The only thing "Gucci" in that pic is his "Baller Ass" hat.;)
Printable View
It is, but for the mission at hand, the LAV class, the hat was a mission requirement that served a few purposes. Wearing that particular hat would be like running a decked out gun vs plain Jane gun.
I think the notion of "gucci gun" hasn't made it anywhere here for good reason and has gone by the wayside elsewhere also for good reason.
This setup is pretty cool....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI0AzYwIILQ
Or have a website that demands posters of the site be articulate in their critiques, rather than juvenile.
You know, one where we strive to be something other than the mainstream gun sites that foster such phrases as tacticool and gucci....
Nah, by all means, if someone asks for opinions of their civilian gun and it's wearing a PVS-14 we should call it Gucci.
When I get home, I am going to take my daughters bedazzler and deck out mine. Who cares........run what you want.
Now you remind me of the gun grabbers, Pelosi... Your comment assumes that no civilian would have a legitimate need for a PVS-14. If I were a rancher or homeowner along our southern border I may want one. I am certain there are many cases where civilians may have legitimate needs for one and besides that this is America and if I can afford it I should not have to legitimize my need. I am also certain you did not mean it that way, but that is just how it struck me when I read it.
To me Gucci meant a gun and or equipment that looked better than it performed. Equipment that looked great, as long as you did not take it to the range, because it would fall apart or fail to function as intended. Something that tries to fill a void that doesn't exist, but looks good doing it.