I used to think so, too. Just act responsible, comb our hair and act like model gun owning citizens, maybe the gun grabbers will cool off a little.

Baloney. The gun control crowd is totally myopic, has very few fence sitters and is out to dismantle the second amendment at any cost, even if it takes another 100 years. ANY piece of legislation they can get passed is just Another Brick In The Wall.

So, I'm going to continue being my usual low profile self, but I'm not going to criticize anyone doing a safe, lawful thing with a firearm, especially if it makes the Nanny State squeamish.

No good behavior on our part is going to placate them. "Minding our manners" just makes them think they're winning.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by Bald1

Appears that there are several here that don’t mind a good old fashioned compromise. The problem is gun owners are the ones that do the giving. When the hell was the last time the anti gun crowd gave anything in a compromise or otherwise. You guys better open your eyes. Having lived in NY all my life I see what compromise gets you. They take a little at a time and before you know it you got nothing left.

The only "compromise" that ocurrs is regarding how much or how little the gun grabbers are willing to take at a given time, and they always return to "the negotiating table" for more, in order to make incremental "progress".

We have more than enough gun laws, some of which are arcane and confusing making them difficult to abide by, and there's no reason to enact our own defacto restrictions that gain us nothing.

Gun laws don't eliminate guns, they only criminalize their possession, which is the goal of all the past compromises.

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by rockquarry

Good post, but the wording "2A advocates" might be giving some people undeserved credit. Regrettably, many go far beyond sensible advocacy to the point of being fanatical and intolerant reactionaries. Such folks are quite self-serving and not bright enough to realize or care how they damage the cause of true Second Amendment advocates both within our own realm and as seen by the rest of the public.

I'm glad that you and I are the true Second Amendment advocates!

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by BE Mike

Having had some experience with feds, I can confidently say that the heads of agencies and even some lower level supervisors are politicos. They bend the way the political winds are blowing. The goal of bureaucrats is to please those above them and impress them so that they can expand their little kingdoms and, as a result, get more personnel and funding, thus "justifying" a raise and/ or promotion. We have only to look back at the Waco raid to see just how far ATF supervisors will go to try to look good. The supervisors put agents into harms way unnecessarily and it cost, not only the lives of agents, but women and children. Bureaucrats can be dangerous. Don't get me started about the FAA or the FBI.

You make a good point...the heads of various agencies are indeed political appointees, or are accountable to such appointees for their jobs. I was referring more to the field agents and inspectors, the people with whom the public most often interacts.

Thanks.

[Bald1]

Originally Posted by BE Mike

I'm glad that you and I are the true Second Amendment advocates!

Mike, just wondering when was the last time Indiana tried to violate your 2A right ? If you and the sensible more responsible advocates were being harassed and impacted by a never ending assault on your rights maybe, just maybe you’d be a little more strong willed in your approach to advocacy!

[johngalt]

The future of our gun rights will be decided by the younger generations. Maybe we should try inviting them to an outing at the range instead of the constant denigration.

[bk42261]

SIGH- Another one who thinks if we just "compromise" on this ONE issue" THEY'LL be happy....

[Rustyt1953]

Originally Posted by johngalt

The future of our gun rights will be decided by the younger generations. Maybe we should try inviting them to an outing at the range instead of the constant denigration.

Yep. More and more my generation is earning the moniker "OK, Boomer!".

[NFrameFred]

Originally Posted by bk42261

SIGH- Another one who thinks if we just "compromise" on this ONE issue" THEY'LL be happy....

Reading is fundamental . . . comprehension ? Apparently not . . .

[John Patrick]

Originally Posted by Bald1

There are no fence sitters. There is no common ground and there sure as hell is no compromising. Those who say they don’t have an opinion are not being truthful. I can tell you I have no desire to own a bump stock, binary trigger or even a suppressor. I’m not an “AR Guy” . But I will not compromise on my right to own them. I don’t care about the optics. Go ahead and compromise. It will result in a death by a thousand cuts. S&W compromised with locks. How’d that work out.

I agree.

I think the crank is stupid, but then I think a guy blasting a whole magazine at a range is also stupid. It’s still their right.

[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.

[sigp220.45]

What was previously unthinkable is now being discussed openly - a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Think it can’t happen? Those ain’t red votes pouring across the border.

Every big shooting adds to their side. Nothing adds to ours.

I’m not a doomsday type, but there will come a day when you’ll wish bumpy stocks and triggers cranks were the topic of discussion.

[K-22]

Originally Posted by ReloadforFun

The antis already think of gun owners as ignorant red nexks and gun owners reinforce that view using terms like "boolits" inplace of "bullets".

How about, Pew Pew, Pews, Happy Switch,
Happy Sticks, etc.
🤮🤮

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

What was previously unthinkable is now being discussed openly - a repeal of the 2nd Amendment...

The only reason for optimism regarding the future of the Second Amendment is the fact that it would take the votes of 38 states to repeal it. I don't see that happening...I hope...

[Well Armed]

I believe FUDS and those who want to appease and bend over for those who want all guns banned are the true enemy. The same type of people upset and got their tight whites all twisted up over the legal accessories in the OP are the same people who supported and were singing the same tune when it came to bumbstocks and pistol braces. Now it has taken years and a lot of money to undo the damage they supported, but they now have the nerve and audacity to thumb their nose and wag their finger while perched up on their high horse while accusing other gun owners of being the enemy? Those types of traders truly disgust me. "We" aren't our own worst enemy. "You" and the ain't are our enemy. You want to keep giving inch after inch after inch while bending over backward like Bill Ruger, S&W, Springfield, Trump, so on, and so because you foolish believe being it will quench the anties thirst. You are willing to sell out and bash your own kind over it.

[Well Armed]

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.

We've had record gun sales, more new gun owners than ever, half the states in the country are Constitutional Carry, even many Democrats are gun owners now, almost half the country have firearms in the home, bumbstock, pistol brace, and trigger bans have been blocked, and we're winning despite your fears.

Gun ownership being under attack is nothing new. Gun ownership has always been under attack. Whenever Democrats have the majority, guns will be under attack. What you don't seem to realize is that the other side has been losing the battle left and right.

[fordson]

Start with the end in mind.
Simple question: What are the end results we, as responsible gun owners and 2A supporters, desire? What are they?
Repeal of the NFA?
Repeal of ALL firearm restrictions?
Some firearm restrictions?
Have actual meaningful, unemotional dialogue with legislators, to address issues of violence and mental health?
What do we desire? Simple question…….

[John Patrick]

Originally Posted by fordson

Start with the end in mind.
Simple question: What are the end results we, as responsible gun owners and 2A supporters, desire? What are they?
Repeal of the NFA?
Repeal of ALL firearm restrictions?
Some firearm restrictions?
Have actual meaningful, unemotional dialogue with legislators, to address issues of violence and mental health?
What do we desire? Simple question…….

How ‘bout we start with ramming home the fact that there is no such thing as “gun violence,” just as there is no such thing as knife violence or hammer violence.

And ramming home that the solution to any violence isn’t locking up guns, knives or hammers but violent people.

I used to have a link to a live camera of an AR15 in a corner, with a timer ticking off the time the AR had been leaning in that corner, with a notation that read something like: “It’ been (timer readout) since this AR15 shot someone.”

Iirc, the timer was reading over 30 years last I saw it. If anyone has or can find that link, I’d appreciate it if you posted it. I’ve tried googling it but struck out.

[kbm6893]

There are extremists on every side of every issue, and all of them think they are right.

The FUDD term gets thrown around a lot, and it always comes from the same type. I’ve been called a FUDD before and it always makes me laugh. I’ve got multiple safes full of guns that would give a heart attack to any gun grabber. Semi autos, high capacity magazines. Only bolt gun I own is a .22 I bought to teach my son shooting. Binary triggers and bump stocks are absolute loopholes to the fully auto limitations, just as pistol braces are a loophole to the shirt barreled rifle limitations. There are YouTube videos galore attesting to this.

But yes, we are our own worst enemy. Sometimes I think the most fervent 2A supporters are undercover agents for the anti gun lobby, because their antics make more anti-gunners everyday.

[AlHunt]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

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.

Yet that's exactly the tactic the disarmament crowd uses and they get away with it. At the very least, it's an Overton Window, where they demand A, B, C and D, then "compromise" and let go of B and D. But wait! Next year they're back for B,D, E and F. The end goal is civilian disarmament.

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

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.

You're just not up to speed, my friend.

Here are a couple of links to a guy that does a great job presenting legislative actions without a lot of hyperbole, clickbait and overblown garbage. See for yourself how extreme the situation has become. If these strike a chord with you, I'd suggest going to his channel page and trolling through his videos. If they don't get you concerned, then I've got nothing more for you.

YouTube

YouTube

[WCCPHD]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Gun control is not about guns. Its about CONTROL.

The anti gun people are patient. The anti's are smart. They seek to divide us any way they can. They never let a "crisis" go to waste. They all work toward the same goal. They NEVER compromise (unless compromise is asking for 100 percent and only getting 50 percent, this time.) They see every movement toward their goal as a win. In their so called compromises, they NEVER give up anything. They are winning law by law, issue by issue, step by step.

And most importantly, they will NEVER be satisfied even if all privately owned guns are banned, confiscated and destroyed. Look at England, they effectively banned guns and now they are going after knives.

[Heinz]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

Every federal government agency has regulators and inspectors. The Federal Aviation Administration; the Food and Drug Administration; the Transportation Security Administration; the Department of Transportation; the Federal Railroad Administration, etc., etc.

Those regulators are not ideologues or provocateurs, nor are they motivated by politics; they are government bureaucrats whose job it is to enforce the law and the Code of Federal Regulations. They don't like or dislike the entities they regulate, nor do they have an agenda to promote. ATF is no different, in my opinion and experience.

I spent 25 years at the CDC. If you think government agencies do not have an agenda and regulators do not have regulatory goals, You need to study Anthony Fauci and rethink your position. The CDC is openly anti-gun and actively looking for ways to make control measures a workplace health issue.

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Gun control is not about guns. Its about CONTROL.

The anti gun people are patient. The anti's are smart. They seek to divide us any way they can. They never let a "crisis" go to waste. They all work toward the same goal. They NEVER compromise (unless compromise is asking for 100 percent and only getting 50 percent, this time.) They see every movement toward their goal as a win. In their so called compromises, they NEVER give up anything. They are winning law by law, issue by issue, step by step.

And most importantly, they will NEVER be satisfied even if all privately owned guns are banned, confiscated and destroyed. Look at England, they effectively banned guns and now they are going after knives.

The problem is were fighting against gun grabbers and FUDDS who want to sell the rest of us out and cave to the anties because they believe it will change their minds about firearms. They believe that gun owners who don't give in and cave to the anties are "extremists" when it comes to gun rights. We have enemies within that we have to fight against who are more than happy to side with the grabbers when it comes to things they don't think anyone should own, and we have to fight the antie gunners.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by rockquarry

Good post, but the wording "2A advocates" might be giving some people undeserved credit. Regrettably, many go far beyond sensible advocacy to the point of being fanatical and intolerant reactionaries. Such folks are quite self-serving and not bright enough to realize or care how they damage the cause of true Second Amendment advocates both within our own realm and as seen by the rest of the public.

Rather than the compromisers, it was the "intolerant, reactionary, no compromise", Gun Owners of America who were directly responsible for bringing Constitutional Carry to my state of Florida.

Unapologetic activism has worked extremely well for progressives over the decades, and it's what works for us as well.

Give the enemy nothing.

[AlHunt]

Kind of an aside, in Maine they passed a "Yellow Flag" law a while back. Hailed at the time as a much better alternative to Red Flag laws because it better protected people who are flagged from automatic confiscation and preserved some semblance of due process.

Fast forward a year or two and Maine had some guy walk into 2 businesses, kill and maim a bunch of people. The problem is that multiple people tried to alert authorities that he was potentially a ticking time bomb and had done so multiple times in multiple states (including Maine).

At one point some agency went to talk to him, the State Police, I believe. They couldn't find him at home and I think they looked another place for him. Couldn't find him after minimal effort and, to my knowledge, never looked again.

Now of course, the Disarmament Crowd is screaming that the law needs to be strengthened and we need MORE laws, even including to ban guns.

The point is that if the existing laws aren't enforced, what good do more laws that won't be enforced accomplish? Everything was in place to divert this guy, private citizens and health care professionals did their part and still the ball got dropped.

What the Disarmament Crowd takes from all this is that if gun control laws don't stop people from shooting each other, then private ownership of firearms needs to be abolished altogether.

This is part of why any and every new piece of gun control legislation has to be fought tooth and nail. Anything less and the good guys lose.

[Bald1]

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.

Your first paragraph is the problem when it comes to 2A. NO PROPOSAL is ok. Why is someone proposing anything to lessen my rights????? It wouldn’t be tolerated with religion or speech but when it comes to guns it’s ok? C’mon man ! For the record I am a FUDD. But this is about something bigger than my gun preferences.