ATF to Outlaw Shotguns

I don't understand what peoples problems are.
What they don't want us to have guns because it's not our job to protect ourselves it's the cops jobs.

Bull, last I checked every year there are cases of police brutality.
Not to mention there was an appeals court decision a few years ago that said "cops are not legally required to protect and serve if such protection can put their lives in danger".
There was a big stink a cop drove by an assault several times until the crowd disbanded then went in to help the person was either dead or severely crippled I can't remember.
The family sued, and on appeal the cops/city won.
The judge said in their ruling that it's not appropriate to expect a cop, firefighter or any other public servant to put themselves in danger to protect or save a citizen.

WTF!
So if the anti-gun lobby is saying cops are supposed to protect us and the courts say not the cops then who?

Ugh! I can't wait till all the gun lobby people finally run out of stupid ideas.

Originally posted by spyder550
Are they looking at the street sweeper type shotgun?

en.wikipedia.org...

Those have been outlawed for some time already, so they aren't the targets. I'd imagine a shotgun like mine is the target. It's been referred to as a "room broom", and some of my more imaginative friends refer to it as my "reloadable claymore". it was purpose built for combat - several thousand USMC issues of it can't be wrong!

Dear ATF:

It was very nice of you to solicit comments on your new proposed rule in reference to shotguns. Since you asked, here's my comment, in writing - "Molon labe". Whatever you decide concerning your silly-assed rules trying to justify your silly-assed job, that comment is all I really have for you.

Sincerely,

nenothtu

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Maxatoria

 

surely banning shotguns will be a stupid task as i bet theres more of them in the USA than there is blades of grass so i'd hate to be an ATF guy having to knock on doors and ask for them unless you have a very good package that will look after your family after your death

It’s actually quite easy. They pass the ban and institute HARSH penalties for anyone caught in possession of the prohibited weapons. Then they offer a grace period for people to turn them in. Many law abiding citizens will do so for fear of 10 years imprisonment (or whatever the penalty). They will also watch who is purchasing ammo for those types of weapons so they can track down the holdouts.

Yes, that is the sort of bureaucratic logic they employ in taking such decisions, but there are certain flaws in that logic. if someone is willing to throw down and put their life on the line in defense of their rights, a measly 10 year sentence on a maybe isn't going to budge them much... they don't plan on living long enough to serve that time.

Watching for ammo purchases for ammo that will only work in banned guns is a fools errand and a gimme job. If they guns are banned, why continue to sell the ammo? When you know the answer to that, it's but a short jump to the decision to not BUY that ammo - rely on prior stock instead, or, well, you know, some of the other methods available for the care and feeding of firearms.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

There has NEVER been a recorded case of a gun just "going off" without some factor leading to it going off.

Perhaps if you learned a little about firearms, you wouldnt be so scared of them.

edit on 27-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Hmm, I dont think he is scared of them. I think he grew up with different values than an American would have.

And for the record, there are firearm accidents. They don't just go off, but its dishonest to say the are without risks. A person, has to weigh the pros and cons of deciding whats best for them.

edit on 27-5-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

For the record, there has NEVER been a firearm accident, not in the entire history of firearms. There has been negligence, but that's not accidental - it's simply negligent.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by MrJohnSmith

 

Yep, them guns are the reason us Yankees aren't British "subjects" excuse us for being sentimentally fond of them.

No - your militia (they're the ones with the right to arm bears remember,...) was crap - so crap that the fact that it would run away ASAP was made a tactic!!

You can thank the Continental Army (regulars, professionals - NOT militia!) and the French for not being British subjects.

And hasn't that done y'all proud....



(BTW - Britain ain't in the Eurozone.....)

reply to post by nenothtu


This is a massive statement to make. Guns work with mechanisms, and mechanisms are prone to be faulty from time to time. I know of a incident in which a man had his rifle leaned up standing in the leg well of his car as he drove - hit a ditch in the dirt road and blew his face off.

I'm against guns in civilian hands, mainly because I know how unintelligent and quick to anger the majority are...and this is before we take into account egos, drugs, alcohol and other reason-impairment.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

No - your militia (they're the ones with the right to arm bears remember,...) was crap - so crap that the fact that it would run away ASAP was made a tactic!!

That's sort of what Ferguson thought just before King's Mountain.

Do you know where Ferguson is buried?

Well. I'd best get money to my friend that works for a gun company.
He told me he could get me an AK.

I'd kill for a Barrett m107a1. Dear god....



Or a Cheytac intervention...truly stunning.

They're both masterpieces.


Well. I'd better Get on that, like I said...
:p

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
reply to post by nenothtu

 

This is a massive statement to make. Guns work with mechanisms, and mechanisms are prone to be faulty from time to time. I know of a incident in which a man had his rifle leaned up standing in the leg well of his car as he drove - hit a ditch in the dirt road and blew his face off.

I stand by what I said.

Carrying a rifle in such a manner IS negligence. He paid the price for carelessness.

I'm against guns in civilian hands, mainly because I know how unintelligent and quick to anger the majority are...and this is before we take into account egos, drugs, alcohol and other reason-impairment.

It really doesn't matter in the long run what you are against, or what I am for. The Bill of rights doesn't take the vagaries of our individual opinions into account, with the exception that you are not required by it to own a firearm, and I am guaranteed by it the chance to own one.



s.

Originally posted by Revealation
I hope they ban all guns. Give all the LEGAL gun owners a reason to buy ILLEGAL and FULLy Automatic weapons. Makes sense right?

Don't see the logic of the moronic, self serving, manipulative, manmade laws they continue to pass. I thought they all had ivy league educations. Don''t they realize that the more they push, take and try to control people, the worse people are gonna react?

They are surely hoping we will. Then they have their excuse.

It seems that Mr Paul is full of BS ....yet again

None of y'all have bothered to go and read at the report by the look of things on here - I dont' see a link to it - so here it is:

Study on importality of certain shotguns

Hmm...that's odd..the title doesn't look anything like "banning shotguns" at all!!

Executive summary (in part):

The purpose of this study is to establish criteria that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF) will use to determine the importability of certain shotguns under the
provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) generally prohibits the importation of firearms into the
United States. 1 However, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925(d), the GCA creates four narrow
categories of firearms that the Attorney General must authorize for importation. Under one such
category, subsection 925(d)(3), the Attorney General shall approve applications for importation
when the firearms are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to
sporting purposes (the “sporting purposes test”).

etc.

So some classes of shotguns can't be imported......but presumably can still be purchased if made in the good ol' USA.

so nope - no actual outlawing of shotguns at all - what a bugger huh??!!

But hey - the Paul Report prides itself on ignoring inconvenient facts!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Wrong, Chief.

" A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

It's not the militia's right, it's the PEOPLE'S right.

I am always amazed how many people get that wrong.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

No - your militia (they're the ones with the right to arm bears remember,...) was crap - so crap that the fact that it would run away ASAP was made a tactic!!

That's sort of what Ferguson thought just before King's Mountain.

Do you know where Ferguson is buried?

Both sides were militia - I rest my case!

I refer you to the battles of Camden and Cowpens for clarification.

And Kings Mountain didn't win the war - the French did that at Chesapeake.

reply to post by Nietrick


lol - yeah...right...what with the militia not being made up of people I completely missed that.....

I am continually not amazed by the narrow minded and arrogant ignorance on here

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So Ferguson crossed the big water so he could join a militia?

No single battle EVER wins a war, nor did I say that King's Mountain did - the subject appeared to be runaway militia, but Campbell's men must've not gotten the memo.

They still hadn't gotten it by Guilford Courthouse.

hard as hell for Continentals OR Frenchmen to walk on water regardless of WHAT kind of inflatable shoes they're wearing. Don't mistake a naval contribution for the entire effort.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Nietrick

 

lol - yeah...right...what with the militia not being made up of people I completely missed that.....

I am continually not amazed by the narrow minded and arrogant ignorance on here

You should probably address that to the SCOTUS - that was THEIR ruling, based on their analysis of the elements and construction of the Second Amendment.

Outlaw shotguns? I don't think so. There's a special message @ 3:00 for those who want to try.



He just turned 14. Methinks it's time for a new one, a bigger one, one that can hold a magazine. I have mine.

I have
two 22 rifles
one 20 gauge shotgun
Glock 19 9mm
Glock 23 .40 Cal.
a muzzle loader 45 Cal

I just bought myself a Remington 870
and a Stag Arms AR-15 model 2

I still need is a 22 pistol
And a Barrett Crossbow

Wish list:
Kel-tek KSG shotgun

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So some classes of shotguns can't be imported......but presumably can still be purchased if made in the good ol' USA.

So what might the purpose be in banning importation of a legal weapon?

Another link in the chain of instituting a ban through incrementalism.

ETA: Our govt ought to be banning the importation of slave-manufactured goods from Asia instead.