PDA

View Full Version : Obama bans more guns: Liberals hate the 2nd amendment



Sonnabend
09-18-2010, 06:39 PM
http://nagr.org/M1garand.aspx?pid=1


Obama's secret order bans nearly 1 million rifles

Did you know that Barack Obama has banned nearly a million American made rifles?

Nearly a million rifles.

Banned by Barack Obama and his anti-gun cronies.

In an executive order the Obama Administration has secretly blocked the re-importation of American made M-1 Garand and Carbine rifles being stored in South Korea.

These rifles were used by the US military during the Korean War and left there after the war was over.

With one stroke of his pen, he bi-passed the legislative process and banned nearly a million American-made rifles by executive fiat.

Make no mistake, these rifles were made in America, by Americans and used by American soldiers to defend freedom on foreign shores.

Now State Department officials claim that these antique, collector rifles could be used to commit crimes.

While the radical anti-gun crowd is giddy with praise for Obama’s latest back-door gun ban, law abiding citizens across the United States are crying foul.

The Obama administration’s state department has said that the “high magazine capacity” of these firearms makes them a dangerous safety concern and that they must be banned to protect us from terrorism.

These outrageous claims are not only incorrect, but they are a thinly veiled attempt to distract from Obama’s special interest payback to the radical anti-gun crowd. This desperate pandering must not be allowed to continue.

That’s why we’ve prepared a petition and video against Obama’s Historic Rifle Ban.

Thank you, in advance, for taking action today!

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

More proof that Barry boy doesnt like people being armed.

fettpett
09-18-2010, 06:43 PM
it was denied after it was approved...it's kinda old news (the ban was in March, story broke in Aug) but it shows how full of shit the left is, since the excuse is that they would land in the hands of murders and criminals.

Sonnabend
09-18-2010, 06:56 PM
since the excuse is that they would land in the hands of murders and criminals.Living where I do in a land of bullshit gun laws and restrictions, I am more than happy to certify that I am witness to one irrefutable fact

Gun laws do NOTHING to stop criminals getting their hands on guns or whatever else they want to use to rob, rape and murder at will. The sole purpose of gun control is to disarm the law abiding.

Thatisall.

Big Guy
09-18-2010, 07:43 PM
I find it funny that they called an M-1 Garand "High Capacity", 5 rounds is far from "High Capacity".

You can get then through the CMP.

Jfor
09-18-2010, 09:06 PM
I find it funny that they called an M-1 Garand "High Capacity", 5 rounds is far from "High Capacity".

You can get then through the CMP.

It's because they are scary military rifles designed to kill.

Apache
09-18-2010, 09:10 PM
It's because they are scary military rifles designed to kill.

What are civilian rifles designed for?

Bubba Dawg
09-18-2010, 10:23 PM
I had a .30 carbine. Good little rifle.

I'd like to have a Garand.

warpig
09-18-2010, 10:39 PM
I had a .30 carbine. Good little rifle.

I'd like to have a Garand.

I'm thinking about getting an M1 carbine. Do you recommend them? I hear mixed reviews.

Bubba Dawg
09-18-2010, 10:52 PM
I'm thinking about getting an M1 carbine. Do you recommend them? I hear mixed reviews.

Depends on what you want it for.

I'd like a Garand because it is a cool looking rifle and shoots great and has a history to it.

But, if I was looking for a fighting rifle just in case the flag goes up, I would prefer something else, personally.

The Garand uses a stripper clip. Frankly I thought it held 8 rounds but it may be 5 as someone else said. It was a weird design. The rounds are held in a stripper clip that you push down into the top of the rifle. I frankly would prefer something with a clip that you push in from the bottom like a mini-14 or an M-14 or Ar-15, etc. The round is 30-06 and that is a hard hitting round for sure.

The M1 Carbine is a .30 caliber that is a nice shooting little rifle, but to be honest, I'd rather have a mini-14 in .223 or an AR-15. The .30 Carbine round is a straight walled .30 caliber round and is okay ballistically, but the rate of fire and the magazine capacity were the reason for the popularity of the .30 carbine in its day. today, the .223 is really the best thing to choose, IMHO.

Opinions vary, though. Do some research and see what you think. A lot of dead Germans and Japs found their end in front of a .30 Carbine or a Garand. those are World War 2 weapons, but they can still get the job done.

warpig
09-18-2010, 11:04 PM
Depends on what you want it for.

I'd like a Garand because it is a cool looking rifle and shoots great and has a history to it.

But, if I was looking for a fighting rifle just in case the flag goes up, I would prefer something else, personally.

The Garand uses a stripper clip. Frankly I thought it held 8 rounds but it may be 5 as someone else said. It was a weird design. The rounds are held in a stripper clip that you push down into the top of the rifle. I frankly would prefer something with a clip that you push in from the bottom like a mini-14 or an M-14 or Ar-15, etc. The round is 30-06 and that is a hard hitting round for sure.

The M1 Carbine is a .30 caliber that is a nice shooting little rifle, but to be honest, I'd rather have a mini-14 in .223 or an AR-15. The .30 Carbine round is a straight walled .30 caliber round and is okay ballistically, but the rate of fire and the magazine capacity were the reason for the popularity of the .30 carbine in its day. today, the .223 is really the best thing to choose, IMHO.

Opinions vary, though. Do some research and see what you think. A lot of dead Germans and Japs found their end in front of a .30 Carbine or a Garand. those are World War 2 weapons, but they can still get the job done.

The Garand does hold 8 rounds. I do know that the ballistics on the .30 cal ammo is considerably less than even a 7.62X39 so that is a draw back and shooting the 30-06 will take its toll on the operator after a period of time ( I have an '03 Springfield and a Model 70 Winchester in '06) and the 8mm Mauser kicks like a mule. It is currently up in the air between the M1, a Ruger Mini 14 or an AK.

Bubba Dawg
09-18-2010, 11:15 PM
The Garand does hold 8 rounds. I do know that the ballistics on the .30 cal ammo is considerably less than even a 7.62X39 so that is a draw back and shooting the 30-06 will take its toll on the operator after a period of time ( I have an '03 Springfield and a Model 70 Winchester in '06) and the 8mm Mauser kicks like a mule. It is currently up in the air between the M1, a Ruger Mini 14 or an AK.

I had an 03 Springfield. Loved it. Wish I hadn't traded it but you know how that goes.

One thing I would say is look at not only the price of the rifle but also the price of the ammo as you consider your purchase.

.223 is available fairly cheaply in a relative sense. 7.62 is, I am told, also available. I can't speak for any other calibers but the cost and availability of ammo, and even spare clips, should be considered.

I loved my .30 Carbine but it wasn't really much good beyond 100 yards and the ammo was kinda high in price. I haven't priced it in about 20 years but do look at that when you consider your purchase.

A guy I know told me that ammo that is available in currently used military calibers is usually cheaper and more available. That is worth a look in what you decide to buy, IMHO.

Ask around. I am certainly not any kind of authority but don't mind sharing what I do know.

Good shooting, Noble Mon.

NJCardFan
09-19-2010, 02:17 AM
Wasn't it a Garand that Brody used to kill the shark in Jaws?

Oh, and the last time I looked, I've never seen an M-1 Carbine or Garand used in the commission of a crime...ever.

m00
09-19-2010, 08:19 AM
Wasn't it a Garand that Brody used to kill the shark in Jaws?

Oh, and the last time I looked, I've never seen an M-1 Carbine or Garand used in the commission of a crime...ever.

Well, wasn't the sub-machine gun was invented BECAUSE the early rifles were so terrible at close range combat? What, are you going to rob a liqueur store at 40 yards?

asdf2231
09-19-2010, 02:13 PM
I'm thinking about getting an M1 carbine. Do you recommend them? I hear mixed reviews.


The Garand does hold 8 rounds. I do know that the ballistics on the .30 cal ammo is considerably less than even a 7.62X39 so that is a draw back and shooting the 30-06 will take its toll on the operator after a period of time ( I have an '03 Springfield and a Model 70 Winchester in '06) and the 8mm Mauser kicks like a mule. It is currently up in the air between the M1, a Ruger Mini 14 or an AK.

I own both an M-1 Carbine and an M-1 Garand. I would highly reccomend the carbine. Light, handy, accurate as hell and 30 round clips are still easy to find. There are a ton of anecdotal stories about the rounds performance (.30 Carbine) but It's comperable with a .357 magnum and NYP Swat carried them forever and they didn't have to shoot a lot of people twice. :D you just need to remember it's basically a really hot pistol round. Compared to a semi auto SMG in 9mm? I'll take my Carbine every time.

I'm not sure what you meant in the second one there? .30-06 ammo has it all over 7.62x39 for performance. The recoil on the Garand is better than most .30 service rifles. You put 40 or 50 rounds through it n' yer gonna feel it the next day.

Tell ya what? I think I would grab the M-1 before my M-4 or my commie guns in a shtf situation. The clips reload fast so the 8 round cap isn't as much of a hassle as you might imagine, You can disable a vehicle with one or two shots and it will blow through most light cover and still have enough oomph to knock sumthin down. And it's accurate out to as far as I can see well enough to shoot off of iron sites.

Odysseus
09-19-2010, 02:45 PM
Living where I do in a land of bullshit gun laws and restrictions, I am more than happy to certify that I am witness to one irrefutable fact

Gun laws do NOTHING to stop criminals getting their hands on guns or whatever else they want to use to rob, rape and murder at will. The sole purpose of gun control is to disarm the law abiding.

Thatisall.
Well said.

What are civilian rifles designed for?
Apparently, they project flowers over great distances, lulling animals into a false sense of security so that they can be approached and convinced to volunteer to be eaten. :rolleyes:

Well, wasn't the sub-machine gun was invented BECAUSE the early rifles were so terrible at close range combat? What, are you going to rob a liqueur store at 40 yards?
Not so much the sub-machine gun as the assault rifle. The German MP44 Sturm Gewehr came out of a study that determined that most infantry combat occurred at ranges under 200 meters, and that the long guns of WWI vintage, which were accurate out to about 800 meters, were inefficient. The Germans decided to test a "kurtz" (short) round that would have a maximum range of 300 meters. The testing proved that not only was the round effective at closer ranges, but the diminished recoil allowed for fully-automatic fire from a lighter weapon and the shorter cartridge weighed so much less that individual Soldiers could carry enough ammo to make it worthwhile. They put the elements together and produced the MP44, which was used almost exclusively on the Eastern Front, where captured examples were used by Kalashnikov as the template for the AK-47.

The definition of an assault rifle, BTW, is that it has the capability of firing full auto and semi auto, i.e., selective fire. The so-called "assault weapons" that were banned by Clinton were semi-auto copies of actual assault weapons, and because they did not have selective fire capability, the ban cited cosmetic factors (pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs) which had nothing to do with the weapons' mechanical capabilities. Ironically, the M-14, which didn't have a pistol grip, and could be fitted with a barrel that lacked a flash suppressor or bayonet lug, was an assault weapon which the ban did not touch, while AR-15 clones were banned.

Stupid liberals....

m00
09-19-2010, 07:34 PM
Not so much the sub-machine gun as the assault rifle. The German MP44 Sturm Gewehr came out of a study that determined that most infantry combat occurred at ranges under 200 meters, and that the long guns of WWI vintage, which were accurate out to about 800 meters, were inefficient. The Germans decided to test a "kurtz" (short) round that would have a maximum range of 300 meters. The testing proved that not only was the round effective at closer ranges, but the diminished recoil allowed for fully-automatic fire from a lighter weapon and the shorter cartridge weighed so much less that individual Soldiers could carry enough ammo to make it worthwhile. They put the elements together and produced the MP44, which was used almost exclusively on the Eastern Front, where captured examples were used by Kalashnikov as the template for the AK-47.

The definition of an assault rifle, BTW, is that it has the capability of firing full auto and semi auto, i.e., selective fire. The so-called "assault weapons" that were banned by Clinton were semi-auto copies of actual assault weapons, and because they did not have selective fire capability, the ban cited cosmetic factors (pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs) which had nothing to do with the weapons' mechanical capabilities. Ironically, the M-14, which didn't have a pistol grip, and could be fitted with a barrel that lacked a flash suppressor or bayonet lug, was an assault weapon which the ban did not touch, while AR-15 clones were banned.

Stupid liberals....

I know the history of the assault rifle. Thank you, History Channel. :D But I was under the impression that the first sub-machine guns were essentially "trench sweepers" (such as the M1A1, and later the M3 "Grease Gun") because in close range combat the rifles were basically just glorified clubs and spears (which, I imagine what it would be like it if you tried to rob a liqueur store with one) . The Assault Rifles came in WWII, in an attempt to take the best of both. Anyway, not going to argue the history of firearms with a Major, but just my understanding of it. :p

Odysseus
09-19-2010, 08:10 PM
I know the history of the assault rifle. Thank you, History Channel. :D But I was under the impression that the first sub-machine guns were essentially "trench sweepers" (such as the M1A1, and later the M3 "Grease Gun") because in close range combat the rifles were basically just glorified clubs and spears (which, I imagine what it would be like it if you tried to rob a liqueur store with one) . The Assault Rifles came in WWII, in an attempt to take the best of both. Anyway, not going to argue the history of firearms with a Major, but just my understanding of it. :p

You are correct. The first real "trench broom" was the Thompson SMG. The Germans made the most of them with the Schmeisser, but the Russian PPSH and the British Sten followed closely. The US "Grease Gun" was used mostly as a weapon for armored vehicle crews when they dismounted, since there was little in the way of trench warfare during WWII. The problem with them was that they lacked sufficient range and accuracy to be effective for anything beyond sweeping close targets. Hence the value of the assault rifle.

Big Guy
09-19-2010, 08:28 PM
The Garand does hold 8 rounds. I do know that the ballistics on the .30 cal ammo is considerably less than even a 7.62X39 so that is a draw back and shooting the 30-06 will take its toll on the operator after a period of time ( I have an '03 Springfield and a Model 70 Winchester in '06) and the 8mm Mauser kicks like a mule. It is currently up in the air between the M1, a Ruger Mini 14 or an AK.

I stand corrected, 8 rounds. Still not high capacity. :p

warpig
09-19-2010, 08:49 PM
The M1 Carbine was designed to for second line troops that needed something more than a pistol for protection. The paratroopesr latched on to it because of it's light weight and folding stock.

warpig
09-19-2010, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure what you meant in the second one there? .30-06 ammo has it all over 7.62x39 for performance. The recoil on the Garand is better than most .30 service rifles. You put 40 or 50 rounds through it n' yer gonna feel it the next day.

The recoil on the 30-06 was what I was getting at. Your right 40-50 rounds makes for a long day........

Chuck58
09-19-2010, 09:50 PM
I've got a Garand. Got it from DCM back in the early 1980's. Wonderful, great rifle that I'll always have. It was refurbished to like new and shoots like a dream. I don't think the recoil is bad at all compared to a bolt action rifle. I can easily shoot a hundred rounds in a day.

I'd like to get one of the Korean M-1's. I've seen some of them in past years and they're pretty well worn. Still shootable, but lots of wear. The advantage is, assuming the price is reasonable, that they're serviceable, still relatively accurate and are good for tossing in your truck without worry about dinging a stock. The good Garand can be put away for special occasions.

asdf2231
09-19-2010, 10:26 PM
My M-1 Carbine, mounted on an Owens collapsible pistol grip stock. The vertical hand grip was a modification.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Guns/DSCF3935.jpg

My Garand. Springfield Armory 1943. Pure vanilla. It was refurbished and reblued by a guy who gets them beat to snot and restores them for fun. When he grinds out corrosion and pitting it obliterates some of the armory markings and the serial number on mine is sorta thinned out, lol. But I picked that thing up for 650$ at a gun show in '07 with no paperwork. :cool:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Guns/DSCF4669.jpg

My other WWII rifles. #4 Mk.1 Enfield .303 Brit, An M48 Mauser in 7.92 and a Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 in 7.62x54. All of my WWII rifles were made in 1943. I always kinda wonder if they saw active service or were just carried by some guy gaurding spam.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Guns/DSCF3936.jpg