Trigger Accesories. Where do you stand?

**duckman88** · 10-03-2017, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Beauregard

In my opinion, the second amendment was and is intended to allow the people to protect themselves from tyranny. The people of the late 1700s needed muskets to protect themselves from the tyrant of the day. Privateers used warships to fight the Barbary pirates. What tools do you need to protect yourself from the potential tyrants of today or those that may threaten in the future? What tools, in the hands of the people, prevent tyrannical actions from ever being attempted by would-be tyrants?

IMO, those arguments are far-fetched at this point with the technological capabilities of our military. BUT, as I have stated, if that is your justification for needing the aforementioned items, that is your right, protected under the second amendment and I support that right.

**Palmetto Bug** · 10-03-2017, 10:02 AM

Don't get lured into the argument of the "need" for a weapon. That inevitably ends up at the "sporting purpose" fallacy. The 2nd Amendment is all about us being able to resist the government and they sure as hell are going to have full auto weapons. Do you think you'd need one then?

**duckman88** · 10-03-2017, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Palmetto Bug

Don't get lured into the argument of the "need" for a weapon. That inevitably ends up at the "sporting purpose" fallacy. The 2nd Amendment is all about us being able to resist the government and they sure as hell are going to have full auto weapons. Do you think you'd need one then?

As I said in my post above, no I don't think I would need one given the capabilities of our military. If I am trying to match the capabilities of the military, I also need night vision or FLIR, a composite armored or heavily armored vehicle, a couple hundred million dollar jet, hundred million dollar helicopter, a multi-million dollar tank and a whole crap ton of other super expensive stuff. Read my post, if ya'll feel the need to have that stuff, by all means, go right ahead, I support your right to do so.

**Mars Bluff** · 10-03-2017, 10:09 AM

Having a safe full of em wouldn't help if the govt comes after you. Reminds me of when they sent the robot in to kill the Dallas shooter. Surprised more hasn't been made of that. I'm good with it in that situation but it starts to teeter on a weird side.

**Beauregard** · 10-03-2017, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by duckman88

IMO, those arguments are far-fetched at this point with the technological capabilities of our military. BUT, as I have stated, if that is your justification for needing the aforementioned items, that is your right, protected under the second amendment and I support that right.

I agree that the likelihood I'll ever use a weapon on another human being is slim to none and slim is out of town. However, I do believe that a well-armed populace is a deterrent to nefarious actors, be they government or otherwise.

Imagine being a Jew in 1939 Poland or an Armenian in 1917 Turkey or a Christian in 2015 Syria. You probably won't win the fight, but do you want to fight? Do you want the best tools available should you choose to fight? I'd like to think I'd fight and trust I'll never have to find out.

**led0321** · 10-03-2017, 10:20 AM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**duckman88** · 10-03-2017, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Beauregard

I agree that the likelihood I'll ever use a weapon on another human being is slim to none and slim is out of town. However, I do believe that a well-armed populace is a deterrent to nefarious actors, be they government or otherwise.

Imagine being a Jew in 1939 Poland or an Armenian in 1917 Turkey or a Christian in 2015 Syria. You probably won't win the fight, but do you want to fight? Do you want the best tools available should you choose to fight? I'd like to think I'd fight and trust I'll never have to find out.

If it helps you sleep at night, by all means, buy all the guns you want. As I have said now multiple times, I support your right to be able to do so.

**Duck cutter** · 10-03-2017, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by led0321

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's the article with the video clip of what he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...bout-gun-laws/

**Duck cutter** · 10-03-2017, 10:29 AM

He didn't dwell long on the gun law topic and he didnt exploit a tragedy and the brief media time to push an agenda.

That's better than how our previous administration would have done, IMO.

**swampshooter** · 10-03-2017, 10:57 AM

Twin towers=planes and box cutters
Boston bombing=pressure cookers
Oklahoma bombing=fertilizer and diesel

Where there is a will there is a way, or maybe we should just ban everything!

**Palmetto Bug** · 10-03-2017, 11:03 AM

How long have we been fighting tribes in Afghanistan? They aren't as well armed as US forces.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

**duckman88** · 10-03-2017, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Palmetto Bug

How long have we been fighting tribes in Afghanistan? They aren't as well armed as US forces.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

The tribes have been fighting modern wars in Afghanistan with unconventional warfare for almost 40 years. Sorry but you aren't going to change my mind on this issue. As I have said, if having an arsenal helps you sleep at night, by all means buy whatever you want. That is your right and I support that right.

**led0321** · 10-03-2017, 11:19 AM

Nevermind

**Swamp Rat** · 10-03-2017, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by swampshooter

Twin towers=planes and box cutters
Boston bombing=pressure cookers
Oklahoma bombing=fertilizer and diesel

Where there is a will there is a way, or maybe we should just ban everything!

Yep...

The French are looking into ways to ban commercial trucks.

**WoodieSC** · 10-03-2017, 12:34 PM

In regards to banning trigger accessories that can speed up the rate of fire... you forgot that one little item that sits in drawers all over the world... the rubber band. I've never used one, but don't think it would take long to figure it out.

**DJP** · 10-03-2017, 12:47 PM

I just don't care if trigger accessories or bump stocks are banned. They are gimmicks to me. I have tried the crank before. I have not tried a bump stock.
I am fine with full auto guns being regulated. I am fine with silencers being regulated.

**Bad Habit** · 10-03-2017, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by DJP

I just don't care if trigger accessories or bump stocks are banned. They are gimmicks to me. I have tried the crank before. I have not tried a bump stock.
I am fine with full auto guns being regulated. I am fine with silencers being regulated.

I'll translate for the ^Liberal anti gun hunter- all I need is my fine English double, you can take the rest.

Bullshit like that is how the anti's win. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED could not be said in any more clear terms. What part do you not understand?

**DJP** · 10-03-2017, 01:15 PM

I know. I know. I am a liberal because I don't think everything across the board labeled as a firearm or firearm accessory should be legal.

**led0321** · 10-03-2017, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by DJP

I know. I know. I am a liberal because I don't think everything across the board labeled as a firearm or firearm accessory should be legal.

Why the stance with suppressors?

**duckman88** · 10-03-2017, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Bad Habit

I'll translate for the ^Liberal anti gun hunter- all I need is my fine English double, you can take the rest.

Bullshit like that is how the anti's win. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED could not be said in any more clear terms. What part do you not understand?

Yes because jenks clearly said all he needed was a double barrel...

View Poll Results: Should Trigger Accessories that alter the rate of fire be legal?

Thread: Trigger Accesories. Where do you stand?

Thread Tools

Display

Trigger Accesories. Where do you stand?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions