Biden: no need for "assault weapons", people could just own shotguns

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for thegerg
#52 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

Leejjohno

The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

The US would do fine today with the same restrictive laws. But, the reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is not to allow for hunting or sport in times of peace, it's to allow men a fighting chance to assure their freedom in times of tyranny.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#53 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.Leejjohno

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

And there is still violent killings in the UK, especially with knives. The use of a knife in an attack makes said attack even more violent than if someone used a firearm.

Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#54 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.WhiteKnight77

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

And there is still violent killings in the UK, especially with knives. The use of a knife in an attack makes said attack even more violent than if someone used a firearm.

as the old saying goes...nobody wins a knife fight

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#55 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.thegerg

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

The US would do fine today with the same restrictive laws. But, the reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is not to allow for hunting or sport in times of peace, it's to allow men a fighting chance to assure their freedom in times of tyranny.

Exactly.
Avatar image for wis3boi
#56 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

there's no such thing as an 'assault weapon', there are assault rifles, but those have long been banned. The ignorance surrounding the entire topic from politicians is worthy of many facepalms.

Avatar image for Bane_09
#57 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

Yeah for home defense that's all you need. Way easier to shoot a bad guy with that than a semi auto rifle

Avatar image for Bane_09
#58 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.thegerg

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

The US would do fine today with the same restrictive laws. But, the reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is not to allow for hunting or sport in times of peace, it's to allow men a fighting chance to assure their freedom in times of tyranny.

man if we want a fighting chance against the US military we will need a hell of a lot more than just guns

I wonder if RPGs or guided missiles fall under the 2nd ammendment

Avatar image for thegerg
#59 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

Yeah for home defense that's all you need. Way easier to shoot a bad guy with that than a semi auto rifle

Bane_09
Such blanket statements are rarely true and almost always poorly thought out. Personally, it is much easier for me to get a good shot off in a hurry with an AR than a shotgun.
Avatar image for Toxic-Seahorse
#60 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4988 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

Bane_09

The US would do fine today with the same restrictive laws. But, the reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is not to allow for hunting or sport in times of peace, it's to allow men a fighting chance to assure their freedom in times of tyranny.

man if we want a fighting chance against the US military we will need a hell of a lot more than just guns

I wonder if RPGs or guided missiles fall under the 2nd ammendment

Well to be honest if it ever comes to that it would be a lot more grey than " citizens vs US Army." You would have to deal with defectors and all that crap. To be honest, I would hope the military would stand up to the government if they ever tried something drastically unconstitutional. They swear to protect the constitution, not the government.

Avatar image for Bane_09
#61 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

Yeah for home defense that's all you need. Way easier to shoot a bad guy with that than a semi auto rifle

thegerg

Such blanket statements are rarely true and almost always poorly thought out. Personally, it is much easier for me to get a good shot off in a hurry with an AR than a shotgun.

The average person is going to be much more accurate with a shotgun, and it's a far easier weapon to use and handle. I don't give a sh*t about you

Avatar image for thegerg
#62 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

Bane_09

The US would do fine today with the same restrictive laws. But, the reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is not to allow for hunting or sport in times of peace, it's to allow men a fighting chance to assure their freedom in times of tyranny.

man if we want a fighting chance against the US military we will need a hell of a lot more than just guns

I wonder if RPGs or guided missiles fall under the 2nd ammendment

Currently, not exactly. Owning such things involves jumping through crazy hoops and negotiating tons of red tape. If you're curious feel free to do some research,
Avatar image for Bane_09
#63 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] The US would do fine today with the same restrictive laws. But, the reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is not to allow for hunting or sport in times of peace, it's to allow men a fighting chance to assure their freedom in times of tyranny. Toxic-Seahorse

man if we want a fighting chance against the US military we will need a hell of a lot more than just guns

I wonder if RPGs or guided missiles fall under the 2nd ammendment

Well to be honest if it ever comes to that it would be a lot more grey than " citizens vs US Army." You would have to deal with defectors and all that crap. To be honest, I would trust the military to stand up to the government if they ever tried something unconstitutional. They swear to protect the constitution, not the government.

I agree, I don't think our military would turn against us like that. It just seems a lot of pro gun arguments like to predict this massive battle between we the people and the army.

Avatar image for thegerg
#64 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Bane_09"]

Yeah for home defense that's all you need. Way easier to shoot a bad guy with that than a semi auto rifle

Bane_09

Such blanket statements are rarely true and almost always poorly thought out. Personally, it is much easier for me to get a good shot off in a hurry with an AR than a shotgun.

The average person is going to be much more accurate with a shotgun, and it's a far easier weapon to use and handle. I don't give a sh*t about you

If you're making such blanket statements ("Way easier to shoot a bad guy with that than a semi auto rifle") then you probably should care about everyone. Don't put everyone in the same boat, it's ignorant and narrow-minded.
Avatar image for Bane_09
#65 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

Currently, not exactly. Owning such things involves jumping through crazy hoops and negotiating tons of red tape. If you're curious feel free to do some research, thegerg

Thanks. Strange you would think that they would fall under it, since it helps to defend against a tyrannical government

Avatar image for thegerg
#66 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="Bane_09"]

man if we want a fighting chance against the US military we will need a hell of a lot more than just guns

I wonder if RPGs or guided missiles fall under the 2nd ammendment

Bane_09

Well to be honest if it ever comes to that it would be a lot more grey than " citizens vs US Army." You would have to deal with defectors and all that crap. To be honest, I would trust the military to stand up to the government if they ever tried something unconstitutional. They swear to protect the constitution, not the government.

I agree, I don't think our military would turn against us like that. It just seems a lot of pro gun arguments like to predict this massive battle between we the people and the army.

Hmm, I haven't seen anyone predict such a thing.
Avatar image for Bane_09
#67 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

Hmm, I haven't seen anyone predict such a thing. thegerg

hmm stange indeed

Avatar image for thegerg
#68 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

Thanks. Strange you would think that they would fall under it, since it helps to defend against a tyrannical government

Bane_09
No, they don't. In the US there is not currently such a government, and those things do not defend us from it.

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Hmm, I haven't seen anyone predict such a thing. Bane_09

hmm stange indeed

I wouldn't say it's strange, I'd just say that your assertion is dishonest.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#69 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

I think that we can all calm down because fvck all will pass the house W.R.T. gun control.

Avatar image for VoodooHak
#70 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

That magical line you're drawing... is based on what data? Or does just sound like a good idea? That doesn't sound like reasonable strategy when forming policy. I'd prefer to have solid facts behind whatever legislation is being proposed.

Do you even know these magical "assault weapons" that they're targeting? Any firearm in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use one is a danger to him/herself and everyone one around them.

Here's what a shotgun can do:

http://youtu.be/k97ZpQ6UmZY

They leave much bigger holes than a 223, 556 or 762x39.

Again... what's the fact-based justification for that magical line being drawn?

Avatar image for thegerg
#71 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -
I wonder what Biden thinks an assault weapon is.
Avatar image for PernicioEnigma
#72 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5877 posts) -

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno
Wrong! What if the government goes tyrannical!?
Avatar image for VoodooHak
#73 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

Leejjohno

I don't know but Lanza killed thoes kids with a handgun as his AR-15 was jammed. So... banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have saved those kids.

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

It's a negative when millions of tax payer dollars are being spent on tracking and enforcement when decades worth of data has already shown us that gun control does not work.

Avatar image for dercoo
#74 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

Oh Biden, I thought the Dems would have cut his tongue already in an effort of preemptive damage control.

Serioously, thses remarks will make Dems in the house jump ship before it had a chance to sail.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#75 Posted by Wasdie (53464 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I don't know but Lanza killed thoes kids with a handgun as his AR-15 was jammed. So... banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have saved those kids.

VoodooHak

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

It's a negative when millions of tax payer dollars are being spent on tracking and enforcement when decades worth of data has already shown us that gun control does not work.

It's also acting when there is no problem. This is about acting on fear and paranoia, not rational thought.
Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#76 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Zeviander
There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.

So...you're saying I should return mine...

Avatar image for Lotus-Edge
#77 Posted by Lotus-Edge (50439 posts) -
Hmm, shotguns are easier to use... and modify....
Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#78 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.alexside1

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

A car can used to kill quite number of people, if it used with killing intent. Should we ban cars now?

A Koenigsegg Agera won't be though, so who gives a sh*t:P.

Avatar image for VoodooHak
#79 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

Hmm, shotguns are easier to use... and modify.... Lotus-Edge

And they even make thos in semi-auto. I'd love to get my hands on a Saiga 12 or even the Origin 12.

The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else. That's how technology works.

Avatar image for sonicare
#80 Posted by sonicare (55373 posts) -

A shotgun does have pretty effective stopping power and is quite intimidating. And most likely would not be able to gun down lots of people in a mass shooting. But I think gun control advocates probably dont want Jackass Joe pushing any type of gun.

Avatar image for VoodooHak
#81 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

A shotgun does have pretty effective stopping power and is quite intimidating. And most likely would not be able to gun down lots of people in a mass shooting. But I think gun control advocates probably dont want Jackass Joe pushing any type of gun.

sonicare

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

Avatar image for sonicare
#82 Posted by sonicare (55373 posts) -

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

A shotgun does have pretty effective stopping power and is quite intimidating. And most likely would not be able to gun down lots of people in a mass shooting. But I think gun control advocates probably dont want Jackass Joe pushing any type of gun.

VoodooHak

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

I have seen footage of an automatic shotgun. Think it was on history channel.
Avatar image for thegerg
#83 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]Hmm, shotguns are easier to use... and modify.... VoodooHak

And they even make thos in semi-auto. I'd love to get my hands on a Saiga 12 or even the Origin 12.

The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else. That's how technology works.


"The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else"
The technological advancement aspect of it all is really quite interesting, isn't it?

Leejjohno proposed a definition of "assault weapon" that is one that is "easy to use/reload and be generally ergonomic in an assault/combat situation."

Well, history makes it clear that this is, then, an assault weapon:

9966589_1.jpg?v=8CD4A3E4CE34AE0

This was the weapon that was used (and quite effectivly) in the largest mass shooting in US history. Does an "assault weapon" cease to be an "assault weapon" when a new weapon is produced?

Avatar image for sonicare
#84 Posted by sonicare (55373 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]Hmm, shotguns are easier to use... and modify.... thegerg

And they even make thos in semi-auto. I'd love to get my hands on a Saiga 12 or even the Origin 12.

The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else. That's how technology works.


"The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else"
The technological advancement aspect of it all is really quite interesting, isn't it?

Leejjohno proposed a definition of "assault weapon" that is one that is "easy to use/reload and be generally ergonomic in an assault/combat situation."

Well, history makes it clear that this is, then, an assault weapon This was the weapon that was used (and quite effectivly) in the largest mass shooting in US history. Does an "assault weapon" cease to be an "assault weapon" when a new weapon is produced?

Was that the Bell Tower shooting in Texas?
Avatar image for wis3boi
#85 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

A shotgun does have pretty effective stopping power and is quite intimidating. And most likely would not be able to gun down lots of people in a mass shooting. But I think gun control advocates probably dont want Jackass Joe pushing any type of gun.

sonicare

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

I have seen footage of an automatic shotgun. Think it was on history channel.

Hello my friend, I am professional Russian

Avatar image for thegerg
#86 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

And they even make thos in semi-auto. I'd love to get my hands on a Saiga 12 or even the Origin 12.

The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else. That's how technology works.

sonicare

"The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else"
The technological advancement aspect of it all is really quite interesting, isn't it?

Leejjohno proposed a definition of "assault weapon" that is one that is "easy to use/reload and be generally ergonomic in an assault/combat situation."

Well, history makes it clear that this is, then, an assault weapon This was the weapon that was used (and quite effectivly) in the largest mass shooting in US history. Does an "assault weapon" cease to be an "assault weapon" when a new weapon is produced?

Was that the Bell Tower shooting in Texas?

Further back than that. About 300 people killed, over 200 of them women and children.
Avatar image for thegerg
#87 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

wis3boi

I have seen footage of an automatic shotgun. Think it was on history channel.

Hello my friend, I am professional Russian

Have nice day.
Avatar image for sonicare
#88 Posted by sonicare (55373 posts) -
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"]
"The point is, even if they pass these bans, manufacturers will get around these so called "evil" features by creating something else"
The technological advancement aspect of it all is really quite interesting, isn't it?

Leejjohno proposed a definition of "assault weapon" that is one that is "easy to use/reload and be generally ergonomic in an assault/combat situation."

Well, history makes it clear that this is, then, an assault weapon This was the weapon that was used (and quite effectivly) in the largest mass shooting in US history. Does an "assault weapon" cease to be an "assault weapon" when a new weapon is produced?

thegerg
Was that the Bell Tower shooting in Texas?

Further back than that. About 300 people killed, over 200 of them women and children.

Wounded Knee?
Avatar image for thegerg
#89 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Was that the Bell Tower shooting in Texas?

Further back than that. About 300 people killed, over 200 of them women and children.

Wounded Knee?

yup
Avatar image for VoodooHak
#90 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

wis3boi

I have seen footage of an automatic shotgun. Think it was on history channel.

Hello my friend, I am professional Russian

And here are a couple that are available to civilians:

the Saiga 12

and the Origin 12

Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#91 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

The shotgun I own qualifies as an assault rifle under the new ban. It has a forward grip.

Avatar image for DaBrainz
#92 Posted by DaBrainz (7907 posts) -
Shotty is OP so I agree.
Avatar image for Los9090
#93 Posted by Los9090 (7288 posts) -
I feel if an intruder was staring at a handgun, he'd be just as scared if it was an automatic pointed at his face. Minus of course "That's a big freakin' gun"
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#94 Posted by comp_atkins (34300 posts) -
not safer if the other guy has a longer range rifle...
Avatar image for thegerg
#95 Posted by thegerg (18279 posts) -
I feel if an intruder was staring at a handgun, he'd be just as scared if it was an automatic pointed at his face. Minus of course "That's a big freakin' gun"Los9090
Sometimes whether or not the weapon is scary isn't why it's best for the job.
Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
#96 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9238 posts) -

I suppose a double barrell would be fine if your house is being broken into by clay pigeons or small birds:lol:

Avatar image for whipassmt
#97 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

Leejjohno

The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

You guys can't own guns for personal defence, so what are you supposed to do if someone is breaking into your crib?

Avatar image for whipassmt
#98 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.WhiteKnight77

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

And there is still violent killings in the UK, especially with knives. The use of a knife in an attack makes said attack even more violent than if someone used a firearm.

Not only that, but is much easier for an intruder to cut someone who is unarmed than it is for him to cut a guy that's strapped. If you're packin' heat and someone busts into your house and tries to stab you, you can bust a cap in their ass before they can stab you.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#99 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

A shotgun does have pretty effective stopping power and is quite intimidating. And most likely would not be able to gun down lots of people in a mass shooting. But I think gun control advocates probably dont want Jackass Joe pushing any type of gun.

sonicare

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

I have seen footage of an automatic shotgun. Think it was on history channel.

Modern Marvels, or maybe Mail-Call. I remember years ago seeing something on the History Channel about a combat shotgun.

Avatar image for Nuck81
#100 Posted by Nuck81 (6789 posts) -

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I mentioned in a previous post that shotguns are semi-auto with 8 shell mags and can also be easily equipped with 30 round drums.

...which only helps illulstrate Jackass Joe's ignorance on a subject matter he's trying to create national policy about. It's just astounding.

whipassmt

I have seen footage of an automatic shotgun. Think it was on history channel.

Modern Marvels, or maybe Mail-Call. I remember years ago seeing something on the History Channel about a combat shotgun.

You mean this? I see no reason why every home shouldn't have one.