S&W defense of the 2A

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remington1911 said:
You may not but a great many people are real unhappy over the UPS deal, I think the mods had to shut down three threads on the matter. Rather shocked we have not seen this one closed having gone 2 pages and something to the effect that it has run its course.

Personally I remember and judge by past actions. If S&W day after day and time after time tells the anti's to pound sand I will change my view. But because of one action, based on what way the wind is currently blowing no. What shows and shines to me is when you stand straight and tall against the wind. Back when "gun control" really had steam to it, and the wind was really blowing their way S&W caved, not many others did, they did. Now the wind has shifted more to a pro 2A direction, and now they take a big strong and tough stance....well that is easy. There is a great deal of push back right now. It will shift again, I have no doubt.

What will S&W do when that wind shifts against the 2A again, that is where the metal meets the meat.
Click to expand...

I'll believe S&W when they walk the walk, and do so for a while. Until then, I consider their "defense of the 2A" tentative to whatever climate they are currently in. They've burned us once, so I'm weary.
 
bdickens said:
That's not logic and reason. That's Red Herring.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. In about a decade we will be coming up on 100 years of living under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The first big success of "modern" gun control aimed to combat violence. Well it didn't work as intended so it has led to more gun control. More "common sense" measures at all levels of government. There are very few people alive that remember a time when they didn't have to worry about SBR and SBS laws. And soon there will be fewer people who remember what it was like to not fill out a 4473 for even private transfers. Anti-gun politicians have the long game in mind. This is why they influence kids when they are young. To get them thinking "guns are bad" early, they are less likely to become gun owners. There are large swaths of people in NY, NJ, and Mass who could not even think of owning a firearm. Not worth the hassle or they don't feel like they should own it. I firmly believe antis are winning this game. We have Supreme Court decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Buren but they are being sidestepped as quickly as the decisions are made.
 
herrwalther said:
There are large swaths of people in NY, NJ, and Mass who could not even think of owning a firearm.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. I've seen memes and posts from people to the effect of "if you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere, you probably need to reevaluate your life choices", etc.... which obviously means these people just associate guns with crime and shady behavior, seemingly oblivious that tragedy could befall them at any moment randomly... like the only way you are only going to become a victim of violent crime if you are directly involved, which is sort of the equivalent to saying rapists will only target women dressed a certain way, etc..... Apparently unaware that normal law abiding people are targeted every single day getting shot and murdered... this kind if thinking is run of the mill ignorance as well as indoctrination from people with an anti 2A agenda
 
herrwalther said:
No it isn't. In about a decade we will be coming up on 100 years of living under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The first big success of "modern" gun control aimed to combat violence. Well it didn't work as intended so it has led to more gun control. More "common sense" measures at all levels of government. There are very few people alive that remember a time when they didn't have to worry about SBR and SBS laws. And soon there will be fewer people who remember what it was like to not fill out a 4473 for even private transfers. Anti-gun politicians have the long game in mind. This is why they influence kids when they are young. To get them thinking "guns are bad" early, they are less likely to become gun owners. There are large swaths of people in NY, NJ, and Mass who could not even think of owning a firearm. Not worth the hassle or they don't feel like they should own it. I firmly believe antis are winning this game. We have Supreme Court decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Buren but they are being sidestepped as quickly as the decisions are made.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with either the stupid lock that you can just not use like 99.9% of everyone else or with S&W's statement of late?

Nothing.

Therefore, Red Herring.
 
DustyGmt said:
I just went to a gun shop earlier today and handled a brand new S&W 640, it didn't have an integral lock. So they aren't on all of them apparently.
Click to expand...
That's correct, it has always been optional on the internal hammer DAO J-frams for some reason (640, 642, 442, 440, 340). All the more reason the lock should be optional on ALL their revolver models! It's less work for them, and makes a more desirable gun... win-win!

My new production (2017) Model 642.
20220422_170109.jpg
 
Last edited:
herrwalther said:
No it isn't. In about a decade we will be coming up on 100 years of living under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The first big success of "modern" gun control aimed to combat violence. Well it didn't work as intended so it has led to more gun control. More "common sense" measures at all levels of government. There are very few people alive that remember a time when they didn't have to worry about SBR and SBS laws. And soon there will be fewer people who remember what it was like to not fill out a 4473 for even private transfers. Anti-gun politicians have the long game in mind. This is why they influence kids when they are young. To get them thinking "guns are bad" early, they are less likely to become gun owners. There are large swaths of people in NY, NJ, and Mass who could not even think of owning a firearm. Not worth the hassle or they don't feel like they should own it. I firmly believe antis are winning this game. We have Supreme Court decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Buren but they are being sidestepped as quickly as the decisions are made.
Click to expand...


THANK YOU.

Someone gets it.
 
bdickens said:
And what does that have to do with either the stupid lock that you can just not use like 99.9% of everyone else or with S&W's statement of late?

Nothing.

Therefore, Red Herring.
Click to expand...
I think they mean that it’s a capitulation to the anti gun crowd. It’s a dumb device that really has nothing to do with “gun safety” (love the double term use there!).

It’s just one more cut in the “death by a thousand cuts” anti 2A crowd. Just one more degree increase in the temperature of the “pot in which the frog is being boiled”.

Not really a Red Herring, the lock is more like a representation of the slow, steady continuation of 2A infringement.
 
I think that the gun ban groups have reached a stall point.

My suspicion is that they had hoped to have defunded, demoralized and disbanded the local and state police forces to the point that they could implement a federal police force to implement federal regulations on firearms.

(Most state and local police forces have said that they would not follow federal regulations that do not follow the U.S. or state constitutions.)

After that, concerns about internal or external gun locks are pretty much moot... .
 
theotherwaldo said:
I think that the gun ban groups have reached a stall point.

My suspicion is that they had hoped to have defunded, demoralized and disbanded the local and state police forces to the point that they could implement a federal police force to implement federal regulations on firearms.

(Most state and local police forces have said that they would not follow federal regulations that do not follow the U.S. or state constitutions.)

After that, concerns about internal or external gun locks are pretty much moot... .
Click to expand...

Hope you are right, but doubt it. They have fallen back looked at the defense and are now getting ready to run the next play. The long pass to make huge yardage is not working, so push up the middle 3 yards at a time, getting that 1st down when you need it, before long it is 3rd and 1 and they are standing on the goal line while the defense are trying to figure out how they got there.
 
bdickens said:
And what does that have to do with either the stupid lock that you can just not use like 99.9% of everyone else or with S&W's statement of late?

Nothing.

Therefore, Red Herring.
Click to expand...

You keep using that phrase without knowing what it means. The lock on S&W firearms as well as others were cave in measures to gun control laws. Quite literally the exact opposite of what you claim they are, a red herring.
 
herrwalther said:
You keep using that phrase without knowing what it means. The lock on S&W firearms as well as others were cave in measures to gun control laws. Quite literally the exact opposite of what you claim they are, a red herring.
Click to expand...

S&W once licked the gun grabbers' boots...some people seem to think that and the outcome are no issue.
 
Last edited:
mope540 said:
S&W once licked the gun grabbers' boots...some people seem to think that and the outcome are no issue.
Click to expand...
I would like to know what S&W did to upset pro 2A folks. I was born in the late 80's and don't recall any of this groveling to the anti gunners, but for some reason I remember Ruger's. I don't see or hear people ripping on Ruger for their past sins, just curious what S&W did and if it even really matters at this point.....
 
DustyGmt said:
I would like to know what S&W did to upset pro 2A folks. I was born in the late 80's and don't recall any of this groveling to the anti gunners
Click to expand...
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I kind of think whatever it was "S&W did to upset pro 2A folks" was probably before your time. As I remember it, S&W was owned by Bangor Punta Corporation back in the '70s, and it was during those years that so many "pro 2A folks" got very upset with them. And from what I've read in this thread, it seems a good many of those folks still have not forgiven S&W.
I could be all wrong about it though. I'm 74, and my memory ain't quite as good as it used to be. ;)
 
Remington1911 said:
Hope you are right, but doubt it. They have fallen back looked at the defense and are now getting ready to run the next play. The long pass to make huge yardage is not working, so push up the middle 3 yards at a time, getting that 1st down when you need it, before long it is 3rd and 1 and they are standing on the goal line while the defense are trying to figure out how they got there.
Click to expand...
While probably true, let’s not forget that they are still hoping for the Hail Mary with the AWB that has passed the House. If they get a filibuster proof majority, or get rid of the filibuster, it will almost certainly pass the Senate.

We have to be very vigilant.
 
DustyGmt said:
I can't for the life of me with squinted, sleepy eyes get my charger into the charger port in under 30 seconds and I was just imagining what it would be like for somebody who actually uses the IL feature. I would certainly never use a device like that, trying to stick a tiny lil key smaller than a handcuff key into the side of my gun in the middle of the night, tired, sleepy, stressed because of whatever has prompted you to draw your firearm, etc...

Some of you guys just made me think of it is all..... yeah, the IL is No Bueno

ETA: Since I was up at 5:30am and thinking about it, I watched this IL removal video.
Click to expand...

You're confusing a locking device for a safety. The S&W lock is a way to disable the use of the gun and wasn't intended to be used as a safety. How about guns that come with an actual lock and a flexible piece designed to somehow disable the use of a gun? That serves the same purpose as the S&W lock. A person that uses these types of locks most likely has young kids in the house.

I have a small number of S&W revolvers with the lock that I kept on the night stand when I slept. Never have ever used the lock on these guns, I have no young kids running around the house.
 
joed said:
You're confusing a locking device for a safety. The S&W lock is a way to disable the use of the gun and wasn't intended to be used as a safety. How about guns that come with an actual lock and a flexible piece designed to somehow disable the use of a gun? That serves the same purpose as the S&W lock. A person that uses these types of locks most likely has young kids in the house.

I have a small number of S&W revolvers with the lock that I kept on the night stand when I slept. Never have ever used the lock on these guns, I have no young kids running around the house.
Click to expand...
I don't think I am. I know the difference between an integral lock and a gun safety. The scenario I described was if somebody had their integral lock actuated and needed to use the key in the middle of the night or was in any kind of a rush to get their gun into action, they would find themselves with an inoperable gun until they finished fumbling around with that stupid key.
 
DustyGmt said:
I don't think I am. I know the difference between an integral lock and a gun safety. The scenario I described was if somebody had their integral lock actuated and needed to use the key in the middle of the night or was in any kind of a rush to get their gun into action, they would find themselves with an inoperable gun until they finished fumbling around with that stupid key.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that no one is stupid enough to lock the revolver and use it for defense. I caught myself before posting that. After thinking about how I find people every day that aren't much brighter than a 10 watt light bulb.

I just know that there is someone reading your post thinking "Maybe I shouldn't be locking it before using it for self defense". Yep, they are out there.
 
Last edited:
joed said:
I was going to say that no one is stupid enough to lock the revolver and use it for defense. I caught myself before posting that. After thinking about how I find people every day that aren't much brighter than a 10 watt light bulb.

I just know that there is someone reading your post thinking "Maybe I shouldn't be locking it before using it for self defense". Yep, they are out there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm quite curious how many people would actually use this feature on their gun. I used it as a selling point when I gave my BIL a .38spl, I was like "see, the gun is totally inoperable unless you have the key, blah blah blah". That smoothed troubled waters enough to get my BIL to be able to get the gun home but I told him in private, "don't ever use that G forsaken integral lock". He agreed.

I can see alot of nervous nelly types using the lock, in which case it might as well be a movie prop should you actually need to use it.
 
Gee, you think Smith said they were not afraid of the NRA, so they are not worthy. Think about it. It's just a bump in the RKBA battles and so take stock of what various sources say and do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Bushmaster's Beltway Shooter [sniper] Statement
Replies
14
Views
1K
Missouri Mule
M
hso
  • Locked
S&W Relocation
Replies
0
Views
2K
hso
hso
C
  • Locked
USA: "Smith & Wesson Bicycles Receive Wide Acclaim"
Replies
4
Views
757
Steve Smith
S
7
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson on VCDL's "Unfreindly to Gun Owners" list
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Hardtarget
H
R
  • Locked
S&W Forms Military Advisory Council
Replies
9
Views
518
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
Back
Top