DontBurnMyFlag
Member
Im sure we have all had an argument about assault weapons. Most gunnies I know say that a silencer is to protect the hearing of the shooter, a flash suppressor is to protect the eyes of a shooter and a folding stock is for compact storage...
I hate the fact that the government restricts such things. Its not about the need for a gun, or what you need on the gun, but the fact that owning a gun is your right.
However, I try not to be naive. I wont use those arguments listed above. I will say the following:
Silencers - I say they were created to use your gun silently and stealthy. Whatever you do with it, does not change what they were intended for.
Flash suppressors - To keep the bad guy from seeing where you shooting from
Folding stocks - increased mobility in close quarters and while being transported. compact storage is an added bonus
While, eye and hearing protection are arguments I hear often, I dont intend on using them. The govt has no right to restrict such things on a weapon and doing so is just...well wrong. However, if Im asked what these accessories are for on a gun, I will tell them what I listed above. If they dont like it, thats too bad, thats what they were made for. Not what I use it for however.
Am I wrong to chose my argument like this? I dont use these arguments to get my point across, I just tell em like it is, and if they cant take it, I hold out a trashbucket for them to in.
I hate the fact that the government restricts such things. Its not about the need for a gun, or what you need on the gun, but the fact that owning a gun is your right.
However, I try not to be naive. I wont use those arguments listed above. I will say the following:
Silencers - I say they were created to use your gun silently and stealthy. Whatever you do with it, does not change what they were intended for.
Flash suppressors - To keep the bad guy from seeing where you shooting from
Folding stocks - increased mobility in close quarters and while being transported. compact storage is an added bonus
While, eye and hearing protection are arguments I hear often, I dont intend on using them. The govt has no right to restrict such things on a weapon and doing so is just...well wrong. However, if Im asked what these accessories are for on a gun, I will tell them what I listed above. If they dont like it, thats too bad, thats what they were made for. Not what I use it for however.
Am I wrong to chose my argument like this? I dont use these arguments to get my point across, I just tell em like it is, and if they cant take it, I hold out a trashbucket for them to in.