@@The_Calcium_KingWhen people post things like “Abolish the ATF” all I can think is : “You get all your news from the High School dropout who shits his pants every time he sees a black person don’t you?”
I for one don't like that Americans are armed like a militia, sure have guns that is your thing but why do you need 37 pistols 21 rifles and 7 vest of body armor.
@@someguyyouknow6420 not much, just messes with my brain that people build an arsenal and for no reason other than they like it, I like collecting art but I know I can go buy it willy-nilly.
@@danielbrownielbut training a bow is hard. So basically the crossbow allows people who don’t have time to learn the bow to defend themselves against knights, etc.
@@yoeyyoey8937 you're forgetting the fact that crossbows cost way more time and money to build compared to a random ass tree branch they can use couple times and throw away when it gets weak. TL;DR the entire idea of crossbows is that they are more precision/anti-material "rifles" compared to bows being a more faster to follow up "bolt action"(closest comparison to modern firearms I can currently think of that would have generally the same role) "rilfes" like if a peasant had a crossbow, it'd be treated more like a family owned, fully decked out sporting "rifle" rather than a EDC weapon. also you're wrong about training time. a bow literally takes like 5 mins to train and after that it's entirely up to how much practice and familiarity you can get in before you need to use it. a crossbow on the other hand requires actual "rfile" drills to get the correct loading and firing methods ingrained into your brain... which would absolutely take more than 5 mins just from needing someone to explain the gist of it to you as they show you how it's done. and finally... you're also forgetting that just because something requires less physical power to manage, doesn't mean it equates to superior handling charateristics. Bows are typically way lighter than crossbows. in terms of weight comparisons, you're basically saying that one of those single shot breach loading rifles that are literally just a barrel and the firing mechanisms are harder to handle than something like a magazine fed 20mm anti-material rifle. yeah it shoots more and yeah it can have more overall power... but at the cost of extra weight and bulk that you gotta haul around. the only reason crossbows seem like the objectively better options, are because of modern constructions making them far stronger with less weight. crossbows are also the worst for follow up shots cuz you gotta reload the damn thing like it's a musket, while bows are only as slow as the person's ability to nock a new arrow and draw the bow string back.
@SubtotalStar850-uh8pg you're forgetting the cyanide like gas they used to kill 25 children(not a joke they killed 82 people 28 of which were children all because 1 of the 82 was a cult leader)
@@ST._Trinas_Torch I mean maybe you never watched to Waco footage but it's blatantly obvious, also it's not a war crime in this context as it's used in a policing action, it's an atrocity but not anything they could be held accountable for
@SubtotalStar850-uh8pg hold up, how is something I've never seen nir heard of, blatantly obvious? I'm well informed on military equipment and a "flame tank" isn't something they would use, especially on civilians, that is against the genivea convention and is a warcrime wether or not in active war, imma look into this incident you mention, so thank you
Almost like how suppressors are mainly for ear protection and aren't actually whisper quiet but the ATf just says: "That's not how it is in the movies!"
Same with suppressors. They are a safety device to protect your hearing and those around you. In some countries you can be fined for not using one. The US? There's a waiting period and a heavy tax just to be allowed to get one, heavily regulated nonsense just to get a basic safety feature.
@@redsunrises8571 but angled ones are fine. So it's not like the purpose of them is even gone. Vertical is fine in several states though i recall, just not on things that are legally pistols
ATF: Putting a brace on a pistol makes it more accurate so it must be banned. Me: but a rifle is more accurate and it isn't banned! ATF: I wouldn't go check on your dog if I were you.
Fun fact: Kaiser Wilhelm II was a famous user of a stocked Luger because he had a withered arm and couldn’t cycle the bolt on a regular rifle. So stocked pistols are not only really effective, but for at least a hundred years they have also been used as an accessibility tool to allow people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to operate a rifle do things like hunt and target shoot.
this was the issue with the pistol and rifle brace´s until recently, although to my understanding that dog and pony show is far from over even though the gunowners side did gain a major victory not too long ago
Kaiser Wilhelm II also modified his shotgun, right? Due to the withered arm? As I understand it, he modified a Winchester 1912, but I don't exactly know how. It did irk other folks who went shooting with him.
@@bmxriderforlife1234 oh okay. That does make sense. The gun was passed on to his grandson whose fictionalised version used it in the crown. One of the other characters remarks that it was a modified hand cannon. Unless I'm very much mistaken that particular dude died under suspicious circumstances in the Rajneeshi cult.
I was like wait a second- I recognize that model! I’m just playing through the trilogy now (about half way through the second game) and it’s neat seeing so many ME references here and there
Pistol stocks are kinda dumb. Defeating the whole purpose of a pistol, by making it the size of a small carbine. They were a stopgap development for regions that did not have adequate access to better firearms. Atf being dumb has no effect on how dumb these are. All they are doing is following the remnant of the pistol ban regs from the 30s. All congressional.
See, what happens is they ask you what you're defending yourself from at 150 ft. When you fail to indicate an impending siege, they then get concerned that perhaps defense is not the goal.
@@ronal8824extortion is still extortion. And that fee was originally made in a time when the guns were $20-$60. Adding $200 to that was outlandish (fee hasn’t changed but price of guns has due to inflation)
@hughjassstudios9688 1. That is a prop gun 2 that is a 3d printed stock designed for that prop as it is ment to be a version of a pistol from star wars
The laws regulating stocks now were originally going to ban most guns. The goal is always confiscation. It's a step by step process. Look at Canada, Australia and The UK etc
You absolutely can put a stock on a pistol. Just form 1 it and pay the Feds $200. Also pistols people put stocks on, like the C96 Mauser, and the PO8 Luger, are exempt from this. Why? Cause they’re old and thats apparently the reason
@@Lewis-ec5sn Yep. Before ‘86 with FOPA and the Hughes amendment(which closed the MG registry for everyone except SOTs), the NFA has existed and still does exist essentially to stop poor people from owning anything the government deems “dangerous”. How this unconstitutional, essentially poll-tax garbage has existed so long is well and truly beyond me.
@@themadthatcher4869 can California residents not own NFA items? I know you guys can’t have MGs and silencers, but I didn’t know about AOWs, SBRs/SBSs, or DDs
Actually the ATF has no authority to rule on this. They just enforce laws and there is no law against it. Its why they lost the lawsuit when they attempted to ban pistol braces as well. Stocks and braces on piatols are 100% legal and you can legally shoulder them.
They have no legal authority to draft laws, they are not apart of the legislative government. For whatever reason no other law enforcement agency tries to stop them from doing this.
An SBR is still legally an NFA item. If you put a stock on your pistol before getting your tax stamp, that is a felony. A brace is fine due to the nationwide injunction
The ATF doesn't protect people with Alcohol poisoning, Tobacco based addiction, or Friearm rights. Its just the arm of the united states SS gulag pololitical control.
“Defend yourself” at a threat from 50+ yards? From what? That dude who doesnt have a pistol stock because they’re illegal? That wild boar with a sniper rifle?
Carnifex. It’s basically a desert eagle but in mass effect 3 there’s a heavier white variant called the Paladin that has like half the ammo capacity but with much more powerful shots.
SBRs aren't illegal because of anything to do with their effectiveness or your ability to hide them, they are illegal because originally handguns were going to be banned by the NFA and including SBRs closed a loophole. Handguns were removed from the bill, SBRs were left to be post-hoc justified as to why they were included at all.
He is trying compete with Robinsword and he fancy outfit and large gluteus maximus. Shad and Sellsword are beefing and playing it cus they have some audience overlap.
@@MarcusVancethe stock doesn't increase the distance, it increases accuracy at range. They are also not illegal. They're just not used because it's impractical.
Because the AFT sucks golf balls. Thats why. Id love to have one of the slings and drum mags for my 1911, but NOOOOO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT! PAY A TAX FIRST.
I don’t get why they have issues with us making the guns bulky and big. Like isn’t the whole issue people sneak them into places? Don’t we want them big and hard to hide?
@@GotrekGurnissonI think it's because of the fact that it can help you with pistol accuracy thus turning it into a mini assault rifle or something like that at least that's what it said wen I saw it on the news
@@user-sm4mi8ug9qso what actually is the definition of “assault rifle” to you? Because it’s obviously not caliber, it’s obviously not size, it’s obviously not range. I think it’s “hurr durr looks scary” is the definition in political spaces. Globally, all over the West.
So I'm not a "gun guy". I dont own any, never even fired one. But it seems weird that I can own an AR but NOT a pistol with a stock. Like we should have both or neither, right? Regardless of which side of gun control you inhabit, this rule seems weird.
I'm not even from the US, and it seems pretty weird how a lot of agencies and states control firearms. For example, the pistol grip and magazine capacity bans are entirely pointless. How suppressors are controlled despite them only making the gun quiet enough to prevent hearing loss. Or the fact that cap and ball revolvers aren't legally recognised as firearms. I find it especially concerning how most of the gun control laws from the mid-20th century were put in place to disarm civil rights groups rather than to protect innocent people.
@@badideagenerator2315 suppressors being restricted in the US but practically mandatory in the UK is a particularly weird one. We can't even own handguns at all, or semi-auto rifles in anything but .22, but suppressors are completely unrestricted
I mean for once I agree with the UK. (Not taking away guns and making their citizens damn near defenceless ofc) but actually having a stock making the pistol more accurate and less likely to hit innocent bystanders isn’t a horrible idea. But they still lose all their points with their dogshit gun laws. 0/10
@@Cattefishcounter point there is virtually no situation where you are defending yourself against someone who is far enough away that you need a stock on a pistol
@@donovandelozier7156 literally never happens because it makes no sense to try and shoot at someone from 50 yards away They would simply approach you before opening fire Unless they are a literal sniper but a sniper is going to be from a much greater distance
@thatdamncrow9197 ah look, a two faced liar denying things that have happened haven't, in order to justify a lie that it is just to infringe on peoples right to defend themselves. Typical.
@@Mileal76their enforcement of unconstitutional law is their fault. Plus theyre the only federal employees that actually do their jobs they deserve the hate when they know they wont get in trouble for not.
@@ClassyYellowit makes your aim more steady, allowing you to hit targets further away. It’s not increasing the range of the cartridge, but rather the distance at which the average person can strike a target
Fun note, the M4 carbine with its stock at full extension is about the same length as a Thompson, M3, or MP40 SMG, and is actually lighter than all three of them. But at the time stocked pistols were still being used, lightweight intermediate-cartridge rifles didn't really exist.
Yep, the sub-machine gun wasn't produced until 1918, and as soon as they became available stocked pistols went the way of the dodo. Only in China were they still popular, but that also had to do with import bans on rifles
I think making it more stable as a platform is safer, less stray bullets less bullets needed to hit target less chance of hitting anything besides intended target
But, now you’re always outranging the police forces at random contacts, and there’s no way they want to constantly carry around something heavier & longer ranged. Their comments towards laws like this carry a ton of weight. They might say something different publicly, but behind closed doors they want to be the best armed gang around.
@cjwrench07 police always have an AR in their vechicals, (if the department can afford one for all officers.) So your point almost immediately falls apart there.
@@kano8Or it would if a rifle in ur car was worth anything. If it's in the car it isn't relevant until after uv already been shot & most cops aren't walking around toting the AR on a routine traffic stop.
@virutech32 and most people don't shoot cops with a rifle or any type of long gun on a routine traffic stop. How is a stock on a pistol going to make it easier to shoot anyone while sitting in a car? Your argument is stupid if your only example is a traffic stop.
@@kano8 It was just an example. Cops only take out the long gun when they already know they need it. If you show up for a domestic, d&d, or are just walkin the streets patrollin or whatever you wont have the long gun & can't know what u'll go up against. By the by im not arguing that stocked pistols should be illegal or anything. I can just see the logic of being threatened by that if you arrest & murder people for a living. If you like having an overwhelming advantage it makes sense because the stock is an advantage in many scenarios.
Got to love the ATF saying no to devices that make you less likely to hurt people that you arent trying to hurt. You WILL aim your pistol with no support making you more likely to miss, and you WILL destroy every eardrum in the vicinity.
Because the would be terrorists hide behind Freedom of speech in their rants then go commit later on their rant at a grocery store or school, if only someone would've investigated those rants.
@@ectoplasm I'm disabled I can't just punch someone out, should I be punished for being disabled but you will still let other able bodied people have a right to defend themselves?
"Effective range" more refers to the capabilities of a projectile, not necessarily the ease of use. If you fold the stock of an AK it shoots the same distance, you just lose a point of contact for recoil and stability.
the DOD defines effective range as maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect. so folding the stock of an ak does reduce its effective range.. we don't measure it because it's expected you shoot with the stock fully extended.
small nitpick: SBR's like stocked pistols aren't regulated by the NFA because they're 'compact yet effective'. They're regulated to prevent people from using shortened rifles to get around the NFA's regulation of handguns. this handgun regulation was cut out of the final draft of the NFA, but the SBR's stayed in as a vestigial law for no reason.
No one who needs that level of accuracy for a pistol is going to use it for good. It's not good for hunting, against the rule in sport shooting, and too clunky for defense use. If you buy one you either want to kill people or you want to look like you want to kill people
It's stupid as shit as expected of the ATF. Laws written by people who have never held a firearm and never will who are also protected daily by people with firearms that would be illegal under their own laws most of the time.
“Why did we stop putting stocks on pistols?” Because they’re pistols. Besides the ATF’s general B.S. for all things firearms related, pistols are designed to be relatively small concealable; no stock needed. Stocks were designed for, you guessed it, long guns!
The NFA of 1934 was originally going to subject pistols to the additional paperwork and $200 tax. They didn't want folks to simply put stocks on pistols to avoid the tax. This is why short barreled rifles or in this case a stocked pistol are subject to the NFA. However since pistols where not included in the NFA in the end, there is no reason to have short barrelled firearms subject to the NFA.
We also stopped because actual SMG’s were invented. A gun more substantial than a pistol, but smaller and lighter than even a carbine rifle. Pistols with stocks were basically the stopgap in between a pistol and a submachine gun or “machine pistol.” The first submachine guns were created by the Germans during WW1 for the tight quarters of trench warfare. Before then, they used Lugers with stocks and sometimes even a 32 round drum magazine. They also experimented with automatic pistols, but were ultimately like “we need a specialized gun for this,” because using these pistols for roles they were never designed for had a lot of drawbacks. Also, regular rifles of the time were usually not semi-automatic and were quite long. From WW1 onwards, rifles would get shorter and shorter, with yesterday’s carbine becoming the standard against a new, even shorter carbine until you get to modern rifles, carbines, and bullpups, which are about as short as they can be and still be effective at average battlefield ranges.
Another big point is that pistol rounds are useless against modern body armour in a military context. Hence the prevalence of compact personal defence weapons filling the same role, but chambered in a rifle round.
Forgotten Weapons did a history report on the ban. It's a hold over from when pistols were going to be banned and when they backed off they forget to also remove the SBR/SBS ban. Today it has zero grounds to remain and should be removed.
There was no grand tradition of putting stocks on pistols that was suddenly stopped. There was a brief window in the early 1900s where armies would put a stock on a semi-auto pistol like a broomhandle mauser, and never before nor since.
The broom handle Mauser holster/stock combo device was about the nicest interation of the idea and that doesn’t seem to be anything to write home about.
It's literally just a funding scheme for the ATF that they don't remove because of money. Pistols used to be NFA items, and SBRs were included to close a loophole. Now it's closing a loophole that no longer exists, but you can still go to prison if you don't fork over 200 bucks to the ATF (which used to be worth WAY more) if your rifle is an inch too short. Makes total sense.
Plus most of our rifles nowadays (with the exception of the Marine Corps) are carbines. Marine artillery units may still have some M16s banging around. We did when I was in the fleet. But the vast majority of troops at any level these days are carrying M4s or something similar. It's only like 6-8 pounds, depending on what extra stuff you've got on it, and you can reach out much further than you can with a pistol. Plus you get a rifle round, better sights, better mounting options, etc.
To be accurate, congress wrote a bill and the president signed it into law. That is why there is a, legal if not practical, difference between a pistol brace and a stocked rifle with a short barrel
. . . the only thing a stock adds is stability. It's not increasing the power behind the bullet, making it more effective at longer ranges. It's just helping you hold it tighter . . .
Depending on when and where you are, pistol braces are okay though. Which are really only different on technicality. Mostly used for "technically not an SBR" though
My understanding is it isn’t completely illegal but there are extra hoops to jump through to have them legally. They supposedly fall under short barreled rifle rules.
Pistol stocks are illegal because the bill that banned them was originally going to ban pistols as well but manufacturers lobbied for them to be exempted
