ITT: laws are retarded.
Why are SBRs banned but not bullpups?
Last time i checked, an 18 inch barrelled AUG is roughly the same dimensions as a fucking DanielD MK18, yet still zips targets accurately at +400 meters effectively thanks to it's 18" barrel which spits 5.56 at +3000FPS
So why are lawmakers sperging out over SBRs?
Your 80 years late asking this question
Because
>muh scury forward set magazine well looks scurier den duh bullpup
Literally this is the only fucking reason.
Because bullpups suck so much there’s no need to ban them from ownership because everyone hates them
Even the government knows bullpups are shit
Because bullpups weren't invented when the NFA was passed.
bullpup's aren't bad, you have a rifle with a small size that acts as a full size rifle
how is this bad?
Probably False
Bad ergonomics, weight and balance compared to a regular semi auto.
We still have minimum OAL law, dude.
because pistols were originally going to be part of the NFA and sbrs and sbs' were added to prevent a workaround. Pistols got taken off, but sbrs and sbs' stayed.
>t. never handled an actual bullpup other than RDB or Tavor
yeah, 26.5" right?
A bullpup can be 26.5" easily, even with a 16" barrel. So it's ridiculous that a 26.5" rifle with a 10" barrel is federally illegal, but a 26.5" rifle with a 16" barrel that sends out rounds more powerfully is totally good to go.
Do modern AUGs have shit accuracy like the old one?
>implying Tavors are bad
Can't speak for the RDB's since I've never even touched one. I'm not a huge fan of Kel-Tec though.
There's good reasoning behind it. Shorter barrels increase killing power at close range and allow the gun to be easily concealed by criminals.
The NFA was written in 1934, and although a few bullpups were designed in the early 1900's, they didn't really gain traction until after WWII.
So, in short, the NFA is retarded and unconstitutional.
This is because laws do not have to be logical, ethical, or even follow a line of reasoning between individual laws.
The NFA was made in the 30's before bullpups existed in almost anybody's minds (let alone usage).
I agree though, bullpups are a great argument against removing SBR and SBS laws. Any pro-gun politician worth their salt that attacked parts of the NFA would use that line of reasoning.
>So, in short, the NFA is retarded and unconstitutional.
is this the """Common Sense (TM)"""" gun laws that the media keeps droning on and on about?
>short barrels increase killing power at close range
citation required. shotguns are shortened for aiming efficiency and short range spread, all other guns do not have this benefit
>allow guns to be easily concealed
a bullpup with the same overall length is the same overall length. i can hide an fn90 26.5 as easily as an ar15 sbr
these two points are literally: muh fear o guns
You're not understanding. Short barrels make rifles much deadlier at close range, because short ranges require short barrels.
And short barrels are objectively more easy to conceal than long ones. You can easily chop off an assault rifle barrel to like 5 inches and hide it in some parachute pants or under a trenchcoat; two of the most common articles of clothing worn by mass shooters and criminals.
HTA is about to come out with a bullpup double stack stock for hi-point. the founding fathers could never have imagined this
I appreciate your humor, even if knumbskull over here doesn't see it.
They've been "about to come out" for like 2 years now.
Don't say that too loudly user, you're going to give them ideas.
Pretty much. The NFA was the first "assault weapons ban," because it was marketed as an anti-gangster law. The logic was that gangsters used concealable weapons, and things like sawed-off shotguns had no legitimate use in a "well regulated militia." The anti-gunners have always tried inverting the language of the 2nd Amendment against itself.
Also, silencers were restricted as an anti-poaching measure, because people were starving to death in the 1930's, so of course the government had to make it harder for people to eat.
don't you know how to Trademark™?
Because politicians don't actually understand the things they legislate against.
>So why are lawmakers sperging out over SBRs?