Posted by Kromey at 4:00pm Jul 22 '11And of course, typical of situations when you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room.
Typical -- focus on the rare exception while ignoring the overwhelming majority of use. There's also the little matter that shotguns just aren't used by criminals very often to begin with, whereas they are the overwhelmingly favored tools of bird hunters and (by definition) competitive shotgunners. Not to mention that shotguns are 1/3 of the guns used in tri-gun competitions (the other two, of course, being rifles and handguns). And we haven't even mentioned casual shooting yet (ah, there we go) -- skeet shooting is hella fun!
Competition and hunting are the primary uses of shotguns (where these would-be-banned features are used), followed by home defense (they are the second most-favored weapons for home defense, after handguns and followed by rifles). Most skeet and other casual shotgunners do so for practice for either competition or hunting (or both); the shotgunner who only shoots casually is very rare, unlike casual shooters of both handguns and rifles.
(Note that for the purposes of this post at least, "casual shooting" means target shooting and other forms of recreational shooting other than competition and hunting.)
wat
For starters: There is no due process with the terror watch list. If you're going to restrict the constitutional freedoms of Americans, you absolutely must allow due process. There are no exceptions to this. Not in a free country, at any rate.
But bigger than that, there's the little fact that something like 95% of those on this list are already prohibited from owning guns (most of them because they're not even US citizens), so what's the point? More bureaucracy and red tape, for what gain? Just want to restrict a few Americans who may be suspected of terrorism from exercising their rights? Sorry, but in this country, being suspected of a crime isn't enough to restrict any of your rights (arrest notwithstanding).
It is absolutely not acceptable for the government to be able to point their finger at you, say "We think you might be a terrorist", and suddenly you are restricted in what you can and can't do with no recourse available to you to regain your rights. We already have this problem with the no-fly list and TSA's absurdities, let's not make the problem bigger, m'kay?
Typical -- focus on the rare exception while ignoring the overwhelming majority of use. There's also the little matter that shotguns just aren't used by criminals very often to begin with, whereas they are the overwhelmingly favored tools of bird hunters and (by definition) competitive shotgunners. Not to mention that shotguns are 1/3 of the guns used in tri-gun competitions (the other two, of course, being rifles and handguns). And we haven't even mentioned casual shooting yet (ah, there we go) -- skeet shooting is hella fun!
Competition and hunting are the primary uses of shotguns (where these would-be-banned features are used), followed by home defense (they are the second most-favored weapons for home defense, after handguns and followed by rifles). Most skeet and other casual shotgunners do so for practice for either competition or hunting (or both); the shotgunner who only shoots casually is very rare, unlike casual shooters of both handguns and rifles.
(Note that for the purposes of this post at least, "casual shooting" means target shooting and other forms of recreational shooting other than competition and hunting.)
wat
For starters: There is no due process with the terror watch list. If you're going to restrict the constitutional freedoms of Americans, you absolutely must allow due process. There are no exceptions to this. Not in a free country, at any rate.
But bigger than that, there's the little fact that something like 95% of those on this list are already prohibited from owning guns (most of them because they're not even US citizens), so what's the point? More bureaucracy and red tape, for what gain? Just want to restrict a few Americans who may be suspected of terrorism from exercising their rights? Sorry, but in this country, being suspected of a crime isn't enough to restrict any of your rights (arrest notwithstanding).
It is absolutely not acceptable for the government to be able to point their finger at you, say "We think you might be a terrorist", and suddenly you are restricted in what you can and can't do with no recourse available to you to regain your rights. We already have this problem with the no-fly list and TSA's absurdities, let's not make the problem bigger, m'kay?
Re: A trio of gun-control items - Kromey