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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Behold the power of memes:

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

Ain't the size of the tackle, it's how you use it....
:D
 
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.
 
He doesn't really see the reason to have barrels less than 20" for rifles or less than 18" for shotguns.
Click to expand...

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length of barrel on shotguns and rifles, therefore I believe the law should never have been passed, and should be repealed.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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
...doesn't see a need for repealing the NFA or making a big deal over SBRs or SBS's.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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

Ron
 
I figger at the very worst, maybe there should be an "ugly" tax on a short barreled rifle
Click to expand...
Are you calling my SBRs UGLY? :)
attachment.php
 
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.
 
Ok.....so 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'....
:rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Why should we get excited about repealing the NFA?

Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidians, Ken Ballew etc

Giving the fed.gov 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top