M1 Carbine Imports Banned

[Jean V. Dubois]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20120122.aspx

(the original headline, "M1 Carbine Banned In America", is misleading)

anuary 22, 2012: After over two years of negotiations, South Korea has finally received permission to export antique (over 50 years old) American military rifles back to the United States. South Korea has been given permission to sell 87,310 M1 Garand rifles to American collectors. The U.S. still refuses to allow South Korea to export 770,160 M1 Carbines to collectors in the United States. That's because the M1s can only hold eight .30 caliber (7.62mm) bullets while the carbines use a magazine (holding up to 30 rounds). The M1 Carbine can also be easily modified to fire automatically. While not outlawed in the United States, M1 Carbine imports are usually banned.

All this export effort began three years ago. As South Korea upgraded its armed forces over the last two decades, it has had to dispose of a lot of old equipment. But then it discovered that it had put into storage many World War II era rifles it had received from the United States during the 1950s. Some of these M-1 Garand rifles (the first semiautomatic rifle to enter wide service in any army) and M-1 Carbines (which fire a pistol class 7.62mm round) had only been used occasionally by reservists, and even these troops have since been armed with more modern weapons.

(more at link)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Riddle me this...

...using the same logic, if Dred Scott had went to South Korea would he...

- still be a slave
- or just no longer American?

[aikoaiko]

2. Good news on the M1 Garands, but what a strange rationale for denying the M1 Carbines.

At least we get to bring the Garands back home.


edited to add: Kodus to the persons on the US side who challenged conventional wisdom and helped allow the Garands in.

[slackmaster]

3. Meanwhile, the ad for Big Five Sporting Goods in this morning's fishwrap is hawking...

...newly manufactured M1 Carbines made by Auto Ordnance.

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/Firearms/Auto-Ordnance-AOM130.asp

The stupidity of the decision to not allow imports of historically significant original ones boggles the rational mind.

[gejohnston]

21. cool, have to get me one

I always liked them.

[Simo 1939_1940]

4. Looks like the administration finally figured out that they had stepped in it.

A good thing. The waffling will still be remembered for a long time, and serves as hard evidence that we're totally clueless on the issue of gun restriction.

Every time I've received a solicitation for a donation from a Democratic Party entity I've told them that they won't get another nickel as long as reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban remains part of the party platform. Why give my money to any organization that undermines itself with bad policy? Lousy investment. (I also brought up the subject of the Garands and the undermining effect of the decision to block importation.)

[Hoyt]

5. Thanks for supporting the Democratic Party.

[aikoaiko]

6. You wouldn't understand this, but Simo 1939_1940 is supporting Democratics that way.

[Hoyt]

9. Don't think so.

[spin]

13. My opinion is that pandering to those who favor draconian gun control...

damages the party far more than it helps.

It would be far wiser for our party to just do what Obama has suggested.

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

***snip***

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

***snip***

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1kDKseAJw

Obama will be able to counter the propaganda from the NRA with his record on gun control during his first four years. Of course, other prominent Democrats can sabotage him by pushing for items such as another assault weapons ban or other foolish "feel good" ideas. Obama also needs to get the Fast and Furious gun running scandal behind him as if the steady drip, drip, drip continues it could become a major election issue.

If the election is close, the gun owner vote might put Newt or Romney in the White House. Of course you could argue that either of those two (especially Romney) might support new gun control more than Obama. Newt has a mixed record on gun control and Mitt's is even worse.

[Hoyt]

23. How about people just leave the dang things at home. You guys could start tomorrow.

Then, quit buying so many. Until we change attitudes of the "gun culture" -- not unlike changing attitudes toward smoking, polluting, bigotry, corporate greed, etc. -- it will be though.

[hack89]

24. Because me owning guns represents absolutely no threat whatsoever.

so there is no point in doing what you ask. Why aren't you more concerned about the criminal culture?

[ellisonz]

33. It's your guns...

...that get stolen, sold to, or fraudulently obtained by "the criminal culture" and it's your culture that says nothing can be done to reduce this threat.

[hack89]

40. I have never had a gun stolen in 30 years - and the threat has been steadily reduced for 20 years. n

[PavePusher]

41. Blame the victim for the crime. Where have we seen this vile shit before? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. From at least one admitted gun criminal here.

Very telling, that...

[ellisonz]

56. What a bunch of crap...

That's like saying Wall Street had nothing to with the crash in the housing market.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. It's your culture that is to blame for being a victim of crime.

If you said this about any other kind of culture you'd get a tombstone.

[ellisonz]

55. Really?

I'd get tombstoned for saying that stockbrokers who promote a culture of lawlessness are responsible for the crash in the housing market. Bullshit.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. Huh?

I'd get tombstoned for saying that stockbrokers who promote a culture of lawlessness are responsible for the crash in the housing market. Bullshit.

Not sure what analogy you are attempting to make here.

The people who are responsible for the crash of the housing market manipulated the laws so that everything they did was, for the most part, completely legal.

That's kind of the point of the Occupy movement - we are tired of people with money using that money to buy policy favorable to their financial interests.

But this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You are saying that someone has a "culture" that makes them more attractive to thievery and is therefore responsible for acts of theft committed against them.

If you said beautiful women were responsible for acts of sexual violence against them you'd be tombstoned. If you suggested that pretty much any other "culture" was responsible for crimes against them, you'd be tombstoned.

But you suggest that the "gun culture" makes the victim responsible for the theft of his guns and that's okey-dokey.

[ellisonz]

62. Your argument is essentially that cause does not produce an effect.

I beg to disagree.

"we are tired of people with money using that money to buy policy favorable to their financial interests."

This is precisely what the gun lobby does...it is no different than other lobbies.

I just happen to detest your lobby especially for its denial of responsibility for its effect...

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Owning guns no more causes theft than being beautiful causes rape.

Owning guns no more causes theft than being beautiful causes rape.

Stop blaming the victim.

This is precisely what the gun lobby does...it is no different than other lobbies.

It's different in one important regard: It is a lobby primarily made up of people, not corporations. It is a lobby that exists to further the Constitutional rights of a group of people who volunteer and pay to belong to it, and not just a front for corporate financial interest.

I have no problem with groups of people uniting to use the power of collective bargaining to gain influence in government. But corporations are not people and should not be able to lobby the same way as people do, for the simple reason that they have huge, overpowering war chests that give them a disproportionate voice and influence compared to regular people.

But when groups of people join together for a common voice, whether it is the NAACP, or the AARP, or the NRA, or Progressives United, etc., I have no problem with that kind of lobbying. That is exactly the kind of lobbying we should have.

I just happen to detest your lobby especially for its denial of responsibility for its effect...

I assume we are still talking about theft. The NRA is not responsible for firearm theft.

[ellisonz]

66. You're denying the significance of the concept of culture...

We don't live in isolation from each other, we live in a society with cultural systems. How those systems are taught in term comes to define the culture. You know you're wrong and so you're using the most inflammatory example possible to deflect the basic conclusion: that there is a gun culture in America and that the beliefs it holds have an effect on social outcomes.

The modern man is in general, even with the best will, unable to give religious ideas a significance for culture and national character which they deserve. But one can, of course, not aim to replace a one-sided materialistic with an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history. Each is equally possible, but each, if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplish equally little in the interest of historical truth.

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

[Atypical Liberal]

81. No, I know I'm right.

You are trying to blame the victim of theft by saying his "culture" just drove people to commit crimes against him.

Is the owner of a jewelry store responsible for thefts from his store because jewelry is attractive to steal?

Is the owner of anything of value ever responsible for his property being stolen?

Of course not.

But you want to couch it in terms of "culture" as if there is something insidious about people who own guns that makes them deserving and blameful for having a crime committed against them.

It does not matter if I own a warehouse full of gold, diamonds, food, clothing, televisions, or guns. Nothing justifies stealing for personal gain and it certainly isn't the fault of the people who own the goods if someone decides to steal it.

that there is a gun culture in America and that the beliefs it holds have an effect on social outcomes.

There is a promiscuity culture in America and the beliefs it holds have an effect on social outcomes.

There is an entitlement culture in America and the beliefs it holds have an effect on social outcomes.

See how retarded this line of reasoning sounds?

[X_Digger]

25. Did you intend to reply to someone else?

Or was the non sequitur intentional?

[Jean V. Dubois]

26. Why in the world would you care how many guns I buy?

[X_Digger]

27. Hoyt has that Robert Bork 'moral harm' thing going on..

As writer Dan Baum said in a recent Harper's article (August, 2010)..

[div class='excerpt'].....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

[TheWraith]

60. Good catch.

And yet some people here still subscribe to that belief when it comes to the immorality of owning and using guns, and believe that anyone who does is likely to shoot up a grocery store at any second. Whereas anyone who made the same argument about, say, how someone else's gay sex or pornography means their children are going to be raped in the cereal aisle would be first laughed off the board and then banned.

[ileus]

29. Be kinda silly leaving such a valuable safety device at home...

[spin]

31. Why would I do that?

I didn't get a concealed weapons permit to leave my gun locked in the safe at home. That would have been a waste of both money and time.

[Union Scribe]

43. Lot of people you know carry M1 carbines?

Nevermind, look who I'm talking to. You've probably got a dozen stories about running into rude carbine toters with double rifle shoulder holsters.

[Callisto32]

85. Why do people harming no one bother you so much.

You're like the people who hate marijuana.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. I've listened to the Party before

They told me if I voted for Goldwater we'd go and bomb the hell out of the Vietnamese and become entangled in an Asian land war.

Well, I voted for Goldwater and sure enough they were right.

[Hoyt]

12. So that was your single issue back then? -- Voting for candidate committed to bombing Vietnamese.

[one-eyed fat man]

17. and you voted for?????

...the guy who lied and got us involved in the war anyway?

I didn't realize membership in your version of the Democratic Party required my undying fealty and to march in lockstep with my fellow Bundists.

I can argue against policies the Party has I think are counter-productive or just plain wrong-headed.

If the Party didn't evolve you'd still be burning crosses to celebrate the end of the convention like they did in 1924.

[Hoyt]

18. I did not vote for the guy who promised to bomb people. Apparently, you liked that promise.

[oneshooter]

22. Has the Democratic Party ever done anything that you don't agree with?

And if it has, what did you do to show your disaproval?

[one-eyed fat man]

28. You have selctive amnesia

and the irony is lost on you.

Johnson campaigned as the peace candidate. The DNC made it clear enough

[BiggJawn]

14. I don't give the DNC any money, either.

But it's more because the price of everything except my blood, sweat, and tears has increased over the last oh-so many years.

They'll take $100,000 from somebody like The Gates but aren't interested in 50 cents from me, even though it's the same ratio.

[krispos42]

36. I'm sure your generous donations because the party supports the AWB...

...more than makes up for it.



I'm curious... does having the AWB in the party's platform result in a net increase or net decrease in donations?

[montanto]

47. My party, right or wrong!!

2nd amendment isn't a party issue. And what IS at issue here is the silliness of not importing that which is already available on the market.

[ileus]

7. All those beloved M1's would be a gold mine considering the prices of originals these days.

Hell if nothing else import them and covert them to Class III and sell them as full autos. There's a mint to be made here, and each one is an important history lesson.

[krispos42]

8. Detachable-magazine-fed rifles are not illegal in the US, nor have they ever been...

...nor will they ever be.

Ergo, not importing these is a dumbass move.

Instead of selling these 770,160 rifles to US wholesalers for maybe $600 each ($460 million), the market will instead buy 770,160 new rifles. New AR-15s and AK-47s, mostly, ones that ALSO take detachable magazines of up to 30 rounds capacity, but fire more powerful rounds than the .30 Carbine.

And of course, we'll have to burn more coal, mine more ore, fell more trees, and pump more oil to get the basics to forge these new weapons.

[ileus]

11. I'd never thought of the green aspect, but it's a good angle...

however.com I bet the greenies still won't support the cause.

[ellisonz]

34. Let the free market reign...

[krispos42]

35. I'm trying to

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:54 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not happening because the federal government has a problem with re-importing guns that:

a) It had made in the US for the US military
b) It sells to certain civilians for below-market prices via the Civilian Marksmanship Program
c) It has ALREADY sold on the open civilian market after World War Two and Korea
d) Are currently legally owned by millions of people
e) When newly-manufactured to the identical specifications as these, are legally bought and sold.
f) Have identical key features as other legally bought and sold rifles.



If you thinks it makes sense to destroy these guns, or have them sold by international arms marketeers to some 3rd-world shithole with a history of ethnic cleansing and genocide, while making new, functionally-equivalent ones to replace them, then that's you're prerogative.

[ellisonz]

37. So many guns...

[gejohnston]

38. so little time,

kind of like books in that way.

[X_Digger]

44. so little crime..

[Straw Man]

49. You seem to have a reflexive antipathy ...

Let the free market reign...

... to the word "free."

[ellisonz]

54. When it's used in the advocacy...

...of insane policies endorsed by Republicans and libertarians, yes I abhor the idea of an unregulated free market. Do you think the free market should be unregulated by government?

[Straw Man]

57. Well, for starters, the "free market" is a fairy-tale ...

... because government produces and regulates the currency that fuels it. What most people mean by a "free market" is one that is regulated to serve their interests. But that's another discussion.

When it's used in the advocacy...

...of insane policies endorsed by Republicans and libertarians, yes I abhor the idea of an unregulated free market.

So you consider the sale of surplus WWI- and WWII-era military rifles to civilians an "insane policy"? It has been going on through the CMP since 1916. Historically significant firearms are available to the public at reasonable prices. It's hard to see the downside, unless, of course, you hate firearms and everything to do with them.

[ellisonz]

58. I hate the massive amount of guns that's flooding this country...

...for no other reason than paranoia and collecting of them as if they were toys and not relics. I wouldn't deny your right to own a gun for self-defense, hunting, of competition shooting. I would deny your right to own a dozen guns for no reason other than paranoia.

[Straw Man]

59. What you hate is irrelevant.

I hate the massive amount of guns that's flooding this country...

It's just an emotion that you have. Learn to deal with it instead of trying to regulate other people's legal and non-threatening behavior to a point where you feel comfortable.

...for no other reason than paranoia and collecting of them as if they were toys and not relics.

You've never heard of collecting relics? There's even a special class of FFL for this, called the "C&R" for "Curio and Relic."

I would deny your right to own a dozen guns for no reason other than paranoia.

Paranoia has nothing to do with it, but I'm glad to hear you admit that you advocate the denial of rights.

[ellisonz]

63. Yes...

...let's all just become emotion free killing machines.

This is the reason we have civilian control of the military - because those who place their vested interest above that of others don't make better decisions by that virtue.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to own dozens of guns enshrined.

[Straw Man]

65. I hope I'm misreading you ...

..let's all just become emotion free killing machines.

... because you appear to be saying that unless we base public policy on emotion rather than reason, we will all become murderers. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that rationality precludes ethics, morality, and empathy. I would submit to you that unrestrained, unreflective emotionality is more likely to result in the "killing machines" you fear.

This is the reason we have civilian control of the military - because those who place their vested interest above that of others don't make better decisions by that virtue.

O King of the Non Sequiturs, whence comes this pronouncement? Civilians = emotion? Military = rationality? Military = vested interest? Civilians = no vested interest? Rationalists have a vested interest but emotionalists don't? Vested interest in what? Don't leave me in the wilderness -- enlighten me.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to own dozens of guns enshrined.

I thought it was somewhere in among "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I know that you think this is restricted to the point of negation by the prefatory clause; I disagree for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that "shall not be infringed" is rather strong language for a right that you're claiming is restricted and contingent. But really, more than anything, I just feel that you're wrong. And that's what's it's really all about, isn't it?

[X_Digger]

67. "I just feel that you're wrong."

Ooh, hoist on his own petard.

You, sir, win the internetz.

[ellisonz]

68. I'm saying we ought to base public policy on synthetic reason.

The Aristotelean philosophers distinguished two kinds of judgments:

1) Synthetic judgment.- Judgments that are based on a synthesis or putting together of different facts of experience and are therefore considered to be a posteriori. For example, "... The phases of the moon are visible after dark."

2) Analytic judgment.- Judgments that are based exclusively upon an analysis of the subject without recourse to experience and are therefore considered to be a priori. For example, "... A right line is straight."

Kant is not entirely satisfied with these conclusions and argues that there are synthetic judgments a priori such as those of mathematics. Aristoteleans would argue that such judgments are really analytic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

Again:

Keep on jeopardizing the Free World, General Turgidson. I'll go with synthetic judgment.

[Straw Man]

69. I see what you just did there.

You Googled "reason" and then posted the first (maybe the second) result you found. Then you recapped your Greatest Hits of Stanley Kubrick clip.

What you didn't do is address any of what we had been talking about.

[ellisonz]

71. Or I've read Kant and Aristotle...

...in fact, I spent an entire semester reading classics in the philosophy of political judgment.

I addressed what we've been talking about. There are different types of reasoning. My reasoning is synthetic, yours is analytic. The Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb to illustrate the foolishness of the analytic approach to this situation of armaments.

Here's my question to you: how many guns is enough guns?

[Straw Man]

72. You're going to have to do better than that.

Certainly you didn't spend a semester reading Kant and Aristotle on Wikipedia. And certainly if you hope to make the case that they are germane to this discussion, you're going to have to tell me what is synthetic about your emotion-based aversion to the collecting of historic firearms and what is analytic about my rational response that it entails no demonstrable harm. You somehow seem to be yoking the MAD concept of nuclear brinkmanship to a discussion of importing relic firearms. Is this one of those "Mars/Venus" pop philosophy memes?

How many guns is enough guns? Are you suggesting that this importation should be disallowed because there are "enough guns" in the US already? Let me ask you a question: How many guns are "too many" guns? That's what you're really working towards, isn't it?

[ellisonz]

74. Wikipedia is convenient.

Did you know "wiki" is Hawaiian for fast?

My aversion isn't to the legitimate collection of historic arms by institutions or individuals, my objection is to the collection of weapons by those who are collecting for no other reason than to collect. My analysis incorporates statistical analysis and sense-based concern about the policy effect of interpretation. I think you have a really hard case making an argument that although an analytic based argument could reasonably conclude that an arms race is productive, a synthetic based argument will conclude that such a race must have limits. I'm sure you've heard of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction. It's a classic policy argument. Like Pavlovs dog...

Answer the question, how many guns is enough guns?

[Straw Man]

75. Convenient but reductive.

My aversion isn't to the legitimate collection of historic arms by institutions or individuals, my objection is to the collection of weapons by those who are collecting for no other reason than to collect.

So what do you see as a legitimate reason to collect? And who has the authority to determine that? Personally, I like the concept of collecting to collect. It's so very ... existential.

My analysis incorporates statistical analysis and sense-based concern about the policy effect of interpretation.

Eh? Analysis of what? The social impact of military-surplus firearms collecting? What statistics do you have on this? What is a "sense-based concern"? Are we talking about the sensory bases of empiricism here? What have you seen/heard/smelled/tasted/felt in re this subject? Interpretation of what? To what policy does it lead you? Could you please translate this sociobabble into English?

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you're just blowing smoke now, and frankly it's getting annoying.

I think you have a really hard case making an argument that although an analytic based argument could reasonably conclude that an arms race is productive, a synthetic based argument will conclude that such a race must have limits.

I'm pretty sure that means exactly the opposite of what you think it means. Here's a parsing hint: Everything from "although" to "productive" is a subordinate clause and could be omitted. Read it that way and see if it's what you meant to say. In any case. HTF did you come to the conclusion that I'm arguing in favor of an arms race? WTF does that have to do with curio and relic firearms? That is supposedly what we are discussing here, although you're trying to skate away from it as fast as you can.

I'm sure you've heard of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction.

Yes -- I'm the one who first mentioned it. Remember? And I ask again what is has to do with this topic. Is mankind at the risk of annihilation by M1 carbines?

Answer the question, how many guns is enough guns?

For a law-abiding citizen with a bit of disposable income, as many as he/she chooses to own. Now answer my question: How many guns is too many?

[ellisonz]

77. That's a fair assessment of analytic and synthetic reasoning.

1. Government.

2. I see gun violence rates that are higher than other Westernized countries. If you find this discussion annoying, you're free to pick up your toys and go away.

3. You basically are making that argument when you refuse to answer the question of how many guns is enough. I asked you first. I've made my opinions on this matter well known. I think the description of "curio and relic firearms" is more accurate when talking about muskets etc. than the M-1 Garand which is still made for sale in the marketplace. How many guns is enough? Are we just going to try to buy every gun we possibly can? :shrug

4. Many people take small-arms proliferation very seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_proliferation - If you make them, they will be sold and used.

5. Care to answer: how many guns is enough? Don't run away from it, give an answer...

[Straw Man]

78. Still bobbing and weaving, I see.

Government.

So government should decide what a legitimate reason for collecting firearms is? And you have no opinion on the matter? C'mon, step up. What do you think?

I see gun violence rates that are higher than other Westernized countries. If you find this discussion annoying, you're free to pick up your toys and go away.

And precisely what does this have to do with collecting relic firearms? Can you give me some stats on how many crimes of violence are committed with M1 Garands and carbines? I'll give you a hint: it ain't many. What I find annoying is your pretense that you are engaging in a discussion when in fact you have avoided all substantive issues in favor of talking about your freshman philosophy seminar and your favorite films. Them's the toys, my friend.

You basically are making that argument when you refuse to answer the question of how many guns is enough. I asked you first. I've made my opinions on this matter well known.

So you're still attempting to link curio gun collecting to the nuclear arms race? You didn't get any of what I said there, did you? Go back and read it again.

No, you haven't made your opinions known, because I don't know what they are. Please give me an answer. I gave you one. It's your turn. I don't even expect a number: some comprehensible criteria will do.

I think the description of "curio and relic firearms" is more accurate when talking about muskets etc. than the M-1 Garand which is still made for sale in the marketplace.

So that's what you think? Were you aware that new-production muskets are still made for sale in the marketplace? Were you aware that the government has created the category of "Curio and Relic Federal Firearms License" and has classified the M1 Garand and carbine as C&R eligible? You know, that government to which you choose to defer for determinations of what is right and proper in gun collecting? You wouldn't be second-guessing the good old ATF, would you?

Care to answer: how many guns is enough? Don't run away from it, give an answer...

I gave you an answer. Did you not see it? Could you not comprehend it? Were you looking for a number? I'm sorry, but the number depends on the individual. Is that answer satisfactory? Or let's put it this way: There should not be a limit on how many firearms a law-abiding individual can own. If you think there should be, come up with a number and make your case.

[ellisonz]

79. Float like a butterfly sting like a bee...

1. I think other countries regulate this quite effectively. I would look to their examples as a model.

2. This has to do with guns in general. I don't see how adding more guns at this point to society makes anything better. I object on basic principle.

3. The issue is militarism. I've made my objections to gun hoarding well known. I've varied on the numbers, but I definitely favor a progressive taxation on firearms ownership to discourage hoarding and the keeping of unreasonable amounts of firearms.

4. Damn right I'll second guess the ATF. I think it's my obligation as a citizen to have an opinion about government, to not be shunted to Mitt Romeny's quiet rooms.

5. I missed your initial. I was putting up Toons: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10169572

"There should not be a limit on how many firearms a law-abiding individual can own." Straw Man is in favor of unlimited guns. I guess I was kinda correct when I said that some people here are in favor of unlimited gun rights.

[gejohnston]

80. those same countries

had the same or lower murder rates when their gun laws were closer to Vermont's.

But it is getting better, guns or not.

Who are you to decide what is "reasonable" for others?

Just don't whine when we second guess the ATF

[X_Digger]

82. Nice bullshit substitution. "unlimited gun rights"

What, you think nobody would notice?

No, Straw Man (and me) don't think there should be a limit to the number of guns a person can own.

That has fuck-all to do with 'unlimited gun rights' and you know it.

But nice try, really. I'd give it a 7 for effort, a 3 for execution.

[Straw Man]

83. Float like a bulldozer, sting like wet Kleenex.

I think other countries regulate this quite effectively. I would look to their examples as a model.

Examples please, with specific reference to how they regulate collectors.

This has to do with guns in general. I don't see how adding more guns at this point to society makes anything better. I object on basic principle.

Translation: "Guns make me feel uncomfortable, so anything that places limitations on their ownership pleases me." Sorry -- not compelling and certainly far too vague a basis on which to base public policy.

The issue is militarism. I've made my objections to gun hoarding well known. I've varied on the numbers, but I definitely favor a progressive taxation on firearms ownership to discourage hoarding and the keeping of unreasonable amounts of firearms.

In a word, horseshit. This has nothing to do with militarism, and your constant attempts to link the two just speak to the weakness of your argument. Are you suggesting that militias are plotting the overthrow of the state with curios and relics? Please try to stay on the topic.

Damn right I'll second guess the ATF. I think it's my obligation as a citizen to have an opinion about government, to not be shunted to Mitt Romeny's quiet rooms.

So what is your policy recommendation? Abolish the C&R FFL? Make the collectors liquidate their collections? Go ahead and try to sell this as a reasonable measure. It should be very entertaining.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to defer to "government" whenever asked for specifics on policy. Develop some opinions of your own rather than second-guessing existing policies.

I missed your initial. I was putting up Toons

I think that about says it all.

"There should not be a limit on how many firearms a law-abiding individual can own." Straw Man is in favor of unlimited guns. I guess I was kinda correct when I said that some people here are in favor of unlimited gun rights.

No -- I'm against limiting the private property rights of individuals without demonstrable need. That's hardly "unlimited gun rights." I think you'll see that if you give it more than a second's consideration.

[ellisonz]

86. I thought you guys needed all those guns to defend your freedoms...

Yes Virginia, it's militarism and it's noxious.

[Straw Man]

89. You thought wrong. Again.

Third attempt at evasion: we were talking about collecting historic firearms, remember? I would ask you to try sticking to the point, but by now I realize that it's hopeless: you are constitutionally incapable of doing that.

Could you please explain why a "militarist" would amass a collection of obsolete firearms when there are modern ones readily available? Could you please explain why the concept of defending freedoms is germane to a discussion of curio and relic collecting?

Or is that not as much fun as making little cartoon figures writhe around?

[ellisonz]

90. They shoot don't they?

You can buy bullets for them? Having not looked at the Big5 Sporting Goods ad in a couple months, I'm pretty sure the M1 Garand is still a commonly sold weapon.

[gejohnston]

91. I have not seen one

other than maybe pawn shops. It is not on their website.

[Straw Man]

92. A brilliant deduction.

Yes, curio and relics are firearms, and most (but not all) of them shoot, and you can buy bullets for most (but not all) of them. And your point is? Because they are firearms, anyone who owns one is a militarist? You can't really be that simplistic, can you?

M1 Garand is "commonly sold"? Try comparing sales of the M1 Garand to sales of the AR15.

Sorry. Wrong again.

[ellisonz]

93. My point is that they are still in "common use."

I really don't think most of the people looking at buying these are buying them as museum pieces.

It's okay - we'll all just drown in guns.

[Straw Man]

94. It depends on what you mean by "common use."

See "AR15." That's "common use."

I really don't think most of the people looking at buying these are buying them as museum pieces.

Well, they're not buying them as state-of-the-art rifles, because they're far from that. It's history that you can shoot. Oh, but you don't like it if people can shoot them. That's "militaristic."

It's okay - we'll all just drown in guns.

Don't worry. It's just a feeling that you have. It will pass.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Well, it is an excellent deer gun.

But no, they are not in common use, by any stretch of the term.

Go to any range in the land, sit around for an hour, tell me how many you see versus AR-15's.

I'll wait.

(If you see ONE, I'll be shocked)

[ellisonz]

97. "Well, it is an excellent deer gun."

Which is why it was widely available for sale at low price until just recently...

"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" - State Department Spokesman

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/obama-administration-reverses-course-forbids-sale-antique-m-rifles/#ixzz1kQEQwUwu

[Straw Man]

99. Oh, it just gets worse...

"Well, it is an excellent deer gun."

Which is why it was widely available for sale at low price until just recently...

Widely available? Well, you could get in line to buy one from CMP. Last time I checked, the wait time was six weeks and up from when you place your order. Or you could scour the pawnshops for them and hope you get lucky. Big 5 apparently had a stock of them two or three years ago, but they went fast.

At a low price? Try $600 to $1000, depending on condition. Big 5 was getting $800. You can get a Savage or Mossberg in .30-06 at any shopping mall in rural or suburban America for $350. Those are rifles that are "widely available for sale at a low price." M1 Garands? Not so much.

"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" - State Department Spokesman

Yeah, I'm sure gangsters and terrorists will be lining up to buy obsolete military weapons through CMP, especially when they find out how easy it is:

http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/eligibility.htm

[oneshooter]

100. The M1 Garand is also very ammo sentsetive.

Off the shelf hunting ammo has a powder that is faster that the M1 specs call for. As little as 20rds can bend the op-rod.
The M1 was designed to shoot 147gr M2 Ball, and it does that very well.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. I'm guessing he's never heard of the civilian marksmanship program, ever.

There's a reason it's in Ogden UT. Something about an arsenal, that 3 of my firearms used to inhabit.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Yes, because thugs are really looking around for 3 foot long 10lb battle rifles.

with 8 round en-bloc magazines.

As concealable as a boat oar, reloadable as a stock SKS, but holds two less rounds, and weighs about twice as much as modern semi-auto-only civilan versions of assault rifles.

The state department asshole was just looking for any pathetic excuse to delay public comment on a non-issue.

Edit: Oh wait, maybe you thought I was being sarcastic. No, it really is an excellent deer gun, being massive overkill for humans anyway. Hear it for miles, etc. It's the semi-auto successor to my two US M1917 enfields. One of which is my deer gun. Same cartridge, same barrel length.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. LOL

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

[ellisonz]

98. I know right...

You guys don't really try either: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117210694

[Jean V. Dubois]

70. And how exactly do you propose that paranoid people be prevented from owning a dozen guns?

[BiggJawn]

15. I was hoping for M1 Carbines, too...

Garands are better than nothing. Wonder how many the CMP will get?

87,000 0f them hitting the market has to even out the price somehow.

[ileus]

16. I'd love to have one for my collection...but I don't think it'll put a dent in prices.

[Dr_Scholl]

20. Yeah, they've gotten expensive.

I just took a look at the CMP website, and even the service grade Garands start at like $625. The correct grades start at $1,150.

[DonP]

87. There's nothing like shooting a Garand

I have 2 in the closet plus a CMP Carbine.

One Garand is an original Springfield Armory manufactured in 1942 and issued to the 1st Fleet Marine Force for service in the Pacific. Every scratch and gouge in the old stock means something. At 200+ yards it will still put them in the black if I do my part. Great sights on them too.

The other one is a Danish return with a VAR "accuracy" barrel. It was built in late 1943 and from what I've been able to dig out on the serial number, it served in Europe with the 3rd Army then was "loaned" to the Danish government and returned to the US in the 1990's.

The M-1 Carbine was a recent (2007) Italian return. They are good to a max of about 250 yards with that high powered pistol round they shoot, but no where near as good at that range as a Garand.

It has more to do with the ammo than the rifle itself. Handloads for the Carbine make a huge difference in accuracy.

Definitely worth saving up for, but kind of hard to carry concealed as Hoyt suggested upthread.

[burf]

19. It is good that the CMP gets to fund their operations through the sales

of the Garands. Plus you know what you're getting with their inspections and classifications.

[PavePusher]

30. They may not be coming through the CMP.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/116_103154.html

“We plan to announce a bid later this month or in February for the selection of agencies to sell the M1 rifles to Americans,” Kim said. “The U.S. has been reviewing legal procedures for the approval of a third party transfer.”

More at link.

[BiggJawn]

39. Look for "Gary's Garands"

"A division of Mitchell's Mausers"...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

42. If they're priced by Mitchell's Mausers, expect to pay $2000

I thought their Mausers were priced too high.

If CMP gets to deliver these, I might have to make another road trip to Camp Perry.



I don't understand the ban on the Carbines. CMP was selling M1 Carbines a few years ago, maybe they still sell them.

[BiggJawn]

45. They do sell an occassional carbine.

They have one up for auction presently that is a Irwin Peterson that's at $1300 and a National Postal Meter marked "Bavarian Game Warden" that's at $895.

Pawn shop here has one they want $475 for. I'm going to go see what's wrong with it.

I think the carbines are falling foul of the "high capacity clip" myth and the "they're easily converted to a machine gun!" bullshit. These are politicians that have to approve their importation, after all...

[burf]

46. How is the Korean deal different from the M1s coming back form Europe?

Didn't we supply rifles to them the same way we did to the allies in WWII? If so, bring them back, all of them, the same way we did then and dispose of them through the CMP.

[spin]

32. I enjoyed shooting them in the Air Force...

they are nice little rifles. I liked them far better than the M16.

[montanto]

48. Question for gunners:

Is there any feeling that current gun mfgrs might have a say in whether these get imported? I mean, if these things were made 40-50 years ago, someone (either long dead or retired) already got paid to build them. Sure there is money to be made in importing and reselling, but not manufacturing jobs for people today. Is it possible that Para and others don't want to lose their market share which would cause them to have to cut jobs? Do they have the ability to influence such things? Or do people think that importing these things wouldn't cause a drop in the market for those who are making them now? See, I wouldn't go out and buy either of these weapons new, but I would buy either of them as a historical piece. So I don't see that as impacting the current "new-old gun" market, but others might.

[liberal_biker]

50. HIGHLY doubtful.

A person looking for a collector M1 isn't interested in new, and vice versa.

[Straw Man]

73. Well...

A person looking for a collector M1 isn't interested in new, and vice versa.

The new ones are fetching very high prices, IMO. I would consider a shooter-grade re-import from Korea if the prices were reasonable. I'm sure they're not all collector-grade -- in fact, it's possible that very few of them are.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the stateside manufacturers have any say in the matter at all. In fact, you're right; it's doubtful.

[Atypical Liberal]

53. I do not understand the logic here.

Both of these firearms are still currently in production and sold as new firearms in the United States today.

Auto-Ordnance manufactures the M1 Carbine in Worcester, MA, and Springfield Armory manufactures several variants of the M1 Garand.

And of course the CMP sells surplus M1 Garands.

I do not understand why this is an issue, except, of course, they just don't want the price of these weapons, which currently hover around $800-$1500, to drop.

[Francis Marion]

76. Who is the person

...who won't allow the property of the American People- forged for the defense of our freedom; loaned to Korea to secure their freedom; to return home?

This person:

1) does not trust the American People,

and 2) does not understand the Second Amendment.

Is President Obama this person?

Is it somebody the President appointed? Both?

The Korean who would sell this property back to us- if it was given to them- do they find honor or gratitude in that decision?

Here and in Korea people have much to learn.

[Callisto32]

84. Just once...

I want somebody to show these easy modifications.

I don't know much about the M1 carbine, but most of the time the tools and skills you need to do these "easy modifications" are the same you would need to build an M3 grease gun from whole cloth (well, sheet metal...)

[DonP]

88. The Army had a conversion "kit" to convert the Carbine to the M2 configuration

You have to tear down the entire rifle and replace everything from the operating rod to the trigger group and even use a different stock with space for the selector lever.

It is not a "plug and play" conversion and requires quite a bit of gunsmithing to make it work and time it, so it doesn't blow up in your face.

As usual with gun control people, it's much more important to make it sound "easy" than it is to be truthful.

On the other hand they usually don't know jack shit about what they are talking about anyway, as far as details or the technology goes.

[Jean V. Dubois]

101. Apparently "easily converted" translates as:

Easily converted if you have greater machine shop skills and equipment than 99.9% of the general public.