• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles

I guess you couldn't figure out the analogy. Maybe someone else will explain it to you but the bottom line is

you cannot disprove my claim that Obama and biden are the two biggest gun haters to be elected to the Oval Office merely by noting they have yet to pass any anti gun laws.

You have to prove your right. You can't simply make a statement and assume it to be true without evidence of some kind of evidence and data to back it up? Now if you were to decide which President has been the most anti-gun, why would you weigh statements more than action? The old saying goes actions are louder than words, if I say I'm going to kill someone its much less serious than if I actually kill someone. And not only that but Obama's statements in favor of additional gun control are almost non-existant since he's been President, and he hasn't acted upon his pro-gun control opinions. Clinton however had much stronger language and actually did something.

Personally I don't see any reason to think Obama is more anti-gun other than your baseless speculation and desire to paint Obama as badly as possible.

Now I am a gun owner myself, and I think these weapons from Korea should be allowed into the US. And I think Obama, while he may not be gun-friendly, has certainly not done anything against weapons yet, which is far more perferable than past Presidents.
 
Using that logic you could say the government pays for nothing, as you can never tell what spending in the federal budget was borrowed, printed, or actually collected.
And most anti-gun President in history? What anti-gun laws has he signed? Literally none, and I'm pretty sure none is less than Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban.

You're right, he loves guns. He a real gun guy. :roll:
 
I literally said the exact opposite in the post right before yours...

Too bad you had to argue with Turtle for a couple page before finally stating your opinion.
 
Too bad you had to argue with Turtle for a couple page before finally stating your opinion.

Come on man are you serious? I stated in the first post in this thread I wanted these weapons to come to the US, then I stated that in my opinion Obama wasn't the most anti-gun President we've had, I never said he was pro-gun or a "real gun guy." The argument was who was the worst, someone can still be bad but not the worst. Then I felt it necessary, as I do now again, to explain exactly what I thought of Obama's gun opinions, because it wasn't reaching Mr. Turtle that I wasn't arguing Obama was a "real gun guy" but that he wasn't the worst. Just because I say someone isn't the worst at something doesn't mean I think they are good at something, those are two totally different lines of thought and the two have nothing to do with each other. I mean he could be the 2nd worst, or 3rd worst, or he could just be generally bad in my opinion but not the worst.

Do I really have to explain this?
 
Wait wait wait wait wait.
Do mine eyes deceive me?
Usually when Fox News is used as a source - people say "nooo! I won't believe anything from Faux News!" and completely toss aside the story for origin issues.
Why not that reaction in this thread? Surely everyone who normally does that isn't absent for the day! Where are you people!

I love this part:
The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.
 
Come on man are you serious? I stated in the first post in this thread I wanted these weapons to come to the US, then I stated that in my opinion Obama wasn't the most anti-gun President we've had, I never said he was pro-gun or a "real gun guy." The argument was who was the worst, someone can still be bad but not the worst. Then I felt it necessary, as I do now again, to explain exactly what I thought of Obama's gun opinions, because it wasn't reaching Mr. Turtle that I wasn't arguing Obama was a "real gun guy" but that he wasn't the worst. Just because I say someone isn't the worst at something doesn't mean I think they are good at something, those are two totally different lines of thought and the two have nothing to do with each other. I mean he could be the 2nd worst, or 3rd worst, or he could just be generally bad in my opinion but not the worst.

Do I really have to explain this?


The only thing stopping Obama from enacting the same laws he supported in Illinois is the fact he is worried about having the same political repercussion Clinton had when he signed the Brady Bill. So because of that potential political repercussion he has to either wait for the second half of his second term or use incrimination to pass something similar or more strict to what he supported in Illinois.
Barack Obama on Gun Control
 
Wait wait wait wait wait.
Do mine eyes deceive me?
Usually when Fox News is used as a source - people say "nooo! I won't believe anything from Faux News!" and completely toss aside the story for origin issues.
Why not that reaction in this thread? Surely everyone who normally does that isn't absent for the day! Where are you people!

I guess when the story is about Obama doing something that every body knows that Oabama would do its kind of hard to dismiss the story as some sort of tabloid bull ****. Plus Fox News is a legitimate news source. Perhaps all the libs who hate Fox News but never watch it are not up yet.
 
The only thing stopping Obama from enacting the same laws he supported in Illinois is the fact he is worried about having the same political repercussion Clinton had when he signed the Brady Bill. So because of that potential political repercussion he has to either wait for the second half of his second term or use incrimination to pass something similar or more strict to what he supported in Illinois.
Barack Obama on Gun Control

I understand your point and I'm admittedly worried about it as well, but I'm not as convinced as many others seem to be that its inevitable that some kind of wide scale gun law is going to put into affect, or at least be attempted to put into affect. Especially if the Dems lose the House and/or the off-chance they lose the senate.
 
Wait wait wait wait wait.
Do mine eyes deceive me?
Usually when Fox News is used as a source - people say "nooo! I won't believe anything from Faux News!" and completely toss aside the story for origin issues.
Why not that reaction in this thread? Surely everyone who normally does that isn't absent for the day! Where are you people!

I love this part:

Of it came from FOX news it must be true! :lamo:lamo:lamo

There are you happy now?
 
You have to prove your right. You can't simply make a statement and assume it to be true without evidence of some kind of evidence and data to back it up? Now if you were to decide which President has been the most anti-gun, why would you weigh statements more than action? The old saying goes actions are louder than words, if I say I'm going to kill someone its much less serious than if I actually kill someone. And not only that but Obama's statements in favor of additional gun control are almost non-existant since he's been President, and he hasn't acted upon his pro-gun control opinions. Clinton however had much stronger language and actually did something.

Personally I don't see any reason to think Obama is more anti-gun other than your baseless speculation and desire to paint Obama as badly as possible.

Now I am a gun owner myself, and I think these weapons from Korea should be allowed into the US. And I think Obama, while he may not be gun-friendly, has certainly not done anything against weapons yet, which is far more perferable than past Presidents.

your right-my right is to keep and bear arms

as to me being correct-Biden and Obama's position on guns during their political lifespans proved they were the most anti gun ticket to win a presidential election; Al Gore, while a senator, had mainly had A ratings from the NRA while Clinton-as a state poltiicians had not engaged in much, if any anti gun activities. Biden had 30 years+ as a leader of the gun hate movement while Obama had supported bans on guns while in state office and had voted for anti gun issues while in the senate

QED
 
I understand your point and I'm admittedly worried about it as well, but I'm not as convinced as many others seem to be that its inevitable that some kind of wide scale gun law is going to put into affect, or at least be attempted to put into affect. Especially if the Dems lose the House and/or the off-chance they lose the senate.

what is inevitable is that Obama will do what helps obama-if he thinks losing the congress will happen if he pushes for a gun ban then he won't do it though the way he is going he might well step on his johnson to enact some more leftwing nonsense as he did with that abomination called obamacare

in 1993 we had clinton and gore elected with a pro gun Dem SOTH and yet sweeping gun bans were passed. SO in 2008, we get a virulently anti gun SOTH with two men whose previous records are militantly anti gun: it is clearly prudent to worry about those two anti gun clowns. BTW the current change in policy by Obama is clearly anti gun and the attempts of obama apologists to try to ignore the obvious reason for the change is pathetic
 
they don't-the government would collect the money

given our huge deficits only a moron would be against selling stuff like that -a garand in excellent condition sells for about 900 dollars, in good condition about 500, A carbine in excellent condition 800 or so

they could raise alot of money with those weapons but they aren't going to sell them to other governments since they are obsolete as military armaments. (and most other countries don't trust t heir citizens to own such things)
Given our huge deficits?

You do realize, if I read everything correctly, that Korea would be selling these guns to us. The US gov't might make a little off taxes and whatnot but they aren't the ones selling the guns.

You're talking as though they are the US military's guns. They belong to Korea.

I still think the sale should go through because these guns aren't any worse than what you can buy on the market right now, but it seems like this is mostly just whining about a non-issue.
 
Given our huge deficits?

You do realize, if I read everything correctly, that Korea would be selling these guns to us. The US gov't might make a little off taxes and whatnot but they aren't the ones selling the guns.

You're talking as though they are the US military's guns. They belong to Korea.

I still think the sale should go through because these guns aren't any worse than what you can buy on the market right now, but it seems like this is mostly just whining about a non-issue.

you think the US Government is gonna pay as much for guns we GAVE korea as what the government charges us Citizens for them

so if the US government buys them for 200 a rifle and 150 a carbine and sells them to the OCMP for 500/250 it doesn't help increase our government's finances?
 
you think the US Government is gonna pay as much for guns we GAVE korea as what the government charges us Citizens for them

so if the US government buys them for 200 a rifle and 150 a carbine and sells them to the OCMP for 500/250 it doesn't help increase our government's finances?

I read the article and couldn't find anywhere where it said that they were going to sell them to our government and then they'd sell them to us. All it said is that Korea would sell them to american gun collectors and that everyone would have to go through the normal background check process. Where did you get the information that the government was going to buy and resell them?

Again, I still think the sale should go through, as I myself would even love to be able to buy one of these as a collectors items and a cool piece of americana, but I don't think you're right on the government making a bunch of money off of it.
 
I read the article and couldn't find anywhere where it said that they were going to sell them to our government and then they'd sell them to us. All it said is that Korea would sell them to american gun collectors and that everyone would have to go through the normal background check process. Where did you get the information that the government was going to buy and resell them?

Again, I still think the sale should go through, as I myself would even love to be able to buy one of these as a collectors items and a cool piece of americana, but I don't think you're right on the government making a bunch of money off of it.

uh under current laws a foreign government cannot sell weapons to american civilians

having owned several "reimports" that came from Italy and Korea, I know they went through the US government before ending up here

CMP Sales

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth.

M1 Garand Sales
 
uh under current laws a foreign government cannot sell weapons to american civilians

having owned several "reimports" that came from Italy and Korea, I know they went through the US government before ending up here

CMP Sales

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth.

M1 Garand Sales
I can't find too much on it and you seem to be more knowledgable on this than I, but I checked out their forum for this topic and the guy that runs the CMP website has a good explanation.

http://www.thecmp.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22747&highlight=korea
Post number 8.
 
Obama made the wrong decision, and I think it's a violation of the second amendment. Is he serious? The US makes thousands of guns that are more powerful and sophisticated than antique weapons from the Korean war. It's just an excuse to restrict gun rights and the sales of guns.
 
uh under current laws a foreign government cannot sell weapons to american civilians

having owned several "reimports" that came from Italy and Korea, I know they went through the US government before ending up here

CMP Sales


The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth.

M1 Garand Sales

And here's a quote from the CMP's CEO:
The emals and calls keep pouring in to CMP asking about the Korean rifles and carbines. The following is our reply:

The rumors, reports, articles about Korea have been circulating for at least five years. A few months ago a Korean newspaper once again reported that they would selling Garands and carbines to a US importer. The CMP is not a firearms importer and we do not have any involvement of any kind in anything that may happen with these Korean rifles and carbines.

The only way any rifle or carbine from any country can find its way to the CMP is if the country returns loaned rifles back to the US Army. When that happens, the CMP "may" possibly receive some of those rifles. According to the recent articles, Korea will not be returning anything to the US Army, but will be "selling" these rifles to an importer. If, in fact, these rifles are sold to an importer, the CMP will not see even one of them. We do not have any additional information on this subject. Thanks for understanding.


Orest Michaels
Chief Operating Officer

Like I said, seems to be a bunch of bull**** and whining about nothing just to demonize Obama.
 
And here's a quote from the CMP's CEO:


Like I said, seems to be a bunch of bull**** and whining about nothing just to demonize Obama.

yes and no

Obama deserves demonization if he is preventing anyone from buying privately arms from a friendly government

but I commend you for doing some research
 
"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," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.

yes because garands and m1's are gangsta's 1st choice of weapons. Idiots.

"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms."



This should be a crime. What an asshole.
 
yes and no

Obama deserves demonization if he is preventing anyone from buying privately arms from a friendly government

but I commend you for doing some research
Deserves demonization?

From what I can tell this same crap has been peddled for five or more years according to the most educated person I can find on the subject. They're having problems negotiating the deal cause of factors other than "Obama hates guns."

This is a bull**** article that pops up at a convenient time right before elections and conservatives go all chicken little all over the place. It's getting to be pathetic.
 
Back
Top Bottom