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

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LAR-15

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
3,385
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.
 
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:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 ................
 
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
 
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:
 
"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.
 
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.
 
Jim,

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.
 
LAR-15,
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Don't have the money. Saving it up to upgrade a 20".

One of these days I'll get a short upper. :)
 
But can he show a need FOR the short barrel restrictions?

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?
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.

-Morgan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top