Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I doubt it. Its length would dwarf what you are proposing to put it up against

It might melt the Dakka servers

Well, some of the users anyway

 Frazzled wrote:
No it doesn't. you have to do a little searching to see which firearms are at issue. Here's a bit.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/06/korean-m1s-still-in-limbo-new-bill-introduced-to-prevent-state-department-from-blocking-imports-2680620.html

Now the second EO I have absolutely no problem with.

The second EO is even worse. IIRC, there has been ONE crime committed with a legally owned machine gun in the past century, and it was committed by a police officer. Criminals aren't using $20,000 transferable machine guns in crimes. They're using cheap handguns.

I've no idea why some people consider a M1 Garand/Carbine a modern weapon of war. Granted when it was introduced into the Armed Forces during WWII it was literally state of the art in the Amount of Fire Power it can achieved in any given combat situation over other Axis forces. Germany was way ahead in crew serve weapons with the MG42 but the regular grunt was still armed with bolt action rifles.

I own a M1 carbine and looking to purchasing a M1 Garand and a 1911 Colt if I can locate a real one close by. I also own a 9mm Beretta and M4/AR15 combat rifle. I will though recommend the M1 Carbine since mine dates back to the Korean War as a "fun" weapon to fire on the range. ,30 cal round has enough of kick and punch to make it "visually" satisfying unlike the M4/AR15 with its 5.56mm. Even when you have a full 30 round mag compare to the 15 round mag of my M1 its, to me, a more of a "fun weapon". Also a good weapon to train on with those unfamiliar with fire arms.

As for the M1 situation that happen like a couple years ago. South Korea completed its transition to their K1/K2 Assault Rifles and was looking to give their M1 inventory back to the US. Its a couple million rifles/carbines. Some odd reason I've Clinton in my mind with something to do with this with a policy he implemented while in office but for the life of me I can't really remember. I just know it involved the economy. Flooding the market with M1's will down grade the current value of those M1's in the US.

South Korea though is on the clutch for those weapons because I think they are not allowed by their constitution to sell small arms on the market. A shadow of thought though is hitting me that they can sell them to collectors. Which jives a bit with what Obama (with backing from the policy of Clinton) "confirmed". I do know those M1 South Korea owns are stored in a huge mountain storage facility around Pusan. Though I doubt they would get rid of them all. In case North Korea gets antsy and invade the South. South Korea has weapons on hand to equip the recall all able body males since its mandatory to serve in SK Armed Services.

Why is it necessary? Most military grade fire arms are select fire and would be banned anyways (any variant of M16, M14's, some M1 carbines, etc.) or are weapons that would be perfectly legal normally, and in many cases, can already be obtained. Things like most of the sniper rifles used, M1 Garands, older M1 carbines that weren't select fire, and pretty much all pistols.

It really doesn't accomplish anything other than ensuring that American gun manufacturers don't get outdone by a massive surplus of cheap military firearms.

It'd be like the crates of Mosins you see in almost every gun store. They wouldn't be 100 dollars, but I could see them being actually affordable.

It's a shame really, most of the guns that would normally be legal to import have a lot of historical significance, and are no more dangerous than anything else we can buy already. All it really is is a publicity stunt. It lets people think Obama is being tough on guns and banning scary military assault weapons, when most of those guns were banned for importing already.

 Jihadin wrote:
As for the M1 situation that happen like a couple years ago. South Korea completed its transition to their K1/K2 Assault Rifles and was looking to give their M1 inventory back to the US. Its a couple million rifles/carbines. Some odd reason I've Clinton in my mind with something to do with this with a policy he implemented while in office but for the life of me I can't really remember.

I had never heard of this, so I did some googling. Turns out your recollection was close... but wrong Clinton

Fraz, start all the damned gun threads you want, but when you make a dig at The Thin Red Line you cross a line, man.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I doubt it. Its length would dwarf what you are proposing to put it up against

It might melt the Dakka servers

Well, some of the users anyway

Are we to take that as a "no", then?

Thanks Ouze. For confirming my memory is going off the reservation .. well almost did.

 Jihadin wrote:
I've no idea why some people consider a M1 Garand/Carbine a modern weapon of war. Granted when it was introduced into the Armed Forces during WWII it was literally state of the art in the Amount of Fire Power it can achieved in any given combat situation over other Axis forces. Germany was way ahead in crew serve weapons with the MG42 but the regular grunt was still armed with bolt action rifles.

I own a M1 carbine and looking to purchasing a M1 Garand and a 1911 Colt if I can locate a real one close by. I also own a 9mm Beretta and M4/AR15 combat rifle. I will though recommend the M1 Carbine since mine dates back to the Korean War as a "fun" weapon to fire on the range. ,30 cal round has enough of kick and punch to make it "visually" satisfying unlike the M4/AR15 with its 5.56mm. Even when you have a full 30 round mag compare to the 15 round mag of my M1 its, to me, a more of a "fun weapon". Also a good weapon to train on with those unfamiliar with fire arms.

As for the M1 situation that happen like a couple years ago. South Korea completed its transition to their K1/K2 Assault Rifles and was looking to give their M1 inventory back to the US. Its a couple million rifles/carbines. Some odd reason I've Clinton in my mind with something to do with this with a policy he implemented while in office but for the life of me I can't really remember. I just know it involved the economy. Flooding the market with M1's will down grade the current value of those M1's in the US.

South Korea though is on the clutch for those weapons because I think they are not allowed by their constitution to sell small arms on the market. A shadow of thought though is hitting me that they can sell them to collectors. Which jives a bit with what Obama (with backing from the policy of Clinton) "confirmed". I do know those M1 South Korea owns are stored in a huge mountain storage facility around Pusan. Though I doubt they would get rid of them all. In case North Korea gets antsy and invade the South. South Korea has weapons on hand to equip the recall all able body males since its mandatory to serve in SK Armed Services.

Ya mean an Mforgery/AR15?

We had this young pretty woman come into the store on Saturday who was on leave from the Army wanting an M4 like she has in the service. The whole store came to a stop as we explained to her, you cant buy an M4, but you can get an AR. Then we brought her out a few models. I wanted to see her leave with a Sig M400, but she went with a DelTon instead and four 30rd Pmags and 500rds of .223

Why am I reminded of this:


Thanks Obama!

 whembly wrote:
Why am I reminded of this:


Thanks Obama!

OhBahMuh is a shooter, just like Joe Blindman.

One shoots skeet, the other fires "two blasts outside the house".

In the interest of making fun of other folks...


EDIT: dammit... thought that was a gif.

Yeah, I'd be wary around Chenney and a firearm.....

Especially going over a fence

Does crazy Uncle Joe realize, a shotgun shot into the air sends shot which must come down at some point, and can kill?

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Does crazy Uncle Joe realize, a shotgun shot into the air sends shot which must come down at some point, and can kill?

Not really. But, Crazy Joe forgot to mention that you'll most likely be charged for negligent discharge of a firearm. As has happened several times since he uttered those words.

 djones520 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Does crazy Uncle Joe realize, a shotgun shot into the air sends shot which must come down at some point, and can kill?

Not really. But, Crazy Joe forgot to mention that you'll most likely be charged for negligent discharge of a firearm. As has happened several times since he uttered those words.

Must be nice having a complicit media letting you get away with saying stuff, or even carrying the water for you....

For the record I'm pro gun, but I think I can play Devil's advocate and make some lucid statements that partially stick up for the administration and piss everybody off on both sides of the political spectrum.

Just because a gun is over 50 years old doesn't mean it isn't a good gun design. The Thompson SMG, Colt 1911, and M2 50cal browning are all around 100 years old and still very effective weapons to this day, and criminals would love to get their hands on any of them (Though an M2 browning is too big to use in criminal activities what gun owner criminal or honest citizen wouldn't want an M2 just to blow the gak out of an old car in the desert ) That being said a M1 Garand is a poor choice of weapons for most criminal activities because it's too large to easily conceal, and it's small magazine size requires the user to be a good marksman.

Why ban it's import then? Because it's a post Newtown political landscape and the Obama administration has to appear to do something to keep the left wing base happy. Banning the re import of front line military hardware sounds like a good headline to feed the base of the democrat party and to anti gun liberals that don't know anything about guns it gives an convincing illusion of doing something useful.

Should gun owners be upset? I don't think so. This is a sign that the left is admitting defeat and is unable to pass any meaningful gun control laws. As much as I don't like to see them picking on the poor M1 Garand I see this for what it really is. This is the about extent of the Obama administrations gun control legacy.

Yeah of course, I'm just mad there wont be crates of dirt cheap M1 carbines all across the country.

To be honest, the biggest impact this move will probably have is to protect companies that make M1 copies and to keep the value of those classic firearms from tanking overnight.

Hopefully it will satisfy gun grabbers, but I highly doubt it. I can still go my local gun store and walk out with the scariest rifle in the store in less than half an hour, and that's what they really want stopped.

 Ahtman wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I can only assume it must be important to attempt to stop things that aren't happening because someone had a nightmare about it somewhere.

Those are called Voter ID laws.

Except, ya know, those did happen, and were used to discriminate and keep people from exercising their constitutionally recognized right to vote. And those were the most savory of the unsavory things done to keep people from voting.

The Voting Rights act was, and still is, necessary legislation.

 Haight wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I can only assume it must be important to attempt to stop things that aren't happening because someone had a nightmare about it somewhere.

Those are called Voter ID laws.

Except, ya know, those did happen, and were used to discriminate and keep people from exercising their constitutionally recognized right to vote. And those were the most savory of the unsavory things done to keep people from voting.

The Voting Rights act was, and still is, necessary legislation.

I can't help but feel you are missing something here.