Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/billionaire-allen-backs-gun-control-while-trying-to-buy-german-tank
Hello everyone,
American billionaire Paul Allen, one of the Microsoft founders, a philantropist, but also an anti-gun activist supporter (funny how all the rich anti-gun law supporters live in closed communities, protected by veritable private armies, isn’t it) has a bit of a problem. He wants to buy a Panzer IV tank, but the owner (Collins foundation) says it’s not for sale. In turn, Paul Allen decided to sue the owners. The article states:
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.”
More Info:
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_26518449/suit-alleges-rare-world-war-ii-tank-portola
sample
A company headed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen is suing two foundations and an auction house for allegedly failing to deliver a World War II German Panzer IV Tank purchased for $2.5 million but still sitting in a Portola Valley facility.
The complaint on behalf of Allen’s company, Vulcan Warbirds, Inc., was filed Wednesday in San Mateo County Superior Court by lawyers with the San Francisco firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP.
Seattle-based Vulcan Warbirds acquires rare military vehicles and planes and leases them to the Flying Heritage Collection, a museum located in Everett, Wash., according to the suit.
In July, Vulcan Warbirds representatives discovered that a rare Panzer IV Tank that had been part of Stanford graduate Jacques Littlefield’s collection would be auctioned off at the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation in Portola Valley. The historic artifact was valued at $2.5 million.
On July 11 and 12, items from the Littlefield collection were auctioned off through Auctions America, but a $1.5 million bid from Vulcan Warbirds representative Deborah Gunn and a $1.7 million bid from an unnamed organization were not accepted, according to the suit.
Ahh, that makes things a bit clearer…
I’m assuming that’s the same SCUD from the Littlefield collection? That might explain why they didn’t accept the Pz IV offer, as so one person couldn’t scoop up the entire collection.
So they under-bid by a million dollars and are upset they didn’t get it? Did it have a reserve price? Either way, they got out-bid by the unnamed organization.
He later personally increased the amount to 2.5 Million, the auction house accepted and he paid them.
Few days later the auction house told him they werent allowed to sell (after the had sold and he had signed the treaty) and now he sues them since he paid for the tank.
He bought an arty, the scumbag.
While the suing the owners bit is wtf, you can be anti-gun and still like military hardware. I’m as pacifist, anti-war/anti-gun as they get but fecking love tanks. Not because I want to kill people with them but because they are awesome pieces of machinery. The same goes for planes, I assume (They’re not really my thing).
Ditto.
The equipment in question has been demilitarized anyway.
What exactly does killing people have to do with anything? Surely you can own guns without wanting to kill something?
Own a nuclear weapon then. Nice thinking.
That’s a pretty slippery slope. Lets meet at light artillery though? I think everything beyond that is unsuitable for recreational use.
Nuclear weapons don’t make for good household defense weapons though, kind of defeats the purpose you know taking out your whole city trying to defend your home…
It’s not even about owning a gun, it’s about owning a historical piece of machinery. The writer of that article clearly was just itching to stick it to the filthy anti-gun liberals.
You mean criminals. They ignore laws anyways, so talking about them is irrelevant.
Sorry for the full post edit, I’ve re-read the post I was replying to and realized that what I’ve wrote doesn’t quite apply.
And I did not mean hardened criminals with the means to get weapons. I’m more worried about the more petty folk, the unhinged civilians fantasizing about shooting someone, or the ones that’d have to resort to switchblades otherwise.
I hate limousine liberals who want to tell everyone how they shouldn’t have guns, while surrounded by armed guards 24/7…but that said I can agree that you can be anti-gun and still like historical military artifacts.
Of course there are exceptions and utter hardcore retards too though like this mother in Toy’s R Us I ran into who dragged her son away from the military toys berating him for looking at them…lel poor kid.
“you can be anti-gun and still like military hardware. I’m as pacifist, anti-war/anti-gun as they get but fecking love tanks. ”
No you can’t the very ideology of being anti-gun/anti-war and/or a pacifist goes in complete and utter opposition of liking military hardware, ergo it’s hypocritical.
I will say it feels good to be staunchly pro-gun and pro-militarism while not being a hypocrite in liking military machinery.
And who you are to go around telling people how they’re supposed to be manifesting their ideals? Apart from being weapons, each tank is an intricate marvel of engineering, and a piece of history on top of that, worthy of interest regardless. I’m sorry not everybody sees the world in black and white, it must be lonely up on your pedestal.
But those machines are keyword here WARmachines which is something that goes in completely contradiction of their (keyword again) anti-WAR and implements of WAR ideals.
Now on matters of war and peace it is as black and white as you can get, so I am quite right (and by extension you are wrong) in my supposed “sees the world in black and white” on this matter.
I enjoy sitting up here on the being right pedestal, rather than down in the bs filled pits of being wrong.
Though I do find it funny that you think it’s so great down there because someone claimed they painted the cow pats in a bunch of colors (protip: it’s just shades of bs brown).
That’s a staggeringly naive take on pacifism you have there. Would you kindly read at least this http://www.iep.utm.edu/pacifism/ before vocalising more opinions on the topic. Or better yet, do refrain from pushing your shallow view on a topic you clearly have no idea of, onto people you don’t know. Thanks.
From Pacifism right at the top only 1 line in,
“surrender, or migration should be used to resolve disputes.”
Stopped reading there and threw it in the trash.
Yeah, that would explain so much, you don’t have any idea.
Bro, get off your fecking high horse.
D8W2P4, you have no idea what you are talking about because you see the world in black and white, them and us and that simply is not the case with our reality. You support murder, which you do by being pro-guns and pro-militarism. And don’t even think about rolling out the BS justifications of ‘protection’ and ‘security’ – It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy and you damn well know it.
This coming from the hypocrite pacifist.
That is offensive to paint gun owners as killers. They also think guns are “awesome machinery” and have lots of fun hitting targets.
Just because you don’t have the guts or tools to stand up against criminals doesn’t mean you should denigrate those that do.
Firstly, people holding a gun are the sole cause of gun-related homicides.
Secondly, while you were busy being offended to a point of calling him a coward, you missed the fact that he implied nothing about gun owners, and was just explaining his two seemingly mutualy exclusive views.
And remember that it takes much more courage to stand up to somebody when you don’t have a gun in your hand. Remember that the next time you feel like denigrating somebody yourself.
“And remember that it takes much more courage to stand up to somebody when you don’t have a gun in your hand.”
No that’s not “courageous” just stupid.
“Firstly, people holding a gun are the sole cause of gun-related homicides.”
Living is also the sole reason for death. Pointless statement.
Such irony… but many of these activist are opposed more to private citizens carrying concealed fire arms, not the ownership of arms in general.. and lets face it, you would be hard pressed to stick a SCUD or PzIV under your jacket :)
There is a small difference between a handgun and a deactivated SCUD indeed. Any info on whether the Pz4 is operable? I assume at that price you can drive it, but I assume the guns have been deactivated (or removed in the case of the MGs)?
Also I’m not really “pro-gun” myself and I’ve lived ten years in one of the highest per-capita murder rate towns in Australia. Having a Pz4 might significantly increase your survival on the streets, where a gun may not.
It is need of a full restoration, it is however mostly intact.
captured from the Syrian Army in the Six Day War, shipped from a clearance at Latrun
If that’s true then why do they leap at the opportunity to ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity mags” at every turn.
If they went after concealable handguns then it would at least make a little sense (and I mean VERY little sense)
I don’t like guns and thankfully live in the UK where there are not many, but WW2 era tanks are amazing pieces of machinery and I love them.
Yeah even you cops don’t carry them often, so they can stand by and watch helplessly while some Islamist thugs behead your soldiers in your streets…yay gun free UK..oh wait.
I don’t live in the UK, but the incident you are referring to is, I believe, the killing of Lee Rigby. Arming regular police would have made no difference in preventing his death. The perpetrators were in fact shot (but not killed) by an armed police response unit within a short period of carrying out the murder.
Wow………you didn’t think that one through eh? So if you are against people carrying firearms around and owning functional semi and full automatic rifles. You are not allowed to collect historic militaria? WTF sense does that make?
I hate war and I also hate gun nuts. They are still very interesting machines and technology and everyone likes things make “BOOOM”.
“(funny how all the rich anti-gun law supporters live in closed communities, protected by veritable private armies, isn’t it)”
Not really. Unless they want to ban all guns for everyone there is nothing hypocritical about that. Last time I checked professional bodyguards etc. have training and permits. And they would actually have a reason to carry a gun around.
You on the other hand have no reason to do that, and please don’t give me the selfe defense bullcrap. If you own a guny you are much more likely to get into an accident with it than to actually “protect” yourself.
And you are still far more likely to drown or burn to death than to get in an accident with a gun, even if you own one.
Ban pools! Ban fire!
I assume we are talking about US, their law says it is a right to own a gun. It’s the right that protects the other rights.
Want to change it? Change the constitution.
And yet a gun that you bought for safety makes you less safe. L2think kiddo.
I suggest you read the constitution. It grants no right for individuals to own modern weapons.
Yes it does the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, but the low information crowd seem incapable of keeping up with facts.
“The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates” – Washington Post June 29, 2010
And if you own a car you are more likely to get into a car accident. But then again, if you don’t own a car, you will have to walk or take a bus.
Don’t use analogies if you lack the brain capacity to use them properly.
You don’t buy a car in order to protect you, it is not a weapon. Buying a gun to protect you will actually make you less safe. Get a clue kiddo.
LOL. dat logic. wow.
Not trying to start a political shitstorm here in the comments, but can you explain this line: “Buying a gun to protect you will actually make you less safe” You’ve used it a couple times, but it’s not clear what danger you’re referring to. Are you referring to people accidentally shooting themselves with their own gun?
The most common form is rounds going off accidently while handling the firearm. Shooting themselves or others. A lot of times people shoot at burglars and then later realizing it was a friend/family member/guest.
Kids getting a hold of the gun is also a classic.
Firearms being around often destabilize a situation/conflict leading to avoidable violence.
But let us use the car analogy for a second. How many idiots are out there at any giving time on the roads? Raging, speeding, texting, slowing traffic down, smoking etc. I don’t trust in peoples capability to use their cars properly, much less a firearm.
Gun nuts always have wet dreams about self defence and stopping shooters. So tell me, if there is a mass shooting and you are trying to stop the BAD GUY. Are you sure its the bad guy? Could be someone else trying to stop a bad guy, you could hit innocent bystanders. Trained police and even military MISS A TON during shoot outs, you think you are a better shot?
Bullcrap. If you keep your wits about you when handling a firearm, it’s perfectly safe. In my local range there are thousands of cartridges being discharged every day by beginners and advanced shooters alike, and there has never been a serious accident.
I would not ban alcohol or drugs because some people can’t use them, and end up hurting themselves or others. I would not ban cars or motorcycles for this reason either. You can’t always go by the lowest common denominator.
Also, most recreational shooters are far better shots than the police, simply due to the amount of training.
If you don’t have a car, you donät have a risk of head-on collisions. If you don’t have a gun, you don’t have to risk of self-inflicted injury. However, just like you can’t go to places without a car, you can’t defend yourself without a gun. Explain my logic?
Why guns…while fist alone and some taunting works.
Except if your arm is too skinny to even deliver damage… hue.
Guns for pussy cowards.
This is such bullsh*t article, misleading title, incomplete facts …
Please, at least read the first comment and edit this
This is dumb American hyperbole. The tank would not be equipped with actual weapons.
I’m amazed you’d get dragged into this shit, American discussions about controversial subjects is on the same level that 4 year olds argue about who gets which toy to play with. Except there’s more profanity.
Just look at the author, could Dave Workman look any more gun nut redneck than he already does?
So the author of the article does not see the difference between a de-weaponized tank that is basically nothing else but a big noisy lump of steel with tracks that can move on its own and working 9mm loaded guns that you can hide in your trousers?
I can almost imagine the big stupid grin on his fat doublechinned face when he was writing this while eating a Big Mac with fries under his confederate flag and his radio blasting som Dolly Parton.
Then again, a firearm is nothing but a noisy lump of steel.
That you can put in your trousers and pull out when you feel threatened….
Unless it is a hunting weapon a civilian have no business owning firearms in working condition. Compare it to whatever else that you want, all those things will have an intended purpose other then hurting someone by making a hole in them. Most of us do not live in a anachistic society where a firearm is needed to up the stakes for anyone wanting to take what is yours. Your wallet is not that valuable that you want to risk your life for it by trying to outgun the assailant.
It’s still your wallet, and it’s your choice – not the perpetrator’s – whether to defend yourself and your belongings.
However, regardless of my views, I don’t live in a country where it is allowed to use firearms to defend one’s self. Firearms here are kept behind locks and taken out only for their intended purposes – sports shooting and hunting.
I would not like to be a bystander when somene makes the decision to pull out his shooter to keep his bucks in the wallet… Neither would i like my kid or wife to be anywhere near that place.
You could not be more wrong. The point you and most others here are missing is an important one.
Besides the fact that the Constitution makes owning guns(ANY Guns) a right, the reason behind that bears some discussion.
The reason the Founding Fathers and the writers of the Constitution made this so is for the simple fact that the British had the awful habit of busting in peoples doors and confiscating any (if there were any to begin with) and all weapons, then they would use the house to stay the night, week, whatever they felt.
If you were put in this position, what would YOU do?
That’s right, absolutely NOTHING, not because you didn’t want to, but because you couldn’t do anything.
Also, historically the first thing a government does to control the population for its own ideology is control the weapons, ie. take them away. North Korea is a prime example of what happens when this is allowed to happen, not to mention the famous Germany issue and the “New” government coming into power in the 1930′s, NO one saw that coming……..
These are the REAL reasons we have the RIGHT to own and bear arms, and NO Government can infringe on this right, PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
Clearly the US government is about to go Nazi Germany/USSR style on us, just like all the other democratic countries with gun control like France, UK, most of the Scandinavian countries…
I’m not a fan of taking away guns from people, and would oppose it if it happened, but I very much doubt that death camps are right around the corner and that a revolution is needed to defeat them.
I did not say that was the case.
It is the single most biggest deterrent to governments, or any new elected governments from thinking they can do what ever they want regardless of what the general public may think or want. When that deterrent is gone, that is when the government gets bold and does whatever it wants. Just look at ours right now, it does lots of things that it wants, damn the laws. Imagine what it would do if it had ZERO chance of push back from the general public.
And I do not just mean on the federal level either, same goes for state and even local governments to a degree.
I’m disappointed, sorry to say. Especially this sentence: “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.”
I have never read a sentence that is more BS than this on FTR. It’s obviously NRA propaganda and when you think of it as stupid as the Tea party rhetoric.
You can be anti-gun and still collect machinery. Regarding the private army argument, he needs it because of the retarded gun laws, i.e. if you weren’t allowed to carry guns, his ‘private army’ wouldn’t need to carry guns themselves, there’s nothing ironic about that. Maybe it’s the reason he’s anti-guns because his children have to be around armed men all day.
Because every criminal ever has purchased their firearms legally
Illegal sales are not a thing
and since criminals follow the law I’m sure they will turn in all their weapons once made illegal
You shot yourself in the foot on this one, SS (pun intended).
I’m not a great fan of guns and still think that military equipment in general is very cool.
Besides, gun control in general can vary. For example I like background checks, but I’m not in favor of banning…. what do they call the rifles that are semi-automatic and owned by civilians? I know they’re not supposed to be called assault rifles, which are fully automatic. Shows how little beyond back ground checks I care about. But anyway, I support background checks but aren’t in favor of banning guns. So if I bought a tank, and went through the correct legal channels, how would this be contradictory? This Allens fellow could have an entirely similar view on gun control.
Not to mention as some of the other people pointed out, these are probably demilitarized, it isn’t liked they’re buying 105mm HE rounds and 105mm howitzers for the Pz. IVs. Even if they weren’t, the majority of reasons for wanting to decrease the amounts of guns available is to prevent lone criminals from being able to cause lots of damage (Not saying whether it is effective or arguing about it, just stating what the belief is), and a Panzer IV requires a crew of 5 to operate in its historical state. Even eliminating the radio man you still need four people, unless if you get an autoloader, although I suppose you could technically get it down to two if you only had a commander who had an autoloader and was also aiming and firing the main gun, and with the driver to drive it, but going that far would be extremely difficult. How likely would it be that four-five people would go crazy all at once and decide to go gun down some civilians?
“American billionaire Paul Allen, one of the Microsoft founders, a philantropist, but also an anti-gun activist supporter (funny how all the rich anti-gun law supporters live in closed communities, protected by veritable private armies, isn’t it) has a bit of a problem”
What does that have to do with anything? He’s buying the tank for a foundation to display it, the tank’s gun will most likely be unusable as is required by law.
What “anti-gun activist” generally means is that he wants WORKING assault rifles and hand guns out of civilian hands. That does not preclude owning disabled guns or other disabled weapons.
It’s like you are saying a collector of lighters is a hypocrite if he doesn’t like smoking.
I also like tanks, but that does not mean I want every Tom, Dick and Harry to be able to drive one on the street, much less with a fully functioning gun.
My thoughts exactly.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I think my IQ dropped while reading that article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evlrs5Bi_6E
The tank was going to be displayed at the Flying Heritage Collection aviation museum in Everett. It was not for his personal use.
This tank is a veteran on the Six Day War (1967) which is the last time (as far as I know) that a PZ4 actually was involved in battle. From this, we can deduce that the total number of people killed by PZ4s in the last 45 years is exactly ZERO, unless somebody accidentally backed one over a pedestrian. Assault rifles and handguns, on the other hand….
The ‘hypocrisy’ here, such as it is, is Allen stealing one of the items a group in the US relies on to compensate for a lack of manhood.
An FYI – the Examiner is owned by Philip Anschutz, very right-leaning conservative Christian views. There is no unbiased reporting there.
That tank CAN have operational cannon on it, provided it is a registered Class 3 “Destructive Device”
But after registering, taking that cannon out of the state is going to be a mountain of paperwork and MONTHS of waiting.
Oh, To those who says “why do anyone need powerful arms?” response would always be “Because I can ” Just like anyone can own supercars that they don’t need, provided they don’t kill people/ break laws with cars/guns/etc.
I dunno what point you are trying to make with this one SS, dude tries to buy historical artifact for museum at supposedly legit auction, dudes bids are not accepted with no reason, dude sues.
I dunno how things are done in America but here he would be suing the auctioneers rather than the owners if the bid wasn’t accepted, so i suspect it is the owners who have not honoured the sale.
“Paul Allen decided to sue the owners. ” sue them for what exactly? as in what reason would they use in court to legitimize their case
Here is the rest of the story. The 501-C3 Flying Heritage Collection Museum tried to buy this tank at auction. There was a reserve on the tank and their bid/offer of 1.5 million was rejected, as was another bid of 1.75 million. After the sale they approached the auctioneer to see if they could purchase the tank outright. The auctioneer’s representative gave them a flat purchase price of 2.5 million for the tank. The Flying Heritage Collection Museum agreed to the purchase price and paid for the tank. Then a month later Auctions America and the Collings Foundation decided not to sell the tank, but failed to return the Flying Heritage Collection Museum money, which prompted a lawsuit.
You cannot keep the cash and the tank. The Flying Heritage Collection Museum still would like the tank that they purchased and paid for.
Ironically enough, the main cannon on a tank can, legally speaking, be functional in the United States, provided it is not prohibited by state law (it isn’t in most states). It is what is considered a “destructive device” and has to be registered under the National Firearms Act. The various machineguns that tanks tend to mount, however, cannot be present (in functional condition) unless they were registered prior to May 1986, when the registry for new machineguns was closed. As for ammunition, HE, HEAT, and other explosive ammunition would have to be registered individually, and would also be subject to various laws concerning explosives. AP or APCR ammunition isn’t controlled at all, or at least not any more than other non-explosive ammunition of any caliber.
I try to avoid political debates if possible, but I can’t let the “only trained police/military” should have weapons comments go by. I spent sixteen years as a police officer in the US. I was easily one of the top three shooters in my department, perhaps even the best on a good day. I was merely competent when compared to the sport shooters I shot IDPA matches with, better than some, much worse than many others. Police firearms training is mostly (there are a few exceptions) about checking the training box. Most cops, who are not hobby shooters of one form or another, are not experienced enough with weapons to do what the average person thinks they can do. While I was never in the US Military, I worked with a lot of folks who were. From what they told me, with the exception of specialized units, military firearms training was also much about checking the training box. Obviously, however, soldiers are more likely these days to have actually been in an armed conflict, and assuming they survived, learned from it.
I don’t see a problem with this. It is perfectly fine to be against guns yet take an interest in history. I myself am strongly anti-gun, yet I would certainly like to own a tank!