Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

[Jegsimmons]

hell give him his guns back. He isnt going to do anything. after all he owns 70 fucking guns, his name is in a data bank somewhere.

also saying how easy it would be to kill a president
=/=
saying he IS going to kill the president.

Also this is only news because the anti-gun crowd will make a fit over it, even though a decision that said he was harmless came to be the conclusion.

Hell if it wasn't this, im sure it would be another round of how George Zimmerman was a KKK member itching to kill black people. *rolls eyes*

 

[Elementlmage]

I understand what you're saying, I just spent a whole paragraph in my last post telling you I am not talking about guns that are NOT made for killing. I KNOW there are guns that made for other purposes besides killing. I am talking about PISTOLS and RIFLES, which are KILLING TOOLS.

Sit down, because I am about to blow your mind!

Spoiler: Battle Rifle

That is a Mosin-Nagant M91/30. Its sole purpose in life was to be placed in the hands of a conscript so that he could shoot/stab a Nazi. Yes, I said stab!

I own one(three actually). Now, here's the kicker; it is no longer a weapon of war. I have replaced the original barrel with a 7 lbs heavy barrel made from surplus machine gun barrel, had a proper scope base added to it(RSI, not one of the POS ones that fit onto the sight base), replaced and inlet the stock, swapped the bolt handle and added a scope.

The result (and I wish I had a camera XD) is a 15lbs(!) rifle, that when first born into this world knew only bloodlust as its life, who's only practical purpose is to sit on a bench and shoot paper targets.

My rifle is the very incarnation of the argument, "A firearm is merely a tool, and does only what its user intends."

You obviously have never seen a nationally ranked bow-woman go to work. I have to say that she could go to a 3-gun match and beat most of the competitors with just her bow. That includes the clay shooting (I gained a new level of respect for her art when I saw her shooting clays out of the air with a composite bow).

I have to see that at least once in my life...I'm sorry, that just sounds amazing!

 

[BaronUberstein]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

I can easily see myself having at least 10 if I ever had the money and storage space...

In terms of sheer uniqueness/fascinating firing mechanisms, the Luger and the Steyr Mannlicher M1894. Then we have the H&K G3, because that's just a sexy gun right there. For historical virtue, there are the obvious Kar 98k and SMLE. If I could get my hands on one, a Gyrojet pistol and carbine. And then there are the guns I've had the fun of shooting IRL, like the M1911, and a S&W .357 magnum revolver. I'd certainly get something along those lines as well.

Sadly, number 10 on that list is impossible, the H&K G11. God knows how I would get ammunition even if I could get my hands on one.

So there we go, 10 guns right there, with what I would call entirely reasonable reasons for wanting them. The tricky part would be getting a Luger or Steyr I could take down to the range for regular usage. Some people just find firearms fascinating and fun to shoot.

As for the whole "discussing how easy it would be to assassinate somebody", I do that with my friends all the time...but it's really really stupid to talk about that kind of stuff in the airport.

 

[Grottnikk]

For all those wondering where's he keeps his guns. It's not a Murder Cabinet, it's a....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vob-w_kjYc

=)

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

What I don't get is why some people insist on saying "POTUS" when "President" or the person's name will usually suffice, and seems much less like the name of some dangerous experimental drug.

Meh, it's an international audience so President of the United States is clearer. I could have said Obama, but I didn't. I don't think it's terribly taxing to glean the meaning.

Yeah, I understand. It's just one of those acronyms I hate. That, and GOTY. Seriously, that doesn't sound like "Game of the Year." That sounds like some weird goat fetish.

That is offensive and bigoted!

Nothing wrong with a goat fetish.

OT: There's no correlation between having a gun and using that gun to soot someone and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one.

 

[Smithburg]

If everybody has guns...

Then nobody has...


[sub]I don't think that quote translated well...[/sub]

Doesn't work.

"You have a Glock and I have an RPG, therefore neither of us is armed..."

RPG's aren't guns though D: They are rockets

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It is a weapons museum which means that it holds things that were at one time weapons. However that does not mean that everything in its class of tool is a weapon.

Im glad we got semantics out of the way. Now heres the question. A knife in a museum is still a cutting tool. A weapon in a museum is still a fighting tool. It is named after what it was intended to do. Its primary function. Ill grant that some of the guns you craft are NOT weapons. But this museum is full of weapons. And if it isnt at what point does it stop being a "weapon"

Which out of these is a weapon:

1. A gun held by a soldier for use in war
2. A gun momentarily put down that MIGHT never be used again in a battlefield
3. A gun taken home from a war and kept that might one day be used again to fend of an intruder
4. A gun in a museum that has a 1/1000 chance of being used again

When does it stop being a weapon? When i put it down? When it is not being actively USED as a weapon? When its chances of being utilised again are low? Does a gun transition from weapon to "thing" the second i release it? Why so much transition?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

Many people collect guns here in the states.

Do you need that many guns? No, just like you don't really need that stamp collection, he doesn't need that sports collection, and I don't need my hat collection.

But a man with a single gun is only as deadly as one.

Less so, because guns are heavy, and carrying a thousand at once isn't going to let a person be very mobile.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

This debate comes down how to one defines a weapon, and objects in general.

Does an object have attributes only with or always even without the intent of the user.

Is a hammer an object used to hit in nails and remove nails if I am using it to defend myself from attack, or is a glock a weapon as I use it to beat in a nail? Sure, somethings and better and worse at some things or others, the glock is better at hurting and the hammer better at construction, but the clever mind can find all kinds of uses for any object put in front of them.

Is the form of the intent and use within the object itself, as under the writing of Plato, or is the potential to do anything in the hands of the user, as under Aristotle?

I am under the school of thought that the user and their intent makes the object a weapon, a tool, or anything at all.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

snip

You obviously have way more experience than I do when it comes to these sorts of things, but I think for the sake of this argument that puts you at a bit of a disadvantage. I think for the vast majority of people, the word gun is mostly associated with handguns, rifles, that sort of thing. Your hammer example is very similar. If I ask for a hammer, what I expect is to get something like this: http://home.howstuffworks.com/hammer.htm

Technically, it's a claw hammer and I could be handed mjollnir and that would technically be right but that's not the way the word is being meant. You might have an argument with guns meant for target practice, but things like nail guns, stun guns, flare guns etc. are not what is meant by the generic term gun. Notice how they always have the descriptor attached to them (heck, I think you can even get away with just flare, not necessarily flare gun). The language that you are using is technical jargon with a technical definition, what he is using is not.

And the difference between them and bows is that bows require more training to use effectively (before you counter, think point blank range), are much harder to conceal, and have had no bad publicity lately (like school shootings and whatnot).

Off topic: Personally, I'm very much in favor of gun regulation. I just don't think there are certain things a civilian population needs to have: automatic weapons, handguns, sniper rifles, etc. People can have guns sure, but I think it'd be better if they held more the same role as the bow, something basically for sport and hunting.

And OT: Man, that's quite a lot of guns. Must have a big house, or garage, or murder closet.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Snip

This debate comes down how to one defines a weapon, and objects in general.

Does an object have attributes only with or always even without the intent of the user.

Is a hammer an object used to hit in nails and remove nails if I am using it to defend myself from attack, or is a glock a weapon as I use it to beat in a nail? Sure, somethings and better and worse at some things or others, the glock is better at hurting and the hammer better at construction, but the clever mind can find all kinds of uses for any object put in front of them.

Is the form of the intent and use within the object itself, as under the writing of Plato, or is the potential to do anything in the hands of the user, as under Aristotle?

I am under the school of thought that the user and their intent makes the object a weapon, a tool, or anything at all.

I would argue even under your definition a gun that you own for target shooting (primarily) is a weapon.

Lets say im fighting someone with a sword. During the fight i use the sword as a swat to flick sand at his eyes. Does it stop being a weapon the second i stop hitting him and appropriate it to this use, then become a weapon again when i hit him with the sword? Doesnt that seem bizare?

Id say a sword used for sparing is a weapon during sparing and its a weapon out of sparing. Its a practice weapon. If i own a bow to shoot targets and a gun to shoot targets i own practice weapons. Weapons still as i intend to use them for their primary purpose of "attack". Even if it isnt aimed at a human and even if it may double as a hammer i own it to shoot targets with. To enact its purpose as a shooter of sharp fast objects to damage things. For that reason id say any practice weapon is a weapon.

 

[CrystalShadow]

snip.

Oh shush your mush I was joking. I'm fine with guns, no need to get your panties in a twist.
People take things far too seriously.

I don't blame him for being defensive. This site, along with plenty others, is(/are) filled with people that really do think that owning guns should be illegal and that owning a gun collection is surely a sign of being crazy/sociopathic.

There are also a lot of people on this site who live in countries where owning guns is already illegal, and thus these kind of discussions seem bizarre just on principle.

Then again, I've got nothing against people collecting stuff. Even weapons. (I own a sword, actually). But that doesn't change the fact that I live in a country where I wouldn't be allowed to own a gun, and more recently, even realistic fakes can get you in a lot of trouble.

Of course, it's also a country where having a knife on you can get you in a lot of trouble if you're not careful.

Point is, to some of us, these kind of conversations sound inherently strange to us because you're discussing whether or not it's OK to own something illegal. (Yes, I know it's not illegal where you are, but it is where I am for instance).

Sure, you can debate something like that, but from my perspective, that's not much different from a debate about whether or not Marijuana should be legal.
There's arguments for and against, but it's a moot point when you live somewhere where it's already illegal.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I initially read the title as "Man accused of threatening POOTIS, gets his 70 guns back."

I've been playing too much TF2.

I don't think it was a threat, but discussing it at an airport that the president is supposed to arrive at the next day seems like poor judgement on his part. It's generally not a good idea to bring up topics like that in an environment with tight security.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

What I don't get is why some people insist on saying "POTUS" when "President" or the person's name will usually suffice, and seems much less like the name of some dangerous experimental drug.

Meh, it's an international audience so President of the United States is clearer. I could have said Obama, but I didn't. I don't think it's terribly taxing to glean the meaning.

If it wasn't for the fact that I read it in some book somewhere, I would have no idea what POTUS meant without opening the thread.

 

[Averant]

If everybody has guns...

Then nobody has...


[sub]I don't think that quote translated well...[/sub]

Doesn't work.

"You have a Glock and I have an RPG, therefore neither of us is armed..."

I was trying to go with the 'If everyone is super, then nobody is' line from the Incredibles.

It's didn't work very well

It doesn't translate here, sadly. I did like that quote though.

I prefer to go with, "Everybody may have guns, but that doesn't mean everybody is a crackshot."

 

[Vicarious Reality]

What I don't get is why some people insist on saying "POTUS" when "President" or the person's name will usually suffice, and seems much less like the name of some dangerous experimental drug.

Meh, it's an international audience so President of the United States is clearer. I could have said Obama, but I didn't. I don't think it's terribly taxing to glean the meaning.

I am swedish and had no bloody idea what that meant

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Seems to me like just another typical over-reaction by US police. The customs people are just crazy, full stop, and no-one in the force can take a joke. As for having 70 guns, I have no reason to suspect he is not capable of having 70 guns and not using them. Hey, that's 70 guns that psychopaths don't have, and 69 that are useless at any one time (unless he dual wields).

Captcha: "oh, lord" - oh lord indeed.