TL;DR: No thanks, personally not a fan of the idea still.
Ahah… no. I’m not seriously revisiting this discussion for any reason. I look away for an hour to watch some videos and all I see is just an infinite wall of text.
Not reading through all of it diligently, my opinion is still the same. This suggestion—while perfectly valid to suggest as Nelson could always just throw out the work he has done already—doesn’t offer anything of value to me, in my opinion.
As it stands, the game basically has a more realistic version of this anyways? Here’s a fresh reminder of what Unturned II has done in case we all just forgot.
A summary of Unturned II's current attachment system...
The attachment system has been expanded, and now includes what I’m dubbing “modular components” for now. These components consist of barrels, stocks, and handguards. There’s also the receiver, but that’s just the actual “gun.”
The barrel attachments you’re used to in previous iterations of Unturned are now “muzzle attachments.” Tactical attachments make a return, alongside “underbarrel attachments” (basically, grips).
Originally, iron sights were going to be one item made of two models, and guns would have two separate hooks so there wouldn’t be any weird overhanging iron sights anymore. This was scrapped in favor of the expanded attachment system, and iron sights are now separated into two items (the front sight and the rear sight). The “sight attachment” item type has been split into three: optics, rear sights, and front sights.
Optics are your large sights/scopes. Rear and front sights are your canted and normal iron sights. It’s possible that pistol sights may end up as a part of the front/rear sight category too, but finishing the G19 isn’t a priority at the moment so we won’t know until later on.
So, let’s go back to the receiver. The “base” of a gun is only its receiver. The Eaglefire receiver can accept an optic attachment and a rear sight attachment, as long as they are compatible with the Picatinny rail system.
(Rail systems and calibers are meant to be more important in Unturned II.)
It can also accept a handguard, barrel, and stock. A handguard is required to equip front sights, tacticals, and underbarrels. A barrel is required to attach muzzle attachments (of the correct caliber).
Although this makes combat more unpredictable, as someone’s “Eaglefire” could have slightly differing stats based on their attachments/components, the idea is to allow for greater customization and progression.
Then, ability stats were added. This is basically the item stats we have currently if you were to look in a gun’s .dat file, but incredibly fleshed out so all stats and characteristics of a gun could be interacted with (outside of modding). For example, a quiver could increase your reload speed with bows, leather gloves can increase your ADS speed, adrenaline could increase your chambering speed, and your magical tactical light increases burst fire RPS (but not semi or auto).
Preferably, the Eaglefire would spawn with a random assortment of attachments already on it. However, these could, obviously, be taken off. Preferably, sometimes you’d only find a receiver with nothing attached, or a barrel but no gun.
Joostdemen’s suggestion discards the attachment system. Personally, I don’t see a need to discard mechanics in previous iterations of Unturned just because it’s a new game. Rather, I’d like to see Unturned II build upon them, as my biggest gripe with Unturned 3 is that it never fleshed its mechanics out, not that they were inherently bad.
This suggestion takes everything in an entirely different direction, making the game seem more Borderlands-esque than I think it should be. Admittedly, this “follow-up” is actually quite toned compared to the original post, but now it’s just an underdeveloped version of what Unturned II already has (in my opinion). It also seems more difficult to balance, considering the original suggestion relies a lot on chance and “pretty random” stats.
Nelson has spent a fair amount of time on gunplay so far, and the feedback on it currently has been pretty strong, so I find it unlikely this suggestion would be considered. However, I do think this post does reinforce the age-old suggestion for guns to spawn with random attachments equipped, at the very least.
Addendum
Trolled m4djoker really hard. 
EDIT: I didn’t include any “real” arguments against the suggestion in my above wall of text because, frankly, I’m just not a fan of doing it this way compared to what we already have done for Unturned II. The suggestion is valid enough all things considered, I just don’t like it.
I hope the mild refresher on the attachment system will help any future posts… if there are any.