Binary Glock Trigger

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fr...pistols-is-go/

I don't see what the utility is for this gadget. I would want the ability to control my gun, shot by shot. Would it be 'nice' to have - sure, someone might say that. No offense to the company. Not advocating a ban or some hysteria over it. Just asking about WHY?

[awp_101]

Because they’ll sell.

[JonInWA]

I'm conceptually unimpressed. While the execution looks very professionally done, essentially what it's doing is providing a quasi full auto capability to the open marketplace, which I see as a legal trainwreck waiting to happen. I'm sure they're stressing the "full training " aspect inherent to controlled use (and sales), but realistically I think the actual demographic of interest will be centered around bubba/mallrat ninjas, and gangbangers.

In today's climate, I just don't see it as an advisable offering. And legitimate organizational users will probably look at it with a big yawn. I don't think it's particularly wise to create speedbumps to gun ownership and use, and/or moral ambiguity around it. Hard pass.

Best, Jon

[BillSWPA]

I agree with above posts indicating that the utility is bubba wasting a bunch of ammo. I don't see how it is useful for competition or for any serious purpose.

I also agree that this will be a legal trainwreck.

While I would not support a ban, I also hate to see 2nd amendment resources going to defending fringe issues like this. Our rights depend in part on keeping activist liberals off the Supreme Court as well as the district and circuit courts. Keeping the right judges on the courts means winning elections. Winning elections means persuading the persuadable people in the middle that our position is reasonable. Good luck persuading those voters that this is something we need to protect.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My thoughts also. Fighting fringe issues is problematic.

[Squib308]

1. While utility is questionable, it’s a cool product with a large market.

2. Rights are not regained by “tactfully” surrendering other rights. If we are afraid of how certain fringe products will be perceived then we have already failed the next generation.

[JRB]

AR15's and double-stack 9mm's and were 'fringe products' recently enough that there's guys who were wearing badges then who are still wearing badges now.

Doesn't matter if it is of dubious utility for a professional duty weapon. What matters is the ATF painted themselves into a corner and all this bullshit would disappear overnight if they'd just let lawful folks pay the $200 and kiss the ring to Form 1 a machine gun.

Besides, if 'useful as a duty weapon' is the litmus test by which it's protected by the 2A, then we better get to banning cheap pistols, cheap shotguns, cheap optics, cheap anything that isn't 'duty grade' while simultaneously maintaining the cognitive dissonance that select-fire rifles and suppressors should be heavily restricted despite how profoundly useful they are to military/militia users.

[BillSWPA]

Years ago in a political science class, one of the assignments was to debate a controversial position, in part responding to questions from the class. Whenever I asked questions, I took the team down the slippery slope they had not planned to avoid, and regardless of which side of which issue, made their position look bad. It worked every single time, on every single issue.

In court, the winning party is very often the one who is able to paint their own position as reasonable and the other side as unreasonable.

Like it or not, our country is split down the middle. Simply screaming about "muh rights" without a plan to actually protect those rights will get you absolutely nothing.

So go ahead, scream all you want about why you need to be able to buy a bump stock, why convicted felons should have a right to bear arms, why druggies should have a right to bear arms, and why you should be able to buy these triggers. Go ahead, give the other side such an easy time painting you as unreasonable. See who wins the next election and gets to appoint the next set of judges. Then see if you get to keep your AR-15, standard capacity magazines, ability to carry confealed, etc.

Or, you can learn something from history. For example, the history of how we got where we are today.

The other side learned very quickly not to demand everything up front. They learned that demanding all or nothing gets you exactly what you demanded but not what you wanted. They got where they wanted in a series of small steps, each of which they were able to convince a majority was "reasonable" because it was only a small step from the last achievement. They boiled the frog slowly, and by the time it realized what was happening, it was cooked.

Instead of being so quick to turn up the heat, think about when you want the frog to realize what is happening.

Edited to add: the pro-gun side seems to have been conditioned to think that refusing to advocate for a given issue is conceding rights to the other side. If the subject is whether a new restriction is added, then that view is correct. However, we are now in an unprecedented position to expand our rights. Refusing to advocate for an issue is not necessarily condeding it to the other side. Rather, it is seeking incremental, reasonable improvements to our current situation to ultimately get us where we want. To do so, the increments need to be digestible by that portion of persuadable voters in the middle who decide elections.

[Joe in PNG]

Conversely, a lot of the good stuff we have now also came from reasonable & small victories. Consider that if one goes back to the mid 80's, pretty much ever state except Vermont required people to show cause to get a concealed carry permit. Then came Shall Issue, and when states saw that Blood In Da Streetz! was not the result, more states moved to that- and then from there to Constitutional Carry.
But if Gun Rights people had tried to go right to full Constitutional Carry back then, we'd probably still have to show cause to get a permit.

[BillSWPA]

Conversely, a lot of the good stuff we have now also came from reasonable & small victories. Consider that if one goes back to the mid 80's, pretty much ever state except Vermont required people to show cause to get a concealed carry permit. Then came Shall Issue, and when states saw that Blood In Da Streetz! was not the result, more states moved to that- and then from there to Constitutional Carry.
But if Gun Rights people had tried to go right to full Constitutional Carry back then, we'd probably still have to show cause to get a permit.

EXACTLY!

The first right to carry laws in many states placed so many restrictions on where one could carry a gun that my first permit (1996) enabled me to actually carry less than 10% of the time. Then, the number of prohibited places started getting gradually reduced. Reciprocity agreements gradually sprung up. Now, many of us carry seamlessly across many state lines. Even so, if someone had told me in 1995 that we would have so many constitutional carry states, I would have been skeptical.