Obama Quitly Signs Ban To Prevent Ownership Of The Famous WW2 M-1 Garand Rifle

Its an assault rifle; 8 rounds can kill 8 people; you don't know me personally and for you to make a statement such as that shows your ignorance on the subject matter at hand

I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic.

 

Is it capable of automatic or select fire? NO
Does it fire an intermediate round? NO

You claimed you were well indoctrinated with it, that is OBVIOUSLY a lie. Don't go talking out of your ass on matters you know nothing about.

A 22 short can kill a person, does THAT make it an assault weapon?

 

In what capacity did you carry your M-1 Garand for 3 years if you don't mind me asking?

 

I wished I had a garand. They are still used -- obviously not in wars. They are used mostly in ceremonies:





I think the last time they were in official use in wars was in Vietnam (only rarely though).

This firearm has a very storied history... Obama is hurting my chances of owning a nice one. Dumb sheit...

 

I doubt this is true but if so it's pretty stupid and pointless. I think it would be interesting to see how many people were killed in the US with M-1 rifles. I'd wager it's a very low number, though there may be 1.

As for the people saying this is somehow a weapon worthy of comitting crime with, I really can't agree. The things are gigantic. You have less rounds and and a longer length than most of your semi-autos and honestly who uses a rifle to commit crimes anyway. By far more people use pistols. It's just not practical to use something like this in committing a crime. Could you? Sure. You could also kill a lot of people in a mall with a bow and arrow(s), that doesn't mean it's going to be some regular event.

 

At 10 lbs plus and about 4 1/2 feet it isn't very concealable.

 

This pretty much sums it up. Criminals like small concealable weapons that are either large caliber or high capacity. The M-1 is a long heavy thing which doesn't make sense in the context of criminal activity.

 

Its a historical piece, there are far more dangerous weapons on the market which are, shorter, lighter, and have higher capacity magazines. This is just nanny state garbage. Who exactly are the 'wrong' hands? WWII vets? Anyone with military training in the last 30-40 years would probably choose a M-16 derivative or similar assault type rifle if they were going to do something we need to worry about.

The problem is anyone who can see the M-1 as a threat can see any gun as a threat. I'd wager my WWII 30.06 bolt action Navy training rifle, is more dangerous in a skilled shooters hand than any semi-auto, its so accurate at range, just slow. My grandfather gave it to me after I got out of the Army. Quite frankly, its a heavy beast, there are way better weapons on the market now, but its still my favorite gun.

Who are you to determine what weapons I should or should not be able to own? This more of the liberal fear-mongering we have come to expect. This whole idea that things could go wrong, so we better legislate against it is exactly what keeps diminishing our freedoms across the board.

 

There is no need for him to "agree to disagree" with you since he is correct and you are wrong. The Garand is NOT an assault rifle.

I appreciate you parading your ignorance, though. It highlights the problem with anti-gun legislation - it is usually proposed and supported by those who have very little to no knowledge of the arms which they are trying to ban.

 

PM me and i'll provide you with that information.

 

Likewise, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this topic.

 

Not true; While every weapon has a certain threat level, I do not consider a shotgun as much as a threat as an assault rife, nor do I consider musketry nor BB guns that much of a threat. Handguns, assault rifles and automatic Rifles have a much higher threat level.

I don't determine what weapons you should or should not be able to own, the US Constitution along with interpretation of the courts decide what you can and cannot own. You want to be able to own a machine gun or rocket launcher, move to Mexico as far as i'm concerned. You don't like the laws as written and want stronger language, then change the US Constitution.

And btw, QTIP.

 

Ummm, no. You don't get to define words any way you please. "Assault rifle" has a definition and an M1 does not coincide with that definition. End of...

Quite frankly, at this point, I'm questioning whether or not you have any knowledge at all of the rifle in question. I certainly don't believe that you carried one for three years.

 

So when is the real political agenda about this going to break? The M-1 is not a PC gun, lets face it, its primary use was in a segregated military, that doesn't work well with the revisionist liberals. Granted it was used in the desegregated military in Korea, but that's not a popular war.

 

Sorry, your wrong and I'm right. End of.....

 

Great. How exactly do you define the term "assault rifle"?

 

Did you say something? End of.....

 

Haha...it must suck for you to be so wrong and so unwilling to admit it. At least now you know that you have no idea of what you are talking about, perhaps it will prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth in a similar fashion in the future.

 

Come on Tom; QTIP.

 

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Grenade launcher
Flash suppressor

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

The M1 doesn't have a detachable magazine, so that kills it right there.

 

A weapon's threat is contained within the training and skill of the weapon's handler. The person who is a threat with a M-1 is even more dangerous with an AK-47 or other modern assault rifle.

The Constitution is clear, what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand? The courts are dead wrong. If you do like that, go change the Constitution. Gun control laws are nothing more than activists courts refusing to make the government follow the original intent of the Founders.

What's the QTIP reference? Are you one of the Queers Thoughtfully Interrupting Prejudice? I couldn't find any other reference that seems to fit...

http://studentorgs.sjsu.edu/qtip/

 

Unfortunately for you the SCOTUS decisions have an impact on you whether or not you agree with them.

 

I'm not taking it personally at all. I just think that words mean things and people should try to be accurate in their statements whenever possible. You clearly disagree and don't really care whether or not your statements are true or not.

 

I understand that what the USSC says effects me, that doesn't mean they are right. They sold out, they agreed to be activists instead of sending gun control laws back to the legislators and telling them they must amend the Constitution.

So that's the QTIP you were referencing? Sounds about right.

 

I hear ya , Patriotic Informer ,,, the M-1 is a fine weapon that keeps it's soldiers alive ...

I admire your patriotic words of alarm ,,, but I been saying the same thing for years , and I always close with this advice ...

If you ain't got it , you better be getting it ...