For those who didn't read the bill carefully and are the "won't affect my trap guns types", say goodbye to your 1100's and parts.
CALL YOUR REPRESENATIVES AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE HR 1022!
This is BS! NONE of the guns this bill will ban are "assault weapons". We need to make some noise and get the point across that this pseudo-Nazi bill by the fascist Demoncraps will not be tolerated, and is un-Constitutional.
Far be it for me, a Canadian, to comment on what your congress screws up but I had the thought as to what the last line, "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", from your magnificent national anthem would read like had the scum sucking liberals, who seem bent on removing most of the freedoms your forefathers fought and died for, gotten the chance to go back and rewrite it. We've been under the tryanny of successive Liberal governments up here for most of the last century who always governed with the attitude that they, the government knew what was best and that the democratic process was just there to get them elected, which in thier minds was their manifest destiney to begin with. Your Democrats sound like they believe the same thing. They are a dangerous lot, are all liberals. I do not doubt the bravery of your citizens, but I fear for your freedom as long as there are Clinton's and Obama's and their like who crave power.
I agree that gun bans are ridiculous and my dad has a gun collection...which would have trouble under the ban.
However, I don't think this does anything for semi-auto shotguns used for sporting (clay sports or hunting) purposes:
(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
It does however block out the home-defense shotguns that many of us own that have pistol grips or a folding/telescoping stock.
I will also comment on the fact that the Arepublic article certainly makes a good point with 'I think someone wrote a poem about that':
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Kyle, the bill leaves interpretation as to what "sporting" is up to the AG (read future liberal AG) which is extremely dangerous. As you may know, Clinton's AG Janet Reno officially declared the 2nd Amendment as a state's right, not an individual's right to bear arms (why would a state need a bill of rights? How lame is that?). The NRA claims that "Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle any future attorney general one day claims isn't 'sporting,' [would be banned] even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense."
I can send you a PDF copy of the NRA's magazine article on HR1022 in "America's First Freedom" if you're interested. It's a great magazine that keeps members more up to date on the shenannigans of our politicians, gun banning organizations and world leaders than does "Rifleman." Click on URL above for more HR1022 info.
Lastly, I've written my congressman and US senators about my objection to this bill and have received responses from all three. Not that it did much because I live in Idaho and all three of them are against the bill anyway.
I had to do the following...because I will be flamed as a liberal (which I can assure you I am not in any way, shape or form), but the NRA is not the final word on what the bill states and is certainly not an unbiased source. The actual text of the bill is what is actually important and it states what I wrote above...that semi-auto shotguns would only be banned if they had one of those components. Certainly, there may be another portion of the bill (I certainly do not remember one...but it may be there) that specifically gives the AG the power to pick and choose what to ban, but there is a specified list of what is banned and the semi-auto shotguns are only banned if they have thing like a pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, etc. I am not arguing the fact that this is another retarded attempt at gun control by crazy liberals, but the point that this bill would ban our semi-auto trap guns is invalid.
When you are on the winning side of an issue...why make up facts to make the issue 'even better'? This bill does not ban "All semi-automatic shotguns" as is stated above. It does not say so and if you read the text, it has specific provisions for which semi-automatic shotguns are banned...specifically as I stated above. Again - why make up facts when you are already on the winning side of an issue???
Before contacting your senator or arguing a point...PLEASE read the actual content of the bill. I am sure that it will make you MORE sick (as it did me), because in its un-hyped form...it is amazingly arrogant and appalling. Do not EVER rely on only one source...even a trusted source (at least by us) such as the NRA...this can go too far and make people look foolish in an argument where they have the facts, moral high-ground and ability to win.
If any of you listened to Glenn Beck this morning, you will know EXACTLY what I mean: Glenn attacked (at least sort-of) Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family based on a few articles in the Main-stream media...and his facts were completely wrong. He had to apologize on national radio...that sucks and as he said, he should have checked his facts and verified with Dr. Dobson. We need to the check every bit of info we get...because even with good intentions and the moral high-ground, we can end up looking foolish and damage our cause if we used information which is not completely valid.
Yeeeaaah, like the Illinois bill a while back that supposedly only banned semi-autos. Until you found out their interpretation of a semi-auto was that it required no manual manipulation of the action between successive shots. This definition also applies to double barrel shotguns with a single trigger. Ouch. And in their zeal to ban .50 caliber guns, they forgot an exemption for shotguns over .410. Yet some trapshooters proclaimed this bill would not affect trap guns.<br>
So, have you bothered to look at the details in this bill? Did you know porting would be outlawed, because it is a muzzle brake? Yep. A ported 1100 Trap is an assault weapon. There is no specific exemption for screw in choke tubes, but all muzzle threading is a banned feature. Thumbhole stocks are also a banned feature.<br>
Instead of defending this piece of male bovine fecal matter by trying to claim it doesn't affect sporting shotguns, why not read and understand the details that DO affect sporting shotguns? You yourself said "we need to check every bit of info we get". I suggest you start doing so.
YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE and I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU ATTACKING ME WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION - DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN.
-This bill states that threading is banned ONLY for semi-automatic rifles (that can accept a magazine) and pistols. In addition, it defines threading as "a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a))." Since that section of the USC contains a bunch of regulations on barrel length and restriction of SILENCERS...this is NOT being applied in ANY WAY to choke tubes.
- As far as I can tell (reading 4 times all the way through), this bill makes NO NOTE of muzzle breaks or porting. I am pretty sure you are MAKING THIS up.
- Thumbholes are in fact banned on semi-auto rifles (with detachable mags) semi-auto shotguns. I do not know of any shotguns (but they may exist) that have thumbholes...so I think that your point there is moot.
Two of your three points are factually inaccurate and the third is irrelevant to my points above. Check you facts before attacking my information...after all my information comes from READING THE BILL. Where does yours come from?
You are WRONG, so don't even THINK about attacking my information until you READ the text of the bill and understand what it says, NOT what you THINK it says or WANT it to say (so that you can better bash it). This bill is horrific enough without the exaggeration: there is no need to lie about a bill this bad in order to make it seem worse.
That being said, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP AND SHOULD DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH. Any senator or congressman who supports this should be kicked out off office and sent to France...err Australia (France is at least moving in the right direction).
Again - I am setting the record straight here for one purpose: when we go argue this stuff with liberals, I want to be 100% factually correct and NOT exaggeration in any way, shape or form. If we make things up or stretch the truth, it will destroy our credibility, as well as make us look like fools who need to make up facts to support our position (like liberals do).
To set this all clear:
HR1022 does NOT:
ban ALL semi-auto shotguns
ban ANY non-semi-auto shotgun (pump, O/U, SxS, single)
ban ANY shotgun with porting or a muzzle break
ban ANY shotgun with threading or a threaded choke tube
ban semi-auto shotguns with pistol grips, including thumbholes
ban semi-auto shotguns with folding/telescoping stocks
ban semi-auto shotguns with detachable mags or mags in excess of 5 rounds
Please see the link for the actual text of the bill and READ IT BEFORE YOU FLAME ME. If you find something I did not and say 'hey Kyle - I think you missed this' I will debate and respond politely...but I will attack you right back if you try to claim that I am defending this piece of crap or that I need to check my info. I read the bill, I hate the bill. I know what the bills says and what it does NOT say.
Thanks...and I apologize for my tone and all the shouting - I get really pissed off when someone tells me that I am defending something liberals support...especially gun control.
I don't know who you are or where you came from, but for those of us (like Brian) who have been here since this website started, you are the one who does't know your butt from a 9 dollar bill. I shoot with several people who have thumbhole stocks on their trap guns, and EVERY trap gun has a pistol grip. You need to lighten up or grow up (I don't know how old you are but you write like a know-it-all teenager). I have a good friend who makes his living reading and interpreting bills such as this for lobbying groups, and he tells me that this bill COULD (depending on what party is in power) be used to take every semi-auto shotgun we own. He also said that without a better definition of "semi-auto" any shotgun capable of firing consecutive shots without being reloaded or manually operated could be considered "semi-auto." Meaning over-unders with a single trigger. You talk about people reading the bill? Well, I suggest that you develop a better understanding of how such bills will be interpreted by the liberals. Brian in Oregon has made himself known over the past 10 years or so on this site as a very strong defender of our 2nd Amendment. You only appear to have been around a very short time. So, consider that you might not really know everything.
Joe - I agree with the inch and mile deal. Makes sense to me. However, I think that there is no reason to stretch the truth when there is no need to. I certainly agree with you on the NRA. However, the problem that I see is that those people who do NOT own guns look at the NRA as a radical organization. If we REALLY want to keep the 2nd amendment alive, we need to base our opinions in full fact and make calls as we see them...not as we would like them to be.
First, you tell me that I write this like a 'know-it-all teenager', however I am not the one insulting you. Why attack me personally? I did no such thing to you or anyone else...I simply got pissed because Brian attacked my credibility when he make up facts to support his case...but I did not attack him like you have done to me.
I would also comment that I never did say that I know everything. I certainly do not and I would never claim that I did. With regard to how long I have been around - why assume I have no credibility, when I have only used a logical, reasonable interpretation of the exact wording of the bill? I don't disagree that Brian is a strong defender of our 2nd Amendment, and I never said he was not. However, he made up facts to support his case (muzzle breaks) and stretched others (threaded barrels) in places where it makes NO sense to do so. Again - this bill is bad enough with stretching the truth and losing our credibility.
With regard to thumbholes in a stock - I have not seen anyone shoot a thumbhole shotgun, but as I said...I was not sure about this. Thank you for pointing this out, because it does make me a little more ticked off about the bill. Also - regarding pistol grips, I can certainly see how a pistol grip could be banned based on the language there - good point, again I am a bit more ticked off. I understand the 'semi-auto' issue and know what you are saying in that regard, I do not disagree.
As a note - I am from Kalifornia - I am the victim of gun bans over and above most of what people are subjected to. We have ALL thumbholes banned...even on hunting rifles, and most of what is banned in this bill is already banned in Kali. I understand the consequences of a bill like this.
The problem that I have here is that you use the word 'could' as a statement of certainty. I do not disagree with what you said: this bill could take away many of our guns...but it does not absolutely just take away all semi-auto shotgun by default. This was written with the same certainty as saying that it takes away the AR-15 or M1 (both of which are specifically name as being banned regardless of configuration).
Again: why stretch the truth, or interpret it the way you are, when you are on the winning side of an issue? I understand that this is a horrific bill and if the right people get in office, we are in deep shit and arguing the points you have here are even more ridiculous.
I understand the frustration you have, which seems to me to be due to the way that the political game is played. Specifically, liberals play no-holds barred, while conservatives play by what they consider to be the rules. If you want to be the type to drop down to the level of the liberals - fine...but excuse me if I don't join you and try to keep others from dropping to that level.
Again - why not use logic to argue, rather than saying childish things like "you are the one who does't [sic] know your butt from a 9 dollar bill"?
Kyle, you are quite full of advice. While much of it is good advice, the tone is unwelcome.
I'm more objective than you can possibly imagine. I was born in Hollywood, CA to a jazz pianist father and a mother who was terrified of guns, raised in the San Fernando Valley and drove the busiest ambulance in Los Angeles City as a paramedic. I've been there and done a lot (not everything, but quite a bit), and because of that, I've become a very skeptical person when somebody tells me their intentions. It reminds me of the very wise saying. "You want to hear God laugh, tell him your plans!" I moved to Idaho to get away from the insanity in Kalifornia and am very happy I did.
Your comments and suggestions to me, while reasonable, are a bit arrogant. You stated quite emphatically "Do not EVER rely on only one source...even a trusted source (at least by us) such as the NRA." I don't ever rely on one source and you shouldn't stereotypically assume because I'm a life NRA member that I'm some type of fanatic follower-type. I'm always looking at both sides of the coin even when it's painful to do so. You said "Before contacting your senator or arguing a point...PLEASE read the actual content of the bill." I did read the language of the bill back when it was in it's infancy and the NRA wasn't even mentioning it yet (I heard about it first from the 2nd Amendment Sisters) and I believe that the NRA is right to point out that the language of this bill could be twisted out of it's original form by loose interpretation. When I wrote my two US Senators and congressman on the subject, I simply objected to the bill in it's present form. I argued quite reasonably so that the last assault weapons bill did nothing to stop crime and that it only restricted those who already abide by the law and is a waste of money, and this one will be the same, only more restrictive. I'm far from a "sky-is-falling" fanatic.
"I had to do the following" as you say, but not because I might get flamed - I don't give a rat's ass about that: I appreciate your passion and interest in this subject; however I believe you are being just a shade arrogant and gullible and I also don't believe that you would ever speak this way to me or others in person at a gun club, regardless of your age. The negative side of the internet and to a certain extent, our society, is anonymity.
Remember, to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.
If you're ever in Boise I'd look forward to talking about the 2nd Amendment to you in person in a respectful, reasonable way.
I want to apologize to you if I sounded arrogant or disrespectful to you. I directed that 2nd response to you (the one thats starts with 'Jennifer,', but none of the other comments were directed at you in any way.
I would certainly never talk to you, someone who seems reasonable and respectful, in the tone that I responded the Brian or Incognito. They were both rude to me and I was rude back. Sometimes I get ticked off and go a bit overboard - so I apologize for that.
I also wanted to note that I meant to say "I hate to do the following"...my mistake. However, I do feel that I did need to explain this all. I did not mean to direct my comment regarding the 'use multiple sources' and 'don't just rely on the NRA' to you. Those were meant to be general comments and I should have divided them away from my response to you.
I would also like to express my thanks to you for defending our rights and I certainly appreciate the fact that you have significantly more experience that I do. I respect your opinion and appreciate your comments - thank you for that.
Again, I apologize for any disrespect on my part. I did not intent to be disrespectful toward you are any other reasonable person who did not attack me first.
I have never been to Boise, though I have driven through the SE corner of Idaho on my way to Yellowstone last summer. I love that area of the country and would love to live somewhere like that. If I'm ever in the area, I'll certainly drop a line, and I appreciate your offer.
Meanwhile in Penna, Gov Ed Rendell is telling us that even avid gun owners want more restrictive gun laws!! He dint ask me or any of my shooting friends!! He and his Dem buddies are crying this is the time for more "reasonable" laws to stem the the crime; HB 760: $10 per gun per yr, register each gun to each owner etc. And our streets will be safe. Except ciminaliacs don`t buy guns at Dick`s. Take an under cover cop or two; a couple of thousand bucks and buy the guns off the street from the hypes and punks.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Kyle. I'm not perfect by any means - I've been on & off this site for about 8 years (my old sign-on name was bonypony) and have stuck my foot in my mouth on many, many occasions. But now I try to take a deep breath and ask myself "would I say this to somebody in person?" and that usually keeps me out of trouble (not always, but usually, LOL).
Keep working on those liberals down there. Disgusted, my husband and I cashed in our chips and left for greener pastures where we can be ourselves and breathe easier, but those who remain and continue to deal with the insanity deserve some respect. It's not easy being a conservative in Kalifornia!