This has been going on for over a year. Obviously targeted toward Saigas, since it's focused on imports. No law required, just an administrative action or executive order.
<sigh> Guess I've gotta get more Saiga drums...
This is aimed at my beloved Saiga 12 a 12ga shotgun based on the ak47 . The problem is it only comes with a factory 5 rd mag and the company that makes it doesn't offer a larger mag to the U.S so they would be exempt to the import ban . The high cap mags for the Saiga 12 are made in the USA so haha dumbass ATF douchebags .
If they try to ban a gun on it's potential to accept aftermarket parts then all semi autos and pumps will be banned as sidewinder kits will fit most any Remington or mossberg turning either into a 12rd drum fed badass .
I do if some federalies try stamping in here like Nazi's telling me what to eat, how much, what religion to practice, what firearms to have oh f*** I can go on all day, I want to keep people away from me not go to a mall to shoot a bunch of people ok ANTI-GUN pokey.
Who are you to decide what I can Own based on what you think I need ? That is the most communistic statement I have ever heard a gun owner say on here . Do you need a pickup truck or three bedroom house .? Under the former soviet union they decided what you needed and if you bought a new pair of blue jeans you went your ass to jail .
I do not NEED a MONSTER TRUCK or a ,Harley. I certainly don't need a High maintenance wife and three children. I don't NEED Soda or beer or cheese burgers But this is America and until you commies kill all the folks like me off I will have all those things and if they make a shotgun that takes a beta type 90rd drum I will be first in line so I can mount it on my suv drive nude covered in green jello eating a cheeseburger because as an American have that right SO F .U .
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.~Marko Kloos
the wisdom of those words aside , i do need more than five -
when you shoot tactical shotgun/three gun there are stages that require it to be more competitive , and yes of coarse someone could say the sport is not neccessary , but as said above , who has the right to determine that for the rest of us ?
it can be argued that my semi-auto with ten round tube is capable of criminal acts - but only in the hands of a criminal or a tyrant , not in the hands of a law abiding american citizen ,