Gun control loons getting loonier

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So the CEO of some organization nobody's ever heard of and nobody cares about makes some statement that no one will listen to advocating a law that no one will pass ... and this deserves a thread?

We need something to do while waiting for the Scottish referendum results.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course I believe only the government should have guns.

Since we have a government of the people, doesn't that mean that the people should have guns?  In a democracy, all the citizens are the government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.

It's nothing really to brag about if the gun is doing all the work.

Well if the gun cost only $270, sure.  But at $27,000?  Even if the brag is about being able to waste money instead of skill, it's still a brag.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The NRA reacted to Heller by soliciting for funds, saying they must redouble their efforts, as though Obama's reaction of doing nothing at all were all the proof anyone needed of his ill intent toward guns.

Do nothing? He just signed EO 13661, which effectively bans the importation of all Russian-made arms. Perhaps banning military equipment would be reasonable, but admin has banned everything, which was an opportunistic kick to the groin of the AK-47 pattern industry, which has very little to do with Russian military arms.

Setting aside the fact that the executive order was clearly not issued for the purpose of a gun ban, there's also the fact that there are multiple suppliers of AK-47 pattern weapons, not all of which are Russian, and the further fact that even if Russia were the sole source, there are plenty of other automatic and semi-automatic weapons of equivalent effectiveness available from a multitude of suppliers from many countries.  The idea that EO 13661 in either intent or effect has any impact on the ability of people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights is utter nonsense of the sort that can only be believed by those who don't ever bother to think at all on this issue, but proceed to reflexively duckspeak the views they hear from talk radio or the like.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

Technically a hunter targeting a deer is a sniper except that the object of his attack is not human. A sniper is a specially-trained soldier who typically has a high likelihood of killing people but little of surviving once detected.

Accuracy of a shot and the potential for killing several persons at once is the difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun. Getting extreme precision in a shot is inconsistent with rapid fire.

One typically has only one shot at a deer... or a high-value military target (let us say a senior officer or a high-level political figure).

I find it fascinating you used so many words to comment on my rebuttal of bedstuy's previous post without saying anything that contradicted what I said, and indeed to some extent acknowledged I was right, while using a tone appropriate to scathing rejoinder of what I had said.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sport hunters are not the problem. Machine guns are intended to cause multiple casualties. 

And the gun in question in this thread is not a machine gun, so what's your point?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Having read EO 13660 and EO 13661, could you please just point out the parts of them that you think amount to gun bans?

It's as plain as day in Section 1 (a)(ii)(B). Furthermore, this is not my opinion. Russian-manufactured firearms are no longer permitted for import.

Yet equivalent firearms, including firearms made to the exact same specifications, that are made elsewhere are still available. Also those already imported are freely available.  As has already been said, only a gun nut could think this was an anti-gun measure instead of an anti-Putin measure.  It makes as much sense as thinking that EO 13651, banning the import of jadeite and rubies from Burma, is an anti-gemstone measure instead of an anti-Burmese junta measure.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Looks like Rostec will be selling Kalashnikov to an oligarch so far not targeted by the sanctions in hopes of evading the sanctions.

https://news.yahoo.com/russian-state-arms-maker-sell-plant-bypass-western-195534833.html

They'd already agreed last year to sell Andrei Bokarev 49% of the company over two years as way of raising funds for the troubled company  and in hopes that private ownership would be able to introduce efficiencies that weren't going to happen so long as it was a wholly state-owned firm.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-kremlin-selling-its-stake-ak-47-maker-debt-management-problems-kalashnikov-producer-1410150

Since the first article says they'll be selling the 75% they still own, so I guess the deal had been only half completed.  I doubt it'll work tho.  Bokarev has likely not been targeted so far because he's been primarily been involved in the Russian rail industry, and his main company CJSC Transmashholding, doesn't sell much to the West.  There wasn't any reason to make him a primary sanctions target until now, but now there will be every reason to do so, in hopes of causing other oligarchs of being wary of trying to help Putin evade sanctions.