ATF to Outlaw Shotguns

I think the original poster is jumping to premature conclusions.

Shotguns should never be outlawed because they are primarily used for sport hunting. Militarised versions that accept magazines should be outlawed though, as well as automatic rifles/carbines.

Everyone makes a big deal about using a shotgun for home defense but I personally think it is too bulky and noisey for my taste. Sure it is a viable solution, but I would rather have a quiet and small .22lr or .25acp to prevent my neighbors from knowing I have been robbed.

Flip the pistol out *james bond style* bang, bang, bang

Concealed weapons are fantastic, no?

Originally posted by seabag
Oh, they’re smart….they’re giving us as much as they THINK we will tolerate. I think they are VERY CLOSE to pushing too far.

Hey, I HOPE they push too far so we can get this party started and get on with REAL recovery rather than more patches and BS that only buys time to further install Agenda 21.

Bring on the Blue Hats!!!

It makes a perfect target…I want those who wish to take my freedom to be visible.

I share your sentiments...



Lately there's been military helicopters constantly flying over my house. I'm on a flight path ( LIRR/Belmont Racetrack) but NEVER military. Been here since '69/ even after 9/11 there was only one fly by of 3 fighter jets @ one time.

Since the end of 2011 till now. It's almost a daily occurance....at least 3-4 days a week. Even the regular copters are are flying low. Probably around 250--300 feet.

CONDITIONING anyone ??????

reply to post by mechcb

Bush even allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. It was Clinton who signed it in. Anyone who tries to relate a Republican to anti-weapons obviously isn't paying much attention to whats going on.

Excuse me? It is you who isn’t paying attention. In the OP I thanked Bush for Agenda 21. Did you know Bush signed the unconstitutional agreement and do you even know what it is?

Agenda 21 has never been debated or adopted by the Congress of the United States. Nevertheless, it is being vigorously implemented by the administrative agencies of the federal government, and by other nations around the world. More than 150 nations, including the United States of America, are participants in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). America's participation is not the result of an international treaty, ratified by Congress.

America's participation is the result of George Bush signing Agenda 21 at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, and the current administration's desire to implement its objectives.

link

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think the original poster is jumping to premature conclusions.

Shotguns should never be outlawed because they are primarily husted for sport hunting. Militarised versions that accept magazines should be outlawed though, as well as automatic rifles/carbines.

Everyone makes a big deal about using a shotgun for home defense but I personally think it is too bulky and noisy for my taste. Sure it is a viable solution, but I would rather have a quiet and small .22lr or .25acp to prevent my neighbors from knowing I have been robbed. Concealed weapons are fantastic!

A shotgun usually doesn't even need to be fired to scare away intruders, just the sound of a shell being chambered is enough in most cases. A shotgun can be loaded with beanbags, rock salt or even flechettes if you really want to stop a mob coming through your door. The spread pattern ensures that even in shaky hands it can be highly effective.

A .22lr or .25acp is going to be terribly ineffective if the intruder is jacked up on narcotics and even less effective if your adrenaline rush makes your hands shake. There is a reason that US troops switched to .45ACP in WWII. Japanese troops jacked up on meth required a round with take down power on the first shot, not the first mag.

I'd love to see you get this variety of rounds into your .22lr:

Shotgun Shells [Variety]

I did not know the ATF was a legislative body and had such authority...

These idiots should all be arrested for treason and stupidity! Good luck banning shotguns. Course their MO is not to try and mass confiscate they know better. They use fear to get people to turn them in and also whenever someone gets detained that is just another excuse to arrest them. Also they harass gun stores for selling anything remotely close.

California proved that the majority of weapons will not be turned in or registered. When they first passed their assault weapons ban less the 10% complied. They will rue the day when the people have finally had enough just like King George did!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I think the original poster is jumping to premature conclusions.

How so?

Shotguns should never be outlawed because they are primarily used for sport hunting. Militarised versions that accept magazines should be outlawed though, as well as automatic rifles/carbines.

NO guns should be banned. The ownership of military type weapons (machine guns) is already heavily regulated.

Does the constitution say “right to bear arms” or “right to bear certain arms approved by a centralized government?”

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by benrl

 

Banning gun ownership + DHS buying 450 million rounds = Martial LAW and UN Agenda 21!

I don't like this math!

Good Grief. No one's talking about banning gun ownership, just restricting certain types of weapons that the average person has no use for anyway.

You Americans and your gun rights are absolutely nuts. In Canada, we have quite strict gun laws and almost nobody has trouble getting a gun if they want one.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

So then, what were you saying?

You have a point.
We must remember that, as much as we want to believe that even our freshmen Congressmen are looking out for us, once they get to Washington, they aren't on our side anymore. Almost all of them.

Also, an earlier poster blamed Clinton, for Ruby Ridge, but it actually occurred in 1992, under George H W Bush's watch.

None of them are our friends.

reply to post by babybunnies

Good Grief. No one's talking about banning gun ownership, just restricting certain types of weapons that the average person has no use for anyway.

Slippery slope! This is how it starts. Pretty soon we'll be lucky to have a sling shot if these clowns get their way.

Regardless, banning any firearm is unconstitutional. Read my post above.

You Americans and your gun rights are absolutely nuts. In Canada, we have quite strict gun laws and almost nobody has trouble getting a gun if they want one.

Who cares what Canada does??

Why are you worried about how vigorously I defend my gun rights in America?

reply to post by babybunnies

You Americans and your gun rights are absolutely nuts.

more akin to big horsepower that guzzles gasoline, NO?

Everybody should own an arsenal !!!

reply to post by butcherguy


Nail on the head - once in Washington they forget you and become "them". The agenda is set for "them" and they either accept it or leave Washington. Of course "they" allow a few interlopers to make the whole charade look "real" but make no mistake. Taking guns is all part of "their" plan.

CJ

reply to post by benrl


I can walk into my local walmart and walk out with any kind of gun I want. Well except handguns only a few walmarts sell those...and only in Alaska

Originally posted by SanguineDenial

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think the original poster is jumping to premature conclusions.

Shotguns should never be outlawed because they are primarily husted for sport hunting. Militarised versions that accept magazines should be outlawed though, as well as automatic rifles/carbines.

Everyone makes a big deal about using a shotgun for home defense but I personally think it is too bulky and noisy for my taste. Sure it is a viable solution, but I would rather have a quiet and small .22lr or .25acp to prevent my neighbors from knowing I have been robbed. Concealed weapons are fantastic!

A shotgun usually doesn't even need to be fired to scare away intruders, just the sound of a shell being chambered is enough in most cases. A shotgun can be loaded with beanbags, rock salt or even flechettes if you really want to stop a mob coming through your door. The spread pattern ensures that even in shaky hands it can be highly effective.

A .22lr or .25acp is going to be terribly ineffective if the intruder is jacked up on narcotics and even less effective if your adrenaline rush makes your hands shake. There is a reason that US troops switched to .45ACP in WWII. Japanese troops jacked up on meth required a round with take down power on the first shot, not the first mag.

I'd love to see you get this variety of rounds into your .22lr:

Shotgun Shells [Variety]

The people who make fun of .22lr and .25acp probably do not comprehend that a single round to the heart, lungs, throat will kill ON THE FIRST SHOT and if that don't get the job done, then the second surely will!

I would rather a small concealed weapon with accuracy, then some big bad noisey gun. Why do you think most *hit jobs* use .22lr with silencers?

Shotguns are primarily for sport hunting and yes I like them very much!

Does the constitution say “right to bear arms” or “right to bear certain arms approved by a centralized government?”

Everyone knows of the original intention of the second amendment. The intent was to have the people on equal footing and having the capacity to be able to fight if need be, if that day should ever come.

The American citizen as it currently stands is screwed to be blunt.

The cops have better weapons
The military have better weapons
The criminals have better weapons.

And there we are on the front end of a full auto high cap magazine and their bullet proof armor where they can bring the rain at a moments notice.

Hell No! IF the founders were alive today i can guarantee you most of them would know what a "machine gun smile" is.

They have no right to sit there and tell us what a gun can look like,how many rounds it can hold,if it can or can not have a magazine.

That really irks me that there are those who say, "hey, you don't need any protection, the cops are going to save you", or the government will come "save the day".

When Government can show me responsibility with the usage of their weapons maybe i will yield my right to "keep and bear arms"., ok not really.

The government is the servant of the people,not it's master.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


A question, not being familiar with American laws. ( I,m aware it varies, state by state...) I assume if you shoot and wound or kill an unarmed burglar on or in your home / premises, you will be the one who goes to jail ...? Would I be right in thinking you can only use a gun to detain a burglar until the L.E.O,s arrive ?

Fine, let them take away my gun. I'll just take it upon my legal obligation to carry a broadsword on my back and two 18" Bowie knives...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yes a critical shot will kill if you hit those sweet spots. How accurate are you going to be when you are in a state of fight or flight with adrenaline coursing through your veins? What if the hostile is jacked up on PCP and even a shot to the heart doesn't stop him immediately? What if there are 3 or 4 of them? Having a weapon whose brute force of stopping power will knock a target to the ground is far more reliable than counting on being Wyatt "F" Earp if the time comes.

I'm glad you like your concealed weapons, they have their place. When it comes to defending my homestead I have no need to be concealed and prefer the biggest stick I can get. Me being a large man of barbarian blood, I have no trouble concealing a high capacity .45 (13+1). Your .22 might be effective for hits (mainly because a shot to the headcase will rattle around the brains) but I'm not planning on assassinating anyone.

seabag,
is it really pointless though? all kidding aside.

a weapon in the closet is a prop really when it comes down to it

compared to these demonstrations of serious fire power


or these war stoppers


we can wage war with our selves in a primitive way
but we cannot be taken seriously against this,

can we?

President Abraham Lincoln hunted down the last of the Confederate Soldiers with Union Armies and had them shot, for Tax Evasion

reply to post by babybunnies

You Americans and your gun rights are absolutely nuts. In Canada, we have quite strict gun laws and almost nobody has trouble getting a gun if they want one.

Yeah we're absolutely nuts for wanting to preserve the means of defending ourselves against invasion or government tyranny because that stuff never happens in this enlightened age... Sigh!

Good grief indeed...

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

A question, not being familiar with American laws. ( I,m aware it varies, state by state...) I assume if you shoot and wound or kill an unarmed burglar on or in your home / premises, you will be the one who goes to jail ...? Would I be right in thinking you can only use a gun to detain a burglar until the L.E.O,s arrive ?

It depends from state to state.

Someone carrying a lethal weapon with intent to rob and/or cause injury probably validates the use of lethal force from the person defending his person and property. There are many circumstances though that come into consideration.

That is the best I can do since I am not a legal expert!