ATF Shotgun Study - Here it is!

[mikegraffam 11]

Are we even discussing Saiga 12's anymore? This seems like political ranting to me. Although I may agree with some of this, it just seems better suited for the political section or fight club. If you disagree, I don't give a shit. Let's talk about Saigas. Carry on.

 

Yeah, this thread has been lame for quite some time. I'm just trying to amuse myself and fight boredom until my ammo arrives in the mail and I can go shooting..

 

Ok, and I admit it.. I'm also trying to reach page 15 and amuse Bridis

 

Edit: Yay! Page 15. Well done TTMR!

Edited March 5, 2011 by Michael Graffam

[TTMR 11]

[physicsnerd 139]

Yeah this thread is truly pointless with those who denigrate others and accuse them of not thinking or being stupid.

 

I had a well thought out response to this thread like 7 pages ago but mostly it has been arguing and arguing over the internet, while I have been guilty in the past, is pretty stupid as it degrades into insults and accusations of stupidity. With that, here is my exit from this thread picture, which is surprisingly appropriate for this thread:

 

[Mike1234567 26]

I like spicy chili... but it doesn't like me.

[Ned Beatty 39]

If its ok to tax us, but not deny us our 2nd A rights, NFA tax stamps for example, why not tax bloggers who wish to distribute their opinions or news?

 

Once you start deciding which portion of our rights are acceptable without a tax, or some control, where do you stop?

 

A license to run a newspaper? A journalists tax stamp, and a fee on every page you write? Banning some blogs because they may offend too many people?

 

The supreme court okayed the most vile, hurtful protests against soldiers the other day, but, you can limit what gun I can legally own?

 

How about penalties equal to the crime, and not the weapon used?

 

If you kill someone, you get death, whether its in a car, drunk, with a knife, or a machine gun?

 

This saiga thing is a perfect example, I shoot you with a single shot 12 ga, and you die, you are dead, I shoot you with a forward facing flashlight, and 20 rounds in a drum saiga, you are still dead?

 

Sure, I could shoot 20 people at once, with a drum, but, the good murderers do it one at a time over many years, and don't get caught.

 

BTW, we all have freedom of speech, no one has to force someone to listen, if you don't want to read my opinion, don't, but, why tell people not to have one, and keep it to yourself, when you can just go to another forum or thread?

[mikegraffam 11]

Yeah this thread is truly pointless with those who denigrate others and accuse them of not thinking or being stupid.

 

I had a well thought out response to this thread like 7 pages ago but mostly it has been arguing and arguing over the internet, while I have been guilty in the past, is pretty stupid as it degrades into insults and accusations of stupidity. With that, here is my exit from this thread picture, which is surprisingly appropriate for this thread:

 

 

I find it instructive to note that all public 'debate' tends to degrade in more or less the same fashion.

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

If its ok to tax us, but not deny us our 2nd A rights, NFA tax stamps for example, why not tax bloggers who wish to distribute their opinions or news?

 

Once you start deciding which portion of our rights are acceptable without a tax, or some control, where do you stop?

 

A license to run a newspaper? A journalists tax stamp, and a fee on every page you write? Banning some blogs because they may offend too many people?

 

The supreme court okayed the most vile, hurtful protests against soldiers the other day, but, you can limit what gun I can legally own?

 

How about penalties equal to the crime, and not the weapon used?

 

If you kill someone, you get death, whether its in a car, drunk, with a knife, or a machine gun?

 

This saiga thing is a perfect example, I shoot you with a single shot 12 ga, and you die, you are dead, I shoot you with a forward facing flashlight, and 20 rounds in a drum saiga, you are still dead?

 

Sure, I could shoot 20 people at once, with a drum, but, the good murderers do it one at a time over many years, and don't get caught.

 

BTW, we all have freedom of speech, no one has to force someone to listen, if you don't want to read my opinion, don't, but, why tell people not to have one, and keep it to yourself, when you can just go to another forum or thread?

 

Common sense??!! In this thread??!! With Michael Graffam around? You dun goofed! He'll be after you now!

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

Yeah this thread is truly pointless with those who denigrate others and accuse them of not thinking or being stupid.

 

I had a well thought out response to this thread like 7 pages ago but mostly it has been arguing and arguing over the internet, while I have been guilty in the past, is pretty stupid as it degrades into insults and accusations of stupidity. With that, here is my exit from this thread picture, which is surprisingly appropriate for this thread:

 

 

I find it instructive to note that all public 'debate' tends to degrade in more or less the same fashion.

 

That is because there is always people like you around who just don't get it. People get sick of trying to argue with a brick wall.

[mikegraffam 11]

If its ok to tax us, but not deny us our 2nd A rights, NFA tax stamps for example, why not tax bloggers who wish to distribute their opinions or news?

 

Indeed. Fortunately no one has every argued for that, yet.

 

The supreme court okayed the most vile, hurtful protests against soldiers the other day, but, you can limit what gun I can legally own?

 

Apparently the view is, and I'm not sure I agree with it, but I do understand the argument - that in the free and open society that we would like to have, the ability to freely express and trade in information and differing viewpoints is more important than trading in weapons. In this country, we fancy that our voices shape public policy. We fancy that we control our society through words, and law - not through guns.

 

This is why the country has allowed guns to become more regulated than speech: most folks don't use guns. They do argue about shit on the internet though, just like folks who DO use guns

 

Pretty simple, really.

 

How about penalties equal to the crime, and not the weapon used?

 

If you kill someone, you get death, whether its in a car, drunk, with a knife, or a machine gun?

 

Well, I believe there is this little hitch that folks call morality. Generally it seems to be agreed that it is not moral to put a drunk driver to death, or any negligent person to death. These folks are not charged with murder - they are charged with manslaughter. It is generally agreed that there is a difference between intentionally desiring to cause harm and kill a person, and simply being negligent and accidentally killing someone.

 

Also, I find that the weapon used to kill someone does matter .. a lot. If you rob a store, get nervous and kill a person with a handgun .. as hideous a crime as it is.. it is not as bad to me, as say.. raping someone to death with a stone pine cone sculpture.

 

I'd really like to be with you one the whole boil all social rules down to the barest simplicities thing.. maybe we could just go with the old Mad Max "Two Men Enter One Man Leaves" bit? .. but see, I can't agree with that because I don't have my tinfoil hat and 100,000 rounds stored up.

 

I'm getting there though.. I have 50,000 rounds and while my tinfoil fedora doesn't quite fit right yet; I'm getting much better. Tell me, what do you use to make a good strong brim? I've been trying cardboard.. is there something else I should use?

 

This saiga thing is a perfect example, I shoot you with a single shot 12 ga, and you die, you are dead, I shoot you with a forward facing flashlight, and 20 rounds in a drum saiga, you are still dead?

 

Sure, I could shoot 20 people at once, with a drum, but, the good murderers do it one at a time over many years, and don't get caught.

 

Man, this really does take a lot of work doesn't it?

 

Its like this .. for right or wrong, or better or worse.. the rest of your society thinks that going to the mall one Saturday afternoon and getting shot to shit with 50 other people by some nutcase with a scary looking Saiga is worse than some psycho who preys on hookers for 20 years. Most of those people who would be at that mall, just want a solution - many of them don't own guns, and have no attraction to guns. They don't think about guns, or talk about guns. They don't know which gun is which when they see it in a movie. All they know is they don't want to get killed at the mall. It doesn't occur to them that THEY could have a gun too... they never held one; they only see them on a cop's hip or in the movies. When they think about a "good" person with a gun, they don't think of yahoos like us shooting up pumpkins and goofing off for fun with a crazy shotgun.. they think about a hunter, maybe a target shooter.

 

They fall for the anti-gun BS because its easy to do.. like people fell for the Satanic panic crap in the late 80's and early '90s. It sounds good; its an easy scapegoat. They are ignorant of guns.

 

It's not much more complex than that.

 

The way you solve ignorance is not with a bunch of stupid slogans and quotes from crusty dead guys, bless their souls. You educate people.

 

You really want to help? Don't be a douche to anti-gun types. Be a friend. Respectfully disagree, and even if you find it boring say "Oh, well thats interesting." now and again. Be diplomatic, not fanatical. Offer to take them out shooting and show them what you find fun about, and how it can be done safely.

 

Thats part of being fair and moderate though.. so that makes me radical to you guys. Whatever.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Michael Graffam

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

If its ok to tax us, but not deny us our 2nd A rights, NFA tax stamps for example, why not tax bloggers who wish to distribute their opinions or news?

 

Indeed. Fortunately no one has every argued for that, yet.

 

The supreme court okayed the most vile, hurtful protests against soldiers the other day, but, you can limit what gun I can legally own?

 

 

 

This is why the country has allowed guns to become more regulated than speech: most folks don't use guns. They do argue about shit on the internet though, just like folks who DO use guns

 

Pretty simple, really.

 

How about penalties equal to the crime, and not the weapon used?

 

If you kill someone, you get death, whether its in a car, drunk, with a knife, or a machine gun?

 

Well, I believe there is this little hitch that folks call morality. Generally it seems to be agreed that it is not moral to put a drunk driver to death, or any negligent person to death. These folks are not charged with murder - they are charged with manslaughter. It is generally agreed that there is a difference between intentionally desiring to cause harm and kill a person, and simply being negligent and accidentally killing someone.

 

Also, I find that the weapon used to kill someone does matter .. a lot. If you rob a store, get nervous and kill a person with a handgun .. as hideous a crime as it is.. it is not as bad to me, as say.. raping someone to death with a stone pine cone sculpture.

 

I'd really like to be with you one the whole boil all social rules down to the barest simplicities thing.. maybe we could just go with the old Mad Max "Two Men Enter One Man Leaves" bit? .. but see, I can't agree with that because I don't have my tinfoil hat and 100,000 rounds stored up.

 

I'm getting there though.. I have 50,000 rounds and while my tinfoil fedora doesn't quite fit right yet; I'm getting much better. Tell me, what do you use to make a good strong brim? I've been trying cardboard.. is there something else I should use?

 

This saiga thing is a perfect example, I shoot you with a single shot 12 ga, and you die, you are dead, I shoot you with a forward facing flashlight, and 20 rounds in a drum saiga, you are still dead?

 

Sure, I could shoot 20 people at once, with a drum, but, the good murderers do it one at a time over many years, and don't get caught.

 

Man, this really does take a lot of work doesn't it?

 

Its like this .. for right or wrong, or better or worse.. the rest of your society thinks that going to the mall one Saturday afternoon and getting shot to shit with 50 other people by some nutcase with a scary looking Saiga is worse than some psycho who preys on hookers for 20 years. Most of those people who would be at that mall, just want a solution - many of them don't own guns, and have no attraction to guns. They don't think about guns, or talk about guns. They don't know which gun is which when they see it in a movie. All they know is they don't want to get killed at the mall. It doesn't occur to them that THEY could have a gun too... they never held one; they only see them on a cop's hip or in the movies. When they think about a "good" person with a gun, they don't think of yahoos like us shooting up pumpkins and goofing off for fun with a crazy shotgun.. they think about a hunter, maybe a target shooter.

 

They fall for the anti-gun BS because its easy to do.. like people fell for the Satanic panic crap in the late 80's and early '90s. It sounds good; its an easy scapegoat. They are ignorant of guns.

 

It's not much more complex than that.

 

The way you solve ignorance is not with a bunch of stupid slogans and quotes from crusty dead guys, bless their souls. You educate people.

 

You really want to help? Don't be a douche to anti-gun types. Be a friend. Respectfully disagree, and even if you find it boring say "Oh, well thats interesting." now and again. Be diplomatic, not fanatical. Offer to take them out shooting and show them what you find fun about, and how it can be done safely.

 

Thats part of being fair and moderate though.. so that makes me radical to you guys. Whatever.

 

NVM

Edited March 6, 2011 by PostsOnPercocet

[mikegraffam 11]

NVM

 

Guess I'm not a cool internet nutcase guy. What the hell does this mean?

 

Edit: oh and what's 'SOS' ?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Michael Graffam

[Bridis 319]

SOS. "Save Our Souls"

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

NVM

 

Guess I'm not a cool internet nutcase guy. What the hell does this mean?

 

Edit: oh and what's 'SOS' ?

 

It just means never mind. I incorrectly interpreted something you said so I got rid of it. I'm guessing SOS means "stuck on stupid". Or, perhaps, "stuck on stupidity".

[Ned Beatty 39]

If you were in the army way back. SOS = Shit on the shingle or creamed chipped beef. Morse code ... --- ... Save our ship, IE, Help.

 

Edit to add, it could also refer to Save Our Saigas.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Ned Beatty

[mikegraffam 11]

It just means never mind. I incorrectly interpreted something you said so I got rid of it. I'm guessing SOS means "stuck on stupid". Or, perhaps, "stuck on stupidity".

 

Fair enough. You know, I'm not trying to be a hard ass about any of this. I just don't think that extremism on either side helps their respective causes. We know how stupid a lot of these anti-gun types sound to us. All I'm trying to convey is that going totally the other way sounds stupid to them. And both sides sound stupid to people in the middle.. and its those people in the middle that we need to be sceptical of gun bans. We're not going to make them sceptical by saying we all need to be free to keep RPG's in our car because of the 2A, despite the fact that its actually true.

 

I'm not particularly Christian, but I do find nearly everything Jesus said to be worth listening too.. and there is a thing about not casting your pearls before swine. Speaking some truths, has the same effect as lying if the person isn't ready to hear it.

[mikegraffam 11]

 

That is because there is always people like you around who just don't get it. People get sick of trying to argue with a brick wall.

 

"Brick wall" .. the euphemism being, unmoving and inflexible. Yet I am the one encouraging a moderate viewpoint, compromise and flexibility on difficult issues.

 

That is quite good. You are truly a master of your art. Do you do this professionally?

[jbw00d28 4]

Wow...Just wow.

 

I think we can all agree....

 

1: The ATF is looking at changing shotgun laws.

2: The ATF is pushing laws that are being sponsored by various shotgun manufactures or they are just trying to strip us of weapons they deem too powerful.

3: The ATF is part of the Government therefor the Government is behind it.

4: This is a waste of tax dollars that could be better spent on ridding the streets of criminals and crime, not citizens rights.

5: Some of you look crazy in this thread. Some of you, down right scary.

6: More constructive posts are needed: Where to send letters. What your letter said. Here is a template for the letter to send so some of you don't look like blathering nut jobs.

7: Or just lock this thread?

[bigmegina 3]

number 7

 

LOCK THIS THREAD!

[saltydecimator 482]

Yeah this thread is truly pointless with those who denigrate others and accuse them of not thinking or being stupid.

 

I had a well thought out response to this thread like 7 pages ago but mostly it has been arguing and arguing over the internet, while I have been guilty in the past, is pretty stupid as it degrades into insults and accusations of stupidity. With that, here is my exit from this thread picture, which is surprisingly appropriate for this thread:

 

 

now thats just f@ckin BA!!!!!

 

so on to the subject at hand.

 

this study said nothing about what they are doing, only what they wanted to do. like, the saiga is BA, we just cant figure out how to ban it yet.

 

that being said, when are the s12s gonna be back!!!!

Edited March 6, 2011 by saltydecimator

[mikegraffam 11]

that being said, when are the s12s gonna be back!!!!

 

No kidding!

 

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think they will be banned. I think they'll go with a constructive possession DD thing, and I'd bet that the $200 tax gets waived for those with pre-existing guns. Speculation, but consistent with ATF's way of doing things in other cases (not that ATF itself seems particularly consistent).

 

If that turns out to be correct, I'll have to fire off a letter to ATF and get clarification on their constructive possession and registration stuff. I'd like to have two S12s: one with DD and SBS stamps, and the second just a Title 1 12ga. I'm not sure if ATF would let me do that though. I think having a drum would make both of them DD's.. unless I found a way to modify the drum so that it only worked in the DD S12.

 

But I'm not going to pay inflated prices for that second S12. We'll see. Actually, what I really want is a 5.54 SBR. Gotta make that happen.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Michael Graffam

[Bridis 319]

This thread is destined for 16 pages...

 

BTW, I never got the term pre-existing. I know people use the term all the time, but it seems incorrect and a bit redundant. The prefix "pre" means before now, and the term existing references something that is here and now or possibly before now. How can anything pre exist or exist before it's existance. Wouldn't a more correct description be a "previous condition" or simply an "existing condition"?

 

Just a thought...

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

[Mike1234567 26]

Actually, POP, he's right on that one. If something exists it simply is and was. What is the definition of "pre-existence"? God?

[Mullet Man 2,114]

This thread is destined for 16 pages...

 

BTW, I never got the term pre-existing. I know people use the term all the time, but it seems incorrect and a bit redundant. The prefix "pre" means before now, and the term existing references something that is here and now or possibly before now. How can anything pre exist or exist before it's existance. Wouldn't a more correct description be a "previous condition" or simply an "existing condition"?

 

Just a thought...

 

 

Havent you ever seen Spaceballs?

 

[mikegraffam 11]

This thread is destined for 16 pages...

 

BTW, I never got the term pre-existing. I know people use the term all the time, but it seems incorrect and a bit redundant. The prefix "pre" means before now, and the term existing references something that is here and now or possibly before now. How can anything pre exist or exist before it's existance. Wouldn't a more correct description be a "previous condition" or simply an "existing condition"?

 

Just a thought...

 

I get what you're saying. I think it all hinges on a given moment in time.

 

For example, ATF might say all shotguns existing before Apr. 1 2012 are entitled to having the DD tax waived for purposes of NFA registration. They are pre-existing to that date. Similarly, if you get medical insurance on that date, they may not cover conditions existing before it.

 

I'll grant that the word does seem a bit strange when you look at it though..

 

"Irregardless" always bugged me. It is a defined to mean regardless.. actually looked it up in a dictionary a long time ago and was surprised to see it there. A quick google just informed me it is actually a portmanteau, which I never realized. Weird, but I guess it makes more sense.

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

Actually, POP, he's right on that one. If something exists it simply is and was. What is the definition of "pre-existence"? God?

 

No, he is not.

 

It's simple. If it exists, it is here now or at one point or another came into existence. Anything that came before that existance is "pre". I came into this world in 1979. I didn't exist before then. Anything before that was/is pre-Jason.

 

very simple concept and that is why "pre" (existing medical condition, ban, et cetera) are all terms used constantly.

 

He is not even close to correct.

Edited March 6, 2011 by PostsOnPercocet

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

This thread is destined for 16 pages...

 

BTW, I never got the term pre-existing. I know people use the term all the time, but it seems incorrect and a bit redundant. The prefix "pre" means before now, and the term existing references something that is here and now or possibly before now. How can anything pre exist or exist before it's existance. Wouldn't a more correct description be a "previous condition" or simply an "existing condition"?

 

Just a thought...

 

I get what you're saying. I think it all hinges on a given moment in time.

 

For example, ATF might say all shotguns existing before Apr. 1 2012 are entitled to having the DD tax waived for purposes of NFA registration. They are pre-existing to that date. Similarly, if you get medical insurance on that date, they may not cover conditions existing before it.

 

I'll grant that the word does seem a bit strange when you look at it though..

 

"Irregardless" always bugged me. It is a defined to mean regardless.. actually looked it up in a dictionary a long time ago and was surprised to see it there. A quick google just informed me it is actually a portmanteau, which I never realized. Weird, but I guess it makes more sense.

 

Not a word

[lbsrdi 1,078]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I wish this thread "nonexisted"

[kevin.rose0@gmail.com 62]

I just dont want to be the test case for it...I'll pay the $200 for the stamp if I have to.

Assuming it all goes pear shaped....

 

Based on what they did before, it's a free stamp if you own it and register it by date x. After date x it might get very difficult/impossible to get it into the NFA database, or it might just be a form 1. It depends on exactly what makes it a DD.

 

With the last shotguns they changed into DDs they had demand letters sent out to the buyer by the manufacture/ffl chain, you'd likely get an formal invitation from the ATF to turn your gun into a DD or dispose of it by a given date.

 

Since every pump and shotgun in the US can be made to hold more than 5 rounds I have no idea if they have the balls to do this, as turning every pump and semi shotgun in the US into a DD strongly suggests means the Republican nominee for president in 2012 gets a veto-proof majority in congress. Plus I'd like to see the ATF handle the more than 25 million NFA weapon forms with the (I'm told) six NFA inspectors. But you never know. Remember the ATF is the organization that promoted Waco Jim after his shootout and barbecue, so they are a deeply defective organization.

[Xitesmai 1]

I just re-read the study and had a few comments I would like to share...

 

1. The list of features described as non-sporting do not currently come on imported Saiga-12s...

 

2. Senator Dodd's comment as "...no firearms will be admitted into this country unless they are genuine sporting weapons"...whose ever heard of a "sporting weapon"...if its sporting, its a tool...a weapon is used for attack or defense..."sporting weapon" seems like a gladiatorial term...

 

3. The term study here is a misnomer...A study indicates that some level of non-biased research went into this...It seems as though their thoughts on what is / is not sporting is the opinion of the author of the paper...

 

4. Ignoring the current meaning of "sporting purposes" means that the study is already skewed towards bias...granted they did mention this by saying that re-evaluation of "sporting-purpose" would have effects on the rifle and handgun world as well...

 

5. Under 18 U.S.C. 925(d), it only mentions that non-sporting cannot be imported...Seems like a stock Saiga falls into the "sporting" category pretty well....

 

6. This study doesnt mention converting at all...And anyone who does could not all it "readily or easily" convertible.

 

I think the Saiga is going to be just fine...but it will be imported just as it is today, without any frills, and we still have to convert ourselves....

Edited March 7, 2011 by Xitesmai