Dead man found in California with over FIVE MILLION DOLLARS worth of guns, TWO TONS of Ammo - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;48277808]Why on earth?[/QUOTE] Because Europeans are afraid of guns for some reason.

[QUOTE=matt000024;48277951]Because Europeans are afraid of guns for some reason.[/QUOTE] I've been interested in guns my entire life, but I don't see the purpose of everyone having them. It's not about being afraid, it's about being reasonable.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278001]I've been interested in guns my entire life, but I don't see the purpose of everyone having them. It's not about being afraid, it's about being reasonable.[/QUOTE] Honestly the purpose is pretty straightforward, if it ever came to a real people vs government fight we'd be far better off with civilian firearm ownership. Really though it's beyond that, this country was founded on the premise that self-defense and arms ownership is a basic human right along with being able to express yourself freely and worshiping wherever and whatever you want in peace. There's a reason why the US government tiptoes around certain issues because the people who would get upset about them are the people who have [i]lots[/i] of guns. Sure the government would win that fight but that's half the point because the rest of the country (and probably the world) would be very upset by it.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48278120]Honestly the purpose is pretty straightforward, if it ever came to a real people vs government fight we'd be far better off with civilian firearm ownership. Really though it's beyond that, this country was founded on the premise that self-defense and arms ownership is a basic human right along with being able to express yourself freely and worshiping wherever and whatever you want in peace. There's a reason why the US government tiptoes around certain issues because the people who would get upset about them are the people who have [i]lots[/i] of guns. Sure the government would win that fight but that's half the point because the rest of the country (and probably the world) would be very upset by it.[/QUOTE] From an outsiders view, that entire thing just seems very violent and unnecessary. That's why people oppose it.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278316]From an outsiders view, that entire thing just seems very violent and unnecessary. That's why people oppose it.[/QUOTE] Self-defense is unnecessary? Yeah, okay. I know Europeans don't understand why Americans have guns but this is just silly.

[QUOTE=capgun;48275156]and knowing California they'll melt them all down[/QUOTE] Hopefully if there's anything historical or something they will preserve it in a military museum, or do some sort of police auction, but yeah I doubt that. Anyways this story reminds me of my dad's friend who is a gun collector. I hope this whole thing (which I'm sure the media will blow out of proportion) won't effect people like him. He has a pretty massive collection of historical and modern weapons which are legally owned. If he had to sell all of his guns because of some limit the state placed I'd be sad. :c

[QUOTE=Code3Response;48277894]It would be in everyone's best interests to melt them. Dont need more guns on the street in shit owners which will get them stolen.[/QUOTE] I just don't like destruction because it means a lot of historically significant guns get destroyed too. Weapons from WW2 and earlier, or prototype weapons that only existed in the single digits, stuff like that.

[video=youtube;Cun-LZvOTdw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun-LZvOTdw[/video]

[QUOTE=Boaraes;48278536]Self-defense is unnecessary? Yeah, okay. I know Europeans don't understand why Americans have guns but this is just silly.[/QUOTE] You misunderstood that pretty badly.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278999]You misunderstood that pretty badly.[/QUOTE] There are an immense number of legitimate reasons for a person to own a gun. The most obvious are extremely effective and compact self defense weapons, hunting, and competition. The first one is undeniable. An object which fits in the palm of your hand that can kill a person in seconds? The only reasons to have something like that is if you are trying to kill someone covertly or preparing for the worst. Hunting-very obvious, doesn't need explaining. Competition/target shooting- this is a hobby, just as any other is. Simply a bit louder and more expensive than most. The US also has this thought process of "better to have something and not need it, than need something and not have it". This makes us very defensive of things that would be useful even in the most unlikely of scenarios.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278999]You misunderstood that pretty badly.[/QUOTE] Unless I'm missing something (I'm not), you said everything in his entire post was violent and unnecessary from an outsider's perspective; ergo, self-defense in accordance with the law and the constitution is unnecessary. This is a reasonable assumption of your sentence, is it not?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48278882]I just don't like destruction because it means a lot of historically significant guns get destroyed too. Weapons from WW2 and earlier, or prototype weapons that only existed in the single digits, stuff like that.[/QUOTE] It comes down to that the people handling these guns are not collectors and dont care.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48278120]Honestly the purpose is pretty straightforward, if it ever came to a real people vs government fight we'd be far better off with civilian firearm ownership. Really though it's beyond that, this country was founded on the premise that self-defense and arms ownership is a basic human right along with being able to express yourself freely and worshiping wherever and whatever you want in peace. There's a reason why the US government tiptoes around certain issues because the people who would get upset about them are the people who have [i]lots[/i] of guns. Sure the government would win that fight but that's half the point because the rest of the country (and probably the world) would be very upset by it.[/QUOTE] This isn't a valid reason at all. If shit hit the fan that badly that people had to rise up against the Federal government you'd end up with the worst human atrocity of all time. It would never be a 2-sided, black and white fight. Like shit, I don't mind people having guns to hunt or just enjoy a bit of target practice, but defence against a tyrannical government's not a great reason.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;48279333]Unless I'm missing something (I'm not), you said everything in his entire post was violent and unnecessary from an outsider's perspective; ergo, self-defense in accordance with the law and the constitution is unnecessary. This is a reasonable assumption of your sentence, is it not?[/QUOTE] Not really, you're assuming I mean that self defense is unnecessary. What I meant was what i said. This whole thing where you feel the need to defend yourself with guns, even against the government, is kind of weird and sad. (and violent) Where I live, we have self defense. It's called having a lock on our door, and a phone to call the police with. We don't need more. I know you need more, but I think that is weird and I wish you didn't have it that way. [editline]24th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;48279076]There are an immense number of legitimate reasons for a person to own a gun. The most obvious are extremely effective and compact self defense weapons, hunting, and competition. The first one is undeniable. An object which fits in the palm of your hand that can kill a person in seconds? The only reasons to have something like that is if you are trying to kill someone covertly or preparing for the worst. Hunting-very obvious, doesn't need explaining. Competition/target shooting- this is a hobby, just as any other is. Simply a bit louder and more expensive than most. [/quote] In Norway it's also common for hunting and competition / hobby use, which of course is fine. It's just not a self defense thing for several reasons. [QUOTE=deadoon;48279076]The US also has this thought process of "better to have something and not need it, than need something and not have it". This makes us very defensive of things that would be useful even in the most unlikely of scenarios.[/QUOTE] That's an interesting way to see things, i guess.

Would kind of suck if they melted them down, especially any collectors items. For once the news reports on an arsenal of guns and actually gets it right. Usually it's 2 or 3 guns and maybe a thousand rounds, which is rather small...

If all the guns are legal (which as of yet they appear to be) then they'll go to his next of kin unless specified otherwise in his will or any documents.

[QUOTE=matt000024;48277951]Because Europeans are afraid of guns for some reason.[/QUOTE] Hearing the news coming out of this country I wouldn't really blame em.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278316]From an outsiders view, that entire thing just seems very violent and unnecessary. That's why people oppose it.[/QUOTE] To be honest you're only getting a tiny, tiny crumb off of a small slice of a big pie here. All the zomg scary!! gun-related stuff that you read about is concentrated to select areas (usually cities) in the United States, that's why you don't see many Americans getting too upset about this, especially the ones who are comfortable with firearms. We might seem callous at times, but understand that the places where people get shot are bad areas to begin with. We oppose innocent people getting shot too, but we also recognize that criminals are gonna crime and that's actually the reasoning behind a lot of firearm ownership. [QUOTE=MuTAnT;48281018]This isn't a valid reason at all. If shit hit the fan that badly that people had to rise up against the Federal government you'd end up with the worst human atrocity of all time. It would never be a 2-sided, black and white fight. Like shit, I don't mind people having guns to hunt or just enjoy a bit of target practice, but defence against a tyrannical government's not a great reason.[/QUOTE] You absolutely missed the entire point of that whole post, I commented on exactly what you're talking about in it. Plus it would be pretty much a two-sided, black and white fight because there aren't many options in a "you're with us or you're against us" kind of fight, which is [i]exactly[/i] what an armed insurrection is. Yeah the first people to stand up and stick it to the man with their boomsticks would definitely get cut down but they would likely inspire other people and shit would definitely escalate. Hell, nobody's actually fired a single shot and the lines are [i]already[/i] being drawn in this country. Why do you think the BLM didn't make good on their promises to confiscate that rancher's cattle last year? There was literally a fucking armed standoff between federal agents and armed citizens. Trust me, it doesn't take much to set us off and the government is well aware of that fact.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48281144]Not really, you're assuming I mean that self defense is unnecessary. What I meant was what i said. This whole thing where you feel the need to defend yourself with guns, even against the government, is kind of weird and sad. (and violent) Where I live, we have self defense. It's called having a lock on our door, and a phone to call the police with. We don't need more. I know you need more, but I think that is weird and I wish you didn't have it that way. [editline]24th July 2015[/editline] In Norway it's also common for hunting and competition / hobby use, which of course is fine. It's just not a self defense thing for several reasons. That's an interesting way to see things, i guess.[/QUOTE] Norway also is a country where the population is well educated and has a very high living standard, the same can't be said for everywhere in Usa. The americans have a lot more problems with poor and uneducated people turning to crime so quite a lot of americans have a legitimate need for tools of self defense, something most europeans can't comprehend due to their relatively cushy lifes in safety and luxury.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278316]From an outsiders view, that entire thing just seems very violent and unnecessary. That's why people oppose it.[/QUOTE] Eh. After a war for our independence, it made sense to include into the constitution a worst case scenario for the people to still have a voice for if/when the government started ignoring it and having its own. We own 42% of the world's firearms. I have 3. When it comes down to protecting yourself, gun trumps everything. It's foolish to not own one these days. Put a police officer every 2 blocks all across the country and I'll give them up. But since that's impossible...

To be honest, it sounds a lot like Sovereign Citizen/Anti-Government Militia bullshit.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48287458]To be honest, it sounds a lot like Sovereign Citizen/Anti-Government Militia bullshit.[/QUOTE] I doubt those types would openly admit they were some sort of secret agent for the government, along with being half human and half alien. Fucking this one is a weird one.

[QUOTE=paul simon;48278001]I've been interested in guns my entire life, but I don't see the purpose of everyone having them. It's not about being afraid, it's about being reasonable.[/QUOTE] Hobbies. I plan on getting a pistol for shooting targets and shit when I'm the same age that allows for getting wasted and high at the same time, though I don't plan on doing a combination of any of those :v:

That dude sounds cool as hell and I would want to get to know him.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48287458]To be honest, it sounds a lot like Sovereign Citizen/Anti-Government Militia bullshit.[/QUOTE] One man can hold two or three guns at once MAX You think one man owning a shit ton of guns constitutes Anti-Government activity? Personally I would be more concerned if a cult of hundreds of people owned one gun each. [sp]Religion[/sp]

[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;48274987]Guns are legal in the US, how is this different from collecting stamps?[/QUOTE] Cause that's kinda fucking crazy. People don't often stockpile stamps in the belief that the government will someday turn into a fascist dictatorship and ban stamps.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48305374]Cause that's kinda fucking crazy. People don't often stockpile stamps in the belief that the government will someday turn into a fascist dictatorship and ban stamps.[/QUOTE] Isn't something similar to that, an excessive tax on paper/stamps, what led to the American Revolution?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48278120]Honestly the purpose is pretty straightforward, if it ever came to a real people vs government fight we'd be far better off with civilian firearm ownership. Really though it's beyond that, this country was founded on the premise that self-defense and arms ownership is a basic human right along with being able to express yourself freely and worshiping wherever and whatever you want in peace. There's a reason why the US government tiptoes around certain issues because the people who would get upset about them are the people who have [i]lots[/i] of guns. Sure the government would win that fight but that's half the point because the rest of the country (and probably the world) would be very upset by it.[/QUOTE] I always hated this argument. A few reasons: 1.) it shows the paranoia of gun owners 2.) if the government ever did become a fascist dictatorship, the exact kind of people who would support it would be the right wing republicans who clamor over the second amendment. The government has done horrible things before and did the right wingers do anything about it? No, because they were BEHIND it 3.) You really think the individual gun owners of america would stand a chance against the US Army? Here's an illustration why guns are legal in america and we lost all sense of regulation in the 1980s: [Gun Companies] -> $ -> [NRA] -> $ -> [Congress] [editline]27th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;48305408]Isn't something similar to that, an excessive tax on paper/stamps, what led to the American Revolution?[/QUOTE] No, the american revolution was essentially an anti-globalist protest. The colonies were forbidden from trading with countries other than england, and a lot of middle men were cut out by this. Hence why John Hancock, a smuggler, financed the revolution; his profits were cut into by the british government cracking down on illegal trade, and he was a radical separatist/businessman

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48305414] No, the american revolution was essentially an anti-globalist protest. The colonies were forbidden from trading with countries other than england, and a lot of middle men were cut out by this. Hence why John Hancock, a smuggler, financed the revolution; his profits were cut into by the british government cracking down on illegal trade, and he was a radical separatist/businessman[/QUOTE] The hell? The Revolution started because our demands to the British, equal representation in Parliament, went unheard while they tried to keep taxing and taxing us without our consent. That's what lead to smuggling and all the anti-British activities, because they were essentially using us as a cheap labor force and a cheap resource hub. We even went so far after Lexington and Concord as to send a message to Charles declaring we do not want war with them, just the equal representation in Parliament we have been trying to win the right to. When he flat out refused, so did we and the Declaration of Independence was created to found our Country.

The ATF is gonna have a field day stocking that in their "museum".