My dad thinks rifles with barrels less than 20" should be restricted


May 10, 2004, 10:35 PM
He doesn't really see the reason to have barrels less than 20" for rifles or less than 18" for shotguns.

Thinks guns like that are fairly worthless.

What do you say?

He's not anti gun , just that doesn't see a need for repealing the NFA or making a big deal over SBRs or SBS's.

If you enjoyed reading about "My dad thinks rifles with barrels less than 20" should be restricted" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Phantom Warrior
May 10, 2004, 10:43 PM
A rifle is only an SBR if the barrel is under 16"...

May 10, 2004, 10:46 PM
20" eh? I guess we'd better get rid of all those Ruger 10/22s. Never know what nefarious things people could do with a 18" .22 ... after all. :scrutiny:

Standing Wolf
May 10, 2004, 10:56 PM
Some people like long barrels. Some people like short barrels. Some people like brown shoes. Some people like black shoes. Some people like purple shoes.

What's any of that got to do with law?

May 10, 2004, 11:07 PM
Even for little kids' .22 rifles?!

May 10, 2004, 11:07 PM
While I agree that barrels less than 18" are not very pratical in most situations I think it's wrong to make me register a 14.5" AR-15 carbine.

He just doesn't see why anyone would want an 14.5" barrel in the 1st place.

May 10, 2004, 11:09 PM
Even for little kids' .22 rifles?!

I don't know.

Do they make really short barreled 22s for kids nowadays?

May 10, 2004, 11:23 PM
I don't know.
Do they make really short barreled 22s for kids nowadays?

Well, not really short, but less than the 20 inch mark for sure. 10/22s, chipmunks, etc., all the stuff you'd probably teach a kid with.

May 10, 2004, 11:29 PM
Ask him to clear a house with a 20 inch bull barrel and a fixed stock :what:

May 10, 2004, 11:30 PM
I just wonder what his rationale is??

I mean ... if it comes down to ''portability'' then handguns have it .. and what about '94 type carbines then? Does he have a prob with those too?

I think the barrel length is academic ... it only affects weight, portability and in the end, some finer points of accuracy and velocity. But ''worthless''?? ..... no, I think he is evaluating for all the wrong reasons.

Love to hear his side of this ................

May 10, 2004, 11:32 PM
Under 20" huh... That would mean I shouldn't own my Rem. 600's? They came from the factory with less then 20" barrels.

Lets see...three have scopes on them, that must make them dreaded "assualt-sniper carbines" The "extra" one has an old Aim-point on it (.308), that must be SOME kind of "evil" thing as its less then 20", and has a "uber crimminal/gang-banger terrorist electronic sight" that makes it WAY easy to hurt other people.

Guess I had better sell it. :D

May 10, 2004, 11:40 PM
assualt-sniper carbines

Just imagine my 94 traper, it has a sniper Williams peepsight on it.


May 10, 2004, 11:52 PM
HEH... That reminds me.. I have a Marlin in .44 Mag that I think is a "trapper" model.. or at least has a less then 20" barrel. Oops, now you have me thinking....I guess I have a few more then I thought. :rolleyes:

May 10, 2004, 11:57 PM
Length ain't a crime, it is the intent of user.

Just like anything else, it ain't what one possess, it's what they do with it.

May 11, 2004, 12:08 AM
"My dad thinks rifles with barrels less than 20' should be restricted."

I'm sure your dad is a fine man. Perhaps even a great guy. But, respectfully, so what? Who is HE to decide such things?

OK. Here's one. My dad thinks it's a mistake for a white girl to date a black man. Again. So what? Who is HE to decide such things? etc.

Don't mean to be rude. But since when does someone like your dad, or my dad, or Sarah Brady, or anyone but me get to decide the length of the barrels on the guns I can own? Where does it end? No black guns? No night sights? No guns...

The government, of course, gets to tell me what I can or can't own because it has the force of numbers and posseses larger guns than I. (Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, after all.) Other than that, it wouldn't command the "right" to make such decisions for me either.

And, sorry, but it sure doesn't sound like he supports gun owners' rights, to me anyway.

Jim March
May 11, 2004, 12:30 AM
What's really going on is that he likes guns, hates self defense.

He thinks that "legitimate sporting uses" are threatened by talk of "killing people".

He's an idiot.

See, guns DO kill people, or at least get used that way. Sometimes by very bad people. But they're also used in defense - a lot. The debate in the US centers on this "counterbalance" - guns are acceptable because it can be argued they save more lives than they take.

England, Australia and others banned all armed self defense under all circumstances, limiting guns to "sporting purposes" for decades. Well guess what? Bad guys still got ahold of 'em. One in particular killed a bunch of kids. Well if a "hobby" is seen as "kills people", then that hobby is doomed in any Western society.

In the US, guns are more than a "hobby". They're lifesavers. So banning them has proven to be a whole lot harder.

Before guns in the US get banned, self defense will have to be outlawed. Part of that is making guns less capable of defensive functions...such as limiting rifles to long barrels clumsy indoors.

LAR-15, sorry to have to say this, but your pop is a politically incompetent moron eager to throw away your freedoms based on his own ignorance.

May 11, 2004, 12:49 AM

I don't think so.

He's not the type to say "Yeah let's ban them."

He's the type that says "Why bother to take SBR's off the NFA?"

I don't agree with him.

Let that be clear.

But he thinks what is "generally useless" isn't worth getting all worked up over, like repealing the 1986 machine gun ban.

Baba Louie
May 11, 2004, 12:52 AM
Hey, he may have a point... for himself. Just remind him that Audie Murphy's lucky M1 Carbine only had an 18" barrel... same as mine :D

Poodle shooters. I know, a real man's rifle has a 22"+ barrel, maybe a 20", but danged if my Ruger M77RSI MkII don't have but 18" hanging out front and it's a real honest to goodness .30-06 from Bill Ruger's factory, like their 16.5" compact models. A man might lose a little velocity from one of them shorter barrels... might be a tad louder too but they are good for totin' around in the field or woods a lot if ya like that sorta thing. And think about it for a minute.

As fer shotguns... well heck. My Pa's Winchester 97 must have a 30" barrel on that sucker... kinda makes the ducks and geese fly around it when it's stickin' way up in the air... and that ain't fair to them birds, they shouldn't hafta dodge barrels too, now should they? They get tired enough successfully dodging my shot string. But if I feel like ridin' shotgun on the Overland Stage, well geewhiz, tell yer Pa a feller don't feel right sittin way up there unless he's got a little shorter double barrel, ya know? What with hiwaymen and such a man gets to thinkin he can swing a shorter barrel a mite faster and that could save his life... maybe... if he thoght about it for a minute.

I was just joshin' yer Pa and that isn't a good thing to do since I've never met the man. He's certainly entitled to his opinion. What does he think about sports cars relative to wheel base size and engine displacement? How about tee-ball bats vs 34" Louisville Sluggers?

And I won't get too personal but over the years I've pretty well convinced myself that sometimes, with somethings, shorter is... good enough... to keep me happy. :p

May 11, 2004, 01:03 AM
No offense taken.

He just doesn't see a need for barrels under 18-20".

I think that is the shortest he has- 18" on an ultralight.

I guess the main point is he doesn't see the need to lift the NFA restrictions on SB guns so he passively supports the restrictions.

But he wouldn't get up and join the VPC to oppose it.

May 11, 2004, 01:15 AM
Tell you what, LAR-15. Father's day is coming up. If you have the means, get pop a M4-style carbine. Maybe after shooting it, he'll come to realize, "Hmm, this could be a handy HD rifle". Worst case, he'll throw a fit about the complete unsportmenslike uselessness of the 14.5" barrel and shove it right back into your face. New gun for you! :D

May 11, 2004, 01:22 AM
Don't have the money. Saving it up to upgrade a 20".

One of these days I'll get a short upper. :)

May 11, 2004, 01:50 AM
He doesn't see the need to do away with the NFA restrictions on barrel length, but can he point to a need to have them in the first place? Does the NFA prevent any criminal that wants a sawed-off shotgun from buying a hacksaw and making one? Or does it merely deter or prevent a law abiding citizen that does think there is a reason to have a short barrel from obtaining one?

There obviously is a reason to have short barrels as can be seen by the many submachineguns produced. Excluding the machinegun issue, if the police and military think the short barreled, shoulder fired subgun is an effective weapon, why prevent the civilian from having the same effective weapon?

May 11, 2004, 01:54 AM
As long he doesn't try to force his opinion on me through legislation he will not get an argument from me.

May 11, 2004, 02:55 AM
Well, maybe I don't see the need for long-barreled rifles that can't be easily manuvered in cars or buildings.

So what?

Dosen't mean I support (actively or passivly) BANNING them! They're *A GUN*. Banning *A GUN* is bad, because it establishes prescident to ban ALL GUNS.

May 11, 2004, 03:03 AM
Cooper recommends 19" barrels on the scout rifles. I suggest you purchase To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth (
He has an excellent chapter titled "This Matter of Image"

Excerpts from Cooper:
...I have little interest in hand-held automatic weapons...
We must not fall into the error of saying "But only my type of shooting, not his." We dare not throw even one passenger out of the sleigh for the wolves. The wolves have never been satisfied with one passenger, nor will they be now. If we are to say that automatic weapons are unnecessary and throw them to the wolves, it will be only a short time before we find that semi-automatic weapons are going to be banned, and then repeating weapons, and then all weapons. The people who are against us do not want us to own weapons of any kind.
We do not have the luxury of saying "My type of shooting is more respectable than his." If we take that view, our adversaries will pick us off one discipline at a time.

Seems you need to restate the title:
"My dad doesn't see a reason to fight to change the SBR requirement in the NFA."

With that in mind, I would agree, conditionally. I do not make repeal of the SBR requirement a *top priority* but it is still on my list of things to do. The uses for a SBR are fewer, perhaps, than other restrictions, but their uses are still valid, and otherwise good men should not be locked in jail just cause they cut a steel pipe.


May 11, 2004, 06:26 AM
Well, everyone knows that short barrels are used only by Chicago gangsters running hooch down from Canada.Well, maybe I don't see the need for long-barreled rifles that can't be easily manuvered in cars or buildings. Or thick cover when hunting -- that can be an issue here in the East where a lot of our dwindling hunting options are new growth.

May 11, 2004, 07:14 AM
He doesn't really see the reason to have barrels less than 20" for rifles or less than 18" for shotguns. Thinks guns like that are fairly worthless.

Ain't the size of the tackle, it's how you use it....

Zach S
May 11, 2004, 07:27 AM
My thompson looks weird enough with the 16" barrel, I couldnt imagine how weird it would be with a 20." Well, I could, but I'd rather not.

Personally, I dont see a need for mufflers with a 2" inlet and a 4" outlet, lighted winsheild washer nozzles, lighted gear shift knobs, underbody neon lights that flash with the bassline, cigarette lighters that look like a switch, fake BOVs, type R stickers, rear spoilers that came of a 747, or those exhaust tips the that have the lights in them. Lets restrict those too. Patton Avenue would look a lot better on the weekends.

May 11, 2004, 08:22 AM
He doesn't really see the reason to have barrels less than 20" for rifles or less than 18" for shotguns.

I don't personally have a use for them either. However, you shouldn't have to justify removing a law. You should have to justify keeping it.

Laws restrict our freedom, and our freedoms should not be restricted without good reason. I don't see a good reason for requiring a specific length of barrel on shotguns and rifles, therefore I believe the law should never have been passed, and should be repealed.

Our legislature has gotten in the habbit of making new laws all the time to make people think they are doing something. However, the laws seldom have any effect on what the say the law is for. They pass laws to make things illegal that were already illegal, but manage to chip away at our freedoms a little at a time. They also continue to make the law more complicated so that it's no longer possible for the average person to understand if they are breaking the law or not in many cases.

May 11, 2004, 09:05 AM
Your Dad would need to come to understand that one does not need to justify their ownership of arms. In this age of devastating weapons, I certainly concede that specific targeting and limited destruction is a common sense standard, but it has never been established that any limitation is Constitutional. That is why WMD production or knowledge of how to build ones own is not left to private markets.

Mentioning .22s reminds me of how a buddy of mine and I used to use a little single shot pig gun, normally used to down a pig for slaughter, when we wanted to shoot rats in the barn at night using short-shorts and a flashlight. We avoided shooting holes in the roof and were working in close quarters. That seemed like a pretty tame idea at the time, but would be prohibited by this barrel length restriction. The whole gun is less than 3 feet long.

May 11, 2004, 09:16 AM
The maker of the famed WWG Co-Pilot observes that a barrel over 12" does not add any significant benefit to the Co-Pilot.

So why would "dad" want to force me, under threat of years in a cage, to make that barrel 8" longer?

May 11, 2004, 10:02 AM
Q. What's the difference between a shotgun with a 28" barrel and a shotgun with a 16" barrel?

A. A hacksaw


May 11, 2004, 10:18 AM
I don't think anyone needs a computer processor that's faster than, say, 2GHz. I mean, why would you need it? Only people designing atom bombs, calculating Sarin effects over an urban population, and hacking the Pentagon would want such things. We should restrict such powerful computing ability so that it doesn't get into the wrong hands

When the Founding Fathers designed the 1st Amendment, there were no computers and I'm sure they never intended for such dangerous numeric processing capability to be available to terrorists, hackers, and perverts...

Sarcasm mode off. Your dad's thinking matches the above. And it is in error. No offense intended.

May 11, 2004, 11:04 AM
...doesn't see a need for repealing the NFA or making a big deal over SBRs or SBS's.
I can think of a couple reasons. First off, I don't think I need to point out the various cases of the ATF going bonkers on some otherwise forgettable fellow for having a barrel .5" too short, or such. Ask your father, is a half inch of metal pipe worth sending armed raiders after somebody in their home, and then killing them or putting them in jail for years, at tax payer expense? Next, is there really a point to that kind of law, when it can so extremely easily be circumvented? A criminal looking for a short, concealable shotgun needs only a simple saw to take off the stock and much of the barrel. Is it worth millions and millions of your tax dollars to enforce something such a trivial and easily disobeyed law? Why should we suffer with these kind of technical trivialities when criminals don't give it a second thought?

May 11, 2004, 11:22 AM
I figger at the very worst, maybe there should be an "ugly" tax :D on a short barreled rifle, but other than that, it's no ones business save the owner of said gun.

On the other hand, I'd probably never ask the owners opinion on what tie to wear either.... :rolleyes: :D :D :D


May 11, 2004, 11:28 AM
I figger at the very worst, maybe there should be an "ugly" tax on a short barreled rifle
Are you calling my SBRs UGLY? :)

May 11, 2004, 11:42 AM
Yep. Machine guns are pretty though ;) .

Patent Works
May 11, 2004, 12:03 PM
Simple answer:

Tell him that when the heroic professionals among the military and police no longer see a need for such rifles, you will reconsider your stand.

May 11, 2004, 12:10 PM to sum up....
Marine carrying his 14.5" M4.....evil.
Citizen carrying his 16" postban Ar....EVIL!!!!!
Gangbanger blockin wit da 20" shottie....GOOD!

Lemme guess....any pistol with less than 6" length is also 'unnecessary'....

May 11, 2004, 01:06 PM
Are you calling my SBRs UGLY? :)

Yup. (Specially the potato gun)

(wink, wink)

:D :D :D


May 11, 2004, 01:06 PM
Just because he thinks something is worthless, doesn't mean it should be prohibitted. Why is it that some people think that a particular gun must have certain level of usefulness in order to be legal? Who's standard of usefulness should we use?

Respectfully explain to him that his line of thinking is consistant with the statist/totalitarian mentality, and that our rights do not stand or fall by what somebody else has deemed useful. Arbitrary laws of prohibition based on the distrust of the people are tryannical.

May 11, 2004, 02:04 PM
Some people like long barrels. Some people like short barrels. Some people like brown shoes. Some people like black shoes. Some people like purple shoes.

Yes, but since pimps wear purple shoes if we ban purple shoes it will put an end to prostitution. :scrutiny:

There ya go folks ... anti-logic from the antis :p

May 11, 2004, 06:13 PM
Why should we get excited about repealing the NFA?

Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidians, Ken Ballew etc

Giving the an excuse to put people away when they haven't hurt anyone is bad. It's no different than banning alchohol over 145 proof. Costs millions in taxpayer dolars, does nothing, and gets innocent people hurt.

PS I agree with Jim March. Your Pa is an anti-freedom idiot, whether he realizes it or not.

If you enjoyed reading about "My dad thinks rifles with barrels less than 20" should be restricted" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!