amazingflapjack
US Veteran
A 12 gauge with high capacity would make a great fixed position defensive weapon in my view.
Are firearm accessories like this really necessary?
- Thread starter raljr1
- Start date
- Status
cmort666
Member
I can draw parallels between domestic totalitarians attempting achieve a monopoly on the means of armed force and foreign totalitarians who achieved the same things when my mother was a young woman.
But again, you'd have to pay more attention to Hohne and Conquest than to inflated animal skin chasing felons in order to do so.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I find your constant references to Hitler and Stalin quite inappropriate. Considering how much you've apparently read about the history, I would think you could see how disproportionate such comparisons are. Even if Congress ever passed an Australian-style ban, any comparison to the millions of corpses (and that is the parallel you're drawing with your repeated Anne Frank mentions) left by Hitler and Stalin would be an insult to the memory of the victims of those real dictatorships.
But you are just the most extreme example of something else that strikes me about these discussions: the pervasive sense of victimhood and impending doom which many gun rights advocates are communicating.
Listening to some here, we've been losing for decades, and giving in on the bump stock or whatever will push us closer to defeat.
While a few states have passed more restrictions, overall we actually have been mostly winning nation-wide. Open carry is expanding, shall-issue laws have spread from less than 10 to over 40 states in the last 20 years, we got Heller (not perfect, but an important step), now the Court is set to move further in our direction, we've got the gun-friendly party in the White House, and both houses of Congress ...
Yet some of you guys make gun owners sound like the remnants of Custer's battalion, fighting the 2nd amendment's last stand, about to be overrun by hordes of bloodthirsty anti-gunners.
Why the panic? I just find this argument "Don't give an inch on bump stocks, or the 2nd A. goes next, and there come Hitler and Stalin!" just out of touch with the political reality, which is why I will not be persuaded to defend a device I consider unethical, because even if legal, it is solely designed to circumvent the law.
As I noted in the post below, we will never be able to win over hard-core gun banners...but they are not our problem.
If and when we lose the support of that vast majority of Americans who support the 2nd Amendment, even though they are not themselves gun owners...well then, game over.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/139774431-post53.html
I have been trying to stick with the facts throughout this discussion, but I keep getting peoples' "feelings" in return...
Fact: We are involved in a constant, never-ending political battle. There are people in our country who would, if they could, outlaw and confiscate anything that goes bang. We will never win them over to our side; we will always be defending ourselves against their proposals and notions.
Fact: There is a vast middle-ground of Americans who support the 2nd Amendment, but who are not hard-core about it. They support so-called "reasonable" restrictions such as background checks, storage laws, etc. We must have their support.
Fact: Politicians listen to their constituents (if they're smart). And they know how to weed out extreme sentiments or opinions. When staunch gun-banners contact them repeatedly to demand support for some wacko bill, they know that doesn't represent a majoritarian view. But when middle-of-the-road taxpayers, people they don't normally hear from, call them up to demand they "do something" to stop mass shootings, they will sit up and take notice...and they will "do something" that we probably don't like.
Old Cop, nobody on here has suggested that we cave in on legislative proposals to restrict our rights. What I and others have suggested is that gun owners and folks in the industry not wave a red flag in front of a bull...
Thanks for "getting it". We are in an ongoing and permanent political struggle, and we cannot win this contest by constantly reminding folks that we have "rights", or by tough talk about "never surrendering", etc. That's a guaranteed way to have our heads handed to us.
Our Constitutional rights are neither unlimited nor untouchable. (If they were, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.) There is a plethora of federal and state laws regulating gun rights, and those laws have withstood various court challenges over many years. We have to understand that and work within that existing framework to win what battles we can, and minimize the damage when we lose.
We have won some battles, and I think we can continue to do so...if we think strategically, and play the game wisely.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
They made us register what they call assualt rifles, they made us register large capacity magazines. I figure that bump stocks will be banned next and the ones who have them will be registering them also. We seem to be losing ground.
Rock185
US Veteran
Until this thread, I didn't know this shotgun existed. I sure don't need one, but I like it. I'd have loved to have one when I shot the 3-gun match at SOF one year. Those guys with those long long magazine tubes on their shotguns cleaned my clock. They were shooting, while I was reloading.
About that "need"/"really necessary" thing, I had a neighbor, a veteran who claimed to own a Garand and P-38 pistol. He told me ARs are "Those guns we don't need". He didn't own an AR, and had no interest in them. Seems that folks with no interest in this or that type of firearm would happily see them regulated,registered, removed from the market, or outright banned, as long as the firearms they were interested in were unaffected. I have an old Webley revolver, that most people would have no interest in whatsoever. It is big and black, and some might say scary looking. Perhaps it should be banned? Do we really need big scary black guns? Would other gun owners really care as long as they didn't own one? Might they cheerfully support regulating/registering/banning those big scary guns?
About that "need"/"really necessary" thing, I had a neighbor, a veteran who claimed to own a Garand and P-38 pistol. He told me ARs are "Those guns we don't need". He didn't own an AR, and had no interest in them. Seems that folks with no interest in this or that type of firearm would happily see them regulated,registered, removed from the market, or outright banned, as long as the firearms they were interested in were unaffected. I have an old Webley revolver, that most people would have no interest in whatsoever. It is big and black, and some might say scary looking. Perhaps it should be banned? Do we really need big scary black guns? Would other gun owners really care as long as they didn't own one? Might they cheerfully support regulating/registering/banning those big scary guns?
500SNW
Member
I just hear on my radio that Youtube is removing all videos featuring use of "bump stocks". Somehow, hearing that made me think of this thread. It's all connected.
OP
Just for the record, since I am the one who started this discussion, I NEVER said anything about banning anything. I did question the logic in promoting attachments that seem to have very limited practical application and yet cause us a public relations issue with the non gun public.
Remember, these are the same people that hawked the "free flow of information" when they wanted us to get mad on their behalf over "Net neutrality".
As to the Xrail--I really have no problem with it. It's marketed responsibly, aside from the 3-gun knucklehead on the company's main page with "Xterminator" painted on his idjit stick. You go, look at it, and there's a bunch of sportsmen using it.
Here's an example of a product that I think is damaging to gun owners:
Remember those? Mossberg pushed a railed-up lever action--dumb, but not too bad--and a shotgun with an over-the-top thingamajigger called the "Chainsaw". They finished it up by pushing "Zombie" ammunition, selling "Zombie" targets, and putting "Zombie" stickers on the guns.
They were treating firearms as toys. Sure, most of us own our guns for recreational purposes, but that's a long ways from a toy.
The other problem is that, in some unsavory circles, "Zombie attack" is codeword for a period of civil unrest, and folks in said unsavory circles enthusiastically embrace "Zombiehunting" to rattle sabres about shooting people more or less because they feel they can get away with it.
The Zombie line was the most inept marketing move I've ever seen on the part of a major company. And the sin of it is that when they try, Mossberg is able to make some damn solid guns.
Mossberg ditched the "Zombie" stickers, but the Chainsaw is still being manufactured and sold. Until that changes, I don't think I'll be availing myself of the handy-dandy MVP bolt-action rifle.
Or how about this fine product:
This one is even more egregious because they're deliberately entering it into the self-defense market. Look, I can get having a gimmick. There are a lot of popular brands--brands I'm sure a bunch of you guys think very highly of--that are mostly gimmicks and packaging. Although even those brands that I look down on will function.
I can't decide what's worse. On the one hand, these guys want to sell their snakeoil so bad, they're willing to let gun owners go into court after a defensive shooting having used ammo branded "R.I.P.". They're fine smearing our reputations to make a buck off of a combination of neophyte gun carriers and low-minded misanthropes.
On the other, they're selling defensive ammunition--very, very expensive defensive ammunition--that will not feed reliably. Which to my simple way of thinking, is like selling a car with novelty airbags.
The Xrail and bumpfire stocks, in comparison, are downright tame.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Your observations dovetail quite well with this discussion.
Freedoms such as Open Carry and Constitutional Carry are chronically challenged by some gun owners. They attempt to justify or otherwise rationalize their personal prejudices against allowing such freedoms by pretending if these freedoms are allowed or even advocated there will be a backlash resulting in loss of more freedom. It is so common it might be fair to characterize it as a syndrome.
I remember quite clearly being lectured that Open Carry in Texas will never pass, but foolishly advocating for it will create a PR backlash resulting in loss of Texas gun rights secured over the past 100 years. Wrong on all counts. Gun owning detractors of Constitutional Carry regularly argue how horrible it will be with people running around with guns absent mandatory training, and that advocating for this will only serve to push 'reasonably minded' people against gun rights. To the contrary, the movement is growing. I think it's up to 10 states now.
Time and time again it is Bill of Rights minded gun owners having to defeat these prejudices to secure their freedoms.
Last edited:
S&WsRsweet
Member
I have always supported other peoples rights and I mean not just second ammendment I mean every right we as Americans enjoy .Personaly as a Christian I believe in one man married to one woman but that said as an American I also beleive if you want to call yourself married to a pine tree as long as my preacher isn't forced to perform the ceremony ok go for it .Now we as American gun owners have got to do a better job at policing our industry because if we don't it is a matter of time before the pendulum will swing and others will police it for us .Now I can remember when a Remington 740 woods master with a 10 round " extended" magazine was a big deal but truthfully our thinking needs to cach up with firearms technology .I am not opposed at this time to saying if I own what is considered a high capacity weapon and am traveling say across town to the range and a law officer asks me where I am going with such a weapon to answer the question without feeling my rights have been violated at all the same with carrying .I carry daily but I am opposed to carrying without a proper I D and permit in the sake of public safety I am willing to give up a little of my Right to Bear in hopes that if a bad guy who can't get a permit gets stopped with a gun he then is on tne cops radar and maybe violent crime has been prevented .I know all the arguments for and against .My permit says any lawenforcement officer can revoke if I am breaking the law and I in general trust the police .Are anti gun people going to keep on trying to completely destroy the second amendment sure they are are pro gun people going to keep trying to protect it why certainly it's those who are in the middle who actually decide who gets elected .We need to make sure we don't give anti gun folks any more ammunition against our position and that will start with self policing ,and the truly responsible gun owners and grown ups a better voice and position to stand on .In tne wake of any kind of attack whether by some stated terrorist or a gang of criminals or just a man who something goes terribly wrong in his mind you just have to honestly ask yourself didn't someone see something well they probabaly did but we all are so worried about offending someone's rights .We as gun owners should start being intellectually honest let's say ,you want to own one of those bump stocks well ok that's fine what would be the problem with saying ok but you can't take it to a public place IE a hotel without informing the management or security that you have it and are going to a range or whatever wait now I know ,ok ,ok other than its my business it's my right on and on ,other than those what would that hurt . If I am traveling with a centerfire rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo and say 50 magazines why not just if asked tell the police officer or security person the reason ,maybe I am a trainer and I'm going to give so e classes or maybe I'm going to a gunshow hoping to make a sale or whatever but why not be willing to give a good reasonable explanation other than its my right leave me alone .Slippery slope maybe I believe it's going to be slipperiest if we let other people start policing our industry most who don't understand firearms so im not saying I am right you are wrong as I am just saying we as gun people truly need to find some common ground and try to stand on it but you have to take into consideration the people out there that are watching the news and being shocked at the violent carnage they see because they have a vote to .
Arik
Member
So if "sportsmen" aren't using it there's no room for it? Why must everything look "traditional"? I guarantee you that probably half the members here would ban anything not steel and hammer fired simply on looks. Some gun owners keep talking about looks and I gotta keep reminding that the 94 AWB was based on NOTHING BUT looks. Black is scary, grips are scary, anything that looks like it slides, moves or folds is scary! Even bayonet lugs we're scary because someone could add a knife to a rifle!Remember, these are the same people that hawked the "free flow of information" when they wanted us to get mad on their behalf over "Net neutrality".
As to the Xrail--I really have no problem with it. It's marketed responsibly, aside from the 3-gun knucklehead on the company's main page with "Xterminator" painted on his idjit stick. You go, look at it, and there's a bunch of sportsmen using it.
Here's an example of a product that I think is damaging to gun owners:
Remember those? Mossberg pushed a railed-up lever action--dumb, but not too bad--and a shotgun with an over-the-top thingamajigger called the "Chainsaw". They finished it up by pushing "Zombie" ammunition, selling "Zombie" targets, and putting "Zombie" stickers on the guns.
They were treating firearms as toys. Sure, most of us own our guns for recreational purposes, but that's a long ways from a toy.
The other problem is that, in some unsavory circles, "Zombie attack" is codeword for a period of civil unrest, and folks in said unsavory circles enthusiastically embrace "Zombiehunting" to rattle sabres about shooting people more or less because they feel they can get away with it.
The Zombie line was the most inept marketing move I've ever seen on the part of a major company. And the sin of it is that when they try, Mossberg is able to make some damn solid guns.
Mossberg ditched the "Zombie" stickers, but the Chainsaw is still being manufactured and sold. Until that changes, I don't think I'll be availing myself of the handy-dandy MVP bolt-action rifle.
Or how about this fine product:
This one is even more egregious because they're deliberately entering it into the self-defense market. Look, I can get having a gimmick. There are a lot of popular brands--brands I'm sure a bunch of you guys think very highly of--that are mostly gimmicks and packaging. Although even those brands that I look down on will function.
I can't decide what's worse. On the one hand, these guys want to sell their snakeoil so bad, they're willing to let gun owners go into court after a defensive shooting having used ammo branded "R.I.P.". They're fine smearing our reputations to make a buck off of a combination of neophyte gun carriers and low-minded misanthropes.
On the other, they're selling defensive ammunition--very, very expensive defensive ammunition--that will not feed reliably. Which to my simple way of thinking, is like selling a car with novelty airbags.
The Xrail and bumpfire stocks, in comparison, are downright tame.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Arik
Member
Why not just tell management or security? Because they will ALWAYS fall on the side of caution. No one wants a law suit and no one is going to verify you are an instructor. They'll simply as you to leave or come without that stuff.
The people in the middle get their info from all the same sources. How many pro gun main stream media shows or commercials have you seen? Every talk show host and celebrity guest advocate against firearms on live TV. Even on shows that have nothing to do with gun. Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel even did a segment on how bad guns are. This is an HBO show that talks about sports and athletes. So how are you going to educate the masses in the middle? No MSM is going to air your shows or commercials and no one in the middle is going to tune into the fishing channel or hunting channel. We keep talking about educating but we don't have an equal platform to do so
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Rastoff
US Veteran
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Ah... but your entire argument revolves around pandering to the feelings that another gun law will make people safer instead of the fact that it won't.
Diane Feinstein just gave you all the facts that your friends need to hear... there is no gun law Congress could pass that would have prevented Vegas.
That's the argument you should be taking to your Maryland friends who live under some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation yet have one of the highest murder rates in the nation. If that fact isn't enough for your pals to understand that more gun laws aren't the answer... what is? One more gun law?
cmort666
Member
Unpleasant truths are always unpleasant. They're still true.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,773
- Reaction score
- 31,541
Well I've NEVER owned an AR or a AK because they have never appealed to me, but I don't look at them any differently than any other Semi Automatic Rifle and would support YOUR right to own one.
The Anti's just want to ban everything - one step at a time. After all if you really think about it why should anything be banned because if the way it looks?? Functionally, it is really not different than a Marlin Model 60 22LR.
The Anti's just want to ban everything - one step at a time. After all if you really think about it why should anything be banned because if the way it looks?? Functionally, it is really not different than a Marlin Model 60 22LR.
- Status
