Media matters doesn’t matter
And apparently thinks that cosmetic and ergonomic changes to a 12GA make the gun “more lethal”.
2 Responses to “Media matters doesn’t matter”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 28th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Feinstein is a political reptile. In the novel I have yet to get around to writing, I fly out west to see her get tossed off a fire training tower into a large bonfire. Phoenix, I think it was. I forget if she’s tossed before or after Schwarzputzeneger and Schumer.
Anyway,the editor of Gun Digest once said something to the effect that whatever makes a shotgun less like a shotgun makes it less effective. He was talking about the “assault shotguns” of the ’80’s.
If it has a straight stock, so that it goes to your shoulder instantly, it’s about as deadly as a shotgun, or CQB gets.
There was an article once in SOF where an experienced Brazilian NCO chose an over and under shotgun for his jungle patrol weapon. Bang, bang, real fast, and with lots of projectiles against an indistinct, nearby target. I would not have wanted to be the target.
From the article:
“A pistol grip does not make a shotgun ‘more lethal’.”
That is true, because it makes the shotgun ridiculously slower to get to the shoulder. A straight grip, like on a Winchester 94, is the fastest.
“Cosmetic features do not make a firearm ‘more lethal’.”
That’s true, but Diane Feinstein, being a weak-minded woman, in the sense that she is only capable of considering her own pathetically limited experience, is only capable of thinking in terms of aesthetics. “Cosmetic” is everything – to her and her gay constituents; she deals in cosmetics; she’s a cosmetics merchant.
It’s entirely possible that the trigger itself is actually the “deadliest” part of a shotgun, since that’s the most direct interface with the shooter, but there has never been any proposed legislation to ban triggers. I guess that would make their prohibitionist intentions too obvious, so they work to skirt the issue.
BTW, if you think you’re a bitter clinger now, wait until Obama carpet bombs your town. You don’t know what bitter is. Yet. Bitter is when the US federal government has burned down your town and your house, and killed your wife, kids, pets and half the people you know. That’s bitter.
They’ve done it before; they’ll do it again; it’s what they do. Ask an Afghan.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/2457?size=_original#caption
November 29th, 2012 at 10:22 am
An adjustable shoulder stock is, in my opinion, a safety feature. It seems to me that a better fit to the shooter, would mean a more controllable firearm. More control, less problems. Barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, forward grips, etc. all make a weapon easier to handle, ergo, safety features.
Removable magazines, as they allow for rapidly and easily loading/unloading a firearm, are also a safety feature.
The anti-gun groups want gun manufacturers to make their products more dangerous!