When there is no legal sources the source will be illegal. Whether they are stolen or smuggled from "corrupt" sources, or stolen by another party.
Personaly I think the story is rather fair. The guy commited crimes by mere possession, but they acknowledge he merely owned them for "armageddon".
That is essentialy saying he was just harmlessly stockpiling them just in case, and had no intention of harming anyone short of a major SHTF scenario.
Sure beats them exagerating he was some terrorist intent on major harm when he wasn't.
The analogy to banned "Assault weapons" is accurate though. Such items were once legal, and then they were outlawed. Enough time and generations passed that now such things being outlawed seems like "common sense".
After 10 years of the AWB it seemed like "common sense" to many as well, and exceedingly dangerous to let it lapse.
In 1968 people were limited to .50 and less bore diameter, FFLs become required for the first time, and prohibited persons came to pass.
"Destructive devices" like the grenade launcher came to exist.
Now it is "common sense" that such restrictions exist, yet they didn't for most of our nation's history.
The government and paramilitary "police" that will be used against the people if necessary can possess many things that are illegal for the average citizen. A double standard inconsistant with the intention of the 2nd.
"Anti government" material could mean anything. Just believing the government could be the bad guys during a SHTF situation (like during Katrina) would be "anti government".
A person could have a whole library of books, but in such a situation they will take those suitable to the prosecution in the collection out of context by only mentioning and displaying those alongside the weapons. It is all about creating an image, whether it is true or not.
I know many people with books on things they don't believe. It is after all thier first Amendment right. How many non-Communists have a copy of the Communist Manifesto? I think I have a Koran somewhere, though I am not a Muslim. I guess that means if found with an "arsenal" (of legal items) I could be labeled a "muslim extremist."
A person with stockpiles to get through something like Katrina, or the "big one" predicted to hit, or even a lengthy blizzard who also happens to own firearms would be considered an "extremist, survivalist," etc Being able to be self reliant for any length of time makes someone abnormal.
Combine that with a large number of firearms, especialy any illegal and they become assumed or reported as a total unstable wacko just by association, and people readily believe it.
I choose not to break the current law (many genocide policies were "the law" or supported by "the law" too) myself, but I have a hard time condemning others who choose to excercise the 2nd as was legal less than 50 years ago.
Of course he didn't "legaly" buy them at the corner store or through a mail order catalog, that was made illegal in 1968.
would NEVER give up anyone or any gun willingly to the fascists who run the ATF. that is like telling nazis where jews are hiding. it's anti constitutional and wrong to report someone who is not hurting anyone and exercising his constitutional rights.
I agree. I may choose not to be involved in the illegal activity myself, but I certainly won't be an active participant in enforcing anti 2nd Amendment policies.
I guess that makes me like the German not quite willing to stand up and hide the Jews myself because I am "law abiding" and unwilling to put myself and family at risk, but not willing to tell on others for doing so.
Of course what is that qoute?
All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate;
else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Sounds like this man is an "unpitied sacrifice" to me.