Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on May 03, 2005, 09:26:05 am
-
I´m watching a show on TV about private owned tank colections,and about a guy in particular that owns over 200 tanks, all in working order and firing live ammo. And i was "what the hell??!"!
So, not only assault weapons are legal in the US, but even tanks?? The guy even owns 2 mobile SCUD missile launchers!! Howitzers, Panzers, Shermans, M-60 A1, triple A artillery, you name it!!
I entered a search for the guy´s name in the web, and i got his site. Check this out:
http://russiannavy.net/photos/littlefield/ (http://russiannavy.net/photos/littlefield/)
I was baffled that private citizens can buy such things in the US. This guy in particular owns more tanks than some countries.
:eek2: :eek2:
-
Now that is a guy worth robbing.
-
That just means he has lots of money and time.
-
He's got a ****ing working T-72?! How in the name of buggardy can that be legal? He could practically resupply the entire Iraqi army! (well, nowadays he could....)
-
He's missing a Tiger. But I sure would like to have a garage like he has.
-
I'd love to own a tank or two, too. At least I would have something I could use when I'd find the need to vent my spleen. ;)
-
He has Rapier missiles:
(http://russiannavy.net/photos/littlefield/Sept_2004/Roland/images/IMGP1357.jpg)
more worrying than a few rusty tanks imo...
-
Am i the only one who finds it ironic that the US is worrying about terrorists from across the globe using box cutters as weapons, when there are people inside the US that legally own friggin´Stingers? The guy has a working SCUD launcher, for crying out loud!
He even has the biggest tank ever made on Earth, a sort of mobile Howitzer on steroids, capable of launching a 1000kg nuclear shell up to a distance of 100km! He even has a ZSU radar controled triple A, that can take out an F-16...
:nervous:
-
i think its called a museum. perhaps you should go to one.
-
Most museums don't have fully working models of such weapons.
-
Thing is with keeping live weapons like that is that one nights raid would produce enough to supply a terrorist sect r rampant nutter group with all the explosives it needs to kill a very large number of people. If America wants to prevent/deter Terrorist threats to the populace, they need to stop giving them such wonderful opportunities to get the equipment to do so.
-
i'd like to see where on the website it says the weapons are able to be used.
-
God, I love this country. :p
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is with keeping live weapons like that is that one nights raid would produce enough to supply a terrorist sect r rampant nutter group with all the explosives it needs to kill a very large number of people. If America wants to prevent/deter Terrorist threats to the populace, they need to stop giving them such wonderful opportunities to get the equipment to do so.
To go all political for a minute, didn't Donald Rumsfeld block allowing the FBI to track whether terrorist subjects had purchased firearms? )on the grounds of protecting 2nd amendment rights, IIRC.... strange that the only constitutional rights they extend to terrorists is the one allowing them to buy weapons!?!)
albeit.... isn't even an unarmed but mobile tank a pretty effective weapon of destruction anyways?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
albeit.... isn't even an unarmed but mobile tank a pretty effective weapon of destruction anyways?
well, your average souped-up steamroller could be too.
-
Originally posted by kode
well, your average souped-up steamroller could be too.
Yeah, but it's not massively hard to get someone out a steamroller.......
-
(http://www.djhome.net/WinterPark/GActivity/photo/LAgranbyrampage1.jpg)
It is if they do that to it...
(well, a bulldozer technically, not a steamroller...but a guy did go on a rampage in it...)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To go all political for a minute, didn't Donald Rumsfeld block allowing the FBI to track whether terrorist subjects had purchased firearms? )on the grounds of protecting 2nd amendment rights, IIRC.... strange that the only constitutional rights they extend to terrorists is the one allowing them to buy weapons!?!)
What, a member of the Bush administration actually defended the Constitution?! :wtf:
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
i'd like to see where on the website it says the weapons are able to be used.
They are. I saw a live test where they fired blank rounds (simply because they cannot fire live rounds except on propper locations). And it´s not a museum, it´s all privatelly owned. It´s not just this guy, there´s a whole bunch of them. Including in the UK.
-
and where exactly was this live test video?
-
Do the missles work? Also I am sure that if he does have working shells for a T-72 or working missles, I am sure he has to keep a tight inventory. Such as those in the US that own 50-cal sniper rifles. They are tightly monitered and licensed.
God bless the 2nd admendment, a right not legislated by the courts ;7
-
Was that show on National Geographic?
Does anyone on this forum actually own a firearm?
-
i own a few firearms...
-
I own a Colt M1911 and a .22/250 target rifle.
And that thing he's calling an M1917 US Light Tank? Bad, bad history. That's French. RT-17, but I'll have to look up the designation to be 100% sure.
-
I own a fully working Orion destroyer..
-
Ive got a fricken armory:
Model 88 12 gauge, SKS (Norinco made), MAK-90 (AK-47 variant), two 16 gauges (both breech loading), .30 Carbine M1 ( My personal favorite), .38 special, Colt Combat Commander .45 caliber ( same as m1911), .22 magnum rifle, Ruger .22 LR, 7mm Winchester rifle, 8mm Mauser, 30-30 winchester, and some big old Russian rifle that I can't figure out. We keep them in storage most of the time except for the .22's and the .30 carbine. I'll try to post a pic tommorow.
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
I own a fully working Orion destroyer..
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Swantz
Ive got a fricken armory:
Model 88 12 gauge, SKS (Norinco made), MAK-90 (AK-47 variant), two 16 gauges (both breech loading), .30 Carbine M1 ( My personal favorite), .38 special, Colt Combat Commander .45 caliber ( same as m1911), .22 magnum rifle, Ruger .22 LR, 7mm Winchester rifle, 8mm Mauser, 30-30 winchester, and some big old Russian rifle that I can't figure out. We keep them in storage most of the time except for the .22's and the .30 carbine. I'll try to post a pic tommorow.
umm do you live in alaska or something?
-
My dad has a friend who has over 100 WWII japanese rifles. I've seen them in his basement. It's more packed than an armory. But it's his right to have them, and he excersizes that right.
My dad used to buy and sell all sorts of military weapons. Hell, I may or may not know the possible location of a fully functioning MG-26(t)...:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Raa
My dad has a friend who has over 100 WWII japanese rifles. I've seen them in his basement. It's more packed than an armory. But it's his right to have them, and he excersizes that right.
Does your dad's friend look like this? Did he get his shins blowed off in dubya-dubya-two? Has he killed fiddy men?
(http://www.fox.com/kingofthehill/bios/images/bio_img_cotton.gif)
If so, I think I may know him.
-
:lol: Cotton? What a strange name.
-
i thought about getting me a pistol grip pump action 12 gauge and join the local gun club, but i dont think they would let me take it on the bus :D
and really if you could get 100 terrorists together, each with a leagally obtained hand gun they could do massive damage. like sweeping through a large shopping mall or something.
-
The tests were conducted on the guy´s property, in San Francisco. And the show was on Odissey channel, not National G.
The SCUD missile the guy has mounted on the launcher was deactivated, otherwise he said Customs wouldn´t have allowed it. I suspect the Rapier missiles are also deactivated.
However, the guy has a huge armory of live shells, that he can fire on his tanks.
All the tanks are in perfect working order, only missing gas and ammo to fully work.
You can make a search for this guy´s name on the net. His name is Jack Littlefield, and he is a mining tycoon, a billionaire.
-
I own a few hunting rifles, and a few shotguns and a pistol. I like to hunt, but lately I haven't had time to sadly. :( That and I have almost completely crossed over into Bow Hunting, which is fun as hell. Though I still do alot of shooting of the ol' clay pigeons(about once every week or two) and the occasional Dove when it comes time in September.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
You can make a search for this guy´s name on the net. His name is Jack Littlefield, and he is a mining tycoon, a billionaire.
Sounds like I would really like the guy. ;7
-
Originally posted by redmenace
umm do you live in alaska or something?
No Kentucky:D
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
I was baffled that private citizens can buy such things in the US. This guy in particular owns more tanks than some countries.
:eek2: :eek2:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
"The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
" He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
if the second ammendent was translated as loosly as the first these days, all americans would be able to own nuclear missles
-
The fact that there are something like 30 million firearms in private hands in the US means that even if the entire military were to disappear tommorow, no one would ever stand a chance of mounting a successful invasion. Personally, I'm against restricitng gun, or in this case tank, ownership.
Cause when the USSR makes a comeback with zombie Stalin leading their armies, the crack-pot survivalist militias will be all that's standing between you and a Siberian re-education camp.
edit: By the way, for those of you "in the know", is it now legal to own automatic weapons? Cause I know that Clinton's gun ban thingy expired a little while ago, but does that now mean you can lawfully own an M16 or AK-47?
-
You need a license to carry automatic firearms. It's not impossible to get one. The real estate broker who sold our home in florida had a machine gun license. And he'd go to ranges and fire them, too.
-
:lol: It's like New York. You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us, kind of scary though. This is not something I'm particularly proud of. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment was written as a psychological deterrent against invaders. Most people are responsible with their firearms. It's the few that aren't that scare me. :nervous:
-
Actually the right to bear arms isn't intended to be used against invaders, it's intended to allow the population to have the ability to stand up to the government if all other means of change fail. It's supposed to allow rebellion, and prevent a dictatorship from forming. Modern laws have rendered that aspect of it moot, but in principle that's why it was put in to the constitution in the first place, and that's why it stays there.
-
Well, it's not so much the laws that have rendered it moot, as has the standing army of a quarter of million people. Without that, it wouldn't actually be too hard to stage a coup, provided that most people really were opposed to the government.
Originally posted by Raa
You need a license to carry automatic firearms. It's not impossible to get one. The real estate broker who sold our home in florida had a machine gun license. And he'd go to ranges and fire them, too.
This is the sort of person you need looking out for your real-estate. I'm guessing he doesn't have people trying to steal his commisions or anything like that.
-
Well... he did manage to sell our house... :nervous:
-
albeit.... isn't even an unarmed but mobile tank a pretty effective weapon of destruction anyways?
Actually, someone stole an M60 Bradley tank from a National Gaurd armory in San Diego 10 years ago. He drove around in a suburb for a while running over virtually everything in his path.
I remember seeing police video from that incident, it was pretty amazing.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Actually the right to bear arms isn't intended to be used against invaders, it's intended to allow the population to have the ability to stand up to the government if all other means of change fail. It's supposed to allow rebellion, and prevent a dictatorship from forming. Modern laws have rendered that aspect of it moot, but in principle that's why it was put in to the constitution in the first place, and that's why it stays there.
And a bunch of armed rednecks would be better than a dictatorship?
The statement falls down simply because the government can declare the end of democracy at any time - remembering that the citizens may have guns, but the government has stealth bombers...
There is no justification for owning anything other than a pistol for self-defence....
-
AFAIK the only real / primary need for gun ownership post-independence was fear of a reinvasion by the British Empire (or another of the colonial powers).
I have a feeling the meaning of it was interpreted in court from being for an organized militia (i.e irregular but trained army) during a case on assault weapons, though; IIRC the wording was regarded as indicating a trained, organized unit rather than irregular or paramilitary (i.e. independent) individuals.
To me, any government which would establish a dictatorship requiring rebellion, would have made sure to prevent even widespread gun ownership becoming a problem to them.
-
Oh, I'm sure it made perfect sense at the time of the colonists, and when the pesky redskins were shooting the place up, but right now? in 2005?
You know it says a lot about where you live, if you feel the need to have a gun in your home....
-
Hehe Russia anyone?
As for someone raiding this guys place, how stupid would you have to be?
Being a billionaire he no doubt has guards, and I bet they're not carrying batons either...
He probably sleeps with a grenade under his pillow. =|
-
but does that now mean you can lawfully own an M16 or AK-47?
No...That just means you can own anything with a 3 Round burst. The M16A1 you still have to have a liscence for, but you can own the M16A2 because it only has 3 Round Burst. AK-47 is still very illegal. It also allowed people to buy the flash supressors, and the collapsable stocks again which was dumb to outlaw them in the first place.
Actually, someone stole an M60 Bradley tank from a National Gaurd armory in San Diego 10 years ago. He drove around in a suburb for a while running over virtually everything in his path.
The video footage was kind of funny. Except the part where the police finally catch the Bradley and shoot the guy killing him.
There is no justification for owning anything other than a pistol for self-defence....
So you're saying the people that like hunting sporting shooting, collectors, etc. Have no justification? Guns aren't going away in America anytime soon. You have too many groups out there and too many companies out there that play a large part of the economy to get rid of them.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Actually the right to bear arms isn't intended to be used against invaders, it's intended to allow the population to have the ability to stand up to the government if all other means of change fail. It's supposed to allow rebellion, and prevent a dictatorship from forming. Modern laws have rendered that aspect of it moot, but in principle that's why it was put in to the constitution in the first place, and that's why it stays there.
I know that. It's our right to overthrow the government if we don't like it. It was a joke to a certain extent. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by aldo_14
AFAIK the only real / primary need for gun ownership post-independence was fear of a reinvasion by the British Empire (or another of the colonial powers). I have a feeling the meaning of it was interpreted in court from being for an organized militia (i.e irregular but trained army) during a case on assault weapons, though; IIRC the wording was regarded as indicating a trained, organized unit rather than irregular or paramilitary (i.e. independent) individuals.
To me, any government which would establish a dictatorship requiring rebellion, would have made sure to prevent even widespread gun ownership becoming a problem to them.
Nah, it's quite possible today. All you need is control of information. Ever read 1984? Information is the most powerful weapon in the world. If you control the flow of information, almost all your people will do your bidding/never question you. Essentially, they become mindless drones/zombies that serve the Party.
-
WOW! Panzers? dude...
heh, dad's got a stash of weapons: 1 12-gauge, 1 magnum, 1 colt45, sniper, automatic rifle that looks suspiciously like a SAW, and a couple of others i don't remember (been a while since i saw 'em)
-
remembering that the citizens may have guns, but the government has stealth bombers...
Yeah. The government has more, bigger guns. Would you try and take a shot at an M1A1 tank with a fully loaded cannon pointed at you with your pistol?
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Yeah. The government has more, bigger guns. Would you try and take a shot at an M1A1 tank with a fully loaded cannon pointed at you with your pistol?
I would because if your a rebel they would probably just shoot you anyway. Hell, I'd rather die fighting than become a prisoner of war in a rebellion. Because if the American people began to rebel that would mean the government had gotten pretty nasty by then.
You can take a tank out with a pistol (or at least disable it) just shoot for the cameras on an M1A1 and after thats done the commander will pop out o' the top and then BLAM! Of course thats assuming it doesn't shoot first:D
-
Here's those pics I promised sorry their late.
Left to right: .30 carbine, 7mm, SKS, 16 guage, 16 gauge, .22 magnum, 30-30, Model 88 12 Gauge.
(http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mobius_12002/detail?.dir=6bce&.dnm=a004.jpg&.src=ph)
Left to right: MAK-90, .45 Combat Commander, .22 LR
(http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mobius_12002/detail?.dir=6bce&.dnm=d38e.jpg&.src=ph):D
Edit: The links work now!
-
the links don't work. :(
-
i concur with the earlier statement about invading our mainland...impossible...a land force could never get to us
seriously, i've thought about it...now, i live in the usa, so i'm biased, but feel free to tell me the weakness in my idea
sure, you can nuke and bomb, but then the land is ruined
and to bomb us more strategically, you need to have a launch platform close by, in the ocean...which would get annihilated by our fleet of subs, carriers, etc.
but let's say someone rivals our ocean might, and gets close enough for the tact missiles and bombing runs...at that point, we got our land-based defenses in range to make strike
ultimately though, yeah, we could get bombed to hell with enough force
but i dont think we could gever get occupied (occupying the rubble of what used to be the USA wouldnt count...and really, dya think that the aggressor would really be left standing at that point? "sir, we're being bombed alll over the place! it's all over! ahh!" "ok, press the button" NUKES, boom, the end of that
so, to occupy us, they'd have to get land forces over here...they'd have to truck them by sea or air; both options would have to fight through our defenses there
but even if they got land troops on our soil, they wouldnt be able to get them there quick enough or in enough numbers to be useful....too many would die before the rest arrived...china's million man army isnt a threat to US, cuz they cant use that army on us...it's impotent...unless they all swim real well...
only option is to land them in another country that is land-locked with us, and that would be impossible to keep secret "wow....sure are alot of chinese people (or whoever) in venezuela (or wherever) these days, jim"
and i've long imagined the results of invading troops trying to take a city like LA or new york...man....sure, they'd prolly EVENTUALLY kill all the civs and such, with tanks and whatnot, but youre in trouble when you peek around a corner and there's the glint of scopes, binoculars, and various weapons pointing out of every single window in that building over there; urban fighting is possibly the deadliest, so many hidey spots
america's danger lies in stretching our necks out too far, and losing the money game; attacking other countries to drag us into it is likely the best way to hurt us...and the best way to use land forces against us, if that's your particular strength (trying not to pick on china, but it's the one ya hear about alot lately, other than n.korea...and dammit, why cant china just back off of tawaiin? that's a war waiting to happen....)
-
Originally posted by krisvek
and dammit, why cant china just back off of tawaiin? that's a war waiting to happen....)
Uh...because Taiwan IS chinese territory, maybe?
Would you give up Hawai if they rebelled against the mainland govt.? I think not. So why should they?
-
Ah, but the deal with China and Taiwan is that Taiwan is capitalist. They make lots of money. No one's going to let go of that, but Taiwan wants to be free from communist rule, and yeah, hopefully that can be settled peacefully. I think comparing it to Hawaii doesn't make sense today. If referring to the Hawaii of post annexation/pre-territory, then maybe it could.
-
under what authority is tawaiin china's? uhh...didnt britain and others claim america? and what happened? america got some friends to help, and rebelled, became their own; tawaiin is doing the same
the people who live there should have a right to choose who they want to govern them
and yes, if hawaii wanted to go off on their own, fine by me....no way they would, since the tourist industry is their lifeblood; why the hell should i care what hawaii does? do i live there? are they doing anything for me? not really...nothing i would miss, seriously
if hawaii wanted to be sovereign again, i'd support it
i support tawaain being soveriegn
and hell...if texas wanted to be it's own nation again, i'd support that, so long as they had good reason (i happen to live in texas, so it affects me more)
-
I never knew this before until recently, but apparently Taiwan is part of China. They also threatened to occupy if they showed the slightest sign of declaring independence. I am not supporting China. I was just merely trying to see the other's point of view.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Uh...because Taiwan IS chinese territory, maybe?
Would you give up Hawai if they rebelled against the mainland govt.? I think not. So why should they?
Actually, I support Taiwan and I have no problem if hawii, or the said state, brokeoff from the union since any state should have that right as long as the consent of the people of hawii is given. And yes the South had the same right to break away from the union.(although I am not certain if the consent was given) And no I don't think slavery is ok.
-
lol....slavery BADDD....independence GOOODDD
agreed though...the whole civil war thing was a mess...good it happened, but doesnt really make any sense...prolly coulda been handled more...peacefully, i'm sure
-
They also threatened to occupy if they showed the slightest sign of declaring independence.
They have been making similair such threats for the past 50 years or so. I personally think that it "may or may not" be independent. I will not take sides. I do this because they (the chinese on Taiwan and the mainland) do have tendencies to be nationalistic. With that in mind, it is best to avoid that land mine all together.
-
aye, but you cant avoid it if your nation doesnt...we've pledged ourselves to defend tawaiin; for every "we will crush youuuuu!!!' claim china has made against tawaiin, the usa has made a "we will defend youuuuu!!!" claim
-
The US-Taiwan mutual defence treaty has been dead for 30 years. The US military is stretched thin (thanks mostly to Iraq).
But this is off topic. To get back on topic, I do wonder how that guy managed to get his hands on all that hardware. Most of the Russian stuff obviously came from the former Soviet block countries, but what about the rest?
I also heard of one case several years ago where the Russian navy was auctioning off one of their old, probably decommissioned diesel subs to the public. Not sure what it went for though.....
-
Originally posted by krisvek
lol....slavery BADDD....independence GOOODDD
agreed though...the whole civil war thing was a mess...good it happened, but doesnt really make any sense...prolly coulda been handled more...peacefully, i'm sure
Well I was saying that to avoid, ahead of time, the inevitable questions what about the civil war and slavery. But whether or not it could have been avoided is debatable.
-
i know :) i was sorta referring to an old internet vid i saw years ago regarding metallica and napster...it was funny :)
ya know...if i was rich, bill-gate rich, or rich liek that other guy, i'd be buying an army too, heheh....i'd try to have it more up to date though, with 24-hour crews, and a base/fortress of operations...
read in an old popular mechanics not too long ago about jay leno taking an old gasoline-fueled tank (forget the actual make of it though) and taking it's engine out, and putting it into a custom made roadster....it was awesome looking...incredible amount of horsepower, obviously...he said it was hard NOT to burn rubber...and you could drive it wearing shorts and no shirt in the arctic if ya wanted, because the engine put off so much heat, lol
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I also heard of one case several years ago where the Russian navy was auctioning off one of their old, probably decommissioned diesel subs to the public. Not sure what it went for though.....
It was old, don't know about decommissioned; the Russians still use the Foxtrot-class operationally, I think.
Don't know about how much it went for, but it's in San Diego for the next week or so. I think a film company bought it and rents it out for movies and such. In between, they take it places by tow and let the public walk around inside.
They've also offered to sell NATO countries Victor III- and Victor II-class submarines as ASW OpFor opponents. Nobody took them up on it to my knowledge.