I KNOW short barreled shotguns were used by the military. There is no need to convince me. I concede the fact that short barreled shotguns have been, and are still being used, by the military.
Now, are we both in agreement? Have I been clear enough, or do I need to say more?
The argument concerns shotguns WITH BARRELS LESS THAN 18". Got that? Please restrict your arguments to that category of weapons.
The Model 97? 18". Doesn't count. Forget about it. The Model 1897 (which was the one used by the military in WWI)? 20". Doesn't count. Forget about it.
If, in the Civil war or the Indian wars some guy went into the barn, dusted off an old shotgun with a short barrel and used it, that doesn't mean the weapon bears a reasonable relationship to a militia. Give that argument a rest already.
So you get to decide which weapons used by either the US military or Organized state militias and National Guard units counts as being able to "contribute.." and/or is part of the ordinary military equipment.
The Model 97? 18". Doesn't count. Forget about it. The Model 1897 (which was the one used by the military in WWI)? 20". Doesn't count
Fine, but you are wrong and I posted evidence from multiple sources, that you are wrong about the length of the barrel of the M97, the one used in WW-I, (which was the Military designation), although it was still not "under 18 inches". Winchester Model 1897s came in various barrel lenghts, just as most shotguns do today.
And what is so magic about 18 inches, except that it's the magic value the authors of the National Firearms Act chose, just like the "magic" or "evil" features that were chosen by the authoress of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban. Didn't mean squat, it was arbitrary and capricious, as well as being a violation of the second amendment, even if as you assert, that the amendment only applies to the Federal government.