Some years ago the US government sold off their stockpile of surplus M-1 Garand rifles. After you were checked out and took a basic course of instruction and safety the government sold you one of the rifles. I don’t mean to split hairs, but isn’t this a tacit admission from the government that they themselves considered the M-1 suitable for civilian use? And if this is true wouldn’t it mean that former military weapons (M-1 carbine, Colt 1911 .45, etc.) now being sold for private use without protest from the government are, in the opinion of our leaders, equally suitable as civilian weapons?
That “weapons of war” phrase liberals are bouncing around sure starts getting blurry...
“That “weapons of war” phrase liberals are bouncing around sure starts getting blurry...”
Yup, but it makes for great sound bites on the news after a thug robs or shoots someone.
Everything you can imagine can be a weapon of war, so the term really has no meaning. Don’t forget, Karl Marx said international trade is just another form of war.
Almost all obsolete military armament was sold to civilians as it was considered property belonging the the “Public”.
The guns of Lewis and Clark hit the auction block when they returned.
The Civil War muskets were reamed out and bayonet lugs ground off and sold to the public as shotguns.
The guns of the Indian Wars, Spanish American War, WWI and WWII were sold as army surplus.
No one complained about it until the 1960s when the gun grabbers got their start.
Good point. They were, and still are, sold to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Civilian, being the operative word.