What's new
What's new

OT: (sort of) NFA rant

MetalCarnage

Stainless
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Location
Nebraska
Can someone give me any explanation or reasoning, reasonable or not, why adding a folding stock to a pistol somehow makes it a SBR?

Let's see, same cartridge, same magazine, same sights, etc. and overall less concealable. So how is it "more dangerous" than the standard pistol? I know the reasoning for making an actual rifle - SBR part of the NFA was that it was considered to be more concealable and thus more dangerous (not that a perp couldn't just use a pistol...) but that can't apply to a pistol.

Granted, I know the whole issue is insane but I was reading an article about the new B&T grip module Hands On With the B&T Grip Module for the SIG P32 - The Truth About Guns and it kind of set me off. :angry:

Thanks for letting me vent a bit.

-Ron
 
It's the government; logic has nothing to do with it. They've defined any firearm with a rifled barrel and a stock as a rifle, and legislated a minimum barrel length. On a related note, IIRC if you put a screw in a rifle, that screw becomes a rifle part. If you then move that screw to a pistol, the pistol becomes an illegal short barreled stockless rifle. That's just how the law works.
 
I have a customer in the UK that says they can have pistols with stocks but not without if I am remembering correctly.
Government rules are not logical.

Quote from email:
" About to get a long barrel
revolver in 44 Magnum - by a quirk of our laws, if a gun is over 2
feet long its OK - so you can get a 12 inch barrel revolver with an
arm brace added to bring it up to the legal minimum. Stupid really
but that's the way we are."
 
of-course-theres-no-reason-for-it-its-just-our-policy.jpg
 
Not taking either side of the debate, it is extremely difficult to write laws to cover every instance of an unknown owner of an unknown item, gun or whatever else. For example, a law in Missouri banned taking certain weapons contained in a long list to a number of places, also a long list. By the letter of the law, you would be equally culpable if you went to a political rally with a slingshot in your back pocket or carrying a shotgun into a church. Similarly, we had a proposed law in my township that was intended to allow a dogcatcher to euthanize a badly injured dog immediately but could be read that he should immediately dispatch a dog with a mashed toe without notifying its owner first. I knew the people who wrote the law. They were not some sort of homicidal weirdos, just people trying to do a job.

Bill
 
It's the government; logic has nothing to do with it. They've defined any firearm with a rifled barrel and a stock as a rifle, and legislated a minimum barrel length. On a related note, IIRC if you put a screw in a rifle, that screw becomes a rifle part. If you then move that screw to a pistol, the pistol becomes an illegal short barreled stockless rifle. That's just how the law works.



Not quite. Hope you were just being funny. Too much misinfo out there already.
 
Ugghh I'm so sick of hearing that "just trying to do my job", no one asked you to do it, get a real job, be a man, you skilless pathetic excuse of a man. Nothin but a bunch of bullies, who needs um, maybe France or Russia?
 
Even more stupider, take an AR pistol and slap on a vertical foregrip, congrats you've just made an AOW, enjoy your prison
Never mind that the mag well is right there being used as a foregrip anyways
Got a hacksaw and a rifle or shotgun? Through the magic of constructive possession, you're a criminal as well.

It's all just a convenient excuse for the ATF to come along, shoot your dog, kid, wife, then burn you alive in your house. Doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, they've got it and 80 years of precedent backing it up.
 
Ugghh I'm so sick of hearing that "just trying to do my job", no one asked you to do it, get a real job, be a man, you skilless pathetic excuse of a man. Nothin but a bunch of bullies, who needs um, maybe France or Russia?

These were people with day jobs who served on the town council, not professional politicians or bureaucrats. Your comment is totally out of order.

Bill
 
I understand that they are just trying to "do something", unfortunately the majority of the time the best thing would be to "do nothing". We, as a country, (and I'm pretty sure this is world wide) have people in power who have no business experience yet they make laws governing the running of business, no experience with guns, motorcycles, etc. etc. yet they feel that they "know best" how they should be dealt with.

Just my opinion, but there seems to be something inherently wrong with the kind of people who think that they have the hubris to make rules governing other people's behavior. (I'm not talking theft, murder, etc. but things like the size of soft drink, whether you can smoke, or what kind of gun you can own.)

JMHO

-Ron
 
Think thats bad/ out here I can have a criminal conviction recorded for failing to comply with a city council inspectors direction within the allowed time,as in get your grass cut within 14 days.
 
the majority of the time the best thing would be to "do nothing".

Surely you have read enough history to realize it is the body politic that uses that very device to deal with onerous interference.

Do nothing.

Sumer or Persia to earlier this afternoon, it is the hardest response of all for authority to overcome. Danes did it to Germany, War Two.

British company I worked for had such frustration with even fully-owned American subsidiaries they coined a translation; "American Cooperation" =="Malicious Obedience."

Chinese expression - seriously difficult folks to "govern", they just let the appearance of it parade about in regalia whilst doing as they damned well please other side of the curtains - have a saying: "The mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away."

I have news.google.ca set so I don't have Drumpf in my face. Surely he notices ME even less.

What's to complain about?

An American's most potent defensive weapon isn't firearms.

Earplugs or changing channels, rather.

:)
 
... there seems to be something inherently wrong with the kind of people who think that they have the hubris to make rules governing other people's behavior.

That is why people run for office. To tell other people to do what they think they should do.

The problem is they get elected.
 
I understand that they are just trying to "do something", unfortunately the majority of the time the best thing would be to "do nothing". We, as a country, (and I'm pretty sure this is world wide) have people in power who have no business experience yet they make laws governing the running of business, no experience with guns, motorcycles, etc. etc. yet they feel that they "know best" how they should be dealt with.

Just my opinion, but there seems to be something inherently wrong with the kind of people who think that they have the hubris to make rules governing other people's behavior. (I'm not talking theft, murder, etc. but things like the size of soft drink, whether you can smoke, or what kind of gun you can own.)

JMHO

-Ron

Ron,
You are 100% correct. We have politicians making engineering decisions all the time with absolutely no engineering expertise and this disease is everywhere. Outlawing tungsten light bulbs, law bias against diesel engines, bias against nuclear power plants, excessive persecution of the automotive industry over NOx emissions, when the 90% polluter is farming and I can go on and on.
 








 
Back
Top