A Pump Shotgun and a Revolver?

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by ChanceMcCall, May 22, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ChanceMcCall

    ChanceMcCall Member

    Dec 22, 2017
    The recent Texas school shooting was accomplished with a pump shotgun and a revolver. The well-paid anti gun entity leaders have been strangely quite. I would suggest that maybe the reason is that an active shooter using guns not normally classified as "assault weapons" impugns their case against the guns they have been targeting. A few of them have become more honest in their real goals of banning and confiscating all firearms, which I see as progress.

    Most gun owners know many other gun owners who do not own, and don't want to own, many of the guns broadly classified as "assault weapons". The reasons for not owning them vary with the individual, but the fact they don't own them often makes them feel safe from the anti gun movement. I know at least 20 gun owners for every gun owner that belongs to even one pro gun organization, and I would bet that is actually a very low estimate. Many of these people own only one gun and that is often a gun passed down from family. They may, or may not, shoot them for fun or practice. That does not mean that they do not value those guns and that they wouldn't be upset or even angry if they thought they would lose the right to own the gun they do own.

    If a serious movement to ban all firearms started to emerge, I would suspect that a couple of things might happen:

    • Even some non-gun owners would object to the idea of a total gun ban especially if it involved criminalizing gun owners and forced confiscation;
    • Many now passive gun owners would suddenly wake up to the danger and actively join and support pro gun organizations;
    • The courts might suddenly realize the potential constitutional crisis and despite their liberal bents would feel compelled to rule against anti-gun legislation.
    Do you agree with this? If you do, shouldn't we push the narrative in order to force the anti-gun forces to admit their real goals? If you think that is a good idea, how would you suggest we and the organizations we support go about doing that?

    If you do not agree, why? What dangers do you see that I and perhaps others aren't seeing in this idea?
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  2. George P

    George P Member

    Jan 10, 2018
    I don't believe that assertion for a second.

    What you will see are a lot of law-abiding folks becoming criminals for not turning over their means of defense/hunting/sport activities.
    DoubleMag and D.B. Cooper like this.
  3. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Apr 11, 2004
    Experience overseas as in the UK and Australia suggests that laws will expand rather than contract. Look at shotguns in Australia.

    If a rampage occurs with gun type X, it will be ‘reasonably restricted’ and users licensed.
    ChanceMcCall likes this.
  4. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    May 21, 2004
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    If the march is towards subject control, then the tools used are of little consequence. Have no doubt, the goal is total disarmament and subjugation.
  5. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Oct 27, 2006
    They want you disarmed, they want you with less effective fighting weapons first, disarming what remains is even easier afterwards.

    We practice what government wants here abroad. They want a disarmed population that can be controlled with surveillance, active denial systems like the increasing smaller and easier to integrate pain rays that make you feel like you are on fire anytime you do what they do not like, backed up by teams of organized forces ready to deploy lethal force if you manage to arm yourself.
    While they farm you for taxes and make the burden and amount of work you have to perform to get by whatever they choose.

    It is about control, not about reducing civilian deaths from other civilians. That is just how they gain support from some of the population.

    That is why they have latched onto school shootings in spite of them being a tiny amount of firearm deaths. They scare parents, parents that care deeply about their children, and they scare students forced to be disarmed underage subjects in a government building (and because they are underage that cannot be fixed by providing them a way to defend themselves), and every child by law is required to be a student for many years.
    Fixing it by making schools a maximum security prison also gets students used to living in an Orwellian society as subjects, and while helping in the short term may lead to reduced self reliance and freedom to do things like defend ourselves in the future.
    So it really is the perfect anti-gun focus, and that is why whenever one happens anyplace in the nation of hundreds of millions of people they spend days of focus on it in the media.

    As for the type of weapons? Handguns are banned in England, and pump shotguns are banned or restricted as much as semi autos in most places that ban semi autos from common ownership. In England pump shotguns are limited to 2 round magazine capacity, technically 3 but counting the chamber as part of the capacity.

    Here is Australia:

    Category A
    Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi-automatic, and paintball guns.
    Category B
    Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action and lever action (not semi-automatic) and muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.
    Category C
    Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi-automatic rimfire rifles up to 10 rounds. Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
    Category D
    All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers.

    And most citizens cannot get Category B, C, or D or beyond firearms. C are owned by some land owners in rural locations but prohibited to most of the civilian population in spite of the above listing collectors and clay target shooters. Obviously there will be exceptions and some provinces are better than others.
    Generally though pump shotguns follow any semi auto ban around the world.

    Western Australia is more rural and more firearm friendly than many parts of Australia, and here is a more refined list of categories::

    Make no mistake, once semi auto are banned they take very quick and rapid notice of other firearms especially pump shotguns as being too effective of firearms for civilians.
    Pump Shotguns with a magazine capacity less than 5 are considered category C firearms, and you need to show a geniune need test to even be allowed a category B nevermind a category C firearm.
    Most citizens cannot get them, though some that can demonstrate that a category B is not enough sometimes can. Typically a farmer will be expected to deal with problems with a category A or B firearm and they are nicer to farmers than the average citizen.
    Pump shotguns holding more than 5 rounds are a category D firearm, the same as semi autos, and civilians don't get those.
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  6. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Oct 9, 2006
    erm ... I think there would be dire consequences in making a significant portion of the population into criminals ... because I also don't believe many firearms would be turned over. Look at the statistics in NY and CN confiscation attempts. I'm just sorry we can't get alcohol anymore because of the Prohibition ...
  7. entropy

    entropy Member

    Feb 9, 2004
    G_d's Country, WI
    And do you want the Same type of enforcement there was then? Don't forget The FBI was a little backwater agency until Prohibition......

    I added this to my sig line, this is a look at the mentality of those who are working to ban guns:

    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
  8. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 3, 2003
    0 hrs east of TN
    You can't force them to admit that. You can search for examples where they do and then share that information broadly across social media and forums and make sure that your local, state and fed elected officials know this (or make them aware that they're being watched if they're anti themselves).
  9. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Jun 5, 2006
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    The rationale that allows them to say evil black rifles should be banned would also allow them to ban any other class of gun.

    How I have put it to many "Small common sense step" people, is to ask them: "Ok. Let's say it were possible to register, ban and confiscate all guns you perceive to be the problem. Magic wand, all AR whatevers and other models you don't know about that do the same thing all go away. Then, someone pulls another Charles Whitman. (Look it up.) Will you then say, it's all good. Bolt-action rifles are much more difficult to run and kill with than machine guns, and there isn't nearly as much risk. We should leave them alone, we have already been successful in banning the WORST guns. No. That is not what you will say. You will say; This proves that it doesn't matter what guns we are allowed to have, NONE of them are safe for the general public, so now we need to get the rest of them."

    THAT is how they will play it. It will be; "Well, the first round of regulation obviously wasn't enough. Now we need more."
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice