Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

[Mr.Mattress]

While I think the guy has way too many guns, I don't think he really did anything wrong other then being an Unpatriotic jerk. Sure, threatening the President is a negative thing, but unless he actually acted on it, it doesn't mean you can take away his stuff. Just let him have his guns back. If he actually acts on it, take everything from him, including his life.

 

[Westaway]

There are knives that are made for killing. Youd be weird for keeping on in your house though.

My Ka-bar was designed for killing (hence the fighting part of its name) but it also makes a fantastic camping knife (hence the utility part of its name).

Ill give you that though, im talking about house guns for self defence. Its still a killing tool. Treating a gun as anything else is dangerous, its a deadly weapon and it demands respect.

No, it is just a tool. Its use is determined by its user. If I do not decide to use my guns for killing then it is not a killing tool, it is just a tool.

Look, one of my friends is a competitive bow shooter. Her bows can sure as hell be considered deadly (especially after you see what one of those things can do to a steel plate) but no one would I know (even the most vehement anti-gunners) would that bow a ?killing tool?. Why are guns so different?

I think the anti-thesis to your argument is pretty obvious, but I guess I'll bother typing it out.
No, guns do not need to be used for killing people. But that's what they were made for. They weren't made for shooting targets. I can't buy a drill, proceed to use it as a hammer, then claim it was made for hammering. Sure, that's what you are using it for, but it was not designed to do whatever else you're using it for.
Guns ARE killing tools. There is no other real life application for them (I don't count target shooting because that's not being used as a tool as much as a toy, you know what I mean? You aren't doing anything productive. Don't take that the wrong way, I like shooting targets) than (than? then? not sure if I used the right one) using them to kill stuff.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

On topic, as the first response said, tons of people joke all of the time about how easy it would be to bomb a building or shoot someone, especially because it WOULD be insanely easy to assassinate the POTUS or kill far more people than the majority of mass-killers for anyone with an ounce of intelligence and nothing to lose.

I'm glad(?) that the court is allowing this man to keep his collection, since it sounds like it could be pretty impressive.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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?`

One of my professors has a neighbor who bought a bank vault to house all his guns. He has so many guns that he forgets about some of the guns he owns. In fact, he has a number of guns that he bought 30 years ago and never even took them out of their boxes just because he forgot about them at the time (he just found them again when he was cleaning out his vault a few weeks back).

 

[MortisLegio]

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
- Admiral Yamamoto, (alleged quote)

OT: DAMN, why do you need so many guns? I believe in the 2nd Amendment too but thats alot of fire power to have around the house.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, they took a potential threat seriously, took the guns, and gave them back after he was determined not to be a threat?

Why is this news?

 

[OneCatch]

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.

I'm never going to be able to look at my copy of Oblivion the same way again, so thanks for that!

OT:
I think this is kind of missing the point. Why on earth was the guy prosecuted for what he said?
Being interviewed by the Secret Service I could understand, but why was he prosecuted once it was established that he clearly wasn't a communist assassin or whatever?
I mean come on, if there was actually a conspiracy to try and shoot Obama, d'you really think they'd choose the guy who had 70 firearms to do it in some kind of horrific Rube Goldberg-ish chain reaction? And by Rube Goldberg, I mean something like this:

Ahem... Anyhow, I'd be all for greater gun control in general, but in this particular case there's no reason not to return them, and he shouldn't have been convicted of an offence anyway.

It sounds like this rather widely derided incident [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/11/twitter-joke-trial-appeal-verdict] in the UK.
Now that I think about it, it also bears some semblance to this case [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18149852], which provoked much outrage among the US members of this forum on the grounds that Hate Speech laws excessively curtailed Mr Liam Stacey's freedom of speech. Surely this prosecution is just as severe a curtailment?

 

[Westaway]

No, guns do not need to be used for killing people. But that's what they were made for.

I said this earlier but I will say it again, I am a certified gunsmith. I build guns personally. How can you tell me that the guns that I build are made for killing people when I did not make them to kill people?

They weren't made for shooting targets.

What about all the guns names ?Super Target Shooter??

There is no other real life application for them (I don't count target shooting because that's not being used as a tool as much as a toy, you know what I mean? You aren't doing anything productive. Don't take that the wrong way, I like shooting targets) than (than? then? not sure if I used the right one) using them to kill stuff.

Actually there are many alternative uses for firearms. We human beings are defined by our use of tools. Do you honestly think that no one has ever tried to use a gun for an alternative purpose?

Ever heard of a nail gun? How about a flare gun? Stun gun? Have you ever heard of using guns for mining (fell out of favor with the invention of the jackhammer)? How clearing brush? Cutting down a tree (that one is not very popular). All kinds of non-lethal ammo are currently in use and development. There were some rigged guns that were built to knock apples off of trees without getting a latter. Knocking down buildings. Digging holes. And of course allowing fathers to send a very clear message to young boys (I still remember my first time, got to love the south)-

Spoiler

Look, I'm clearly out classed in terms of knowledge about guns. You make valid points, however you are taking my point slightly out of context. I am talking purely about guns that are designed for self defense or hunting. I am not counting guns that have been modified or created specifically for another purpose- was I wrote that paragraph, I had a shotgun in my head, or an assault rifle.
As for your comment on how you didn't make the gun to kill people, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure if you're referring again to guns that have been made for something else (target shooting or other) or actual self defense guns. If you are referring to things such as pistols, I'm not sure how you can say that. I wouldn't like to know the gun I made killed someone, but it happens. I'm sure there are countless inventions that were turned into war machines, much to the dismay of their creator.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I want to point out a couple of things:

1. He can still only hold 2 at a time, so the fact that he has 70 is a little unsettling, but it doesn't actually make him 70 times more dangerous then the average gun owner. Probably.

2. Despite what he may think, it's NOT easy to shoot the President. Especially if you happen to be a massive idiot. Like say, the kind of massive idiot who thinks it would be easy to shoot the president.

Yeah, I think we're gonna be OK.


I'm much more concerned about the fact that he was able to own 70 guns legally. Why in the flying fuck would he need that many guns? Is he expecting SWAT teams to pay him a vi-Oh, I see.

 

[JaceArveduin]

While I think the guy has way too many guns, I don't think he really did anything wrong other then being an Unpatriotic jerk. Sure, threatening the President is a negative thing, but unless he actually acted on it, it doesn't mean you can take away his stuff. Just let him have his guns back. If he actually acts on it, take everything from him, including his life.

It never said he would/wanted to, he'd said it would be easy to. That's kind of like how some people, after playing RTS games, will come across a hill or a mountain or such and go "You know, that'd make a great defensive encampment." He was thinking that the President just might have a hole in his security, which could possibly be used by the SS to strengthen their defense.

It's just people are paranoid as fuck nowadays, so the people that called him in probably thought he really was going to shoot the pres.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

There are knives that are made for killing. Youd be weird for keeping on in your house though.

My Ka-bar was designed for killing (hence the fighting part of its name) but it also makes a fantastic camping knife (hence the utility part of its name).

Ill give you that though, im talking about house guns for self defence. Its still a killing tool. Treating a gun as anything else is dangerous, its a deadly weapon and it demands respect.

No, it is just a tool. Its use is determined by its user. If I do not decide to use my guns for killing then it is not a killing tool, it is just a tool.

Look, one of my friends is a competitive bow shooter. Her bows can sure as hell be considered deadly (especially after you see what one of those things can do to a steel plate) but no one would I know (even the most vehement anti-gunners) would that bow a ?killing tool?. Why are guns so different?

Because a gun and a bow were not designed for utility. They were designed as weapons. They are weapons. It is their function. Their one function. To actively be used as or practiced as weapons. Ive been an archer and a marksman and i personally LOVE shooting bows or guns. Ive never enjoyed a hobby more. But i think youre disrespecting a dangerous tool if you dont act as if what youre holding in your hand is a weapon. Id never treat my gun as anything else other than a weapon. Or my bow. They are dangerous. I could very easily take lives with them if i was careless and inconsiderate to their abilities. They are fantastic weapons with that said. Awesome to practice with. But not the same at all as a tool of utility. They are both tools. But the purpose of said tools is massively different.

You have exceptions to this rule but dont bring them up. We arnt discussing guns not made to be real working guns that fire actual lead bullets.

One demands you treat it carefully because its made to be dangerous. It was designed with the purpose of doing something dangerous. To destroy something effictively. Be it a target or a person.

Im FOR owning guns. I just think the attitude of "This is no more dangerous than a household applience" is fucking stupid. No one with that inability to understand the responsibility of owning a weapon (see: killing tool) should own one. It isnt the same as popping down to the shop and buying a regular household knife. Or a tissue box. Or a tooth pick. Its got more weight to it than that.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

OK, no, he doesn't need all those guns.

No, they shouldn't have had them taken away from him because free speech and innocent until proven guilty, that's why.

Just because someone doesn't NEED something does NOT mean they should be taken away. I think the long speech in Demolition Man really summed this matter up nicely.

You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

 

[Exocet]

I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

 

[lacktheknack]

Awwww. If it was 21 guns, I could have trolled everyone with some Green Day. D'oh well.

Anyways, that's a heck of a collection.

 

[lacktheknack]

I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

Actually, I have no reason to believe this thread was ever not about 70 guns.

 

[Exocet]

I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

Actually, I have no reason to believe this thread was ever not about 70 guns.

So, a man having a hobby takes discussion priority over mentioning something out loud?

Still seeing a problem in priorities here. Thinking there is a problem with owning 70 guns is like thinking there is a problem with owing 70 video games. Their both legal, and can both be hobbies. Who are we to judge?

On the other hand, he mentions something out loud, and he is detained for 30 days... yeah, a hobby is much more discussion worthy!