quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I have no idea whether this actually works or is just a joke, but...

He is already breaking the law, why doesn't he show it being shot while he is at it?

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
Bad people are gonna bad unless there is a punishment. Period.

Ghetto thugs film drill rap videos with all their buddies waving stolen Glocks with happy sticks and switches and everyone shares the videos on YouTube and Instagram... and the ATF does... what?

It's not about actually punishing criminals.

A few days ago, I did a search for "Glock" on Youtube. The 3rd video down was a ghetto thug shooting a switch equipped Glock. The video is over a year old and has over 800,000 views.

I wish someone would sue the fuck out of YouTube for allowing this shit while continuing to target legitimate firearm channels.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:


A few days ago, I did a search for "Glock" on Youtube. The 3rd video down was a ghetto thug shooting a switch equipped Glock. The video is over a year old and has over 800,000 views.

I wish someone would sue the fuck out of YouTube for allowing this shit while continuing to target legitimate firearm channels.

Why would you want that? I’ll agree that I don’t like how YouTube demonetizes and otherwise targets legal gun posters, but why should YouTube be sued for showing people using Glock switches? They shouldn’t be illegal in the first place, their prohibition is unquestionably unconstitutional, and Youtube isn’t producing the content in the first place.

I don’t in any way suggest that anyone break the law, so please don’t mistake my intent. I just don’t get offended when people thumb their nose at an unconstitutional prohibition. I see the ubiquity of these switches as a good thing for the pro 2A cause. It shows that prohibitions are ineffective because people can easily get around them, and I think it also adds weight to the argument that machine guns cannot reasonably be considered “Dangerous AND Unusual”.

I think that Jupiter has the same issue with it that I do: the unequal application of standards, be it TOS or federal law. Let's just call it what it is: Ghetto blacks are the sacred cows of woke leftism and your typical "GunTuber" who gets his videos taken down for showing the inside of a gun or screwing on a suppressor generally isn't part of that demographic. Do I want to be legally free to print a switch and turn my 19 into a giggle machine without asking the ATF to sniff up my ass? Yeah, that would be great. Do you think I could film the same video Jupiter's talking about and post it without YouTube pulling it down and the ATF no-knocking me in a matter of days? No, I'm too white and too suburban for that.

Until Oblock Switchyion becomes a test case for the NFA and wins because every black person in America donated to his legal defense fund instead of positionally asphyxiating in the process of "not resisting" over a busted tail light or even better, stabbing a white kid while keeping it real, then I think it's silly to act like Chicago's best and brightest are the same as me and you, and erstwhile champions of the 2A cause. Does it protect their rights also? Yes. Do I feel the need to jump up and point that out in late 2025 like it means anything? Not so much.

To be clear, it's a culture problem and not a skin color problem, but there's a demographic that has that culture problem that our society doesn't want to directly address and instead wants to sue Austrian curtain makers because they're somehow the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

To be clear, it's a culture problem and not a skin color problem, but there's a demographic that has that culture problem that our society doesn't want to directly address and instead wants to sue Austrian curtain makers because they're somehow the problem.

110% true and accurate, but in today's age (Actually for about the past 2 decades), it's EASIER to blame the object and vilify it, than placing the blame on an actual PERSON. Again, today it's frowned upon to blame a ghetto rat for being, well, a ghetto rat when they do ghetto rat things.
Especially when you can use that ghetto rat to push your agenda.
"See! Guns are BAD!!!!!"

Remember this important fact as well:
GLOCK is a multi-million dollar company amongst a multi-BILLION dollar industry.
Oblock Swichion aint got a pot to piss in or a ghetto-project window to toss it out of. (Actually, he's got a project window, but saying that just to make a point)


LT CHEG- Same thing!
Because going after YouTube, who has money, looks better for "The Cause" than going after the actual ghetto rat who ain't got shit!
And YouTube, who is Left Leaning, would rather censor something like a "Sig Forum" YouTube channel, than some shithead ghetto rat's Drill Rap Video.

While I also agree with you 110%, and that showing that the prohibition of "switches" isn't doing anything to combat crime / shootings / homicides. It sure the hell seems that OUR side isn't getting much of a voice when we yell "THIS SHIT AIN'T WORKING!". We just get painted as redneck radicals who are clinging to our guns and religion.

So who are you going to sue?
The shit-stain on the fabric of society who ain't got a damn thing, or a multi-million dollar company?

And this is coming from a guy that literally chases ghetto rats like Oblock Swichion around for a living!

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
And this is coming from a guy that literally chases ghetto rats like Oblock Swichion around for a living!

No, you're right of course. And I remember your post about "that's one of my shitheads."

I think the bottom line is many of us are frustrated by the performative nature of our politics that, in the end, is only about money and control under the guise of "protecting" us. That, and the fact that seemingly, there isn't shit we can do about it. I'm grumbling. I know that. We all do.

We're going to break machineguns out of the NFA.

Has Glock actually come out and said we have done this so a switch can’t be installed or because we’re being sued?

The only official thing I have seen states:

quote:

As part of GLOCK’s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product line to align with upcoming offerings…The GLOCK V Series is here to establish a baseline of products while simplifying our process.

Is it possible this has been in the works for awhile and has nothing to do with Cali law or any lawsuits??
I mean the design is not much different they had to know a switch would be made for these rather quickly.

I think it’s all speculation.

But, Glock has needed to simplify their line up for quite a while. At one point, they offered what 7 different models of the 17? You could walk into a gun store and find multiple configurations and generations of factory made 17s.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
We had this conversation at work when there was talk of the "Gen V" coming out.
"How long do you think...?"
My answer was "A few days".

Here is a link to a video of a G19V firing rounds with a switch.

https://packaged-media.redd.it...508627c3a8d08e4c5a5c

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I think it’s all speculation.

But, Glock has needed to simplify their line up for quite a while. At one point, they offered what 7 different models of the 17? You could walk into a gun store and find multiple configurations and generations of factory made 17s.

While “Variety is the spice of life”, I’ll agree.
Keep it simple-
9mm:
26
26 MOS/COA
19
19 MOS/COA

17
17 MOS/COA
Or the
47
47 MOS/COA

34
34 MOS/COA

Then the slimline models, MOS / COA options.
Same with the .40, .45, .357, 10mm…
It ain’t hard.

Just remember guys, you lost your backwards compatibility for absolutely nothing.

That was fading all along.

So now we have a new design that's not proven, other than it can still be switched.

Sweet

quote:

Originally posted by Vgex:
Just remember guys, you lost your backwards compatibility for absolutely nothing.

What?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
What?

My comment addressed the premature discontinuation of the proven Gen 5 pistols, and subsequent replacement by Gen V pistols. Sure the V change successfully prevents the V models from using the previous $20 Gen 5 switch, but now the Vs will simply require the new $20 switch.

The loss of mid-gen compatibility seems to be for nothing. Not everyone cares about this, I understand. So if it doesn't matter to you, than my comment is irrelevant. I swap slides on occasion, so it annoys me.

Will this action save Glock from the lawsuits regarding "easily convertible"? Only if the "attempt" is given weight.

Glock is sight, holster and magazine cross compatible across the generations. There is no “cross compatibility” that was lost with the V.

I can’t swap slides between the 3,4 or 5 because they are compatible in the first place.

The V is a lateral change within a generation. That's my point. Non-interchangeability between different generations is a non-issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Has Glock actually come out and said we have done this so a switch can’t be installed or because we’re being sued?

The only official thing I have seen states:

quote:

As part of GLOCK’s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product line to align with upcoming offerings…The GLOCK V Series is here to establish a baseline of products while simplifying our process.

Is it possible this has been in the works for awhile and has nothing to do with Cali law or any lawsuits??
I mean the design is not much different they had to know a switch would be made for these rather quickly.

I am not an attorney. But as an accountant I occasionally come in contact with legal things. I've been told by lawyers that courts take a dim view of companies doing things just so they don't get sued. For example, you don't want to say that you destroy all documents after five years so you don't get sued. Instead, you want to say that you are safeguarding your stakeholders' security and privacy by ensuring the destruction of documents after mandatory statutory limits have passed.

I think that after December 1st Glock will submit motions for all these lawsuits stating that they have complied with the intent and that the lawsuits are now mute so they should be dismissed. It would then be on the plaintiffs to refile, but to do that they would need evidence which would not come about until the Glock Gen V's start showing up in police evidence bags.

I've seen snippets of what is purported to be the California law posted on reddit. By my reading it appears that the California legislature included a one-time loophole to allow Glock, and other manufacturers, an opportunity to get back on the roster with their current design if they redesign their pistol to be compliant with the law.

Any how, that's just my non-lawyer opinion.