Korea is trying to save money money by off-loading some WW II era weapons which cost them to store but they will never use. Their hope was that civilian collectors here would want them and that demand could raise much needed money for the country while in the midst of a global recession. The M1 Garand and M1 Carbine both barely can be called assault rifles, the Garand in particular is a nearly ten pound behemoth that holds only eight rounds in special metal clips, while the M1 Carbine is the underpowered fore runner of the commonly available Ruger Mini-14 line. Administration spokesmen are claiming that these firearms may end up in the hands of terrorists but they are actually less efficient in many ways than guns you can pick up at Wal-Mart.
Taking note of how the administration defined terrorist when they first came into power, I find their explanation more ominous than confusing. From Chosen llbo:
The U.S. administration has vetoed the Korean government’s plan to sell some 100,000 old M1 rifles used during the Korean War back to the United States. It also banned 850,000 M1 rifles already imported from Korea and other countries from being sold to civilians.
In order to save some W300 million (US$1=W1,181) on storing old weaponry a year, the Korean government decided to sell the 86,000 M1 Garands and 22,000 M1 Carbines to the U.S. and repeatedly asked Washington to approve the deal. The expected price was W130 billion in total, with one M1 Garand fetching US$220 and a M1 Carbine US$140. But the U.S. objected to the plan fearing that they could land in the hands of terrorists.
A Korean government official said, “It’s difficult to understand why the U.S. opposes the deal now, when we already shipped tens of thousands of these firearms to the U.S. in the early 1990s. We are trying to grasp the real underlying cause of this reversal through diplomatic channels.” He added that because these firearms were originally made in the U.S., selling them back needs approval from Washington.
A U.S. State Department spokesman told Fox News on Wednesday, “The transfer of such a large number of weapons… could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”
The Fox News story is here and they trot out morally suspect Brady Campaign flaks to spread some interesting lies about these weapons:
Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.
“Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety,” said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration’s concerns are well-taken.”
But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States — M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired — and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.
“Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System,” said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. “There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States.”
M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted — including most semi-automatics.
“Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine,” Cox said.
Indeed. And what they don’t mention is that Garands, because of their loading mechanism, cannot accept high capacity magazines. If anything, a government worried about “too much ammo capacity” would want Garands to be the civilian weapon of choice because it will hold less than a dozen rounds at a time.
The way I see it there are two things going on and perhaps there’s a third possibility that should worry Americans. The first is obvious. Obama and the left want to limit the amount of guns Americans have access to for ideological reasons.
The second is more important. The Garand is the rifle that won WW II. It did so because it fires the powerful 30-06 round which has much more range and penetration than the .223 our troops are issued now. It’s bulk and weight keep recoil down (and make it less than ideal for a replacement for a modern “assault rifle”) meaning it’s great for marksmanship. If you were ever thinking about invading a country, with say a peace keeping mission full of poorly trained and unmotivated United nations troops, this would be the rifle to worry about. Given the Obama administrations internationalist bent, and his recent report to the U.N. on our “human rights violations” the stage has already been set for the left to ask for, and receive, U.N. “observers” if civil unrest kicks off in America.
Then there’s this:
“We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms.”
This sentence worries me. Obama’s “civilian security apparatus” harken back to the old “home guard” idea we see in some communist countries, and in those countries political paramilitaries are often armed with surplus weapons. Keep an eye out for how this is resolved, if the Obama administration “takes possession” of the guns without allowing sale it’s likely they will be issued to the civilian paramilitary the left has always dreamt off.
h/t Firearm Blog