Billionaire Allen backs gun control while trying to buy German tank....Liberals.

Post by MattB
Billionaire Allen backs gun control while trying to buy German tank
http://www.examiner.com/article/billionaire-allen-backs-gun-control-while-trying-to-buy-german-tank?CID=examiner_alerts_article
The San Francisco Chronicle today is reporting what must qualify as
the zenith of “let me see if I have this straight” situations when it
revealed that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who donated $500,000 to
the Initiative 594 campaign on Aug. 11, is now in a legal battle over
possession of a – are you sitting down? – WWII German Panzer tank.
According to the story, which also appears in the Seattle P-I.com,
Allen paid $2.5 million for the tank two months ago, to a California
group called the Collings Foundation, which allegedly has declined to
turn it over. Maybe Allen didn’t pass California’s “universal
background check.” Is there a waiting period on tanks under California
law?
It is a story that not only underscores and highlights the hypocrisy
of big money gun control supporters, it turns practicing the double
standard into an art form, if the details are being correctly
reported. The story says Allen is “an avid collector of historical
military planes and other equipment.” Included in that “other”
category is a Soviet SCUD missile that Allen reportedly bought for
$349,000 and an allegedly “rusty and inoperable Cold War-era M55
self-propelled Howitzer.”
And this guy donated a half-mil to an initiative campaign that would
criminalize the weekend loan of a shotgun to a neighbor for a Columbia
Basin goose hunt without a background check? This is the man whose
money is helping pander an 18-page gun control measure that is
apparently so egregiously confusing and intrusive that two of the
state’s largest, oldest and most respected rank-and-file law
enforcement organizations, along with nine individual county sheriffs,
are publicly opposed to its passage?
Cue the sneers from Allen’s anti-gun fellow Seattleites. “You don’t
need a Panzer to shoot prairie dogs.” “You don’t need a missile to
hunt mallards.”

Tanks are covered under the 2nd amendment. All arms are covered by the
2nd amendment just as our forefathers intended. You can Keep arms and
you can bear arms.

Scout

2014-09-14 21:23:14 UTC

Post by MattB
Billionaire Allen backs gun control while trying to buy German tank
http://www.examiner.com/article/billionaire-allen-backs-gun-control-while-trying-to-buy-german-tank?CID=examiner_alerts_article
The San Francisco Chronicle today is reporting what must qualify as
the zenith of "let me see if I have this straight" situations when it
revealed that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who donated $500,000 to
the Initiative 594 campaign on Aug. 11, is now in a legal battle over
possession of a - are you sitting down? - WWII German Panzer tank.
According to the story, which also appears in the Seattle P-I.com,
Allen paid $2.5 million for the tank two months ago, to a California
group called the Collings Foundation, which allegedly has declined to
turn it over. Maybe Allen didn't pass California's "universal
background check." Is there a waiting period on tanks under California
law?
It is a story that not only underscores and highlights the hypocrisy
of big money gun control supporters, it turns practicing the double
standard into an art form, if the details are being correctly
reported. The story says Allen is "an avid collector of historical
military planes and other equipment." Included in that "other"
category is a Soviet SCUD missile that Allen reportedly bought for
$349,000 and an allegedly "rusty and inoperable Cold War-era M55
self-propelled Howitzer."
And this guy donated a half-mil to an initiative campaign that would
criminalize the weekend loan of a shotgun to a neighbor for a Columbia
Basin goose hunt without a background check? This is the man whose
money is helping pander an 18-page gun control measure that is
apparently so egregiously confusing and intrusive that two of the
state's largest, oldest and most respected rank-and-file law
enforcement organizations, along with nine individual county sheriffs,
are publicly opposed to its passage?
Cue the sneers from Allen's anti-gun fellow Seattleites. "You don't
need a Panzer to shoot prairie dogs." "You don't need a missile to
hunt mallards."

Remember the basic Tenet of Liberalism..... our rules are only for the other
guys.

Just Wondering

2014-09-15 08:07:17 UTC

Not that I have any sympathy for hoplophobes, but there's no hypocrisy
here if the tank is nonfunctional, which I expect is probably the case.
Unless it runs and can fire, and the owner has ammunition for it, it's
just a big funny looking boat anchor. And Allen's intended use for it
is apparently to put on display in a WWLL historical museum, which, to
my thinking, neither side of the 2A debate should seriously object to.

RichTrasky

2014-09-17 03:32:04 UTC

Correct in all respects.

benj

2014-09-17 03:52:52 UTC

Correct in all respects.

Not correct. There is clear hypocrisy here. The chant of the
gun-grabbers is that "the only purpose of guns is to kill!" and they
assert that the only way one can stop the killings is to remove all guns
from society (except for those in charge giving orders, natch).

Well, the truth is that ordinary firearms as purchased by citizens have
MANY uses. Not all of them are to kill. A tank? Not so many uses beyond
killing and blowing things up.

But the problem as I see it is the message a german tank in a WWII
museum sends to the next generation. Is it a celebration of conquest and
killing? Is it a celebration of German killing and even worse slave
labor enforced at gun point upon a previously disarmed population?

THIS is the problem: A museum like COULD be used to send the proper
message. Say one like pointing out that while Switzerland was just a
tiny country and Germany had simply rolled over some of the major
European powers of the day like France, they chose NOT to invade tiny
Switerland which had an assault rifle and ammo behind every door. Even
with their tanks and all the rest. There is an important lesson there.

So what point is Allen making by spending his money first on disarming
the American people and next by setting up a display glorifying German
conquest by military killing? Sounds just like the same old same old.
Disarm citizens, arm the kings men and it makes everyone easier to control.

"Zero Tolerance" is the gun-grabbers policy in their schools and yet
among themselves they spend large sums on ACTUAL wepaons of death and
enslavement while destroying the lifes of children who happen to eat
their pop tart into a gun shape. This is disgusting and hypocritical
beyond toleration. "Zero Tolerance" demands that Allen have all his
money taken from him and used to fight ebola.

RichTrasky

2014-09-21 02:06:19 UTC

Post by benj

Correct in all respects.

Not correct. There is clear hypocrisy here. The chant of the

Yes, correct.

Post by benj
gun-grabbers is that "the only purpose of guns is to kill!" and they
assert that the only way one can stop the killings is to remove all guns
from society (except for those in charge giving orders, natch).
Well, the truth is that ordinary firearms as purchased by citizens have
MANY uses. Not all of them are to kill. A tank? Not so many uses beyond
killing and blowing things up.

Good luck finding ammo for it plus parts plus a CREW to run it.

Scout

2014-09-21 10:53:09 UTC

Correct in all respects.

Not correct. There is clear hypocrisy here. The chant of the

Yes, correct.

Good luck finding ammo for it plus parts plus a CREW to run it.

Neither of which couldn't be solved with a little money.....which apparently
he has.

RichTrasky

2014-09-24 03:04:33 UTC

Correct in all respects.

Not correct. There is clear hypocrisy here. The chant of the

Yes, correct.

Good luck finding ammo for it plus parts plus a CREW to run it.

Neither of which couldn't be solved with a little money.....which apparently
he has.

The museum would object.

Thomas Paine

2014-09-21 13:54:19 UTC

Not that I have any sympathy for hoplophobes, but there's no
hypocrisy here if the tank is nonfunctional, which I expect is
probably the case. Unless it runs and can fire, and the owner has
ammunition for it, it's just a big funny looking boat anchor. And
Allen's intended use for it is apparently to put on display in a
WWLL historical museum, which, to my thinking, neither side of the
2A debate should seriously object to.

Correct in all respects.

Not correct. There is clear hypocrisy here. The chant of the

Yes, correct.

Post by benj
gun-grabbers is that "the only purpose of guns is to kill!" and they
assert that the only way one can stop the killings is to remove all
guns from society (except for those in charge giving orders, natch).
Well, the truth is that ordinary firearms as purchased by citizens have
MANY uses. Not all of them are to kill. A tank? Not so many uses beyond
killing and blowing things up.

Good luck finding ammo for it plus parts plus a CREW to run it.

You would be surprised.

I belonged for a little while to a reenactment group who's particular
speciality was M5A1 light tanks among other assorted WWII relics. The
machine guns were all real, registered and stored elsewhere between meets.
Ammunition was blanks, I helped load many a round including assembling them
into belts.

The 37MM cannons were real and functional. They had a good supply of cases
which they reloaded with much lighter loads than original. Some were blanks
made for the shows, others had solid shot, steel bar turned on a lathe. No
special license was needed as they did not explode.

Parts are far more plentiful then you would think. American tanks were made
to be repaired in the field by farm boys who worked on tractors and other
mechanically adept young men, who were not in short supply at the time.
Many of the engine parts were analogous to heavy duty civilian automotive
parts, one of the secrets of why so many spare parts were available. Many
of these vehicles were supplied to Allied nations into the 50s at least
under MAP. So even more spares were manufactured. Some parts can even be
made by machinists fairly readily.

And there was never any shortage of volunteers to work on them.

Wrong again, douchebag. Tell us how it feels to once again be shown to have
no understanding of subjects on which you blather and pontificate on.

--
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.

RichTrasky

2014-09-24 03:06:01 UTC

Post by Thomas Paine

Post by benj

Not that I have any sympathy for hoplophobes, but there's no
hypocrisy here if the tank is nonfunctional, which I expect is
probably the case. Unless it runs and can fire, and the owner has
ammunition for it, it's just a big funny looking boat anchor. And
Allen's intended use for it is apparently to put on display in a
WWLL historical museum, which, to my thinking, neither side of the
2A debate should seriously object to.

Correct in all respects.

Not correct. There is clear hypocrisy here. The chant of the

Yes, correct.

Post by benj
gun-grabbers is that "the only purpose of guns is to kill!" and they
assert that the only way one can stop the killings is to remove all
guns from society (except for those in charge giving orders, natch).
Well, the truth is that ordinary firearms as purchased by citizens have
MANY uses. Not all of them are to kill. A tank? Not so many uses beyond
killing and blowing things up.

Good luck finding ammo for it plus parts plus a CREW to run it.

You would be surprised.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Can_you_legally_drive_a_tank_on_the_roads_of_the_US

Post by Thomas Paine
I belonged for a little while to a reenactment group who's particular
speciality was M5A1 light tanks among other assorted WWII relics. The
machine guns were all real, registered and stored elsewhere between meets.
Ammunition was blanks, I helped load many a round including assembling them
into belts.
The 37MM cannons were real and functional. They had a good supply of cases
which they reloaded with much lighter loads than original. Some were blanks
made for the shows, others had solid shot, steel bar turned on a lathe. No
special license was needed as they did not explode.
Parts are far more plentiful then you would think. American tanks were made
to be repaired in the field by farm boys who worked on tractors and other
mechanically adept young men, who were not in short supply at the time.
Many of the engine parts were analogous to heavy duty civilian automotive
parts, one of the secrets of why so many spare parts were available. Many
of these vehicles were supplied to Allied nations into the 50s at least
under MAP. So even more spares were manufactured. Some parts can even be
made by machinists fairly readily.
And there was never any shortage of volunteers to work on them.
Wrong again, douchebag. Tell us how it feels to once again be shown to have
no understanding of subjects on which you blather and pontificate on.

Sorry douchebag, this is a German tank.

Thomas Paine

2014-09-21 13:58:17 UTC