Biden: shotgun is more dangerous, easier to use than a.weapn

[Thunder71]

Sets the stage for the next ban attempt if the 'assault' rifle one makes it somehow, shotguns.

I can see it now... "We need to ban these, they are more dangerous than the already banned 'assault' rifles."

[GunClasses.Net]

Thanks for the youtube link Grant,
I just passed it on to a couple of hunting buddies who have just been sitting on the sidelines with all this gun control stuff because all they both seem to hear is how all this will not affect their hunting guns

LT

You're welcome. I often hear it from gun owners: Why do you need an assault weapon? My answer: If you give the government the right to ask that question of the assault weapon owner today, can they ask you tomorrow why you need to have more than 1,000 rounds of shotgun shells in your basement? If you do not protect his rights today, he may not be able to defend yours tomorrow. When the next mass shooter can't get an AR, but takes a shotgun like yours to do the deed, we'll be asking this question all over again won't we? Only it will be about your gun, not his.

Remember, gun control isn't about gun control; it's about making the individual dependent, as are many initiatives pushed, today.

[Heffay]

You're welcome. I often hear it from gun owners: Why do you need an assault weapon? My answer: If you give the government the right to ask that question of the assault weapon owner today, can they ask you tomorrow why you need to have more than 1,000 rounds of shotgun shells in your basement? If you do not protect his rights today, he may not be able to defend yours tomorrow. When the next mass shooter can't get an AR, but takes a shotgun like yours to do the deed, we'll be asking this question all over again won't we? Only it will be about your gun, not his.

Remember, gun control isn't about gun control; it's about making the individual dependent, as are many initiatives pushed, today.

I disagree with your answer to why you need an assault weapon. Need isn't really a factor. Nobody *needs* a gun (well, until they do). But the question should be turned back to them to say "why should I not be allowed to have an assault weapon".

Then they have to rely on all the lame excuses they have, which are easily refutable. And it shifts the debate from you defending your need for one (which, let's face it, all sound kind of lame. As if we're going to have to fight off the government...), to them doing the explaining.

[igofast]

Thanks for the youtube link Grant,
I just passed it on to a couple of hunting buddies who have just been sitting on the sidelines with all this gun control stuff because all they both seem to hear is how all this will not affect their hunting guns

LT

Agreed, this is the absolute best thing that could happen to get FUDD's aligned with what's going on. As several have noted, we were divided, but hopefully as this gets out and they understand that their 'sniper rifles' and 'multi projectile dispersal units' are next.

Keep talkin' Joe! Don't stop now.

[elroy]

I disagree with your answer to why you need an assault weapon. Need isn't really a factor. Nobody *needs* a gun (well, until they do). But the question should be turned back to them to say "why should I not be allowed to have an assault weapon".

Then they have to rely on all the lame excuses they have, which are easily refutable. And it shifts the debate from you defending your need for one (which, let's face it, all sound kind of lame. As if we're going to have to fight off the government...), to them doing the explaining.

I agree with Heffay on this. Turn the discussion 180 degrees around and make them justify their radical ideas instead of making us justify the constitution.

[jdege]

Sorry if this is a dup post; I didn't see it anywhere else. Joe Biden in this video explicitly says a shotgun is easier to hit a person with, and more dangerous than, an ‘assault weapon’.
http://youtu.be/wcxVovpJdi8

My great-grandfather had an old punt gun -- double-barreled four-gauge.

Theoretically, a 4ga barrel throws three times as much lead as a 12ga. Figure twenty-seven 00-buck pellets per shot.

[jdege]

I agree with Heffay on this. Turn the discussion 180 degrees around and make them justify their radical ideas instead of making us justify the constitution.

The core question is under what circumstances is it justified to punish one person not because of what he has done, or what he might reasonably be expected to do, but because of vague fears about what someone else might do.

In a free society, the answer is "never".

[GunClasses.Net]

You're welcome. I often hear it from gun owners: Why do you need an assault weapon? My answer: If you give the government the right to ask that question of the assault weapon owner today, can they ask you tomorrow why you need to have more than 1,000 rounds of shotgun shells in your basement? If you do not protect his rights today, he may not be able to defend yours tomorrow. When the next mass shooter can't get an AR, but takes a shotgun like yours to do the deed, we'll be asking this question all over again won't we? Only it will be about your gun, not his.

Remember, gun control isn't about gun control; it's about making the individual dependent, as are many initiatives pushed, today.

I disagree with your answer to why you need an assault weapon. Need isn't really a factor. Nobody *needs* a gun (well, until they do). But the question should be turned back to them to say "why should I not be allowed to have an assault weapon".

Then they have to rely on all the lame excuses they have, which are easily refutable. And it shifts the debate from you defending your need for one (which, let's face it, all sound kind of lame. As if we're going to have to fight off the government...), to them doing the explaining.

Heffay, what can I say? I'm STILL pretty certain that we never should have to justify why we 'need' an assault weapon. The question is irrelevant. Need has NOTHING to do with it at all. The problem with anyone being questioned and justifying why they need anything is that EVERYthing will be questioned; today an assault weapon is questioned, tomorrow a shotgun will be questioned.

Heffay, there's no reason to justify having a 'need' for an assault weapon. We should never try to do that. Once we give government the power to question us on that, they can do it on ANYthing! Shotguns, incandescent light bulbs, energy drinks, large sodas... you name it. They'll come for your assault weapon today, the shotgun the next, and then, well... just watch it all go, because it will, and nothing you 'don't need' will be allowed to you. Karl Marx was the one who said "To each according to his needs". Communism is what makes people subsist on needs instead of live - in freedom.

Nobody has the right to make us justify our rights. The Constitution is not to be put on trial to defend itself.

[Heffay]

Heffay, there's no reason to justify having a 'need' for an assault weapon. Once we give government the power to question us on that, they can do it on ANYthing!

They are already questioning us on it. That's why you turn it around on them, and make *them* try to explain why they need to take it away. Then they have to spend time justifying their answers, which are incredibly easy to refute. And you don't have to sound like an operator talking about fighting off the Army.

[GunClasses.Net]

Heffay, there's no reason to justify having a 'need' for an assault weapon. Once we give government the power to question us on that, they can do it on ANYthing!

They are already questioning us on it. That's why you turn it around on them, and make *them* try to explain why they need to take it away. Then they have to spend time justifying their answers, which are incredibly easy to refute. And you don't have to sound like an operator talking about fighting off the Army.

So, we should just keep asking them to explain why they want to ban guns... First, that makes us look like we're avoiding their question or afraid/unwilling to answer it. But that aside... Each time they do, don't they (manipulatively) explain it, quite graphically, with the smiling faces of 20 now-dead kindergarten children? The media is well aware that the public can sympathize with seeing those grieving families at funerals and hearing a mother cry, in ways and at a depth for which they will never sympathize with seeing you smile and hold your gun. For them, that's frankly all the explanation they need to take your gun and turn public opinion in their direction. I of course disagree with them, but inviting them to give this explanation over and over is like asking them to sucker punch us, yet once more.

We simply have to be firm that rights are not to be put on trial, questioned, regulated, and controlled. The question "do you need an assault rifle" is irrelevant. Does grandma need a Cadillac to go to the grocery store?

[Heffay]

We simply have to be firm that rights are not to be put on trial, questioned, regulated, and controlled. The question "do you need an assault rifle" is irrelevant. Does grandma need a Cadillac to go to the grocery store?

Then why do you even bother answering it?

[jdege]

So, we should just keep asking them to explain why they want to ban guns...

No. We should keep asking them to explain why they insist on imposing restrictions that we all know will accomplish nothing on people who have done absolutely nothing to contribute to the problem, rather than taking measures that will actually work to make our kids safer. Like allowing teachers to carry in schools.

[GunClasses.Net]

We simply have to be firm that rights are not to be put on trial, questioned, regulated, and controlled. The question "do you need an assault rifle" is irrelevant. Does grandma need a Cadillac to go to the grocery store?

Then why do you even bother answering it?

Exactly. I don't answer it. I shake my head and tell them they're barking up the wrong tree by asking that question and by so-framing the debate. I simply won't try to justify why I have a right and will neither give my time nor my attention to listen to why I 'shouldn't have a right'. I have rights, as do you. Our rights and our Constitution are not to be put on trial. A law can deny us our exercise of that right, but it still doesn't take the right away from us. That's why in the Declaration of Independence, it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights". I take issue when people say people in "X" country do not have the rights people in "Y" country have. Or that this or that group wants rights or is denied rights. What such people are in fact asking for is either A: to exercise a right that is discouraged by an illegal law, or B: to gain a privilege that is perhaps mis-named a "right". Our rights are ALL spelled out in the Bill of Rights. You can't add 'new rights' to it. You likewise can't subtract from it. You can't argue against an inalienable right given us by our Creator, and it is likewise foolish to put our rights on the table for public debate and referendum, particularly under hype and emotion. So, no, I do not bother answering it; the debate of any right any human being has is illegitimate or best left to academics in Philosophy classes.

Then, I suggest we start talking about real solutions to the problem, like ENABLING SCHOOL STAFF TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, or like or getting rid of glass doors like were shot through at Sandy Hook, and glass 'fishbowls' like were at Columbine in the library... like looking closer at the mental health system and how it is fighting a losing war and whether its methodology is effective... like encouraging families and communities to come together and enable someone struggling with mental illness to feel safe in seeking help and support.... etc.

[jshuberg]

We need to be able to own an assault weapon for the same reason that we need to be able to own any weapon - it's necessary for the security of a free state.

[GunClasses.Net]

We need to be able to own an assault weapon for the same reason that we need to be able to own any weapon - it's necessary for the security of a free state.

Wise answer. If there's to be an answer, that has to be it.

Now, the question is whether society will choose freedom or security...