Tom Irwin's Response to Me regarding the UK Article

[Lowlight]

Sniper’s Hide took the time on Friday to reach out to Tom Irwin of Accuracy International Regarding the Article in “The Evening Standard”. Tom called me that evening from a Hockey Game to set the record straight for everyone.

Within the Accuracy International Financial Disclosure were comments regarding the US election. How the election of Trump was seen as a positive for Accuracy International and the fact there was always a risk, had she been elected Hillary could have harmed the business. The quote from Tom was included

"There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

The document is public and a reporter on seeing the comments regarding the US election contacted AI to say he was writing an article about it. Everything Trump is news and the fact AI mentioned support for his election makes it news.

Prior to publication, Tom spoke to the reporter and the question of Bump stocks came up. This is the majority of the article, and delivered two quotes from Tom.

"Ridiculous"
"Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."

Clearly these were taken out of context and help create the headline that the "US needs greater gun controls, says rifle boss".

Meanwhile gun control was never mentioned, nor was the topic. These two comments were about bump stocks. Not semi auto rifles, or anything else, bump stocks.

Clearly out of context, clearly meant to incite a reaction among their US market. Remember, the reporter had access to their financial documents, hurting their US sales could hurt a company that showed growth. Because they supported the outcome of the election you get a political hit job.

Tom explained, Accuracy International and Tom Irwin are not calling for more gun control in the US. And does not agree with the way the article frames any of Tom's statements. The conversation was reduced to three quotes:

"Ridiculous"
"Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."
"There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

With the last one about Hillary. So really you have one word and a sentence , out of a much longer discussion.

Take it from the source, Tom has spoken to me directly and can tell you this is the true definition of fake news dressed in click bait.

 

[anon]

He might want to have his barrister speak to Jim Armitage's barrister about the material damage that paragraph three is going to cause his company.

 

[1J04]

*crickets*

 

[diverdon]

He might want to have his barrister speak to Jim Armitage's barrister about the material damage that paragraph three is going to cause his company.

Tom is enough of a public figure that I'm pretty sure his lawyer would tell him not to bother.

I don't suspect that Tom's lack of support for Hillary is going to cost him a lot of customers. Now if only I could find that AX50 on sale.

 

[BoilerUP]

Tom is enough of a public figure that I'm pretty sure his lawyer would tell him not to bother.

I don't suspect that Tom's lack of support for Hillary is going to cost him a lot of customers.

Tom's lack of support is one thing...a reporter purposefully taking a response out of context and writing it such that Irwin was supporting a ban on semi-automatic firearms in the US (which could clearly have a downside impact on AI's revenue) is another. I suspect the latter is legally actionable.

 

[pmclaine]

Gun people are better off not speaking to the media.

My state has a law requiring ammo sellers to have a sales license.

Many out of state mail houses are unaware of that.

Local news decided to do an investigative report on this and they used a large gun seller in state as their venue for the story.

The gun seller explained the law and gave legitimacy to the news investigation on camera.

The next day one of the most affordable ammo houses notified they will no longer ship to individuals in state, sales have to go to an FFL for transfer to customer.

That gun seller is now persona non grata.

I don't know if their intent was to decrease competition or perhaps just provide a PSA but they certainly became the useful idiot.

When contacted by the media the only response should be "We support all lawful use of firearms and no restrictions for law abiding citizens. Have a nice day!"

 

[Lowlight]

Part of the reason Tom even spoke to this reporter was because of this article.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business...ales-are-growing-at-a-fair-clip-a3707476.html


It was sort of a bait and switch,

 

[pmclaine]

Interesting guns are "good" as long as other countries buy them but not good for their own citizens.

My state/region has robust gun manufacturing businesses and touts there strong sales as signs of the well managed economy yet........those legislators do every thing they can to ban gun ownership in state.

I think Mr Irwin can look at the chance to speak to the media with the belief "Finally, I will be able to present he rational side of the debate" and he will.....than the slime sucking swamp reporter will put his words to match the intended anti context that was the goal of the article.

It sucks because it means that the voice of pro gun people is really limited to preaching to the choir.

I see "pro gun" reportage in my area and it's always the Fudd with a shotgun that hunts ducks and claims if he had to he would defend his home with it. None of them ever go into depth of expressing what the Second Amendment is for or if they do it's presented as the belief of fringe right wing militia groups.

 

[Threadcutter308]

http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/201...e-t-shirt.html

Tom might like this T-shirt, I know I'd like to have one.

I wonder when WalMart is going to ban the sale of Antifa (and blm) t-shirts and gear ?

​​​​​​http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/01/walmart-selling-antifa-fan-gear/

 

[LRShooter101]

Asked whether semi-automatics — still capable of firing rapidly — should be legal as well, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit.”

It is one thing to say Bump Stocks should not be available, it is something else all together to say that Semi-Autos should NOT be legal!

If Tom Irwin did NOT give that answer to that question, then he needs to be taking legal action, because if not then IMHO there is a huge potential for some serious fallout.

When I read the article I was ready to take everything that I own that AI makes (multiple rifles and chassis) and either get rid of it or pitch it in the trash.

I love my AI stuff, but I am not going to support anyone who advocates gun control along the lines of making Semi-Autos illegal.

 

[pmclaine]

And with the verdict in Maryland last week, or not so much a verdict but the decision of the Supremes to not take an appeal and let a ruling stand that allows for banning ARs, a loose slip of the tongue could be very hurtful to our freedoms.

 

[pmclaine]

And as an aside seldom do I see people from the Commonwealth really grasp the reason for the Second Amendment.

Shooters will voice support for some of their restrictions or think we should accept some restrictions in the aftermath of some psychopath wreaking havoc.

I just think that there is a cultural barrier that they can not surpass to allow them to fully grasp and accept the reason the FF put the Second Amendment into our Constitution.

Perhaps too much emotional attachment to a head of state that can span a multi generational period as opposed to the revolving door of our govt. I know countries of the Commonwealth have political systems more complex and diverse than just the symbolic head of state but still there is that one personality that embodies the personality of the Commonwealth and perhaps it somehow creates an endearment toward the govt rather than cynicism toward the bureaucracy.

Just my worthless psychoanalysis.

 

[diverdon]

Tom already talked to Frank and told him that what was printed in the article was not what he said or was placed out of context. Frank has already explained this. I worry that TV has rotted the American brain, too many expect a happy ending at the conclusion every episode. Unfortunately real life is not always so neatly wrapped in bows and ribbons.

Do you really think AI is too stupid to have learned from what happened at S&W? For that matter the Brits who owned S&W were business people who thought of handguns as "widgets." Tom and his partners are gun people. I hope most here can see the difference.

 

[Arc Light]

"Asked whether semi-automatics — still capable of firing rapidly — should be legal as well, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit.”

Pretty hard to misconstrue that statement if you ask me. Perhaps he thought it would only be seen in Britain, where photographs of guns is now a crime, and not here in America. Would not be the first time a gun manufacturer only gave a shit about his own particular niche and everyone else is expendable. Now, if he did not say that, he needs to demand a correction/retraction. We die-hard, pro-2nd Amendment nuts don't forget or forgive easily.

 

[1J04]

Knock yourselves out....

 

[DP425]

And i'll add... I love my AXMC... I would like to get a small trunon AXMC and eventually, an AX50... But if I don't see concrete proof that Tom's statement as quoted, is entirely false (or if his statement as quoted in the article is accurate, his dismissal from AI), I'm done buying AI, except for items I can get no where else. That means no new rifles, non-AI barrels... AX mags, and that's about it. And hell, it could even lead me to switching to the TRG rifles or the MRAD myself.

Frankly, I'm fucking pissed. If it really is a hit-piece on Tom and AI, I'm pissed at the media outlet and they need to pay (and pay dearly). If it is accurate, then Tom and AI get my scorn. But to reiterate a third time- the only way I could personally know who should be the focus of my scorn, is if this becomes a legal issue or not. Or I guess if Tom gets fired. That's a third way this pans out that I forgot about; such would indicate the article as factual, but counter to AI's position.

 

[Veer_G]

Well, SHOT will certainly be interesting, won't it?

 

[1J04]

Well, SHOT will certainly be interesting, won't it?

Yes, yes it definitely will. But remember, they've got till Jan 23rd to get this under control.

 

[Veer_G]

I foresee Feats of Strength and Airings of Grievances.

 

[308pirate]

"Asked whether semi-automatics — still capable of firing rapidly — should be legal as well, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit.”

Pretty hard to misconstrue that statement if you ask me.

Obviously you've never dealt with the press. Are you so truly naive that you think a reporter or editor would not quote someone completely out of context? Do you really think interviews are printed or even shown on video verbatim as they occurred?

Do you?

LOL

 

[Mormegil87]

With friends like us, who needs enemies.

i find it unfortunate that people are more willing believe a newspaper that quoted single words and sentence fragments over the word of two men who have put untold time, energy and effort into this community.

 

[pmclaine]

As Brian Ross proved Friday the left will use the media to effect financial outcomes without regard to truth or the harm it causes people.

Would be nice to see someone roll that back.

 

[308pirate]

And there are people in the other thread still not getting and raising all kind of drama about campaigns and boycotts......WTF

 

[diverdon]

And i'll add... I love my AXMC... I would like to get a small trunon AXMC and eventually, an AX50... But if I don't see concrete proof that Tom's statement as quoted, is entirely false (or if his statement as quoted in the article is accurate, his dismissal from AI), I'm done buying AI, except for items I can get no where else. That means no new rifles, non-AI barrels... AX mags, and that's about it. And hell, it could even lead me to switching to the TRG rifles or the MRAD myself.

Frankly, I'm fucking pissed. If it really is a hit-piece on Tom and AI, I'm pissed at the media outlet and they need to pay (and pay dearly). If it is accurate, then Tom and AI get my scorn. But to reiterate a third time- the only way I could personally know who should be the focus of my scorn, is if this becomes a legal issue or not. Or I guess if Tom gets fired. That's a third way this pans out that I forgot about; such would indicate the article as factual, but counter to AI's position.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you but legal actions against journalists will likely cost millions to start and possibly much more to finish. The entire time the action is ongoing the media and their allies and lickspittles in Government positions can attack your company on other things, For the guy who is going to have to pay the bills it's not so easy to decide to take action. Further more the legal actions will keep the matter in the public eye for years when it might otherwise die a natural death.

As far as firing Tom, I'm not sure how that could be done, I think he is the largest shareholder of AI.

 

[Veer_G]

Neither the UK nor the US sites have even a glimmer of a statement about this flap. A few official words would go a long way towards clearing up misgivings in the US.

 

[LRShooter101]

With friends like us, who needs enemies.

I find it unfortunate that people are more willing believe a newspaper that quoted single words and sentence fragments over the word of two men who have put untold time, energy and effort into this community.

"Stand for something, or fall for anything"

That quote from that article is serious ammo in the hands of any "anti gun groups" who are looking to place restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Coming from someone like Tom Irwin who is a major firearms manufacturer gives it significantly more "weight".

Which source do you think more people are going to see, the response that Frank posted here, or the original article that was posted in The Evening Standard (and reposted all over the place). The only people that are going to know about Tom Irwin's rebuttal as things stand now are pro gunners, not the general public or anti gunners. Sorry, but the impact of Tom Irwin's words as written could be very far reaching in main stream media, where his rebuttal to Frank is probably not going to even be a bleep on the radar of main stream media

IMHO, the only way Tom Irwin's words (and position) can be truly clarified for everyone (not just a small pro gun group), is if Tom Irwin takes legal action to set the record straight, and the outcome makes it to mainstream media.

 

[Lowlight]

"Asked whether semi-automatics — still capable of firing rapidly — should be legal as well, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit.”

Pretty hard to misconstrue that statement if you ask me. Perhaps he thought it would only be seen in Britain, where photographs of guns is now a crime, and not here in America. Would not be the first time a gun manufacturer only gave a shit about his own particular niche and everyone else is expendable. Now, if he did not say that, he needs to demand a correction/retraction. We die-hard, pro-2nd Amendment nuts don't forget or forgive easily.

Please just stop with your bullshit.

We always said, the discussion was never about semi auto fire, that quote was about bump stocks, "Still capable of firing rapidly" ... The quote is out of context dipshit. As many of us have stated, bumps stocks to a precision rifle guy are not just stupid they are fucking stupid and designed to shoot off the hip. "Personally I don't see the benefit"

Are bump stocks even worth debating? Granted the ATF approved them for sale, but that is not to say there are products out there that fall into a gray area which can have unintended consequences. I would rather in this type of debate you not be on my side. Why, well super simple, look at the argument we have hovering over our heads. They want to outlaw now anything that makes shooting a semi auto "faster" illegal. Guess what can help you shoot a semi auto faster, how about an aftermarket trigger with a better break and short throw? Cause that is the debate I am reading about in the bills introduced to ban bump stocks, they include anything that increases speed, which is subjective to begin with. We now have to fight to keep a really good aftermarket trigger legal as it can get swept up.

The fact the quotes leaves out a bunch, and have a fucking break in the middle of the sentence should give you dumb asses a clue. The word Bumps Stock is missing.

This was never about semi auto vs their legality, it was, "But what about bump stocks that let you shoot a semi auto faster".... Personally I don't see the benefit.

Tom did NOT debate semi autos and was not commenting on semi auto, how hard is that to understand? I find if amazing how fast people want to twist this, in fact they are relishing in it as if to say "gotcha" ... semi auto rifles were not discussed... bump stocks were.

There were two articles published by the same guy at the same time. Tom was commenting on the financials and did not discuss gun control. The reporter twisted it to read that way because he felt he had a gotcha moment too, ask about bump stocks, use the technicality that using a bump stock is still semi auto fire just faster, and you have a quote semi auto fire bad says rifle boss ...

 

[Lowlight]

99% of the idiots demanding AI be boycotted or saying they will not buy an AI are guys that never could have afforded one to begin with ...

Why is this an issue, because it's a convenient excuse for the douchebags to voice their opinion and pretend this might have been on their horizon. "Well that just saved me a bunch of money" None of them had any means or intensions of buying an AI to begin with. It gives them excuse to dog pile.

Everyday there is nothing but attacks on the media because of their bullshit antics. All of the sudden, they are the righteous ones and Tom needs to explain himself, as if.

 

[DP425]

99% of the idiots demanding AI be boycotted or saying they will not buy an AI are guys that never could have afforded one to begin with ...

Why is this an issue, because it's a convenient excuse for the douchebags to voice their opinion and pretend this might have been on their horizon. "Well that just saved me a bunch of money" None of them had any means or intensions of buying an AI to begin with. It gives them excuse to dog pile.

Everyday there is nothing but attacks on the media because of their bullshit antics. All of the sudden, they are the righteous ones and Tom needs to explain himself, as if.

I hope that wasn't directed at me. But if it was, I'd like to reassert the fact that I do own an AXMC.

 

[Lowlight]

It does apply to you AI or not... as you are also clearly part of the problem.

I gave you the information, Tom does not believe Semi Autos should be illegal, the question was about bump stocks, and the fact you still demand more, "Lends To the Believability of this Article" so are you saying you want to believe the reporter over Tom ?

The article is short, it's clearly leaving out the main focus of the questions... The one line in question is definitely not about semi autos, its about bump stocks, doesn't read anything like that, however several of you don't care about the holes, or context, only how you want to spin it and eat our own.

I said it plainly and clearly, the discussion was never about semi auto rifles ... it was about bump stocks, what part of that don't you get ?

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Great in fighting over a guy, who makes money from the US shooting community then thinks he knows better how we should operate or what we should be allowed to own.

 

[Silverjay]

For me, much of the issue at this point is all of the second hand information. As Veer stated earlier, a statement from AI would go a long way. An AI rep weighing in here would help. Without either I am left to believe they either don’t care what I believe, or their is nothing to correct.

Crap happens, to me it is all about how a company responds. Been awfully quite so far.

 

[Lowlight]

Great in fighting over a guy, who makes money from the US shooting community then thinks he knows better how we should operate or what we should be allowed to own.

Not what he said, He said Personally, I don't see the benefit ...

How is that fucking telling us what we should own...

If you can't see the can of worms bump stocks have opened because of Vegas, you are not paying attention. When they finally ban them, and after market triggers with them (cause that is how it is being proposed today) you can defend why we should argue over keeping them. They are a joke, and hurt the community as a whole.

In the USMC we had a Sgt who used to say, "Good to be hard, hard to be smart" you guys are fucking stupid

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Not what he said, He said Personally, I don't see the benefit ...

How is that fucking telling us what we should own...

If you can't see the can of worms bump stocks have opened because of Vegas, you are not paying attention. When they finally ban them, and after market triggers with them (cause that is how it is being proposed today) you can defend why we should argue over keeping them. They are a joke, and hurt the community as a whole.

In the USMC we had a Sgt who used to say, "Good to be hard, hard to be smart" you guys are fucking stupid

That's like me saying a knife has no use. Just love those who think they know whats good for everyone. How would it be if I said sniper rifles have no use, except to line the pockets of those who hawk them?

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

So now it's about the item again, not the act?

 

[Lowlight]

You guys want a conspiracy theory to play with, the Obama Admin approved them, a guy with means and access committed the biggest shooting in US History and stuck them on a couple of the rifles present. No motive, no further details, total blackout, but now it threatens a wide range of products we depend on like aftermarket triggers, and if shit goes south politically they will use it to fuck with more.

You've been had.... instead you want to argue over the line, "personally I don't see the benefit" Hahahaha

Tell me your benefit today, especially if they ever do move on them as written, taking aftermarket triggers with them.

 

[Lowlight]

So now it's about the item again, not the act?

Personally I see no benefit in them, but I am a precision rifle guy, and not some idiot on YouTube chewing up the range from 25 yards, firing as fast as possible off the hip hitting nothing but Earth.

Good to be Hard, Hard to Be Smart... I would much rather be smarter than the other guy, unlike you fools

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

So with that line of thinking when will the sig brace take some heat? Divide an concur, only if we are stupid enough to buy into that game.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Personally I see no benefit in them, but I am a precision rifle guy, and not some idiot on YouTube chewing up the range from 25 yards, firing as fast as possible off the hip hitting nothing but Earth.

Good to be Hard, Hard to Be Smart... I would much rather be smarter than the other guy, unlike you fools

I see a benefit from anything that brings more shooters to the table no matter the venue. I don't see a benefit from lots of things but I keep my fucking mouth shut about it instead of pissing off the folks who are in the same game.

 

[Lowlight]

Same stupid thing... the Sig Brace is legal, not legal, legal, not legal, Legal ?

Bump Stocks snuck through, and since these idiots can't understand how these things operate, it will drag other, more useful products down. Every fucking day you guys argue what idiots the government is, how bad mistakes are made, how rules are bullshit, yet this mistake is okay and you want to lump a dumb ass bump stock in with my good triggers.

Do you advocate for Oil Can Suppressors too, that way when some dipshit decides to use them, we can include all suppressors in the outrage, forcing us to fight that battle.

Good to Hard, Hard to be Smart ...

 

[Waorani]

If you've never been interviewed by a journalist, and then later read how they completely mistook, twisted, or outright misquoted what you said, then you have no concept of how monumentally stupid most of them are. I don't know exactly what was said but I can all but guarantee you what was published is not an accurate representation of the question posed/answer given. And as far as big companies getting into internet pissing contests - they just generally don't do it.

 

[Lowlight]

I see a benefit from anything that brings more shooters to the table no matter the venue. I don't see a benefit from lots of things but I keep my fucking mouth shut about it instead of pissing off the folks who are in the same game.

More shooters to the table ?

Doing what ?

Name one shooter who got into the game because of a Bump Stock

This I have to hear, bringing more shooters to the table LOL

Are you sure you're not a liberal because that is some fancy fucking spinning right there

 

[Veer_G]

For me, much of the issue at this point is all of the second hand information. As Veer stated earlier, a statement from AI would go a long way. An AI rep weighing in here would help. Without either I am left to believe they either don’t care what I believe, or their is nothing to correct.

Crap happens, to me it is all about how a company responds. Been awfully quite so far.

As my wife the astute corporate creature noted, it's only been a few days. Irwin may very well be in discussions about how to respond in a more formal fashion. We should see something beyond an anecdotal recap of a conversation. At least, I'd be surprised not to. I find it interesting that there are only three comments on the page of the newspaper article in question. If there's so much hub-bub, has it not been taken up by interested parties with the author, or has commentary been suppressed?

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Same stupid thing... the Sig Brace is legal, not legal, legal, not legal, Legal ?

Bump Stocks snuck through, and since these idiots can't understand how these things operate, it will drag other, more useful products down. Every fucking day you guys argue what idiots the government is, how bad mistakes are made, how rules are bullshit, yet this mistake is okay and you want to lump a dumb ass bump stock in with my good triggers.

Do you advocate for Oil Can Suppressors too, that way when some dipshit decides to use them, we can include all suppressors in the outrage, forcing us to fight that battle.

Good to Hard, Hard to be Smart ...

The bump stock did not sneak thru, ask Tom Bowers an others about the losses they incurred. The gov wants/does play word games with laws an when they are on the losing end they don't like it. I could care less about the item no matter what it is, as if it was truly about the item, we would have no products at all because every product can be use as a weapon. The reason it is against fed law to use any product for anything other than it's intended purpose. Read up on that simple law!

 

[DP425]

It does apply to you AI or not... as you are also clearly part of the problem.

I gave you the information, Tom does not believe Semi Autos should be illegal, the question was about bump stocks, and the fact you still demand more, "Lends To the Believability of this Article" so are you saying you want to believe the reporter over Tom ?

The article is short, it's clearly leaving out the main focus of the questions... The one line in question is definitely not about semi autos, its about bump stocks, doesn't read anything like that, however several of you don't care about the holes, or context, only how you want to spin it and eat our own.

I said it plainly and clearly, the discussion was never about semi auto rifles ... it was about bump stocks, what part of that don't you get ?

Frank, it boils down to this- With UK libel laws being what they are, where the burden of proof is ON THE REPORTER, and they print what is claimed to be an absolute bullshit, hit-piece story, fabricating someone's support for severe gun control, when they are in the firearms industry (which means it's going to hurt sales), and that person takes no action other than relaying a message of denial through an intermediary, they are either an absolute bitch, who has not the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves, or they are a liar.

What would YOU do, if someone clearly fabricated an article where you're quoted as saying AR's shouldn't be legal for civilians, and that article went international? The way this story is being told right now, it's pretty solid case for libel here in the US, let alone the UK. Now, what would you honestly expect someone's response to be, if the only thing you did, is tell the owner of a forum that the article is a BS hit-piece? That is not a proper, proportional response and it would naturally make people question you. Your business is going to suffer, your personal reputation is going to suffer, you have a pretty solid case for a lawsuit... And your only response to defend yourself, is through someone else making a few posts on their forum. That almost sounds laughably weak doesn't' t it?

But I could hardly see you laying down- you'd prob be slapping them with a lawsuit tomorrow morning.



Most everyone here should know that you're honest, you're upstanding, and you do the right thing. However, I don't know Tom, most of us don't know Tom. No one but Tom and the reporter (and perhaps whoever has heard any possible recording of the interview) TRUELY know exactly what was discussed. What I do know, is allowing highly damaging, false and libelous quotes to stand, is not a normal business practice and would lend that reporting credibility... BECAUSE there are legal avenues to address it, and it is in the business's best interest to do so. I also know, that if this is an attack on the gun industry, and AI specifically, that I would want to see an aggressive response; because that is what makes sense and is logical. When things happen that are not a typical response, it causes you to scratch your head and ask "why?".


Like I said 3-5 times now. I'm awaiting what the response to this will be. What you have relayed to us is good- it's good initial information. But the norm in business would have some type of legal response; even if it's just a nasty-gram from the company attorney, forcing a retraction. You're a Marine- you're well aware I'm sure, of the saying "trust but verify". The verify part is what actions will be taken. Again, like I said several times now... Words aren't worth shit without actions to back them up.

No one here is expecting to see the preliminary hearing notes on the 11 o'clock news tonight... damned near everyone is saying they are waiting to see what happens next, and you're getting bent out of shape like you expect this should be the end of the story.

 

[Silverjay]

As my wife the astute corporate creature noted, it's only been a few days. Irwin may very well be in discussions about how to respond in a more formal fashion. We should see something beyond an anecdotal recap of a conversation. At least, I'd be surprised not to. I find it interesting that there are only three comments on the page of the newspaper article in question. If there's so much hub-bub, has it not been taken up by interested parties with the author, or has commentary been suppressed?

Smart woman. Will see what they have to say this week.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

More shooters to the table ?

Doing what ?

Name one shooter who got into the game because of a Bump Stock

This I have to hear, bringing more shooters to the table LOL

Are you sure you're not a liberal because that is some fancy fucking spinning right there

Yes more to the table. I sold all my title II full auto stuff in Jan this year as the hand writing is/was on the table. Sig braces on pistol receivers trump SBR's, the Shockwave trump's a SBS. The bump fire stocks trump a 30K F/A for the avg guy, that is pure marketing fact.

Love the lib-rat remark, that all ya got at this point?

By the way, many other gun forums are forming a back lash for your friend also.

 

[Lowlight]

You wait, this political climate is gonna shift, the odds are in their favor and at some point they will have the numbers.

When that happens, all these things that sky light our industry is gonna make us suffer for it. They are not bringing in more supporters they are hurting our cause, big picture thinking here.

We know how to get a full auto, there is a very easy process, it just requires time and money. Hell right down the street, Machine Gun Tours, you can buy, rent, etc, all the full auto goodness you want.

Instead we have to "simulate it" so jack-offs like MazerBlade can go on YouTube and piss in their diapers showing everyone how cool they are. These guys dancing that line are not doing it for any other reason beyond, they cannot afford a real full auto. So they play games, operate in the gray area and sky line the rest of us trying to do good work.

How about I start a Bump Stock / Simulated Full Auto section on here and invite a 100 Mazers to talk about bump fire, how fast will be you gone from this site ? We can post all the youtube videos, I can scan the comments and through YouTube invite all the COD Fans to join in the conversation here.

 

[scharfschutze762]

Neither the UK nor the US sites have even a glimmer of a statement about this flap. A few official words would go a long way towards clearing up misgivings in the US.

He took the time and called Lowlight the owner of this site and and gave him his official version and his word..Why is it so motherfucking hard to take a mans word for something and give him the benefit of the doubt..So are we to doubt Tom and Frank because their word is not good enough and some POS British publication skewed the story..This is whats wrong with "OUR" fucking society now and we cant even stick up for the good guys on our side who built their name on their reputation...The fucking libtards stick up for each other and we cant..It aint looking looking good for us gents.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Hell to many here now are cod fans so don't invite any more.

Frank,
Until we make it about the person we are fighting a losing game with both hands tied, you know that!
The game changed when many in the industry followed Sigs game plan to use the law wording against them. Will the game change again yes if we let it, but don't buy into their game in the first place, that is the long term winning move. Make people accountable like the state of Fla, did when Billy Ferry used the gasoline in Publix long ago. Or should we wait until the DUI prick kills his first second or third? May be we should ban gasoline as it allowed him to do the deed or ban the car/truck, or sue the state for building that road he drove on?