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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.