Legal Vs Illegal shotguns

Legal Vs Illegal shotguns.jpg

  • Leave A Comment

  • Leave a comment ?

    45 Responses to Legal Vs Illegal shotguns

    1. Nothing from the peanut gallery?

      Reply

    2. I’ve got the one on top (500 with rifle stock). iz a mighty fine shotty

      Reply

    3. This doesn’t sound like something government would do.

      Reply

    4. The pistol grip and variable stock enable greater user control … therefore greater safety. These are people who think that being ‘black’ makes a weapon more dangerous as well.
      Wonderful insight! I can hardly wait to hear their views on economics.

      Reply

      • they are probably the same people who think a ‘person’ being black also makes them more dangerous.

        Reply

      • We’ve already seen their views on economics. Borrow trillions, spend trillions, blame Bush. Its a three step process.

        Reply

        • Borrow trillions (to pay for the wars Bush lied to get us into), spend trillions (to keep the economy from tanking like it was when Bush left), blame Bush.

          Oh, and cut the deficit and the unemployment rate at the same time. A lot more than three steps.

          Oh, and did I mention saving the auto industry?

          Reply

          • Bush Lied? Al Qaeda wasn’t responsible more 9-11 and most of the attacks prior to that? (excluding the ones by Iran, of course?

            OR are you talking about the WMDs that we know Iraq had? We know they had them, because they used them. Even Hitler refused to use them. Every country in the world, who HAS an intelligence agency said they had then. the French. The English. The Israelis, The Germans, the Polish. Even the Russians.

            The question is not did he have them, of course he did. So did Iran and Syria. (Syria gave up development after we invaded Iraq, of course – but now we are worried that the stockpiles are going to fall into the hands of God knows who with the civil war there).

            And of course, Iraq was not a 3rd world country, in many respects (technology) it is modern. If you have the technology to make medications, (they did), you have the technology to make chemical weapons.

            Don’t get me wrong, Bush was not a good President, he could have done much more to keep us safe. But he was honest when it came to national security.

            Reply

            • Wow. I’m amazed that anyone could still say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the W invaded. He had them in 1990, they were destroyed after the first gulf war. International supervision worked. There were none when Bush invaded. The intelligence was cooked, Hans Blix was right and even though he was lambasted in our media.
              Syria abandoned its nuclear program after Isreal blew up its reactor and if anything Bush insisting on invading under false pretenses has served to encourage nations, like Iran, to get the bomb if they can. After all, not having WMDs and even allowing international supervision to prove that you do not have WMDs (which Iraq did before the second gulf war) will not protect you from an invasion, so the only thing that will protect you is to get the damn bomb.
              So Bush was not honest about National Security and ultimately his actions will cause the rest of the world to doubt us the next time somebody responsible says “there are WMDs”.
              You also seem to confuse having a program to get a weapons system with actually having a weapons system.

              Reply

          • I was born in Missouri. Show me how Obama (Captain Zero) has cut unemployment and the deficit….
            Even the Democrats are admitting that employment is higher than it was during the Bush years and that Captain Zero caused the national debt to increase by more than the entire last twenty presidents combined.

            Reply

    5. The bottom one has a ‘pistol grip’.

      Well then, they’re different, turkey.

      Reply

    6. Ok.
      Outlaw them both then.

      Next.

      Reply

      • Okay. You turn yours in first, and then we’ll see how you try to get mine. 🙂

        Reply

        • I don’t need a gun.
          I don’t live in fear.

          Reply

          • Sometimes it’s not about living in fear. Last year ground squirrels undermined my well at home and the cistern tipped and fractured. That cost me $3000 dollars. I have two choices, poison them and run the risk of killing all sorts of animals near there with either the poison or possibly their poisoned corpses, or shoot them. I shoot them. I don’t need, own, or use an “assault” weapon for it, but they’re pushing to outlaw some things under the ban that have no need to be outlawed.

            Reply

            • I have a $15 squirrel trap.
              No one can accidently shoot anyone with it.

              Reply

            • I’ve got a $5 gunlock for my shotgun and common sense, so my shotgun doesn’t accidentally shoot anyone either.

              Squirrel traps will catch whatever happens to go after them. I’ve got no problems with skunks, bobcats, or my neighbor’s dogs, so I make sure I can see what I’m getting.

              In all honesty, I don’t even use the shotgun anymore, I used a high powered pellet rifle now. Safer in the dry summers up here.

              Reply

            • See I think what people are saying is that $5 isn’t really enough to be spending on a safety precaution for a lethal weapon.

              Reply

          • I don’t need a helmet / seat-belt / air bag / parachute / health insurance.
            I don’t live in fear.

            Reply

            • Interesting choice of comparisons luminary.
              Except that home that own guns are 3 times more likely to experience an accidental shoot, homicide or suicide than guns that don’t own guns.
              So if safety is your concern, dump your guns.
              You’re much more likely to suffer a tragedy because s family member misuses your gun, then you are ever going to get the chance to use it to defend yourself against an intruder.

              Reply

        • I think I’d delegate that to the police.

          Reply

    7. Can I still get one with a Kung-Fu grip, though?

      Reply

    8. You are missing the all the extras…1. No-slip grip 2. Place to hold extra rounds or flask 3. No goofy fake wood.

      Reply

    9. does one of them hold more shells or what is the actual difference?

      Reply

    10. Well, the only difference between a M9 Beretta and an M9 Beretta with a suppressor is the suppressor. Maybe we should make suppressors legal because they don’t make the gun more deadly, but do make it more scary looking, which is apparently the only reason they are trying to ban certain attachments to guns.

      Reply

      • Yes.
        Exactly. Glad you get it.
        Suppressors don’t enable some kind of magical field around a gun that makes it a BFG or a heat seeking missile launcher. It is the same as the muffler on a car. Even uses the same technology. Suppressors merely make the gun a bit less loud.
        Not quiet. Not soundless like they showed you on tv. About one half to two thirds as loud (by decibel) as an unsuppressed weapon.
        If you have ever fired a suppressed weapon you will understand why people who actually know something about suppressors are bewildered by the silliness people spout about them. IF you buy special subsonic ammunition and IF you tune the weapon and suppressor carefully you can get the weapon report down to a safe level that won’t damage hearing. Otherwise, you have a better effect using a water balloon or a sack of kitty litter.

        Reply

    11. Or these pictures are just wrong. I just looked up the list of weapons that Fienstien proposed banning and the “Mossburg 500” is not on the list. The proposal bans “certain handguns and shotguns that have removable ammunition-feeding devices.” So it is about how many rounds you can pump out in a short amount of time.
      So it isn’t about scary pistol grips and it will still allow to buy all the squirrel hunting rifles or shotguns you want. (Although I think blasting away at squirrels with a shot gun sounds like it might create it’s own form of property damage) The post seems to say that you can’t ban just assault weapons without banning legit weapons. This isn’t much of an argument, maybe you should come up with another one.

      Reply

      • Only creates property damage if you’re an idiot and don’t check your shot sight. If there’s something behind it you don’t want to risk damaging, you don’t take the shot.

        Reply

      • The wording of the bill lists cosmetic features that elevate a firearm to”assault weapon” status regardless of action.(bolt, pump, lever, semi-auto)Pistol grip and adjustable stock are two of the features listed, and it only take one feature to make it banned under the proposed AWB. Most of what she is trying to do on the fed level is already in place in California. Just one of the reasons I left that state.

        Reply

        • That may be your take on the law, which raises the question: why isn’t there a non insane gun advocate organization that would point out the kind of language necessary to get reasonable legislation on assault weapons. Instead we get the NRA saying if you ban X type of weapons we will have Hitler running the country. Or as we see here if you ban one weapon, you ban them all and we will all have to live in Idaho. Personally I will stick with the GRE as a requirement for gun ownership.

          Reply

          • Because “assault” is used as a new adjective when applied to anything but “-rifle” that was created wholly by anti-gun people who have no real knowledge of what they are trying to ban and is used explicitly to scare the ignorant.

            Examples:

            Assault Rifle – Real term that is used to define a select fire weapon of intermediate caliber that uses a detachable magazine.
            Select fire means the weapon has the option of firing in burst mode or semi-automatically (one trigger pull = one bullet) or fully automatically (fires bullet after bullet until trigger is released or magazine is empty) These rifles are heavily regulated and no Assault Rifle made since 1986 is allowed to be owned or sold in the United States for civilian use.

            Assault Weapon – didn’t exist until some anti-gun weenie made it up. Has no real meaning in any event. Anti-gunners throw the word around to mean whatever the political target of the moment is.

            Assault Clip – made up last month and doesn’t even make sense to people who actually know anything about firearms.

            Assault Bullet – made up last month and makes no sense at all.

            Assault Pistol – made up last month and seriously this is getting ridiculous.

            Assault Penis – term of art made up by Second Amendment advocates to mock Obama’s Executive Orders about guns.

            Assault Kitten – You wish you had one, don’t you…..?

            When the anti-gunners actually use real words to define what they object to then reasonable conversation can begin.

            It will start with a law that requires people who refuse to take steps to defend themselves and their community to put signs on their property stating that fact. It will proudly state that this residence does not have and will not have any guns. You have a right to not have guns. You do not have a right to benefit from the money and time another puts into self defense if you do not care to take that responsibility on. Let the criminals know where you stand. When they know you are unarmed, of course they will not ever pick on you. That wouldn’t be fair, would it?

            It will also include a law that states that taxpayer money cannot be spent to promote laws that are found to be unconstitutional. If a politician promotes a law or Executive Order that is found to be unconstitutional then all costs associated with the debate of and passing and enforcement of that law to date and the cost for ALL of the court cases debating that legislation or Executive Order will be charged to that individual up to and including their retirement benefits. Period.
            Put YOUR money where your mouth is.

            Additionally any individuals prosecuted under that law may seek redress however they see fit against the author of that law and/or his descendants.

            Reply

    12. I just read the bill, and you are not correct in your interpretation. It states that the shotgun must be semi automatic to be banned. Bolt, pump action etc. would not be banned. So the pictures are cute but not correct.

      Reply

    13. if the ban affects a slight varient why do you guys even care if it gets banned? just buy the other one

      Reply

    14. if the ban affects a slight variant why do you guys even care if it gets banned? just buy the other one

      Reply

      • The problem is that these people don’t want ANYONE except the “chosen few” to have ANY firearms. They will push and push and call it reasoned discourse and a reasonable conversation but they only want the military (and only the military that think the “right way”) and the police (again the ones that think the “right way”) and their personal protection details to have guns. They don’t want actual control of guns for public safety. They will be positively SURROUNDED by guns, just as they are now. How many armed guards surrounded the idiots at the New York newspaper who published the personal information of all gun permit holders in the state of New York? It is not about public safety. It is about using useful idiots who *THINK* it is about public safety to push an agenda.

        Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas