Are firearm accessories like this really necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok and WHEN the next one happens should we stop making those types too? What if the next guy uses a ported revolver? Or a grip laser! Then what?

The old AWB banned scary accessories. We already had that.

You are correct though. We are our own worst enemy. Whe will continue to go backwards at every shooting so as not to ruffle feathers. They'll find another buzz word and we'll concede since the avg American thinks 2A is about hunting and they typical hunting weapons are a shotgun and a bolt action rifle.

Arik, I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. I point out to people that in a nation which allows an unprecedented degree of personal liberty, some folks will abuse that liberty, and taking freedom away from good people is not an appropriate response to crime.

I remember when the gun banners were all worked up over "Saturday night specials"...then it was "cop killer bullets"...then "assault weapons"...then "smart guns"...then "high capacity magazines"..."waiting periods"..."background checks"...etc., etc., etc...

I realize full-well that we are in a long-term war over our right to keep and bear arms...I just don't understand why some of us seem intent on supplying our opponents with ammo...:(
 
One pull of the trigger 9 projectile burst with a design specifically to work-around NFA SBS and AOW definitions.

Plenty of gun owners say "no need". Ban it on whatever social whim of the day might arise?

DqpZbxu.jpg
 
Last edited:
why in the world do we need things like this in the current social and political environment?

The slippery slope those words lead to is "Why in the world do you need any gun that holds more than one shot?".

And since it's been proven that you can kill a bear with a .22 rimfire, why do you need anything more powerful than that?

As to the "social and political environment", we can't discuss politics on this forum, so I'll just summarily dismiss that portion.
 
When a person can guarantee with 100% certainty their first shot will not miss the target and stop the threat then they can say who needs more than one round in their gun.

I have yet to hear the old musket gun would have a better chance of winning a war than an M16.
 
I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. And it might be a slippery slope to say that I don't see the need for this type of capacity in a shotgun. But in many ways, incidents like this most recent one will galvanize the general, non gun buying, public into accepting further restrictions on our rights. Please keep in mind that a significant number of gun owners only own a hunting rifle and a shotgun. They don't care about hi cap magazines and firepower for fun. At what point does our insistance on doing whatever is legal, or quasi legal, in the case of mods to mimic full auto fire, turn around and cause our right to any multi shot firearm to be taken away. At some point, our allies in Congress will vote to keep their jobs, regardless of how it impacts the 5 or 10 million of us who enjoy this hobby with more than a few firearms of a variety of types.

Robert
 
Arik, I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. I point out to people that in a nation which allows an unprecedented degree of personal liberty, some folks will abuse that liberty, and taking freedom away from good people is not an appropriate response to crime.

I remember when the gun banners were all worked up over "Saturday night specials"...then it was "cop killer bullets"...then "assault weapons"...then "smart guns"...then "high capacity magazines"..."waiting periods"..."background checks"...etc., etc., etc...

I realize full-well that we are in a long-term war over our right to keep and bear arms...I just don't understand why some of us seem intent on supplying our opponents with ammo...:(

Right but our supply of ammunition is anything they don't like. For many it's the firearm itself whether that's a 20mm electric Gatling gun or a 16th century flintlock. Most others seem to have a picture of a retired man in a orange vest and a double barrel shotgun over his shoulder as what the 2A should be.
58ff747c44de0222741c2a380e7297e8.jpg


As you said "Saturday night Special". So by making small revolvers we're giving ammo. By making larger capacity mags we're giving ammo. Anything the gun community comes up with is potential "ammo" for the anti gunners.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What about this? These have been out since the late 90s. 12G shotgun. 10, 20 round drums and 10 round mags

The whole thing should be illegal. A scary folding stock, scary mags and scary barrel shroud which does absolutely nothing

7a8ccb1b216ad6f5032f774d68a05dad.jpg
a3afca012937b7f21c738a63fc216b05.jpg


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Worst of all its.... RUSSIAN... you know those people who put MISSLES in Cuba!!!
 
I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. And it might be a slippery slope to say that I don't see the need for this type of capacity in a shotgun. But in many ways, incidents like this most recent one will galvanize the general, non gun buying, public into accepting further restrictions on our rights.

After Sandy Hook, the non gun buying public was galvanized into accepting universal background checks (many gun owners joined the galvanized). If it were not for folks pushing back on the galvanized I'd be in prison for selling one of my guns directly to a neighbor.
 
Most others seem to have a picture of a retired man in a orange vest and a double barrel shotgun over his shoulder as what the 2A should be.
58ff747c44de0222741c2a380e7297e8.jpg


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

While I really am sorry that the population is as ignorant as it is, the 2dA has NOTHING to do with sport, hunting or otherwise. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the SCOUS in Miller v. U.S. 1939, which upheld the constitutionality of the NFA on the grounds that the 2dA guaranteed citizens the right to own MILITARY weapons, which, in 1939, short barreled shotguns and rifles were not.
 
Right but our supply of ammunition is anything they don't like. For many it's the firearm itself whether that's a 20mm electric Gatling gun or a 16th century flintlock. Most others seem to have a picture of a retired man in a orange vest and a double barrel shotgun over his shoulder as what the 2A should be.

As you said "Saturday night Special". So by making small revolvers we're giving ammo. By making larger capacity mags we're giving ammo. Anything the gun community comes up with is potential "ammo" for the anti gunners.

Arik, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make...or maybe I'm not expressing myself very well. Let me try to explain my position and my concern...

The problem for us isn't hardcore anti-gunners. They are what they are, and they will NEVER concede any point to us. You're absolutely correct...they will go after anything they don't like, and that includes pretty much everything we like.

BUT: There are plenty of other Americans -- including some friends of mine -- who don't own guns, and may not even like guns...but they support the 2nd Amendment nonetheless. They do that because they believe in freedom, and the right to defend yourself, and the right to live your life the way you see fit...all those good old American values.

If there is a bell curve on the subject of gun rights, these Americans are right in the middle of it. They would never support gun confiscation or harsh measures that deprive people of the ability to defend themselves...but they believe in background checks, and laws that require you to lock your guns, and other measures they see as "reasonable".

We need those folks on our side. With the loony gun banners gearing up to push new laws through Congress and the state legislatures, we need those middle-of-the-road citizens to stand with us. We do NOT want them calling their Congressmen to demand they "do something" about this-or-that gun or device, for if that happens, Congress will surely act...and it won't be in support of us.

Look, in my libertarian fantasy world, there should be no gun laws. Anybody should be able to buy anything, at any time, with no restrictions. But we don't live in my libertarian fantasy world; we live in a republic, with a Constitution...and laws...and all sorts of restrictions on various aspects of our lives. It ill-serves us not to realize that.

When we adopt the attitude that I see exhibited by some folks in this thread, we risk pushing middle-of-the-road citizens --- and the elected officials who represent them -- right over into the anti-gun side of that bell curve. And when that happens, we will be up the creek without a paddle.

We need to be smart in this debate...and I'm afraid we are not doing that.
 
After Sandy Hook, the non gun buying public was galvanized into accepting universal background checks...

As a perfect idiotic footnote. Universal background checks would not have stopped this piece of biological garbage, since he was not the person who purchased the weapons.
 
Arik, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make...or maybe I'm not expressing myself very well. Let me try to explain my position and my concern...

The problem for us isn't hardcore anti-gunners. They are what they are, and they will NEVER concede any point to us. You're absolutely correct...they will go after anything they don't like, and that includes pretty much everything we like.

BUT: There are plenty of other Americans -- including some friends of mine -- who don't own guns, and may not even like guns...but they support the 2nd Amendment nonetheless. They do that because they believe in freedom, and the right to defend yourself, and the right to live your life the way you see fit...all those good old American values.

If there is a bell curve on the subject of gun rights, these Americans are right in the middle of it. They would never support gun confiscation or harsh measures that deprive people of the ability to defend themselves...but they believe in background checks, and laws that require you to lock your guns, and other measures they see as "reasonable".

We need those folks on our side. With the loony gun banners gearing up to push new laws through Congress and the state legislatures, we need those middle-of-the-road citizens to stand with us. We do NOT want them calling their Congressmen to demand they "do something" about this-or-that gun or device, for if that happens, Congress will surely act...and it won't be in support of us.

Look, in my libertarian fantasy world, there should be no gun laws. Anybody should be able to buy anything, at any time, with no restrictions. But we don't live in my libertarian fantasy world; we live in a republic, with a Constitution...and laws...and all sorts of restrictions on various aspects of our lives. It ill-serves us not to realize that.

When we adopt the attitude that I see exhibited by some folks in this thread, we risk pushing middle-of-the-road citizens --- and the elected officials who represent them -- right over into the anti-gun side of that bell curve. And when that happens, we will be up the creek without a paddle.

We need to be smart in this debate...and I'm afraid we are not doing that.

I get what you are saying, however I can't think of a single instance where trying to appease the enemy has ever worked out to our benefit.

Instead of caving, we should be educating the undecided/middle of the bell curve people WHY bans are bad idea.

I'll give an example: back when they were suggesting people on the no-fly list to the list of prohibited persons, my sister (who isn't really a gun person, but isn't opposed to them) was all for it. I pointed out the logical fallacies of the idea - denial of civil rights without any due process, etc. She at first accused me of wanting terrorists to have access to firearms. Then later, she actually did her own research. She got back to me and said "You are right, that is a bad idea". So score a win for our side.
 
In a FREE country, nobody needs to justify any legal activity.

The government (and its supporters) need to justify curtailing those activities.

In a free society that which is not prohibited is legal.

In a tyranny, that which is not permitted is illegal.

Some people cannot or will not discern the difference.

Let me brutally honest: I don't care what any anti-gun cultist thinks about ANYTHING, and I certainly don't conform my opinions, statements, and actions to their whim.
 
We need to be smart in this debate...and I'm afraid we are not doing that.
There's nothing "smart" about conceding the field of battle to a deceitful and implacable foe.

No good will EVER come from allowing the anti-gun cult to set the vocabulary and terms of debate.

Giving the Sudetenland to Hitler didn't avoid WWII.

Giving up ANY firearm or firearm component without a fight won't avoid registration and confiscation.
 
I get what you are saying, however I can't think of a single instance where trying to appease the enemy has ever worked out to our benefit.

Instead of caving, we should be educating the undecided/middle of the bell curve people WHY bans are bad idea.

Knowing how the political system works, and making it work for you, is not appeasing or caving.

Regarding "education"...yeah, I can educate those middle-of-the-road folks on why gun bans are a bad idea. But I can't explain to them why bump stocks and the like are a good idea...and that's the problem.

Besides, nobody here has endorsed banning anything.
 
Let me brutally honest: I don't care what any anti-gun cultist thinks about ANYTHING, and I certainly don't conform my opinions, statements, and actions to their whim.

Let me be brutally honest: It is attitudes like yours that give ammunition to our worst opponents, and lead to the very restrictions we oppose the most being passed into law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top