Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 3, 2013 14:51:43 GMT -5
Howdy folks,
Well in case you folks haven't heard, the US government was planning to repatriate a bunch of WWII and Korean War vintage military guns to the US, mostly highly collectable Garands, Colt 45's and MI carbines. These guns were purchased with US taxpayer money and provided free to some of our allies and the usual procedure is to re-import them and have the government sell them to military collectors to recoup taxpayer money. These are legal semi automatic firearms and of a type that statistically seldom are used by the criminal element. The Garands especially, are very prized by collectors and target shooters and are a big heavy gun not suited for use by crooks. ( The government provided them free to my college shooting club when I was in school) So, of course the anti gun Obama administration rather, than turn them into a positive cash flow for the government, is planning to pay money to have them destroyed. Just another BS project by the lying anti gun president who says he's not an anti gunner......Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 15:19:46 GMT -5
Mel, that's quite a distortion in just 1 paragraph.
First of all, even Fox News reports that the South Koreans are trying to "raise money for their military". South Korea owns the guns, not anyone in the USA. They aren't for 'repatriating', they were for SALE for cold hard cash to South Korea, not a gift from them. The US Government does NOT own the guns, and has no right to do anything with guns owned by another nation.
The government wasn't going to BUY the guns and resell them to begin with. If you read the article, it was whether to allow South Korea to sell the guns to US dealers.
The decision, which isn't even conclusive, is whether to allow NEARLY A MILLION guns with semi-automatic capacity... not hunting rifles, but originally given the South Korean army to KILL and fight a war with, into this country for sale, or allow direct sale from South Korea.
The problem, as I read it, is the QUANTITY of guns involved that they are balking about, not WHETHER the guns can be sold. Nearly a MILLION guns. Cheap.
So how many were you planning to buy, Mel? What happens to the other 800,000 guns that you and every friend you have didn't buy? You want war grade semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the gangs in California?
And what will it do to the VALUE of those guns for those who own them today? Nearly a million of them floating around the market will drop the prices of those who have family heirlooms to the price of a stolen street Saturday night special. You think that's a great idea?
|
|
|
Post by deb193redux on Sept 3, 2013 15:56:43 GMT -5
I agree that this ban will do little to solve violent crime problems. I agree it is therefore more symbolic than necessary. I also stipulate some responsible collectors are legitimately frustrated. It is a kind of small and lame new imitative.
But you possibly slant and misrepresent things, and you don't give much consideration to the political climate.
1) the word is not "repatriate" it is "import" - by private, for-profit entities. In the case of the large number of guns in Korea, it is in fact the South Korean government that wants to profit from this sale.
2) I do not think there is any taxpayer benefit because the US government would not be be selling these weapons, or getting any proceeds (except maybe some sales tax). I don't follow collectable gun sales closely, so maybe some of the 250000 such guns imported since 2005 were sold to profit the US treasury, but I can't find anywhere it says that. In a hasty search, I did not find support for your point about "positive cash flow".
3) since the US does not possess these guns, I can't see how they are "paying" to dispose of them. There is some talk of finding another disposition for the guns South Korea wants to sell to profit its treasury, but I can't find anywhere it say the US will pay Korea not to sell the guns, or to destroy the guns.
The issue of gun control, and specifically, limiting high-capacity and assault-type weapons is complicated, and there are more than two sides, and plenty of people staking out various positions. I think it is wrong to equate *any* talk of limits on highly-destructive weapons as tantamount to anti-gun. I think it is inflammatory to use the label "lying anti gun president". I There are many constituents who want some sort of gun control and/or closed background loopholes. These constituents are very frustrated by no vote either way on recent legislation. Also, the administration obviously does not want to alienate this constituency by approving the import of hundreds of thousands of military grade weapons (even if dated). The Clinton administration also 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. It is a political hot potato, and your failure to acknowledge the many people who want the ban is not helpful.
Why can't you raise issues for rational discussion (did you miss the part where I also see this policy as ineffective) without misstating facts and using such biased and offensive language? You seem more interested in spewing vile than in finding solutions *most* people can live with.
|
|
|
Post by deb193redux on Sept 3, 2013 15:59:15 GMT -5
Helen, you attend to some of the same points I did, but I have to say that statistically these types of guns do not usually end up at crime scenes. Of, course they might start to if so many got flooded onto the market.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 16:35:00 GMT -5
Helen, you attend to some of the same points I did, but I have to say that statistically these types of guns do not usually end up at crime scenes. Of, course they might start to if so many got flooded onto the market. That's because they are EXPENSIVE collectibles right now, and collectors hoard them like squirrels hoard nuts. 1 million of them in one shot dumped on the market? What do you think? And all weapons manufactured for war have high capacity magazines, have very long deadly accurate ranges (like up to 2 MILES). M1 Garands, if I recall properly, are 30-06. You fire one, and it can go through a window and kill your neighbor's child a mile away accidentally. This isn't a short range shotgun, it can easily be used as a sniper rifle, because that's what it was used for on a battlefield too. And, I think the M1 will auto eject clips for continuous fire... with 2 miles per bullet before they expend their energy. When the USSR broke down, they were selling $10,000 night vision goggles on Ebay for $50. So they'd be the new cheap toy for criminals... 1 million guns? The most valued guns have serial numbers in the thousands. I'm arguing from the pro-gun perspective. I'm not anti-guns AT ALL. But even from that perspective, I see no advantage in flooding the market with deadly war-grade weapons. Weapons manufactured for soldiers are generally better built, will fire under the most adverse conditions, and capable of holding a LOT of magazines. And 1 million of them on the market will make them cheap. They'd likely depreciate the value of every gun in the USA today, just because if you can buy one of these for $100, heck, the SAME PRICE as the highest end Walmart gun, who'd want anything else? And you can kill someone over a mile away. Pop a modern laser scope, and a crazy will have a field day. They don't have to kill children in a school, they can park 2 blocks away and pick em off with a scope as they get off the schoolbus. Where's the common sense?
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 3, 2013 16:38:25 GMT -5
Helen: First off the weapons were American made and would be being repatriated. I have purchased and competed with such rifles in the past both from the DCM ( Director of Civilian Marksmanship- US Gov.) and from private dealers. I sold my collection because my club here does not have vintage rifle competitions. Sorry I made the assumption this was the same deal as my shooter buddy who sent me the info said it was. I don't know if you are right or not ( I'll try to look it up) but you are missing the point. Collectors and shooters love these rifles as do a lot of military vets. They are rarely used in crimes. They bring good prices and would easily be sold to collectors here in the US. And yes, I might buy me a couple *L*. I know a ton of folks who would want them.
There is no gun crime reason not to allow them in but Obama is just making an anti-gun political point. A gangbanger is not going to put a three foot long 13 pound Garand in his pants and ammo is actually not cheap for these guns anymore so most would probably not even be shot. If MI carbines or colt 45 pistols are part of the deal as I've been told, those might be a different story because I suppose one could make an anti crime point with those even though they are both pretty big guns to carry around. And yes I agree, Clinton was an anti gun ahole too......Mel
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 3, 2013 16:50:29 GMT -5
OK, just checked my NRA magazine. Guns are Garands and MI's provided by the US Government to South Korea. Looks like we paid for them and then gave them to South Korea or at least I can't find in the article where they paid us for them. Looks like you are right and my buddy was wrong as I can't see where they were to be destroyed and they were to be imported for private sale, not by the DCM. Obama is just blocking importation. Also found out a bill is being introduced " The Collectible Firearms Protection Act" but even if that passes Obama's ATF will probably slow the import permits so it never happens.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 17:40:11 GMT -5
If you value YOUR OWN collection, you'd want them blocked too. Like anyone would ever want any other rifle, even for deer hunting with, and a MILLION of them in the USA... that would cripple every US gun manufacturer for a long time in lost sales. Not to mention the plethora of new hunting accidents if everyone were using weapons that could travel 2 MILES per bullet. You fire one of those straight up in the air, and it can kill someone on the way down. Our prisons are full enough, we don't need to be paying for hundreds of new manslaughter idiots who had no idea how lethal that particular weapon is.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 3, 2013 18:54:26 GMT -5
Helen, As I said, I sold my vintage rifle collection before I moved to Texas. Paid for my whole cross country move. It is very difficult to talk guns with someone like you who knows nothing of them. I don't even understand your argument about a Garand shooting two miles. Oh my how scary! The Garand is a 30-06. That's a popular hunting caliber and most all high power hunting rifles shoot projectiles in that range. So every hunter that is not shooting a .22 which will shoot over a mile by the way, has the same chance for an accident as the guy hunting with a Garand which in modern usage s mainly used for target shooting anyway, as it's kind of an awkward rifle. A Garand is no more lethal than my 308 I used to hunt deer with. You've been reading too much anti gun propaganda from your lefty friends. And as I said, most would go into collections and not even be shot and it is one big heavy gun. Lazy ass gangbangers would not find it nearly as attractive as their 9mm's. Wouldn't bother gun manufacturers as these are vintage collectibles that do not compete with modern made gun sales any more than an antique 1880's colt single action competes with a Glock. In short, your arguments don't hold water .
Another point to consider is they would not be cheap. From a million rifles,most would be in crappy shape and many unfireable and would be broken down for parts. Only a small percentage would actually go into the sales stream and nice Garands are pretty expensive, some models uber expensive. You would not see the market glutted with a huge number of rifles but rather a select few going to mostly collectors and most good fireable pieces would be $500 and up. These are not Saturday night specials..Mel
PS: You're so funny. The gun does not travel 2 miles per bullet, it's the bullet that can travel 2 miles when fired from the gun *L* Again, just like most any deer hunting rifle. I never want to go shooting with you. You'd probably hold the bullet in your hand and throw the gun at me, at least, if'n I weren't more than two miles away *L*
|
|
Geoff
spending too much on rocks
Please add 1074 to my post number.
Member since December 2012
Posts: 446
|
Post by Geoff on Sept 3, 2013 19:03:45 GMT -5
A sudden influx of obsolete firearms will have no effect on me. I don't like antique weapons. I only buy modern firearms capable of high power loads such as the modern Marlin 1895. An influx of Garands won't have much more of an effect on crime just like the influx of Soviet SKS's. Haven't seen to many people murdered by 44" long rifles. Kind of impractical.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 19:11:58 GMT -5
Very funny. Guns are not my forte, I have no interest in arguing with you about their merits. I concede your knowledge of guns, I don't care enough to argue.
AND you make a good point about the condition of these vintage guns. However, lets assume 1/2 are rubbish. How about 3/4? That's still 250,000 fully functional weapons flooding the market. That's if 1/4 are in good shape, and I'm sure a good percentage of these guns were never used, since some of those guns would have been shipped there shortly before the war was lost.
So there are exactly 289 cities in the USA with a population over 100K people. A large % don't have gun shows. But lets pretend they all do. So at only 250,000 sellable guns in decent condition, that's 865 guns for every single US city in the USA that needs to sell. If the number is actually 800,000, then that's 2768 new M1's in every single city in the USA with a population over 100,000.
What do you think they'll sell for when dealers have that many to get rid of?
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 19:13:10 GMT -5
M1's are not obsolete.
|
|
Geoff
spending too much on rocks
Please add 1074 to my post number.
Member since December 2012
Posts: 446
|
Post by Geoff on Sept 3, 2013 19:29:57 GMT -5
They've been obsolete since 1957. I carried the latest incarnation, the Mk14 EBR in Afghanistan. I loved that rifle. A full ten inches shorter than the Garand, and made to withstand today's high power rounds. 20 round detachable magazines, and collapsible stock. Awesome weapon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 19:40:46 GMT -5
The M1 was obsolete when I was in the military. I carried the standard M14 30 cal until I went to Nam. The M1 and M1 carbine predated the M14 Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 19:43:19 GMT -5
Geoff, was the MK14EBR a 30 cal? Jim
|
|
Geoff
spending too much on rocks
Please add 1074 to my post number.
Member since December 2012
Posts: 446
|
Post by Geoff on Sept 3, 2013 19:47:57 GMT -5
Yeah. Technically 7.62x51 but essentially a .308 round.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 3, 2013 20:24:00 GMT -5
*L* Ah Helen, queen of the goofy statistics. First off some would go to big cities to collectors, most would probably go to rural folks where they have places to shoot them and there are millions of collectors and sports shooters in the US. Shooters ave been clambering for these rifles for years but our ahole politicians have tied them up. These are not big city guns *L*. The good guns would disappear very fast. I really don't think you comprehend the size of America's gun market *L*. Probably only a tenth would be in really nice condition as military rifles get a lot of shooting which usually burns up the barrels pretty good and some are very poorly cared for. The wood is often very bad. I doubt they were mint condition/ brand new when shipped but even if they were, most would be doggy from arsenal storage. When my club got ours, they were all pretty crappy but I have seen some DCM Garands that were amazing and worth over $1500 easy. Fact is though, your calculation makes the assumption all the shootable ones would sell and that's simply not true. Thousands of lesser quality examples would sit in surplus warehouse for years, just as they do now but you'd be surprised how many would disappear into collections. I knew guys in my club with twenty or thirty of them. MI carbines for example have tons of variations and folks collect them like stamps. Again, they would never get that cheap and they are not the kind of weapon criminals prefer.If they were, gangbangers would be running around with deer rifles. But, like the "assault " rifle myth, statistically since you like numbers so much,very few crimes are done with long rifles, period.....Mel
Yes, both the carbine and the Garand are both long obsolete. Even the 30-06 cartridge is not used in our modern military rifles.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 21:02:52 GMT -5
Obsolete to the military, but people still collect them. I know they are obsolete in the military, or we wouldn't have sent so many to the Koreans. I've never heard of the US giving the latest and greatest weapons to ANYONE ever. Just out of curiosity, I looked it up... here's a comment I thought was fun on a gun forum: thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198533"In my opinion, any rifle that can put eight .30 caliber bullets inside a 6 inch ring, fired in under 30 seconds, at a range of 200 yards, is NOT obsolete. My M-1 Garand will do that. It's nothing special, as Garands go. A Winchester receiver made in 1943, rebuilt by Army armorers in 1963. A new barrel and a few other new parts. But the rifle shoots like it was designed to do, and I think it is still one of the most dependable auto-loading battle rifles ever built." Read the rest of the posts, no one thinks its obsolete there either, and several of these guys are Nam vets with quite a lot to say about the M1 and it's 'obsolete-ness'. So there. And Mel, while you might know more about guns than me, I doubt you know more about guns than the guys in the thread, who say you are WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Sept 3, 2013 21:15:31 GMT -5
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 3, 2013 21:50:58 GMT -5
Poor Helen, Living in fear of hoards of baggy pants gangbangers running around big cities with three foot long 13 pound rifles shoved in their belts and bandoliers of hard to find stripper clips around their shoulders *L*. And oh my God, there come some with a mountain howitzer that still shoots so it ain't obsolete neither. My sword could stick ten people in 30 seconds so I guess it's not an obsolete weapon. Now we have to worry about swarms of gangsters with swords, cannons and Garands in their pants. I God, it's like a band of pirates! Oh the horror! The horror! *LOL*
Yes, obsolete is a technical term just like when your computer becomes obsolete. It means you have something better to do the job. Thank you for explaining it to us Helen, I'm sure none of us knew that *L*, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Matter of fact, the testimonial you posted is a very good reason for a shooter to want to own and shoot a vintage Garand and be pissed off about not being able to import them. Oh and by the way, the rifles like the AR clones in 5.56 that I like to shoot so much that replaced the M-14 Another great rifle, that replaced the obsolete Garand, can do 30 rounds in 30 seconds at two hundred in a much smaller group without hammering your shoulder into a bruised pulp. That's why the Garand, though one of the worlds greatest rifles is "technically as far as military use goes" obsolete. The Garand's heavier bullets really blow through walls and such but the gun is a heavy, hard kicking beast. Lighter weight, lighter recoil, accuracy and the ability to carry more ammo is why today's "black rifles" are so popular. And there is your rifle lesson for the day Helen.....Mel
PS: I like guns about as much as I Like rocks, maybe more. I know a little about them too. *L*
|
|