• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's back door gun ban

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Very rarely do I cite the Washington times as a link, because it is a nutter publication, controlled by the Moonie cult, and misrepresents many of it's stories for political purposes. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And I believe that the Washington Times calls it right here, in it's attempt to keep some M1 rifles off the market, even though..........

It's hard to see how these M1 rifles could be considered risky when they already are offered for sale by the U.S. government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In fact, the federally sponsored CMP puts on summer camps that teach boys and girls how to handle the Garand properly and safely. In the past seven years, there hasn't been a single accident. Many of the participants go on to serve their country or take part in shooting sports at the collegiate and Olympic level.
Obama has always supported gun control, in his early days, later as a senator, and now as president. I can't see his move here as anything but a back door method of gun control.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,708
Reaction score
9,501
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Don't worry, this is a bunch of made up crap, coincidently blown out of proportions by conservatives right before an election.

Here's the quote from the CEO of the CMP:

Garands and Carbines from Korea - CMP Forums
The emals and calls keep pouring in to CMP asking about the Korean rifles and carbines. The following is our reply:

The rumors, reports, articles about Korea have been circulating for at least five years. A few months ago a Korean newspaper once again reported that they would selling Garands and carbines to a US importer. The CMP is not a firearms importer and we do not have any involvement of any kind in anything that may happen with these Korean rifles and carbines.

The only way any rifle or carbine from any country can find its way to the CMP is if the country returns loaned rifles back to the US Army. When that happens, the CMP "may" possibly receive some of those rifles. According to the recent articles, Korea will not be returning anything to the US Army, but will be "selling" these rifles to an importer. If, in fact, these rifles are sold to an importer, the CMP will not see even one of them. We do not have any additional information on this subject. Thanks for understanding.


Orest Michaels
Chief Operating Officer
The real reason these rifles are being held up is because the legal status of them is in question, as explained by a member of the CMP on their forum

Mr Orest - Korea - I have to ask - CMP Forums
The Korean Government knows exaclty why the deal was not approved.

The Koreans cannot prove that they ever paid for all of those M1's with their own money.

In the absence of such proof, the U.S. Government takes the position that the material was given to the Korea and therefore the U.S. Government is not going to allow them to sell the rifles and keep the money.

MAP grants are not "loans." The Koreans own the rifles - Lock stock and barrel. They can keep them until the end of time if they wish and your congressman cannot compel them to return them to the US. The only problem is when the Koreans decide they don't want to keep them anymore. They can either sell them and give the money, less packing costs, directly to the US government or they can return the rifles and bill the U.S. Government for the packing cost. This is unlikely to happen as the Koreans know these things are worth $500 - $1000 each on the US retail market and they want the money in their pocket, not the CMP's.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,090
Reaction score
33,263
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But, Obama wants to come to your house and take your guns away! You know that is so, because he is a Democrat, and Democrats are anti gun.

So, keep the rumors flowing. Rumors help to sell guns and so help keep the economy going.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,691
Reaction score
74,618
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But, Obama wants to come to your house and take your guns away! You know that is so, because he is a Democrat, and Democrats are anti gun.

So, keep the rumors flowing. Rumors help to sell guns and so help keep the economy going.
tell me what party sponsored and passed

1) the 1934 NFA
2) the GCA of 1968
3 ) The Hughes Amendment
4) the Brady Bill
5) the Clinton AWB

other than reagan signing the Firearm Ownwer protection act which contained the poison pill hughes amendment because the NRA thought the ban would be overturned while the benefits of the MV FOPA was more important, every major federal restriction on gun rights has been sponsored by and signed into law by dems.

every major attempt to expand gun bans federally have come from dems
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,090
Reaction score
33,263
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tell me what party sponsored and passed

1) the 1934 NFA
2) the GCA of 1968
3 ) The Hughes Amendment
4) the Brady Bill
5) the Clinton AWB

other than reagan signing the Firearm Ownwer protection act which contained the poison pill hughes amendment because the NRA thought the ban would be overturned while the benefits of the MV FOPA was more important, every major federal restriction on gun rights has been sponsored by and signed into law by dems.

every major attempt to expand gun bans federally have come from dems
Good going. Keep it up, and arms sales will continue to be a growth industry.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,898
Reaction score
28,486
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
from Turtledude


other than reagan signing the Firearm Ownwer protection act which contained the poison pill hughes amendment because the NRA thought the ban would be overturned while the benefits of the MV FOPA was more important, every major federal restriction on gun rights has been sponsored by and signed into law by dems.
and despite those measures you still can have your guns. Your rights are intact and strong.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
from Turtledude




and despite those measures you still can have your guns. Your rights are intact and strong.
Exactly. reasonable controls (you know, well regulated) do not equal taking our guns away. Unless some is paranoid, reasonable restrictions can be supported without supporting banning all weapons.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Exactly. reasonable controls (you know, well regulated) do not equal taking our guns away. Unless some is paranoid, reasonable restrictions can be supported without supporting banning all weapons.
The militia is to be well regulated. It does not necessarily refer to firearms.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The militia is to be well regulated. It does not necessarily refer to firearms.
Up for debate. A poorly written amendment is why we have this debate so often. But don't skip the point. You can support reasonable regulation without supporting banning all guns.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
from Turtledude




and despite those measures you still can have your guns. Your rights are intact and strong.
Shall not be infringed was infringed making the above claim total, complete and absolute bull****.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Up for debate. A poorly written amendment is why we have this debate so often. But don't skip the point. You can support reasonable regulation without supporting banning all guns.
That depends upon one's definition of reasonable.

I do agree that the Second Amendment is poorly worded. I wish the Founders had known just how much parsing would be done of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That depends upon one's definition of reasonable.

I do agree that the Second Amendment is poorly worded. I wish the Founders had known just how much parsing would be done of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They were words smith, so I don't think they would be completely surprised. But they were trying to convey something for a reason, and not based on some ideaologial bent. They needed citizen soldiers, who needed to be armed, so they didn't want to hinder weapon availability. Reasonable, but not a religion that would abandon all efforts to deal with a changing world, and changing situations. I doubt they would have problems with reasonable restrictions. A background check is not unreasonable. Nor is a waiting period. I wouldn't even oppose proper storage and saftey regulation. But I agree where the line is is debatable. But debating that line doesn't mean anyone is trying to take all guns away. And that is what I see as important here.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,691
Reaction score
74,618
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
from Turtledude




and despite those measures you still can have your guns. Your rights are intact and strong.
that is a stupid comment

because of that law only the wealthy can afford class three guns. a weapon that cost 1500 dollars before that law now costs more than a decent new car

I thought you libs were in favor of treating the poor well

guess not

and what part of shall not infringe do you have such a difficult time comprehending

as to Boo-reasonable to you is an incremental attempt at banning to me

tell me why to right to lifers want women to have to wait 24 hours before having an abortion

to people who don't like guns any sort of infringement is reasonable

if you are ignorant of guns and gun laws you really are not in a position to claim what is reasonable

its like a hs dropout discussing reasonable therapies for stage 4 cancer
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,691
Reaction score
74,618
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Unless the seller doesn't really own them.
that appears to be a reasonable ground for debate. About 20 years ago a company called Blue Sky or something like that procurred a bunch of MI carbines that have Korean arsenal/armory marks on the stocks (I tend to be up on this stuff). I bought a couple-gave one away to a guy who does WWII reenactments thinking its bore sucked-turns out the koreans had put a new barrel on this Inland gun (Inland is the most common carbine and has little collector value but were very well made-better than the rarer Pedersen or Winchesters ) and it shot well but the stock was awful. Apparently that importer had purchased a warehouse full of cached carbines from Seoul. The guns were obviously originally uS WWII issue.

I was under the impression we gave that stuff to Korea-whether it was a LOAN or a GIFT would be relevant
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If the U.S. government hasn't claimed them by now, they no longer own them.
Actually, I'd love to see what the ownership statute on that is myself. Seems to me that this many years after the Korean war if there hasn't been a claimant on the rifles then it would default to the holder(S.Korea) and that would make them a legit seller. Of course we know that federal law is ALWAYS made much more complicated than it has to be with more loopholes than necessary.

As well, I have no clue how the idiots in Washington can think a semi-automatic carbine rifle could be any more dangerous than a similar hunting rifle on the market today. Oh, I know........because it was used as a military weapon right? Ugh, we have a massive stupidity problem at the federal level right now.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, I'd love to see what the ownership statute on that is myself. Seems to me that this many years after the Korean war if there hasn't been a claimant on the rifles then it would default to the holder(S.Korea) and that would make them a legit seller. Of course we know that federal law is ALWAYS made much more complicated than it has to be with more loopholes than necessary.

As well, I have no clue how the idiots in Washington can think a semi-automatic carbine rifle could be any more dangerous than a similar hunting rifle on the market today. Oh, I know........because it was used as a military weapon right? Ugh, we have a massive stupidity problem at the federal level right now.
If you can lose your land property in 7 years to squatters, these guns should be long gone from the ownership of the U.S. gov.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you can lose your land property in 7 years to squatters, these guns should be long gone from the ownership of the U.S. gov.
I agree, I think it's 10 years for the La. squatter rule(which is total bull****!) but point taken. That's the other thing, how in the hell can someone lay claim on property they trespassed on to begin with? At least the S.Korean government can claim the weapons due to storage costs.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,090
Reaction score
33,263
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
that appears to be a reasonable ground for debate. About 20 years ago a company called Blue Sky or something like that procurred a bunch of MI carbines that have Korean arsenal/armory marks on the stocks (I tend to be up on this stuff). I bought a couple-gave one away to a guy who does WWII reenactments thinking its bore sucked-turns out the koreans had put a new barrel on this Inland gun (Inland is the most common carbine and has little collector value but were very well made-better than the rarer Pedersen or Winchesters ) and it shot well but the stock was awful. Apparently that importer had purchased a warehouse full of cached carbines from Seoul. The guns were obviously originally uS WWII issue.

I was under the impression we gave that stuff to Korea-whether it was a LOAN or a GIFT would be relevant
Exactly. It is the ownership of the guns that is the issue, not whether or not guns can be sold in the US. This has nothing to do with gun control or the second amendment, but who really owns the property up for sale.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,708
Reaction score
9,501
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you can lose your land property in 7 years to squatters, these guns should be long gone from the ownership of the U.S. gov.
That's a very good point, though it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.
 
Top Bottom