• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Paul Allen Hypocryte?

Bill45

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
164
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
Making a comparison between Paul Allens stand on civilian owned firearms and a WWII tank that is undoubtedly incapable of shooting is illogical. The connection is a nonsequitur and leave one scratching one's head wondering WTF?

The tank most certainly is a DEWAT and not a weapon of any sort. Unless he drives it recklessly.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
Making a comparison between Paul Allens stand on civilian owned firearms and a WWII tank that is undoubtedly incapable of shooting is illogical. The connection is a nonsequitur and leave one scratching one's head wondering WTF?

The tank most certainly is a DEWAT and not a weapon of any sort. Unless he drives it recklessly.

Not exactly, if it is considered a museum piece it may still be fully functional, there are quite a few in the hands of private collectors that are 100% functional, however you have to be extremely wealthy , considering who were talking about its not far from reality.
 

Bill45

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
164
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
Not exactly, if it is considered a museum piece it may still be fully functional, there are quite a few in the hands of private collectors that are 100% functional, however you have to be extremely wealthy , considering who were talking about its not far from reality.

That certainly's a possability. I think the news artical stated that it was purchased for a museum in Everett.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2024522452_apxtankauctionlawsuit.html


Paul Allen has filed a lawsuit in the San Francisco Bay Area over a World War II-era German tank it says it paid $2.5 million for but never received

So he can have arms but will spend millions to prevent you from having them

Another craislist ad sucker (I did not read the link) I assume.

A fool and his money are soon parted. hahaha

But I did call him up and offered a replacement if he would just pay for the 50K shipping charges...I'm waiting for his check to clear.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
So he is a collector.....

Making a comparison between Paul Allens stand on civilian owned firearms and a WWII tank that is undoubtedly incapable of shooting is illogical. The connection is a nonsequitur and leave one scratching one's head wondering WTF?

The tank most certainly is a DEWAT and not a weapon of any sort. Unless he drives it recklessly.

First consider there are about 1400 class 03 Federal Firearms Liscenses (Collector Liscense) issued to private citizens in the state of Washington. Under the regulation created by 594 each one would be required to get a background check for each purchase regardless the codition of the firearm. This is indeed hypocrytical and a fair comparison.

Code:
'<style = Sarcasm >

Perhaps he should try the internet.  I hear armslist and gunbroker have no waiting, & no questions asked.

</style>'



~Whitney
 
Top