Obama bans import sale of M-1's from S. Korea

topher5150

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
3,600
Reaction score
6
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan
The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.

The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.

A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.

"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms."

Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.

"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken."

But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.

"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."

M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.

"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.

"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."

He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."

Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.

According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.

Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down.

"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."

Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so."

Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.

The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.

In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987.

A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.

"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."

Henigan disagrees.

"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.

The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.
 
I am, and have always been a strong advocate of gun control.
How many people can you think of who have been shot by some home owner trying to protect his, or her property?
My guess is you could count them on one hand.
So that old argument of "defending myself falls a bit short on the need.
As for M1 rifles, I really don't see any need for a civilian to own a military weapon.
As with any other weapon, they usually wind up on the black market, and those who should never own a gun, wind up having them, and sometimes using them in the commission of a crime.
As for gun collectors having them, I don't have a problem with that.
For the most part I would assume they are law abiding people who have the hobby, and would not ever consider using them in a unlawful manner.
My concern is that these guns that were being imported only add to the already troublesome issue of them falling into the wrong hands.
With the closeness of the trouble in our neighboring country to the south, I feel these weapons would eventually end up there.
We obviously don't need that.
Bob.
 
I am, and have always been a strong advocate of gun control.
Then I suggest you not buy one.
But I guess the 2nd amendment was only included in the constitution as a suggestion, or a temporary thing?

How many people can you think of who have been shot by some home owner trying to protect his, or her property?
My guess is you could count them on one hand.
So that old argument of "defending myself falls a bit short on the need.

Here's an old statistic, but:
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.


We obviously don't need that.
Bob.
Then sell them to law abiding American citizens, be they collectors, protecting their family or property, or just exercising their 2nd Amendment right.

Where do you think that weapons will go now? Because Obama won't allow them to be imported, do you think the Koreans will just shrug an destroy them?
You'r nanny-state mind set betrays your intention.
 
Rejoinder to Nit Wit

I am, and have always been a strong advocate of gun control.
How many people can you think of who have been shot by some home owner trying to protect his, or her property?
My guess is you could count them on one hand.
So that old argument of "defending myself falls a bit short on the need.
As for M1 rifles, I really don't see any need for a civilian to own a military weapon.
As with any other weapon, they usually wind up on the black market, and those who should never own a gun, wind up having them, and sometimes using them in the commission of a crime.
As for gun collectors having them, I don't have a problem with that.
For the most part I would assume they are law abiding people who have the hobby, and would not ever consider using them in a unlawful manner.
My concern is that these guns that were being imported only add to the already troublesome issue of them falling into the wrong hands.
With the closeness of the trouble in our neighboring country to the south, I feel these weapons would eventually end up there.
We obviously don't need that.
Bob.

Since I know that anyone as level-headed as you are, Bob, couldn't possibly believe the BS posted above in your name, you need to find out who's playing with your computer in your absence.

For myself, I'm highly in favor of gun control. That, of course, means being able to hit what I shoot at!

KS
 
Since I know that anyone as level-headed as you are, Bob, couldn't possibly believe the BS posted above in your name, you need to find out who's playing with your computer in your absence.

For myself, I'm highly in favor of gun control. That, of course, means being able to hit what I shoot at!

KS

So, by your comments, I am led to belive you don't think these military weapons would end up on the black market, possibly being sent to fight the drug war in Mexico?
I wonder how many share your opinion.
Bob.
 
I am, and have always been a strong advocate of gun control.

Your prerogative, I suppose.

How many people can you think of who have been shot by some home owner trying to protect his, or her property?

Personally, I don't care about how many people have been shot by a homeowner. What I care about, is that the primer fires when struck if I ever have some poor SOB break into my house.

My guess is you could count them on one hand.

Your guess and the facts are two different things... fortunately.

So that old argument of "defending myself falls a bit short on the need.

Ok. so what do you plan to defend your family with, when an armed assailant enters your home? A spatula? What about when the assailant is pulling the trigger on is illegally obtained firearm? Your bullet stopping spell? Your charm, perhaps?

As for M1 rifles, I really don't see any need for a civilian to own a military weapon.

And what EXACTLY constitutes a "Military Weapon"? Since the military also uses knives, do you think those should be banned as well? They are, after all, weapons. How about cars? Ever seen a Hummer used as a weapon? No? I have. Airplanes? Military certainly has a lot of them, too. Feel like walking across the country?


As with any other weapon, they usually wind up on the black market, and those who should never own a gun, wind up having them, and sometimes using them in the commission of a crime.

Typical anti-gun BS. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that excuse is full of holes.

As for gun collectors having them, I don't have a problem with that.

Oh, so then all I have to tell you is that I "collect" weapons and you're cool with it? Would you mind if I defend myself with any of these "collected" weapons? Do you think a black powder revolver - yes, they made them - is not going to kill someone as easily as a modern revolver?

Incidentally, I find it amusing that you can buy a black powder revolver with no background checks. 6 shots, much like modern revolvers. Who'd have thunk it, huh?

For the most part I would assume they are law abiding people who have the hobby, and would not ever consider using them in a unlawful manner.

First off, firearm ownership should never be treated as a hobby. It's not a game. k? k.

Second, if you're assuming people who can legally own a firearm wouldn't use them in an unlawful manner (and I agree, 99.9% of them would not), then why are you against gun ownership? I think you're contradicting yourself there.

"But the criminals can get them then!". I can walk into any major city on this planet and illegally purchase a fully automatic firearm within two hours. And you can time me on that. A firearm that the common citizen is not allowed to own. So, tell me, where do these fully automatic firearms come from? Surely, they were stolen from a law abiding citizen's home, right?

If it's that easy for me, a law abiding citizen to do that, how much easier would it be for a criminal with "connections"? Why should I, as a law abiding citizen be prevented from being able to defend myself from such a criminal by you? Will you be there to take a bullet for me when a criminal decides to shoot me in order to rob me to pay for his next fix? I highly doubt that.

My concern is that these guns that were being imported only add to the already troublesome issue of them falling into the wrong hands.

There you go with the "wrong hands" argument again. Do you REALLY think criminals will respect your gun bans? Do you realize how big and profitable the underground gun market is? Criminals will ALWAYS have access to firearms. ALWAYS.

With the closeness of the trouble in our neighboring country to the south, I feel these weapons would eventually end up there.

More anti-gun BS. This has been proven as false a week after that "study" came out a few years ago.

But let's say a percentage of these firearms end up in Mexico. Why in hell should I care, again? Do you honestly believe that if all the firearms in the US were confiscated, the criminals in Mexico (and the US, for that matter), can't get them from Europe? Russia? South America? Asia? Talk about being small minded, thinking that firearms are available only in the US, while the rest of the world is still using rocks and spears. Hell, most firearm manufacturers are based out of the US.

We obviously don't need that.
Bob.

Maybe we do need that. We'd have less illegal Mexicans and south americans crossing into this country. Maybe we should ship them Mexicans a few trainloads of firearms and tell them to go to town on each other. We'll even supply the bullets, just because we're that nice. Maybe we'd have room for 4 more Americans on the 10 most wanted list, instead of 4 Mexicans.

"What? You can't say that! That's racist!" Blow me. And I say that with respect to you, personally.

And if the Mexican war spills over in this country, who will be there to protect you? Certainly, not uncle Obama and the State Department. Certainly, not the Brady bunch. No, Sir. It will be law abiding citizens who have firearms that will protect you. Oh wait... they won't be able to, since the Brady bunch got the gov'ment to confiscate all of the law abiding citizen's firearms. Well, there are the criminals who'll still have guns. Maybe they will protect you... make sure you ask nicely, though.

Bottom line is this: You don't like firearms, that's fine. I don't like people who make their living off other people by renting a house at twice the monthly mortgage. But that doesn't mean I want landlords banned because they take advantage of people who can't afford to buy a house. I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea... I hope.

I'll keep my firearms and I promise, I will be there to defend "you and your family" when the Mexican war spills over into the US, or when another nation decides to invade us because we don't have guns.

Incidentally, look into why Hitler never invaded Switzerland and you might understand why, aside from being protected by water on two sides and having a kick ass military machine, we've never been invaded in a war. Hint: It has to do with people owning firearms.
 
Hey Bob - I would respond to your post, but since Frogman and Cal have effectively PWNED you on this topic, I'll just post a couple of pics.

Yeah, these are mine. Enjoy!

Rifle 2 001.jpg

pistol 2 004.jpg

SaigaAKPics 001.jpg


Rifle 2 001.jpg


pistol 2 004.jpg
 
very nice foss, what's #3, almost looks like an AK of sorts
Actually the top and bottom pics are the same rifle.

It's a Saiga .308, which is made in the Russian factories and shipped to the US. However, I've converted this one to pistol grip as it doesn't come that way per certain regulations. The receiver is identical to an AK receiver except it's bigger in order to accommodate the .308 cartridge.

The cool thing about it is you can buy the Saiga for just under $400 and convert it yourself to pistol grip in your home for another $100. Not a bad price for an EBR, eh. I thought it would be sort of poetically perverse to marry an AR grip and stock to an AK. Lots of people do that. Heh.

The first pic you see there is with an aftermarket 25-round magazine, the second pic is the included 10 round mag. Hoo rah. There's your military weapon, Bob. :shifty:

I still need to take some pics of my new HK91...
 
As for M1 rifles, I really don't see any need for a civilian to own a military weapon.

Bob, I am going to operate under an assumption, here. By the way to wrote your post, and your reference to "military weapon" just like the article, I am assuming you think of a big, scary, black gun:

10524_5120835351_1.jpg


That really is not the M1...even though it should not matter, regardless of appearance!

WWII_M1_Carbine.jpg
 
Nice M1 Carbine, Josh.

I'd rather have the Garand though. 8 shots - PING! The clip pops out. Fun.

springfield.jpg
 
Gun Control = Careful Aim

So, by your comments, I am led to belive you don't think these military weapons would end up on the black market, possibly being sent to fight the drug war in Mexico?
I wonder how many share your opinion.
Bob.

Bob---

That you even ask that question displays, in you, a profound lack of understanding of how such things work.

Where, under similar circumstances, has such a scenario as you offer ever taken place?

Since you're hoplophobic, you simply need to disqualify yourself from the discussion.

Almost everyone with an open mind shares my point of view.

KS
 
While I do not currently own a firearm I fully support those who choose to. I have been considering purchasing a home defense weapon for a while now and have sought advise on what to purchase from many enthusiasts around me.

I cannot agree with the import ban of these guns. This is not the type of weapon typically chosen by criminals. Control of fully automatic weapons is just fine by me, but other than that, stay the hell out of it.

As everyone knows, criminals will always have guns. The only one hurting from this is the American public. Yes it is true that if all guns were banned the criminals would have a harder time getting them... but they would still have them. No doubt about it.
 
Fossten and that cat with the rifle-chainsaw (which is F'ing epic BTW) are ready for when the Zombie Apocalypse hits. Bravo.
 
Fossten and that cat with the rifle-chainsaw (which is F'ing epic BTW) are ready for when the Zombie Apocalypse hits. Bravo.

They have a weapon like that in Gears of War.

30nkw02.jpg
 
Fossten and that cat with the rifle-chainsaw (which is F'ing epic BTW) are ready for when the Zombie Apocalypse hits. Bravo.
You think you're making fun, but you actually have no idea...

Local Volunteer Reflects on Hurricane Katrina

(ABC 6 NEWS)--- Sunday serves as a reminder for local volunteers who went down to the Gulf Coast to help in the weeks following Hurricane Katrina five years ago.



The trip changed one man's life forever.



As the images from Katrina fill the airwaves, it brings back a sea of memories for Albert Lea Salvation Army Lieutenant Steve Hansen.


"I saw crazy destruction," said Hansen.


Hansen spent two weeks serving Katrina evacuees in Texas in the weeks following the storm.


"They were taken way far away from their homes, they had no identification, no money, no jobs, no nothing, some of them were almost zombie-like, they're walking around, I don't think they really knew what the next step was going to be," said Hansen.
40126248_4f0740bed4.jpg

lootersign.jpg

american-fashions-before-660.jpg
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top