Obama Bans the Import of the Russian AK 47/74.

[Arkinesia]

Russia is complicit in an astroturf campaign to overthrow a government that is, at least in part, legitimate, for its own political ends.

I would like to see such a country cut off from mainstream society.

Condemning a nation and leaving it in isolation from the international community has no benefit, just look at North Korea. Only through peaceful, established communications between belligerents can matters be truly resolved.

I would only propose the sanctions continue until Putin removes his support, material or otherwise, from the Ukrainian “separatist” movement.

[Arkinesia]

I hope they can be made in America.

Yes but the U.S.-made AK-74s are usually of lower quality than Russian-made AK-74s

The only good Kalashnikov is a Romanian Kalashnikov.

[Blakk Metal]

I agree with this. Assault rifles are Unamurican.

[Napkiraly]

The point is to put pressure on their governments. If that results in hardship then tough shit.

And it's not genocide.

1) Napkiraly, why is it not genocide? 2) Why should a distant state or many distant states (the west) force a state to do something by targeting the lives of innocent civilians? 3) That's murder on a grand scale, so it's genocide.

4) Why is it not genocide to destroy access to health care by civilians? That's the opposite of humanitarian aid.

5) Why would a few government heads genuinely care about some civilians? I think they would be seen as losers as sick governments can have sick goals and sick priorities. 6) How can we even be sure that the Iranian government has nuclear weapons or whatevr they are being accused of?

7) The ruling Iranian elite could survive without the people. 8} They have the same problem in North Korea -- the leaders live a lavish life, while peasants are starving.

9)Here's an article on two websites. It shows how the sanctions have destroyed the nation. I'll quote something for you from that article: The economic sanctions on Iran are illegal under the international law and meet the UN definition of genocide. Nonetheless, US Congressman Brad Sherman has said “Critics [of the sanctions] argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.” Similarly, Congressman Gary Ackerman said, “The goal…is to inflict crippling, unendurable economic pain over there.” These sentiments to target the population to feel the pain of the sanctions are echoed by other Western statesmen.

The UN Convention on Genocide defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…[including] causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [and] deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” How else are we to interpret the sanctions affecting the import of baby milk and tetanus vaccine, and the announcement by Iran’s Ministry of Health that Iran’s medical drug reserves will run out within two months?
http://www.fairobserver.com/region/midd ... d-artists/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sanctions- ... ty/5315115

Bill Clinton could have stopped this genocide when he asked his advisor if sanctions were necessary, but he didn't.

10) Also, do you think Russians would care much about imposed sanctions on Russia? Dude, there are generations that have survived cold war, fall of Soviet and rough experiences like that. I'm sure the oligarchs would survive and the people wouldn't care.

11) Sanctions don't work. Try to hammer it into your head, Napkiraly.

1) Because the intent is to put pressure on a foreign government, not wipe out a nationality, ethnic group, religious group, etc.
2) Because sometimes we have to apply pressure on a foreign government when they've acted poorly.
3) Murder on a grand scale isn't always genocide.
4) Because the intent isn't to kill all Iranians, just to make life miserable for them to soften them when it comes to negotiations.
5) Because pitchforks might come for them.
6) I'm talking about sanctions as a concept, not necessarily those against Iran.
7) Yes, which will increase domestic tensions within the country.
8} Yes, I all ready know that.
9) First one, the person clearly doesn't understand what genocide is and globalresearch.ca is a tinfoil hat website.
10) Here's the history of the USSR in a nutshell after Stalin. Life got better for people, then it started slowing down, then it stagnated, then it started going way down. Now guess which part the fall of the USSR occurred in? People in Russia have gotten used to a better lifestyle, who is to say that long lasting sanctions that impact that negatively will eventually create the tension needed for negotiations.
11) Depends on how it's carried out and what the goal is. Sometimes they may, sometimes they won't. Far better than military actions wouldn't you say?

[Napkiraly]

Let's, considering that's not actually a fact at all.

Yea so I guess half the country doesn't want to part of Russia.

Yeah, pretty much.

[The Rich Port]

Yea so I guess half the country doesn't want to part of Russia.

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm starting to wonder if people forgot that what started this entire debacle was Putin intervening in Ukrainian politics and the goddamn Euromaidan movement that was all over the news.

[The 54th Squadron]

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm starting to wonder if people forgot that what started this entire debacle was Putin intervening in Ukrainian politics and the goddamn Euromaidan movement that was all over the news.

I didn't even know that happened. All I knew was Putin doing shit.

[Spoder]

I'm starting to wonder if people forgot that what started this entire debacle was Putin intervening in Ukrainian politics and the goddamn Euromaidan movement that was all over the news.

I didn't even know that happened. All I knew was Putin doing shit.

That's because the Russian and American media tell completely different stories.

[Napkiraly]

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm starting to wonder if people forgot that what started this entire debacle was Putin intervening in Ukrainian politics and the goddamn Euromaidan movement that was all over the news.

Probably.

[Free Tristania]

Come on, Europe. Get your act together. We should do the same thing and try to look for American and Canadian resources instead of Russian.

[Farnhamia]

I didn't even know that happened. All I knew was Putin doing shit.

That's because the Russian and American media tell completely different stories.

Oh, please. Here's a search at the NY Times, where you'll find stories on the crisis going back to the beginning. Granted, they may not exactly have a pro-Russian slant but it's not like the crisis wasn't covered as it developed. It was on the news every day.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm starting to wonder if people forgot that what started this entire debacle was Putin intervening in Ukrainian politics and the goddamn Euromaidan movement that was all over the news.

After Maiden, there was some kind of provision (that was removed after Russian troops moved into Crimea) to ban Russian (as a language); this upset a lot of people in both Crimea and the East, where the majority speaks Russian. A lot in those provinces also feel very alienated because 1) the politics of the opposite sides of the country are so different that the different sides of the country are literally voting over 80% for opposite candidates. If I remember, Yanukovich (guy ousted by Maiden) got 90% in Donetsk city. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9 ... %85-en.png ), and 2) because there is very strong anti-Russian sentiment in the Western part of Ukraine, which can be alienating to the population that has a large Russian minority, largely speaks Russian, and has a lot of economic dependency on Russia.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

That's why you buy a Soviet produced AK.

[Spoder]

That's because the Russian and American media tell completely different stories.

Oh, please. Here's a search at the NY Times, where you'll find stories on the crisis going back to the beginning. Granted, they may not exactly have a pro-Russian slant but it's not like the crisis wasn't covered as it developed. It was on the news every day.

They both have different slants. It's quite obvious.

What I meant by that is that it's obvious that the American media is portraying Russia as the evil asshole here, hell bent on destroying Ukraine and that you need to read articles that portray more than 1 point of view.

[Magna Libero]

1) Because the intent is to put pressure on a foreign government, not wipe out a nationality, ethnic group, religious group, etc.
2) Because sometimes we have to apply pressure on a foreign government when they've acted poorly.
3) Murder on a grand scale isn't always genocide.
4) Because the intent isn't to kill all Iranians, just to make life miserable for them to soften them when it comes to negotiations.
5) Because pitchforks might come for them.
6) I'm talking about sanctions as a concept, not necessarily those against Iran.
7) Yes, which will increase domestic tensions within the country.
8} Yes, I all ready know that.
9) First one, the person clearly doesn't understand what genocide is and globalresearch.ca is a tinfoil hat website.
10) Here's the history of the USSR in a nutshell after Stalin. Life got better for people, then it started slowing down, then it stagnated, then it started going way down. Now guess which part the fall of the USSR occurred in? People in Russia have gotten used to a better lifestyle, who is to say that long lasting sanctions that impact that negatively will eventually create the tension needed for negotiations.
11) Depends on how it's carried out and what the goal is. Sometimes they may, sometimes they won't. Far better than military actions wouldn't you say?

2) Why do you have to do that?
4) Sounds evil and as if the western negotiators had something clever in mind, so that they could maximize their benefits. I'm also pretty sure that the thing I'm replying to is pretty much the definition of extortion.
5) Pitchforks can come eventually even without sanctions. I'm sure the proletariat can have their revolutions without the US.

But really, I think a tyrannical government under sanctions with a typical approach would most likely try to throw some propaganda at the people. The people will be angrier, but the anger would be channeled towards an object, such as a foreign power.
6) Sorry, for being unclear. I was also talking about sanctions as a concept. I mean, why should the US governments and any other western government go full-military approach on something that might not even exist? Why not have peace instead of misery?
9) Oh, perhaps not? Is it? It's irrelevant. The about half a million dead people in Iran, because of western sanctions still stand. There are other sources, too, if you don't believe. The holocaust is still not a lie.
11) Why do you have to do that? (same as 2. )

[The Batorys]

How does it reward bad behavior? Is Russia a country with a history of accepting chastisement?

How is "shut the fuck up" unreasonable?

We shouldn't do anything because Russia never listens anyway? Having the West (or at least the US) "shut the fuck up" smacks of appeasement.

Exactly. Why should the west do business with a country that their governments have moral qualms with? Russia might not change their stance as a result of not getting the USA's business, but it is one way of strongly voicing disapproval. If the US government does not want American dollars helping fund Russia's economy and therefore their government's misbehavior, that is the US government's prerogative.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If I was a firearms collector and didn't have those already in my collection then I would be pretty miffed, but then I would realize that there are still plenty of them floating around the country anyways so it wouldn't really matter all that much.

[The Rich Port]

We shouldn't do anything because Russia never listens anyway? Having the West (or at least the US) "shut the fuck up" smacks of appeasement.

Exactly. Why should the west do business with a country that their governments have moral qualms with? Russia might not change their stance as a result of not getting the USA's business, but it is one way of strongly voicing disapproval. If the US government does not want American dollars helping fund Russia's economy and therefore their government's misbehavior, that is the US government's prerogative.

Well, we're trying NOT TO and yet pro-Russians are still bitching about it.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Isn't this sort of already covered by FOPA? Civilians can't own automatic firearms built or imported after 1986 without a metric asston of paperwork.

EDIT:
Ohhh, I see, it's against the Kalashnikov company. That makes more sense. OP needs to clarify.

Civilians can't own full auto/select fire weapons manufactured/registered with ATF AFTER May 19, 1986. The ones manufactured/registered with ATF BEFORE May 19, 1986 are the ones that require a metric asston of paperwork.

[The Rich Port]

Isn't this sort of already covered by FOPA? Civilians can't own automatic firearms built or imported after 1986 without a metric asston of paperwork.

EDIT:
Ohhh, I see, it's against the Kalashnikov company. That makes more sense. OP needs to clarify.

Civilians can't own full auto/select fire weapons manufactured/registered with ATF AFTER May 19, 1986. The ones manufactured/registered with ATF BEFORE May 19, 1986 are the ones that require a metric asston of paperwork.

My uncle gave me a fully automatic AKS-74u for helping him out with his work, and I asked him, he said that the gun was imported and registered in 1974, but he still had to do a shit-ton of paperwork to get it.

What's up with that?

[Othelos]

how is this a problem

[Genivaria]

Yes but the U.S.-made AK-74s are usually of lower quality than Russian-made AK-74s

Just means the value will go up, meaning profits for some of us. Thank you, Obama.

If by 'us' you mean non-Americans sure.

[Cyrisnia]

how is this a problem

'cuz freedom

[Wind in the Willows]

Although the AK-47 is a good quality gun, there are better out there.

[Idaho Conservatives]

My uncle gave me a fully automatic AKS-74u for helping him out with his work, and I asked him, he said that the gun was imported and registered in 1974, but he still had to do a shit-ton of paperwork to get it.

What's up with that?

Wikipedia says that the AK-74U wasn't even manufactured until 1977.

Regarding the executive order, it only really targets one model of AK and a handful of shotguns. It sucks, and bans like this tend to be permanent (see Norinco), but it's far from the end of the world. I am much more worried about the long-term availability of Eastern Bloc ammo.