• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Obama bans more than 100,000 American made rifles

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Obama Bans More than 100,000 American-Made Rifles

The Obama administration has banned the reinportation of M-1 Garand and Carbine rifles currently stored in South Korea. With a stroke of a pen President Obama ignored the Constitution and banned these American made rifles by executive fiat.

The claim is they could be used in crimes....isn't that true for any weapon? And if anyone knows anything about these rifles, they are hardly concealable. It's sad how little regard for the Constitution this Constitutional professor has.
 

Raos

Registered Member
The constitution protects the right to bear arms. It does not specifically say guns. I have always wondered if I am missing something somewhere when all the gun owners claim they have a right to their guns. Other things are considered arms than just guns right? Does the constitution specify guns anywhere?
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
When the Constitution was written, arms was the commonly used term for guns. Seeing as the writers of the Constitution lived and existed in a society where guns were allowed, it's more than clear that they had zero problem with citizens owning guns. Owning guns is a Constitutionally protected right and there is absolutely no question that guns are covered under the term "arms" based on the intent and actual use of the Constitution since it's formation.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
The words "bear arms" referred to guns, not any a pickaxe for example. You can find this in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), Wingfield v. Stratford, 96 Eng. Rep. 787, (K.B. 1752), King v. Silcot, 87 Eng. Rep. 186, (K.B. 1690), Commonwealth v. Blandings, 20 Mass. (3 pick) 304, 338 (1825) as well as in commentories such as Blackstone and the Federalist Papers. The word "arms" in the Second Amendment came from those cases which specifically referred to guns, not anything else.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
I wonder whom he's trying to please with this. There isn't a single progressive I know who is happy with him, and this does little to change that.

How disappointing.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
I wonder whom he's trying to please with this. There isn't a single progressive I know who is happy with him, and this does little to change that.

How disappointing.
I think Obama's moves have been an interesting combination of doing things that he thinks will make him look better, things that people don't care about now but can be spun to sound good in the future, and things that he wants to do regardless of how it sits with voters.

Back to the OP - to me, it's kind of funny (and annoying), but not surprising in the least. Democrats have long pushed for the banning of certain guns, but pretty much always done so in a bizare and ineffective manner. I mean, he's banning US made guns from re-entering the US from storage? :confused:
 

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
I don't understand why they wouldn't bring 100,000 tax-generating semi-automatic rifles to the U.S. for sale or training. It's not like there aren't copies of it everywhere.

Pro2A would know better than me but I'm pretty sure the M1 is a very common rifle in the U.S. because it was used in so many wars.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Here's what I'm confused about . . .

According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market.

So, he's not banning the sale of these guns but this particle surplus to be sold here. May I also point out that South Korea is in the middle of a conflict with North Korea that only gets worse each day. Also, North Korea has one ally: China. Is anyone else putting two and two together here? By supporting South Korea and buying surplus weaponry, we could be rubbing some folks the wrong way, specifically, a country we owe billions of dollars to . . .
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
I don't understand why they wouldn't bring 100,000 tax-generating semi-automatic rifles to the U.S. for sale or training. It's not like there aren't copies of it everywhere.

Pro2A would know better than me but I'm pretty sure the M1 is a very common rifle in the U.S. because it was used in so many wars.
The M1 is common, but a hot commodity among gun owners because they were only made from 1938 to the 1960's some time. They don't make them anymore... At least not authentic ones. Genuine ones were made only in those years and that is it. That is all there is. Mine is in above average condition and it still set me back $900 and that was a deal.

There are only so many, they are reliable and a classic rifle. People want them. In order to get a nice one, you have to shell out some cash. What Obama is doing IMO is just sticking his finger in the eye of gun owners. I'm sure he knows these guns are a hot commodity, but are also hard to come by (at least in good condition). I've read on some gun forums that these 100K rifles could have brought the price down on M1's for a short time allowing people to buy them up.

Here is a little history on them. YouTube - M1 Garand
 
Last edited:

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
I don't think screwing the American people is Obama's main concern with this decision. Cons brought up a good point in not wanting to piss China off.

We don't have the kind of strength it takes to fight a full scale war. We have too much invested in Iraq/Afghanistan at the moment and the off chance of a war with China would be terrible.
 
Top