Grenade launchers, machine guns, C-4, weapons cache stuns agents

[Eightball]

This guy either stole illegal "assault" guns and "smokeless reloading powder" from the "only government-approved owners" (you assume), or he bought ones that were stolen in an illegal purchase (you assume). This is not someone who has been taken advantage of by law enforcement. This is a bad guy. I don't care how old he is.

He didn't have unbanned hunting weapons. He had "assault" guns, hi-capacity magazines and reloading supplies. I don't think they should be illegal either, but they are.

Tell me why you think I should sympathize with a criminal.

Y'know, change just a couple of the nouns in your assessment, and that's "the next stage" for the Anti's to get us to think. You'll hem and haw, but this is ultimately what's happening. I just altered your statement to a close approximation of what civilians own now, with what a presumable Fudd would say after, oh, say, an AWB II was instituted. It's not an impossible logical step.

How would you feel if your next door neighbor had 60 pounds of reloading supplies, 6 blocks of "explode-on-contact primers", and 37 (previously non-illegal) firearms? The (previously legal) firearms were a little alarming to me, but WHO IN THE WORLD needs reloading supplies of that design? Come on! What the heck would you do with that? I think we need to start trusting our big brother and accept that he could have been a terrorist.

Once again....change a couple nouns, and it's potentially scary what people can think in a few years.

Okay, yeah he was going to do something completely legal, but in a really bizarre way. Except that he had conceal-carry firearms. That makes sense guys.

That should cause alarm to any sane person. He wasn't going to have fun with it, he was going to kill people, in any end, that's what it would have been for. Face it. That's what his firearm was for. Period. Killing people. And, he got it [PRESUMABLY] illegally. He's going to jail for an extremely long time. End of conversation.

Change a word or two here and there.......and presto!

Frankly, if the guy next door to me had a bunch of MGs and DDs, I'd be jealous. If they were illegal, maybe I'd wonder, but I wouldn't instantly ASSUME they were illegal; and if they were legal, then that's all there is to it.

I'm not "for" the guy, or "for" the ATF. It's just kind of frightening how many "pro" gun people's statements, if you change the firearm/item in question to a closely-equivalent item which is currently legal, is precisely what Fudds would say about an AWB, or the next level down from Fudds would say when "Sniper rifles" are banned, or......or.....etc.

It's also really not cool when we instantly assume the guy's guilty (okay, well maybe in his state, yes, but let's think on a broader level here). Whatever happened to that whole "innocent until proven" thing?

And I'm not trying to pick on people specifically; this is more of a "devil's advocate" thing to make a point.

 

[SamG.]

1/Eighth of a ball ...amazing what you can do when you change someones words around....

 

[Zoogster]

I personaly would not like my neighbor to have lots of explosives, and I don't want them to play loud music.
If they insist on having them though I would prefer they have stable explosives (like C4), and store them away from my residence, like in a storage facility or remote location. Exactly as this guy is alleged to have done.


Now that I think of it though, smokeless is composed of explosives. Double and triple based propellants are certainly explosives. Even black powder is an explosive.
To make your own powder or even be self reliant for ammunition would require you to be capable of making such explosives.
So I guess we need a lot more laws, or stricter edicts and interpretations to reflect what we want our neighbor to have.
Everyone should legaly be required to depend on others for creating propellants, and therefore dependent on supplies controlled by others to excercise thier 2nd Amendment rights.

Of course explosives not crossing state lines or entering into commercial use didn't use to be a concern to the ATF (though crimes commited with them were).
The Safe Explosives Act was passed by Congress in 2002 as part of the Homeland Security Act.

 

[cbrgator]

Oh, come on. Isn't anyone going to pipe up and say, "'Arsenal'? You call that an 'arsenal'? Sheesh; what would they say if they saw MY gun room?"?

Duke, have you ever posted pictures of your gun room? Obviously understand if you didn't but if you have I'd love to be directed there. Sounds pretty awesome based on the way you said that.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I don't assume he'd criminally misuse them, but regulations exist for safe transport, storage and handling of explosives and other hazmats for good reason. Related to that is control of possession. I don't care whether you think you have a right to park a truckload of C-4 -- or fuel-air explosive mix and catalyst -- or a tanker truck of hydrogen peroxide, for that matter -- in your driveway or storage shed or not. It is hazardous, legal or not, and regulations exist for safe transport, storage and handling. Not because someone's trying to take away your God-given right to hydrogen peroxide, but because mishandling can easily cause a catastrophe which spills far beyond the bounds of your little double-wide pad.

Once you accept regulation of possession, transport, storage and handling, you must accept punishment for violations. Whether you want to call it C-4 or something else, it's less emotional and more logical to analyze the issue in terms of external hazard from hazmats rather than "gun control". The machineguns, if they really are machineguns, are another matter.

I don't want any part of a community where the crazy guy down the street with nothing better to do decides to "keep it real" by pushing the envelope of his God-given rights by parking a tanker truck of hydrogen peroxide next to my house. And I don't have to.

I really don't care too much if the guy next door has a few score machineguns, but I support some limited regulation of machineguns and their possession as opposed to repeating firearms, simply because, again, of the degree of external hazard. Once that's addressed to some extent (no system is foolproof, including the sorry mess we have now), I'll be happy to live next door to the guy.

The possible thefts are another matter.

 

[Zoogster]

I really don't care too much if the guy next door has a few score machineguns, but I support some limited regulation of machineguns and their possession as opposed to repeating firearms, simply because, again, of the degree of external hazard. Once that's addressed to some extent (no system is foolproof, including the sorry mess we have now), I'll be happy to live next door to the guy.

The thing is this was legal not too long ago.

There may come a time when a new AWB exists, and ammo is much more expensive, requires serialization, has to be made of expensive "green" materials, and reloading will be banned as a way of making "untracable ammunition" the type of thing only a criminal would want to be able to do.
All such laws are currently proposed each year, it is just a matter of them passing.
People will then be shocked when you talk of a time people were allowed to make untraceable ammunition, have "assault weapons like the military!!", own non "smart guns" that were so crude they merely relied on mechanical safeties, and many other new normal common sense measures the latest generation grew up with.

When some guy is then found not only making his own illegal unserialized "untraceable" ammunition (which of course would require him to make his own propellant, an explosive) and from horrible toxic inexpensive lead on top of that (no respect for our environment!), with possession of something obsolutely evil like an "assault weapon" (only suitable for battlefields and criminal actions) and everyone is certain the guy must have been a total nut job you will understand.
That is essentialy what happened with "destructive devices" (like anything over .50) in 1968.

People can remember the day when ordering what are now destructive devices through a mail order catalog was perfectly legal.
You will be able to remember a day when ammunition was affordable enough to actualy plink, and people could even make thier own! People will be convinced you are nuts if you think that was better, because clearly untraceable lead ammo was an awful thing. Guns that relied on mere mechanical safeties and did not have complex circuits, fingerprint or retinal scanners, breathalizers, and other built in features (a felony to remove or disable) that you think they were perfectly fine without.

That is of course if the added restrictions did not achieve the desired purpose of minimizing the desire to be a part of the whole oppressive system, resulting in reduction of gun support or open ownership to a level that removing the RKBA altogether can be accomplished (of course they will still pay lip service no matter the situation and insure everyone taking annual classes, paying huge fees to own a single shot or requiring steps like those of the UK still means they have the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment is in effect.)

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Having high explosives is not your "right" There is nothing in the constitution having anything to do with C4. It protects your right to keep and bear arms, not explosives. You people are straight from survivalistboards....

Explosives are effective weapons, especially C4. All weapons are arms.

Maybe you thing you are insulting us here by calling us survivalists. ANYONE who defends himself is a survivalist. ANYONE who packs a lunch and brings along a bottle of water on a trip is a survivalist. ANYONE who wears a life vest in a boat is a survivalist. ANYONE with food in their pantry and freezer is a survivalist. ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER who carries a gun on duty - especially on a call - does so for his defense and is a survivalist. Some of us are smarter and better equipped for the long hall than others. Some of us have read history and see the warning signs and prepare. So, it's better to prepare. Otherwise, you might perish with an errant bunch of boobs running a government - or at their hand.

Now that I think of it though, smokeless is composed of explosives. Double and triple based propellants are certainly explosives. Even black powder is an explosive.

Gun powders burn. Gun powders are amalgamated chemicals that burn(chemically bond into stable compounds) when ignited, releasing energy as they burn. Explosives are unstable compounds that decompose into other chemicals when triggered, releasing energy instantaneously.

Woody

 

[Logan5]

Oh, come on. Isn't anyone going to pipe up and say, "'Arsenal'? You call that an 'arsenal'? Sheesh; what would they say if they saw MY gun room?

On that note, how do you do that "This thread is useless without pictures!" thing with the smilieys? Can't believe this thread has gone this long without that popping up...

 

[Hoplophile]

In addition to this, I'd like to point out that high explosives are a generally poor idea for close-quarters combat. He probably didn't keep them around for home defense.

 

[Treo]

The concept behind the second amend ment is so clear that I am amazed that it's even open for debate here.

The founders made it clear that they wanted the citizenry to be able ( at need) to remove a seated government, with a standing army at its disposal, from power.

If that is true there is no way that they could have ever expected the RKBA to be limited to shoulder fired weapons.

Hence C-4 , properly stored, in the hands of a civilian is fine by me

I am completely cool W/ any civilian being allowed to own any weapon on the TO&E for an 11B

A well armed citizenry is the goverment's conscience. Do Obama & Co want to turn America into a worker's paradise? IDK ,but I damn sure bet you anyone who wants to will think twice as long as we're armed

 

[Eightball]

Now that I think of it though, smokeless is composed of explosives. Double and triple based propellants are certainly explosives. Even black powder is an explosive.

Technically, smokeless powder is a propellant, and Black Powder is the explosive. Hence certain haz-mat charges for shipping from internet orders for various reloading or black powder supplies.

 

[Zoogster]

Gun powders burn. Gun powders are amalgamated chemicals that burn(chemically bond into stable compounds) when ignited, releasing energy as they burn. Explosives are unstable compounds that decompose into other chemicals when triggered, releasing energy instantaneously.

I am aware of the difference, the actual difference is simply the rate of combustion/detonation and there is unstable and stable versions of both.
Black powder actualy does detonate and is an explosive.
Smokeless powder is made from explosives an individual has to create in order to create many smokeless propellants.
Such as nitroglycerine.
The same thing used in dynamite.

Nitroguanidine and nitroglycerine in double and triple based smokeless powders have a high detonation velocity and are clearly explosives. When combined with nitrocellulose in certain processes the detonation velocity can be slowed dramaticly while the energy released is the same, making a great high energy propellant.

However one is still making explosives to make propellant. The stuff required to propel bullets and excercise the 2nd Amendment.

On top of that primers are absolutely explosives, every single one is an explosive compound and not simply a "propellant".
Making primers is making high explosives without a doubt.
Lead styphnate, lead azide, mercury fulminate, and all the other common compounds that have been used for primers are high explosives, even in the finished product.

 

[TRGRHPY]

but I support some limited regulation of machineguns and their possession as opposed to repeating firearms, simply because, again, of the degree of external hazard

He is limited...he only has two arms and ten fingers.
Who are you to tell anyone what, or how much of something, they can own? Too many veterans have served, been injured, or died for our freedoms (myself included) for you tell anyone squat with regard to their freedoms.

 

[EHL]

It's no wonder our 2nd amendment rights keep eroding away every few years. We all placate ourselves with the recent Heller case, but the fact is, many of our members in this forum and gun owners in general hold views that accept so called "sensible gun laws". Like many members have mentioned, just alittle over 50 years ago, many of these items were legal. Now, the mere mention of civilians being in possesion of these once legal items creates gasps of shock among anti's and gun owners alike. It's sad that we (collectively as a nation) have forgotten the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment. It wasn't for hunting and it wasn't for defending our homes either. It was the People's check against the government. Here's what I mean by that: Our government is comprised of three branches that holds checks and balances over their counterparts so that no one branch could take control of them all. The Declaration of the Independence states "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government........But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
How can any nation ever hope the "throw off" a government that no longer serves it's people's with only government approved weapons? The founding fathers understood full well that governments historically have sought to opress their people into absolute servitude. The only way to insure that their posterity would have the means to both prevent this and even possibly abolish such a bad government, would be for it's citizens to have access to the same weapons that would be used against them by their own government's military. When our government outlawed the possesion(at least for those of us who don't have tens of thousands of dollars for pre-ban ones) of automatic weapons, explosive devices such as bazookas, grenades, etc.. we were essentially put to a huge disadvantage since we won't have access to the very same weapons our military would use against us if we ever had to rise up against a despotic government. Now with the threat of the .50 Caliber BMG,"assault weapons", and hi-cap mags being outlawed as well, we can see that we would really have no chance at all for possible success against the awesome might of a fully armed military force intent on putting down a rebellion against a despotic government or outside military force that could invade.
No doubt many of you naysayers will dismiss this argument while justifying your belief that "our military would NEVER do that". Our Founding fathers knew better than to trust a standing army. They put more trust in the militia, i.e neighborhood defenders than they did with any standing army that is meant to obey orders, period.

 

[RP88]

Well, he is an old guy. He is old enough to have lived in a time where alot of those weapons were still widely available. I'm betting alot of that stuff was probably crap he jacked from the 60's or 70's, or things he probably simply picked up from the good ol' days.

The only thing unsettling is how he had the explosives, and the fact that he was storing it in storage sheds. Not to sound stereotypical, but most people to me just stockpile crap or bury it on their own property. He could have had it in sheds in order to keep it away from neighbors/witnesses, and for all we know that cache of his could have been bigger and included alot more sheds. He could have been doing some arms dealing. Who knows. California is not too far away. Hopefully they'll find out and we can see where the case ends up.

 

[General Geoff]

Umm. How would you feel if your next door neighbor had 60 grenades, 6 blocks of C4, and 37 machine guns? The machine guns were a little alarming to me, but WHO IN THE WORLD needs high explosives of that design? Come on! What the heck would you do with that? I think we need to start trusting our big brother and accept that he could have been a terrorist.

I'd be completely fine with my neighbor having all that. As treo mentioned, I'd be jealous.



Just remember that the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side you're rooting for.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Some of you act like C4 is extremely unstable and dangerous, like weeping TNT. Didn't soldiers use c4 as an improvised cooking fire in vietnam? It needs a blasting cap or detonator to touch it off. Shooting the stuff won't even do it.
I think chances are the guy was in possession of stolen, illegal goods. I'd be surprised if it wasn't. And yes, that's criminal. However I think those laws are totally wrong and unconstitutional. I'm of the impression that "arms" are what a moden soldier carries. In 1776 it was muskets and a sword. In 2009 it's an M4 with a M203 on it, grenades, and maybe a block or two of c4.
I guess 18 year olds who have never fired a gun before are to be trusted with those but not people who have been around fireams and/or explosives their entire lives because...well because the government says so.
When they change the laws (and chances are they will), you can keep talking about how somebody must be a terrorist kook because he was in possession of a 30 round magazine and only the military has access to those because they are made for killing, not hunting like (the government told you) the Constitution intended, with a bow and arrow.

 

[EHL]

Don't know about you, but I probably would have invested in some PVC pipes and a few shovels to "get rid of the "problem"".

 

[PTK]

Gun powders burn. Gun powders are amalgamated chemicals that burn(chemically bond into stable compounds) when ignited, releasing energy as they burn. Explosives are unstable compounds that decompose into other chemicals when triggered, releasing energy instantaneously.

Minor correction, gun powder (being double based smokeless primarily composed of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin) is a high explosive, but a secondary high explosive. It needs a primary (and sometimes a booster, depending on the exact powder we're talking about) to make it detonate, which is why simple flame will make it burn as in a firearm.

The concept behind the second amendment is so clear that I am amazed that it's even open for debate here.

The founders made it clear that they wanted the citizenry to be able ( at need) to remove a seated government, with a standing army at its disposal, from power.

If that is true there is no way that they could have ever expected the RKBA to be limited to shoulder fired weapons.

Hence C-4 , properly stored, in the hands of a civilian is fine by me

I am completely cool W/ any civilian being allowed to own any weapon on the TO&E for an 11B

A well armed citizenry is the government's conscience. Do Obama & Co want to turn America into a worker's paradise? IDK ,but I damn sure bet you anyone who wants to will think twice as long as we're armed

Magnificent, sir. I fully and entirely agree with you.

Some of you act like C4 is extremely unstable and dangerous, like weeping TNT. Didn't soldiers use c4 as an improvised cooking fire in Vietnam? It needs a blasting cap or detonator to touch it off. Shooting the stuff won't even do it.

Ding ding ding! Except the part about trinitrotoluene, you're entirely correct; you're not thinking of TNT, you're thinking of nitroglycerin based dynamite which can "leak" or "weep" NG onto the surface of the wrapper - and NG is SENSITIVE stuff. Flame, impact, you name it! C4, however, being a plasticized explosive composed primarily of Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX, I'm sure you're familiar with the stuff) is shock and flame insensitive. TNT is fairly stable as well, being a castable secondary HE.

 

[General Geoff]

Trinitrotoluene doesn't weep, dynamite (nitroglycerin-based) does... But yeah, all the stuff this guy had, was legal just 41 years ago..

 

[PTK]

Trinitrotoluene doesn't weep, dynamite (nitroglycerin-based) does... But yeah, all the stuff this guy had, was legal just 41 years ago..

Another who understands energetic compounds... good!

Minor note: Everything he had except the post-86 MGs is legal, Federally. Certain licenses, etc., are needed, but even HEs are quite legal - heck, I know a fellow back in Ohio that had his HE User License and could order explosives through UPS!!

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Except the part about trinitrotoluene, you're entirely correct; you're not thinking of TNT, you're thinking of nitroglycerin based dynamite which can "leak" or "weep" NG onto the surface of the wrapper

Oops, yes I was thinking of dynamite.
The media loves to exaggerate things as everyone knows. C4 is stable and 40mm grenades must be spin-armed. You could walk into that shed smoking a cigar with a belt made of bottle rockets and the neighborhood would be pefectly safe.
Maybe he was up to no good, but aside from violating unconstitutional laws there isn't evidence of anything sinister (I would like to know where the stuff came from though). He'll be hanged regardless. They don't let you off with a warning for that kind of hardware.

 

[.455_Hunter]

FYI.

New production C4 that has been properly stored is great- very safe to handle.

However, as the VOCs leave C4 overtime, the sensitivity RDX/plastic binder blend goes up dramatically. I would be very concerned about some Vietnam-era C4 exposed to 40 years of temperature and humidity fluctuations.

Hunter

 

[expvideo]

Once again....change a couple nouns, and it's potentially scary what people can think in a few years.

I know that's not high road, but there is really no other way to explain how rediculous that is. Of course all you have to do to change everything a sentence is about is just to change all of the nouns.

 

[Jeff White]

Since this thread has degenerated into name calling it's done. When the case goes to trial someone can open a new thread on this topic and update us. Until then, this subject is closed!