Author Topic: chairboy...ACLU (Read 2993 times)

Toad · « **Reply #105 on:** September 19, 2005, 06:44:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SaburoS
Usually involves cutting the barrel to end of the forestock and cutting most of the buttstock off. It is effective for point blank damage.

[/b]

20" barrels are generally considered "point and shoot" lethal with 00 buckshot out to ~20 yards.

I've shot a .410 pistol... they were legal at one time and are still around.

I can vouch for their effectiveness head shooting pheasants in the ditch at more than 10 yards with 67 pellets of #4 shot in a 2 1/2" load. Pheasant heads aren't too big, either.

Quote

Second time I'm asking.

And you got your answer; sorry it took me a while. Lots of posts to read and answer.]

SaburoS · « **Reply #106 on:** September 19, 2005, 07:02:17 PM »

Toad,
I feel any law abiding American w/o a criminal background, of sound mind and age should be able to keep and bear any personal (semi/select, single, etc) rifle, shotgun(sawed off too), pistol, etc.

They should not be allowed to have a M203 Grenade launcher, Claymore, Stinger Antiaircraft.....heck I'm going down the same road. Accidental/michievious discharge can do a hell of a lot of damage compared to a "regular" firearm. Gotta ban those.

I am against my govt banning things that don't really help the citizens in general. It just doesn't work.

Had just one passenger in each of the planes had a Sig, Colt, Glock, etc pistol, we'd still have the Twin Towers up.

I'll bet you one thing. Those passengers would have wished to have a gun in their situation.

Dallas Cafe.
San Ysidro.
101 California.
Could have been a lot less deadly if regular citizens could conceal carry.

My argument has been that "Common use" has not been proven for a sawed off double barrel shotgun. That POS weapon I wouldn't own if legal and was given to me. Now the SPAS12 I really like and would own that one. Sweet shooter. The Sawed off shotgun being banned is stupid law. That was a given.

Toad · « **Reply #107 on:** September 19, 2005, 07:12:46 PM »

From GunCite:

Quote

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon.

Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

I think this is exactly what the Founders meant. They used "arms" in the way and with the meaning it had at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Generally speaking, to me it means any weapons that are commonly issued to the individual soldier.

If everyone gets a pistol, pistols are OK. If everyone gets an M4 carbine, M4's are OK. At the time, Grenadiers were considered to use "ordinance" so grenades are out.

SaburoS · « **Reply #108 on:** September 19, 2005, 07:14:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

It may be a bad decision but it's in the record.

Now, for the record, do YOU think Miller defines the 2nd as an individual or collective right. That's actually what I asked.

[/b]

Well then of course you would say I have the right to own the entire setup, the M4A1 carbine with the LSS attachment, Barrel length: 7.75 in (197 mm) ?

I could have one of those then?

[/b]

If they issue it, how many do they have to issue to qualify in your opinion?

[/b]

I don't know. There was supposed to be further investigation last May/June but there's nothing out on it yet.

I can tell you the competition for the military shotgun market is picking up... and the barrels are going to be less than 18".

Seems pretty clear that shotguns are going to come into much more "common use" in the military AND that barrels shorter than 18" will be the norm.

Not to my knowledge. In that period the standard was riot guns with 20" barrels for military use.

However, since the M4A1 carbine with some manufacturer's shotgun attachement...LSS, Remington, Knight Armamament.... is going to come into "common use" in the near future, I'm sure you'll agree that I have a right to such a weapon... right?

Just a yes or no.

Hell, I don't care if they had 2" barrel shotgun pistols. You, as a law abiding American should have the right to purchase and own it. The Miller decision is wrong. Heck any attorney that knew weapon systems would be able to demonstrate how very limited in application the sawed off double barrel was. Would have not been worth banning.

I came in midthread and saw what I thought was a connection of military value of a sawed off double barrel shotgun. My argument has been how it's not. I even made clear that I didn't think it should be banned.

lazs2 · « **Reply #109 on:** September 20, 2005, 08:49:40 AM »

charon.. I agree with you completely... I have allways been a "gun nut".... part of the gun culture. At 9 I was shooting up to 500 rounds a day out of an old hi standard 22 pistol and hitting things the men had touble hitting with a rifle....

I never went out for sports and still don't watch sports at all... I don't get drunk and drive home from sporting events like the "sports nuts".... I reload thousands of rounds of ammo while "TV nuts" watch the latest survivor show and the same old commercials... I don't tear up the landscape like the "4 wheel nuts"...

I don't want to place restrictions on these guys but I want to carry and shoot my firearms... I read about em and work on em and shoot em and then load more ammo for em... I may be outdoors plinking at tin cans while others are staring at the big screen view of million dollar a year druggies fighting over a few yards of turf or 7' tall mutants putting balls in a hoop...

I work on hot rods and drive em... I don't watch races. I would rather go outside and shoot at cans than watch a sporting event.... I would rather make a new alternator bracket or fabricate motor mounts or go to a gun show...

I would rather visit a friend in his garage and help him put his new 500 inch big block together or go look at his newest firearm..

I don't watch the indoctrinatinization on the news channel and don't read the rags they put on the newstand.... and when I do... the culture shock is stunning.

I am the enemy.

lazs

GreenCloud · « **Reply #110 on:** September 20, 2005, 12:41:52 PM »

saburo..i fire atleast 3,000 rounds of 12 guage a year

To say a sawed off shotgun is not lethal is rediculous ..again

If you can honestly say ..a sawed off shotgun is not a lethal..your a dolt...If you say its not a very good close range wepaon..again..dolt

You want to shoot at targets 30 feet away?..ya ..do nto use a sawed off..

If you want to shoot somthn around a 90% corner in a cave or a building.....YA...give me a sawed off any day..to what ..a 1911...or a m4a1?...Come on..

Why do you find it so hard to beleive that at point blank ranges a sawed off is your best weapon?..AH!!! IS ee cause now you say atleats 10 yards away?...thats assinine

OH!!! now i see..you want to change your thesis?..Now it cant be just a "sawed off" but it has to be a double barrel shorty? IF its a semi -auto shorty is that too different for you?..Is that much more lethal?

Common use?....Whats common use?..is the sniper rifle common use?

this is funnee

SaburoS · « **Reply #111 on:** September 20, 2005, 01:10:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GreenCloud
saburo..i fire atleast 3,000 rounds of 12 guage a year

To say a sawed off shotgun is not lethal is rediculous ..again

If you can honestly say ..a sawed off shotgun is not a lethal..your a dolt...If you say its not a very good close range wepaon..again..dolt

You want to shoot at targets 30 feet away?..ya ..do nto use a sawed off..

If you want to shoot somthn around a 90% corner in a cave or a building.....YA...give me a sawed off any day..to what ..a 1911...or a m4a1?...Come on..

Why do you find it so hard to beleive that at point blank ranges a sawed off is your best weapon?..AH!!! IS ee cause now you say atleats 10 yards away?...thats assinine

OH!!! now i see..you want to change your thesis?..Now it cant be just a "sawed off" but it has to be a double barrel shorty? IF its a semi -auto shorty is that too different for you?..Is that much more lethal?

Common use?....Whats common use?..is the sniper rifle common use?

this is funnee

What was the favored weapon of the Tunnel Rats in 'Nam?

Dude, where have I said a designed short barrel tactical shotgun didn't have its place in the military. That type as well as regular ones do have their place.

If you actually learned to read, you'd see I said no such thing.

You're going to go into battle with a 2-shot capability, door to door as your main weapon?

You've been watching too much Hollywood as to the value of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun.

Yes, at 30' you lose a lot of lethality as the dispersion is greater than it should be for reliable one-shot stoppage.

It is good at point blank, door hinges, locks etc.

For combat there are so many better weapons (including other shotguns) for the job.

Take a 10", 16", 20", then 24" barreled shotgun and shoot then from point blank range and work out from there out to 30'. See with your own eyes what happens with dispersion of the shot.

Maybe you'll realise why no Army has adapted the sawed off double barrel shotgun as a weapon to use in military ops.

You still haven't shown it.

BTW, can it with the "dolts" and what ever other insults you wish to throw out. You have yet to prove your point.

Dang it's like arguing with a bunch of liberal politicians on the assault weapons ban. "Oh it looks like." "Oh it could be."....dang very frustrating here.

Your reading comprehension is wanting.

You've got more than two enemy around that corner, you better have something more than a 2 shot capability.

I'm not the one looking like a "dolt" in this thread.

lazs2 · « **Reply #112 on:** September 20, 2005, 02:23:23 PM »

If I were clearing buildings in an urban setting a sawed off shotgun might just be the ideal choice.... at least for one of the members of the team...

I would go with a striker revolving shotgun but... a side by side would be pretty good too... I would trust getting off the second shot with a side by side or over under a lot more than the horror of an adreniline induced short stroke jam with a pump gun or failure to feed with a self shucker..

I would not feel at any disadvantage with a sawed off shotgun side by side in that situation...

lazs

GreenCloud · « **Reply #113 on:** September 22, 2005, 01:15:02 AM »

ok..i apologize for the dolt comment..

I think you are a moron for saying...shoot at a target at 10 yds ..and see what you hit....no sheite

We are talking about POINT BLANK...."trench guns"

as soon as you try your.."10 yards" 30 feet crap..I laugh at you..We are not saying it works for 30 FEET

YA..a 12 gauge shorty is a horrible and useless weapon and could never see service in a war setting...or any setting

For my self I would glady use a shorty 12 guage for home/close combat defense..Great spread ..good hitting power..and minimal secondary penetration...So you dont shoot the folks 2 rooms over

SaburoS · « **Reply #114 on:** September 22, 2005, 02:07:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GreenCloud
ok..i apologize for the dolt comment..

I think you are a moron for saying...shoot at a target at 10 yds ..and see what you hit....no sheite

We are talking about POINT BLANK...."trench guns"

as soon as you try your.."10 yards" 30 feet crap..I laugh at you..We are not saying it works for 30 FEET

YA..a 12 gauge shorty is a horrible and useless weapon and could never see service in a war setting...or any setting

For my self I would glady use a shorty 12 guage for home/close combat defense..Great spread ..good hitting power..and minimal secondary penetration...So you dont shoot the folks 2 rooms over

Jeebus dude! How about you actually pay attn to what I'm actually saying here! We are actually on the same damn side on this argument.

Now for the record:

Quote

A short barrel could easily hit something at 10 yards. No effort involved.

I didn't bring up the 10yard/30ft thing IIRC

So who's the moron?
The person that thinks the Sawed off double barrel is effective at that range or you for not comprehending what I've been saying?
Seems you are agreeing the value of lethal damage at 30ft of a sawed off double barrel is rather low.
You'll agree that 2 round capacity is also low for military ops?

Here is my position in a nutshell:

I feel it is wrong to base lawful gun ownership on the military "common use" criteria.
I feel any and all shotguns including sawed off double barrel should not be banned even though the sawed off double barerel shotgun has yet to be used by our military or police forces. I have never seen military or police ops where the good guys used em. Would be too limiting in those circumstances.

OTOH, I don't feel we have a right to own M203 grenade launchers even though they have actually been used by our military in actual military ops.

There is a reason why the Steven's double barrel sawed off shotgun has never been adapted by our military forces both officially and unofficially.
This fact isn't because I say so, it is what it is.

For the home defense scene, yeah the shotgun is tough to beat especially if intimidation is to be taken into account. The sawed off double barrel is extremely intimidating (maybe that's why it's been disproportionately used in Hollywood movies). That's a personal choice that should be left to the law abiding INDIVIDUAL, not the govt.

For the home if I had to choose a shotgun, I'd rather have the 8-shot preban Binelli Tactical or a SPAS12. Short enough for free movement in the house, but still a better/tighter shot pattern than the Sawed off Double.

I still prefer my SigSauer P220-45 w/tritium night sights though.

LOL, again, quit being a clown. Now you bring in the "moron" label when in fact you've miscomprehended what I've been saying. THAT is your being a "moron". Hint: Don't argue with me on this gun issue in this thread. We're on the same side.

midnight Target · « **Reply #115 on:** September 22, 2005, 08:08:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

Now, for the record, do YOU think Miller defines the 2nd as an individual or collective right. That's actually what I asked.

collective.

Edbert · « **Reply #116 on:** September 22, 2005, 08:14:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
collective.

Do you think any other of the first ten amendments refer to and protect a collective right of a group or organization instead of an individual citizen's right?

Charon · « **Reply #117 on:** September 22, 2005, 08:21:31 AM »

Quote

collective

Why?

midnight Target · « **Reply #118 on:** September 22, 2005, 08:23:56 AM »

The 9th Circuit told me so.

lazs2 · « **Reply #119 on:** September 22, 2005, 08:31:19 AM »

Mt.... have you read anything the supremes said in miller? they pretty much said that he could have any gun he wanted if he could prove it was useful as an "arm".... He was not a part of any militia except in the sense of the meaning as it was understood by the framers of the constitution. They pretty much agreed that he was indeed a part of the militia but said that he didn't need a sawed off shotgun because it was useless to him in his capacity as a militiaman.... therefore... it was not an arm protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you think that it is a good idea that anytime the "people" is used in the bill of rights that it be construed as a collective right?

lazs