Why no telescoping stocks?
- Thread starter scouter27
- Start date
Jeff Thomas
New member
It's for the children. Don't ask questions.
And, by the way, do you have "your papers" ... ?
regards from AZ
And, by the way, do you have "your papers" ... ?
regards from AZ
What about the 50 BMG? Everyone knows that even though no terrorist has used one yet, they are all just waiting
:barf: I agree that a pistol is more concealable, I also don't agree with the fact that a law abiding citizen can't own any firearm he or she wants. It just seems to make less sence to ban something that I can't even see how it is offensive.
yankytrash
New member
When I retract the stock on my AR, I feel like shooting small children and old people in banks making their deposits.
You're asking for a logical explanation to an illogical "anti-crime" gun control law. You're more likely to get a rational answer as to why gravity exists.
The sad truth is that the only TRUE reason for 99.9% of the gun control laws is not to combat crime, but rather to disarm the populace. You see, those people who wish to impose their will upon us know the same simple truth that we do: that freedom and the ability for armed resistance go hand in hand. Our founding fathers (in the US) knew this which is why the Second Amendment exists (and why it is second only to the freedom of speech which gives the people the power of political dissent).
The premise that gun control laws can prevent crime is so patently absurd, it is a wonder that anyone actually falls for it. As if a criminal who intends to commit a violent illegal act cares a hoot about breaking gun laws. Such gun control laws only go to illustrate that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant, mentally lazy, and/or lack the educational training for the independent critical analysis of facts. (And now you know why the government-mandated and controlled public school systems are dumbing-down education programs and turning the classrooms into socialist indoctrination camps.)
There are basically three types of anti-gunner: the tyrant, the panderer, and the reactionary.
The tyrant is an elitist who believes that his or her inherent "superiority" grants them the power to control all aspects of your life (and death). Hillary Clinton, Gore, Schumer, Boxer, DiFi, Waxman, Hitler, Rosie O'Donnell, and many others fall into this category.
The panderer rides the wave of popular opinion in order to further their own agenda of power and/or wealth. They don't really care about gun-control issues (or any others for that matter); they just seize upon the "will of the people" to advance themselves. Bill Clinton is the epitome of the panderer politician. All of his "agenda issues" were really pushed from behind the scenes by his wife and VP.
The reactionary is typically someone who has suffered some personal tragedy (and is usually wholly or partly responsible for that tragedy); now he or she is on a crusade to change society to "prevent others from going through the pain (they're) going through." They do this primarily because it absolves them of the guilt for their own personal irresponsibility in the tragedy ("it wasn't my fault, it was society's fault: there was no law to prevent it"). Jack Scott and Carole Price fit quite well into this category.
None of these people care about our Constitution (the ultimate law of the land in the US), nor do they care about your liberty.
The sad truth is that the only TRUE reason for 99.9% of the gun control laws is not to combat crime, but rather to disarm the populace. You see, those people who wish to impose their will upon us know the same simple truth that we do: that freedom and the ability for armed resistance go hand in hand. Our founding fathers (in the US) knew this which is why the Second Amendment exists (and why it is second only to the freedom of speech which gives the people the power of political dissent).
The premise that gun control laws can prevent crime is so patently absurd, it is a wonder that anyone actually falls for it. As if a criminal who intends to commit a violent illegal act cares a hoot about breaking gun laws. Such gun control laws only go to illustrate that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant, mentally lazy, and/or lack the educational training for the independent critical analysis of facts. (And now you know why the government-mandated and controlled public school systems are dumbing-down education programs and turning the classrooms into socialist indoctrination camps.)
There are basically three types of anti-gunner: the tyrant, the panderer, and the reactionary.
The tyrant is an elitist who believes that his or her inherent "superiority" grants them the power to control all aspects of your life (and death). Hillary Clinton, Gore, Schumer, Boxer, DiFi, Waxman, Hitler, Rosie O'Donnell, and many others fall into this category.
The panderer rides the wave of popular opinion in order to further their own agenda of power and/or wealth. They don't really care about gun-control issues (or any others for that matter); they just seize upon the "will of the people" to advance themselves. Bill Clinton is the epitome of the panderer politician. All of his "agenda issues" were really pushed from behind the scenes by his wife and VP.
The reactionary is typically someone who has suffered some personal tragedy (and is usually wholly or partly responsible for that tragedy); now he or she is on a crusade to change society to "prevent others from going through the pain (they're) going through." They do this primarily because it absolves them of the guilt for their own personal irresponsibility in the tragedy ("it wasn't my fault, it was society's fault: there was no law to prevent it"). Jack Scott and Carole Price fit quite well into this category.
None of these people care about our Constitution (the ultimate law of the land in the US), nor do they care about your liberty.
Jeff Thomas
New member
SpyGuy is absolutely right ... 'course, that's just another way of saying "it's for the children".
scouter27,
To answer your original question; "why no collapsible stocks"....
It goes to the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994.
No "assault weapons" can be mfg'd in the US after the ban. An "assault weapon" (as defined by the bill) is any weapon having 3 or more of the following "bad characteristics":
1. Detachable box magazine
2. Collapsible buttstock
3. Flash suppressor or threaded muzzle
4. Attachment point for grenade launcher
5. Bayonet lug
6. Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the receiver.
Only those "assault weapons" that were mfg'd PRIOR to the ban are grandfathered and still legal for ownership by civvy's. All newly mfg.d "assault weapons" can be legally owned only by law enforcement and military personnel.
To be considered a "sporting rifle", and legal for use by civilians like you & me, all currently mfg'd AR-15's have characteristic #1 and #6 but no others. Same for the FAL's, HK's, and AK's. The M1-A has #1 and #3 and no others. To add a collapsible stock to ANY of these would give the rifle in question THREE "bad characteristics" and would therefore be likely to cause someone to go out and murder a schoolyard full of children. Can't have that.....
Swampy
To answer your original question; "why no collapsible stocks"....
It goes to the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994.
No "assault weapons" can be mfg'd in the US after the ban. An "assault weapon" (as defined by the bill) is any weapon having 3 or more of the following "bad characteristics":
1. Detachable box magazine
2. Collapsible buttstock
3. Flash suppressor or threaded muzzle
4. Attachment point for grenade launcher
5. Bayonet lug
6. Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the receiver.
Only those "assault weapons" that were mfg'd PRIOR to the ban are grandfathered and still legal for ownership by civvy's. All newly mfg.d "assault weapons" can be legally owned only by law enforcement and military personnel.
To be considered a "sporting rifle", and legal for use by civilians like you & me, all currently mfg'd AR-15's have characteristic #1 and #6 but no others. Same for the FAL's, HK's, and AK's. The M1-A has #1 and #3 and no others. To add a collapsible stock to ANY of these would give the rifle in question THREE "bad characteristics" and would therefore be likely to cause someone to go out and murder a schoolyard full of children. Can't have that.....
Swampy
saands,
you wrote: "Does the 3 feature thing mean that I can put a collapsable stock on my SKS which has only one evil feature (bayonet)? I don't think it would really make me feel violent."
I'm not sure & for certain, but I've been led to believe that because the SKS can have the magazine removed, that qualifies it as having "bad characteristic" #1 right from the start.
Better check with ATF regs before trying it....
Just my $.02,
Swampy
you wrote: "Does the 3 feature thing mean that I can put a collapsable stock on my SKS which has only one evil feature (bayonet)? I don't think it would really make me feel violent."
I'm not sure & for certain, but I've been led to believe that because the SKS can have the magazine removed, that qualifies it as having "bad characteristic" #1 right from the start.
Better check with ATF regs before trying it....
Just my $.02,
Swampy
yankytrash
New member
If it's semi-auto and has the ability to accept a detachable mag, then it's in the running to avoid assault-weapon features. Detachable mag is not one of the options, it is one of the two qualifications.
I can almost recite this from memory now, so here goes ( I AM reciting this from memory, so the wording may be slightly wrong, but the information is correct):
"The term "assault weapon" means any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic shotgun with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and at at least two of the following features:
1) Pistol Grip
2) Flash Suppressor
3) Bayonet Lug
4) Folding or telescoping stock
This paragraph does not apply to any rifle or shotgun that was otherwise lawfully possessed prior to September 13th, 1994."
If you have an SKS without the removable mag kit on it, it doesn't even qualify for the assault-weapon features, and you can do almost anything you want to it, as long as you end up with a 26"+ rifle with a 16"+ barrel.
Think of the term "assault weapon" as an illegal gun, because that is what it is. An AR-15 clone is not illegal, it only qualifies to be illegal if you add a flash suppressor and/or bayo lug and/or retractable stock.
You can do whatever you want to an SKS in it's original configuration, because it has a fixed magazine, thus it does not have both the prime requisites to fall under the assault weapons' ban rules. Once you add a detachable mag kit to it, it qualifies to fall under the assault weapon ban rules, so you may not add more than one aftermarket 'evil' feature, unless the SKS was manufactured before September 1994, which is hard to prove on an SKS).
I can almost recite this from memory now, so here goes ( I AM reciting this from memory, so the wording may be slightly wrong, but the information is correct):
"The term "assault weapon" means any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic shotgun with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and at at least two of the following features:
1) Pistol Grip
2) Flash Suppressor
3) Bayonet Lug
4) Folding or telescoping stock
This paragraph does not apply to any rifle or shotgun that was otherwise lawfully possessed prior to September 13th, 1994."
If you have an SKS without the removable mag kit on it, it doesn't even qualify for the assault-weapon features, and you can do almost anything you want to it, as long as you end up with a 26"+ rifle with a 16"+ barrel.
Think of the term "assault weapon" as an illegal gun, because that is what it is. An AR-15 clone is not illegal, it only qualifies to be illegal if you add a flash suppressor and/or bayo lug and/or retractable stock.
You can do whatever you want to an SKS in it's original configuration, because it has a fixed magazine, thus it does not have both the prime requisites to fall under the assault weapons' ban rules. Once you add a detachable mag kit to it, it qualifies to fall under the assault weapon ban rules, so you may not add more than one aftermarket 'evil' feature, unless the SKS was manufactured before September 1994, which is hard to prove on an SKS).
Gun control in the US is currently at the point where they're banning "non-sporting" guns - even many NRA members wouldn't stick up for "assault weapons".
Thing is, currently it is not politically feasible to annoy hunters, so they couldn't ban all semis. So they had to distinguish the "bad" semis from the good semis.
They did this by model - e.g. AR15, AK47, etc. etc. in California. The antis learned from this, however, when Kali models were simply renamed.
They needed to distinguish the guns they wanted to ban based on their only differences, those that were mostly cosmetic. However, Bill Ruger got them to add mag capacity on top of this.
The evil features were the cosmetic differences.
BTW - the collapsible stock or bayonet lug thing had nothing to do with crime; but with features by which they could meaningfully ban some guns outright.
Thing is, currently it is not politically feasible to annoy hunters, so they couldn't ban all semis. So they had to distinguish the "bad" semis from the good semis.
They did this by model - e.g. AR15, AK47, etc. etc. in California. The antis learned from this, however, when Kali models were simply renamed.
They needed to distinguish the guns they wanted to ban based on their only differences, those that were mostly cosmetic. However, Bill Ruger got them to add mag capacity on top of this.
The evil features were the cosmetic differences.
BTW - the collapsible stock or bayonet lug thing had nothing to do with crime; but with features by which they could meaningfully ban some guns outright.
You know, it just occured to me..
The LOP on ComBlock AKs and the like is awful short.
SO... if the law saws "can't have a folding or telescoping stock" .. can you still use, for example, an AR shorty with a collapsible stock pinned in the CLOSED position? It ain't too much shorter than the AK stock that way, seems to me.
No granted, at that point you really don't have much useful you could call a stock, but it seems like it solves the letter of the law, presuming you meet your barrel and overall length requirements, yes? Might be another step towards perfection for the guys who want postman M4geries..
-K
The LOP on ComBlock AKs and the like is awful short.
SO... if the law saws "can't have a folding or telescoping stock" .. can you still use, for example, an AR shorty with a collapsible stock pinned in the CLOSED position? It ain't too much shorter than the AK stock that way, seems to me.
No granted, at that point you really don't have much useful you could call a stock, but it seems like it solves the letter of the law, presuming you meet your barrel and overall length requirements, yes? Might be another step towards perfection for the guys who want postman M4geries..
-K
yankytrash
New member
Kaylee - correct. Most of the time, of course, you can pin the stock open, but you could pin it closed, too if you wanted to. Like you said, just keep within the length requirements and you're fine.
Although it's not as comfortable, I can shoot my SP1 with the stock fully collapsed by raising my rear arm's elbow really high. A guy with shorter arms would be able to do it a little more comfortably.
Although it's not as comfortable, I can shoot my SP1 with the stock fully collapsed by raising my rear arm's elbow really high. A guy with shorter arms would be able to do it a little more comfortably.
Scouter27, of course you may save and reuse what I wrote. That is the purpose of The Firing Line forum: the sharing of knowledge and dissemination of information.
If what I wrote can help you educate those who are hostile or indifferent to our RKBA, then we shall all have benefited.
If what I wrote can help you educate those who are hostile or indifferent to our RKBA, then we shall all have benefited.