The M-1 Garand: A Horribly Dangerous American Weapon That Cannot Fall Into The Hands Of Americans

Except that it did, with style, panache, efficacy and honor during World War II, Korea, and some early limited usage in Vietnam.

Invented by John Garand of the United States Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts, his rifle allowed the US to enter WWII as the only country possessing a semi-automatic rifle for its soldiers.

Chambered for the rather effective .30-06 Springfield (7.62 X 63 mm NATO) -- or 7.62 X 51 mm (.308 Winchester) round, roughly six million of these rifles were produced.

Apparently now, however, your federal BATF considers this weapon a threat to the United States, as it just might get into your fetid and shaking fingers at a reasonable price.

Here is what has happened as per WND.com:

The State Department in May 2009 approved a "request by the Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) to transfer 87,310 M1 Garand rifles and 770,160 M1 carbine rifles to U.S. private entities for subsequent commercial re-sale in the United States."

But the ATF contacted the State Department and argued the stock of rifles "poses a threat to public safety in the U.S." As a result, the State Department reversed its decision.

The transfer of such weapons would raise the number of guns available and, therefore, lower the price, making them more generally available, the agency found.

And Lord, how we absolutely cannot have efficient, reasonably priced rifles more generally available to the American public.

Certainly not at a time when the American public finds itself just a tad distressed with the performance -- or lack thereof -- of its American politicians.

The Second Amendment ought to be the last policy held in high regard by DC during these challenged times, might you not argue?

After all, an approval such as this could prove quite the frightening event for this current administration. Lord Love A Duck, let us keep the American Public ignorant, mute, sheltered, ill educated, anesthetized, placated, soothed and distanced from current reality.

Else they begin to make some soul-shattering -- and regime-shattering -- conclusions.

Of further import from WND.com:

The gun expert who acted as a source for WND said the implications of the case are significant for several reasons. One is that a "5-year-old" could figure out that if the government classifies one type of rifle as a "threat," there could be similar designations for other kinds of firearms.

Further, he said a team of ATF managers actually took the initiative in writing the agency's condemnation of the Garand. He noted the agency from 2003-2009 traced an estimated 1.8 million guns for various reasons.

But of those, only some 1,900 were Garands.

"It's a very select core of old-school ATF narcissists who have just become too powerful and too arrogant," the source reported.

But perish the thought! Any portion of our federal government "arrogant"? That is so beyond human ken.

Further:

Officials with the ATF declined to comment to WND, but a spokesman for the U.S. Department of State explained that the permission had been granted for the rifles to be shipped to the U.S., then it was rescinded.

The decision, explained Karl Duckworth, was prompted because of "concerns that such large numbers" of weapons would be brought into the U.S. and they could be "exploited for illicit purposes."

However, he said he could not elaborate on just exactly who expressed the concerns.

Whom might you think? Mr Obama? Eric Holder? Those attempting to keep themselves in what little good graces exist in the current administration?

Allow me, if I might -- in my moment of tinfoil-hatted alarmism -- to extract the core thoughts of these moves:

Look at our history in this nation. Look at the history of other nations. Who was a "serf"? Was it not someone who was purposely kept in a position of being completely unable to defend himself and his family by efficient means and a level playing field?

I'm quite sure that, about this point, you can draw your own "logical extensions" as I am wont to say.

And if you still don't see it, allow me to conclude from the WND.com article:

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Most notable was the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

And who are "extremists"?

Oh yes, that's right: those who believe in limited government, who believe in a Strict Constructionist method of the US Constitution, who believe in the Founding Fathers, who believe in Borders, Language, Culture, who may possibly be members of various TEA Parties.

You know: actual Americans.

BZ