Are firearm accessories like this really necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 they're "not our problem", would the ignorant, the uninformed and the gullible be thinking up this stuff on their own?

This is an ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN, directed SPECIFICALLY at the otherwise uninterested. If you WANT them to win, waste your time trying to "compromise" with them instead of showing they're liars and sociopaths... using their OWN words.
 
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.
So have England, Australia, Japan, become totalitarian? Are they all building gas chambers and invading neighbors? Are they putting people in gulags?

Just for the record because I know you'll say it....NO I do NOT agree with their bans but based on your parallels these countries should be committing genocide for decades!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
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.

It's truly unfortunate that you either don't understand what I've written, or you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

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?

Maryland is a -- ahem -- "special case".

There are 23 counties here, plus the City of Baltimore (which is one of the few municipalities in the country that is not part of a county). Baltimore accounts for two-thirds of the homicides in the entire state, more than every county combined. Those homicides are concentrated among one particular demographic group.

Because the General Assembly is composed of very liberal members of one particular party, whenever the subject of crime arises, the solution is always framed in terms of "gun control"...even though rational folks understand that the underlying issue has nothing to do with guns...because addressing the real problem is anathema to them.
 
If they're "not our problem", would the ignorant, the uninformed and the gullible be thinking up this stuff on their own?

This is an ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN, directed SPECIFICALLY at the otherwise uninterested. If you WANT them to win, waste your time trying to "compromise" with them instead of showing they're liars and sociopaths... using their OWN words.

I'm afraid you misunderstand -- or are deliberately evading -- the point I made.

I never said we should "compromise" with hard-core gun banners. (Can you show where I've used that word at all in any post I've made here?) Nor did I say we shouldn't call them out when they lie about us.

I DID say that we cannot win them over, and that because of that, we need to cultivate and maintain the support of folks in the middle, people who are supportive of the 2nd Amendment generally, but who could turn against us given the right circumstances. And we can't do that with in-your-face assertions of our "rights", or promoting our image as gun-totin' yahoos...

That's not "compromising"...it's understanding how the political system works.
 
Last edited:
Maryland is a -- ahem -- "special case".

LOL!!!!!!! :D Now, that made me laugh out loud. :D Almost fell right off my chair! :eek: :D ;)

Let me tell ya, Maryland (and MA, CT, NY, IL, CA, etc.) is not such a special case as you seem to think. All of the moonbat states have cities where crime is out of control... wherein if you subtract out those inner-city crime centers from the statistics, there is zero need for "common sense gun control." But that never stops an anti-2A zealot from going after the responsible gunowners. They always want us to pay the price (in terms of fewer rights) for the lawlessness of others. :o
 
I don't know ANYBODY who seriously shoots 1,000 yard NRA rifle who DOESN'T use an after-market trigger or a "high-magnification" scope.

@CMORT, 1000 yard match rifle matches have two stages: iron sights and any sights (scopes), plus service rifle matches used to be (and may still be) iron sights only. While my F class 1000 yard rifle has a 24X scope, I generally keep the magnification at about 12X.
 
LOL!!!!!!! :D Now, that made me laugh out loud. :D Almost fell right off my chair! :eek: :D ;)

Let me tell ya, Maryland (and MA, CT, NY, IL, CA, etc.) is not such a special case as you seem to think. All of the moonbat states have cities where crime is out of control... wherein if you subtract out those inner-city crime centers from the statistics, there is zero need for "common sense gun control." But that never stops an anti-2A zealot from going after the responsible gunowners. They always want us to pay the price (in terms of fewer rights) for the lawlessness of others. :o

If that made you fall out of your chair, you should try living here. Every time the General Assembly is in session, my head wants to explode.

And yes, we point out to liberal Senators and Delegates the hypocrisy of making lawabiding gun owners across the state pay for the crimes of Baltimore residents...but they have the votes, and the power...
 
@CMORT, 1000 yard match rifle matches have two stages: iron sights and any sights (scopes), plus service rifle matches used to be (and may still be) iron sights only. While my F class 1000 yard rifle has a 24X scope, I generally keep the magnification at about 12X.

All of the people I knew who shot 1,000 yard seriously, shot both iron and any sight. Both of my rifles are set up for both.
 
The anti's don't really believe in private gun-ownership at all. Their "common sense" rhetoric masks their true agenda. They are a patient lot and they realize that an outright ban is impossible. The next best thing is death by a thousand cuts.

One smart tactic they use in this battle is dividing us into camps of their choosing. Who needs an assault rifle? Who needs a 30 round magazine? Who needs an automatic? Who needs a semi automatic. Who needs armor piercing cop killer bullets? Who needs concealed carry? Who needs a drum fed shotgun? Who needs a bump fire stock? It is a winning strategy that we fall for too often.

Push back is the only defense and failure to do so will mean the end.
 
The anti's don't really believe in private gun-ownership at all. Their "common sense" rhetoric masks their true agenda. They are a patient lot and they realize that an outright ban is impossible. The next best thing is death by a thousand cuts.

One smart tactic they use in this battle is dividing us into camps of their choosing. Who needs an assault rifle? Who needs a 30 round magazine? Who needs an automatic? Who needs a semi automatic. Who needs armor piercing cop killer bullets? Who needs concealed carry? Who needs a drum fed shotgun? Who needs a bump fire stock? It is a winning strategy that we fall for too often.

Push back is the only defense and failure to do so will mean the end.
Wait long enough and you'll see one call vanilla scoped deer rifles "deadly sniper rifles" and call for them to be banned. Some want to ban ANY firearm that's "too accurate".

There is no "compromise" with that kind of lying sociopath that doesn't end in a ban of the VAST majority of firearms for all but the rich and entitled and the government which they hope to control completely.
 
I'm afraid you misunderstand -- or are deliberately evading -- the point I made.


I DID say that we cannot win them over, and that because of that, we need to cultivate and maintain the support of folks in the middle, people who are supportive of the 2nd Amendment generally, but who could turn against us given the right circumstances. And we can't do that with in-your-face assertions of our "rights", or promoting our image as gun-totin' yahoos...

Texas Open Carry freedoms were won by in-your-face assertion of rights. Many gun owners used arguments identical to yours, that OC advocacy would turn off folks in the middle, never become legal anyway and only serve to move gun rights backwards. They lashed out at Open Carry advocates calling them names like gun-totin' yahoos.... Still, they marched forward and won their freedom. Detractors and prophets of doom were proved wrong.

The civil rights era was a struggle built on a foundation of in-your-face assertion of rights. There were many who warned against it and that it would backfire. Again, proved wrong. It's a subject that has too many landmines banned from discussion so I'll leave it there.

It's not that the position is misunderstood. It's a rather recognizable position and one that is regularly proved to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
My Benelli M1 cost me $550,, and holds 9 shells.
That is enough for me thank you!! :D

I always say that if 10+1 of .45ACP doesn't gitter done then Plan B should include a 12GA.:D

If 9 rounds of 12GA semoauto isn't enough then I dunno! ;)
 
So have England, Australia, Japan, become totalitarian? Are they all building gas chambers and invading neighbors? Are they putting people in gulags?

Just for the record because I know you'll say it....NO I do NOT agree with their bans but based on your parallels these countries should be committing genocide for decades!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Japan would be prime pickings for China, or NK without our support. The people are unarmed, so an invasion would sweep them. While guns were not outlawed in England during WW2 the country has never been a gun country. Again without us, and Russia they would have been eventually invaded.
 
Texas Open Carry freedoms were won by in-your-face assertion of rights.
And Ohio CONCEALED CARRY freedoms were won the same way... via OPEN CARRY.

The anti-gun cultists claimed that concealed carry wasn't necessary because open carry was legal... so advocates of concealed carry started holding OPEN CARRY marches. It wasn't too much later that "shall issue" concealed carry was passed.

We are NEVER going to preserve the rights we have, much less get back the ones we've lost by bowing and scraping and pulling at our forelocks to these deceitful sociopaths.
 
No need to explain why a bump stock or rubber bands are a good idea.

What should be explained and repeated is what Senator Dianne Feinstein said in an interview on Face The Nation yesterday, that she can think of no law that Congress could pass which would have prevented last week's Las Vegas mass shooting.

Arik's soccer mom doesn't need a tutorial on bump fire, but she does need to know that passing another gun law won't make her any safer.



We can only hope that if she runs again, she will finally be defeated. The most insulting fact of our lawmakers behavior is that they always pass laws that apply to us, but not to them. We've allowed them to fashion an elite royal class for themselves. Incredible, but that's what's evolved. Nothing's too good for them, and no law they pass to regulate us is too Draconian...

Bob


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Those that whine and wring their hands will jest have to tolerate my intolerance.

I'm a free trapper and so I shall remain for all my days.

It's takes all my waking hours to tend to my own business...........

Those that won't stand up for freedom and all that is right,
should probable just take a knee or two and bow before the oppressors of all rights free men.

But, that's just my view.......As I can see it from here.

.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top