Someday your slingshot, or can of gas for your mower, or who knows what could be described as "dangerous for your kids to be around, and illegal as heck", and have you, or me, or any of us hauled off. As someone else said here, this is not an unreasonable amount of stuff as briefly described even though it is rather above "the average" nowadays.

Any restriction or law or action taken to protect someone from themselves or their parents may indeed save some, but will always kill others. Statistically more people are saved by seatbelts than are killed by them, but there are those who will and have indeed died because they had one on. Lower speed limits will save some and contribute to the death of others, hopefully fewer, but some will die because of it. Locking up guns in homes with children will save some, and like the family attacked by the guy with the pitchfork some time back, others will be left defenseless. And don't even get me started on the chickenpox vaccine that is supposed to save 5,000 children from the virus, and kill 5,000 elderly from shingles, an interresting tradeoff if you ask me.

I do not know if this guy is dangerous nuts or not. But especially as fewer and fewer guns are considered an arsenal, and more and more people get locked up and their kids put away with a long string of strangers, the war on weapons in family homes will cause more and more deaths. If this was still a free country, we would not have wars on possessions that others find offensive or threatening. We would enforce laws against criminal behaviour and activities, not crimes of alleged thought and possessions. We would laud preparedness and be thankful that someone on our street might be able to stop a mob before it got to our family. Instead, we seem to have a generation trying to play god and deciding to try to save some at the expense of others.

So what is the line? If you think he went over the top, where should he have stopped? Please understand that this is a serious question. You seem to be saying that there is either no need for the guns, or a certain number per person or family that is justifiable, or certain types are just evil on their own merits. While I admit that this family went rrather farther than I would dream of, I am very curous if I am worthy in your sight to be hauled off to jail and have my kids parceled out also. (Yes, I have a can of gas also, and a slingshot) I am just asking for an objective description of the line between sane preparedness and/or fun hobby, and a dangerous and unstable person that society needs to be protected from. I have to grant that this family may indeed have gone over the edge, but I do not see any solid evidence of it in the news report.

I have been trying not to pass judgement in my posts in this subject. I don't draw any lines. All I can comment on is my interpretation of the press reports.
I don't disagree with you on any of your points. The "nanny state" affects us in many aspects of our lives, not just gun control.
I couldn't and wouldn't try to set the boundaries of what is acceptable or not. We all have to live within the laws of our country. (It woud be an interesting to find out if members of this forum think it is alright to break the law in the name of self defence - I think I do already)
So please if I read a few reports on this matter, (and with a lack of any other information, I have to assume the stories are at least partly correct) and then comment on them here, I am not taking a stance on gun control, political policy, or taking the moral high ground - I am saying, in this case, from what I've read I would agree with the authorities.
I'll leave line drawing to those who know better.

Not only would I break the law for the purpose of self-defense, but I would take "pre-emptive" action for the purpose of self-defense. After all, if our government can protect themselves in this manner, we citizens should be able to protect ourselves in this manner.

Personally, I believe we should free the rest of our breathren and finally end the revolutionary war by annexing England first, and letting the ruling parties that we eject live, but with the provisio that they could not own any weapons or avail themselves to any help, police or private, if they are attacked in their homes or on the streets. We could have them all live next to Rosie ODonnell.

After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bountyhunter

The idea of "freeing" anybody doesn't appeal to me. I can think of very few altruistic liberation wars where the end result wasn't more suffering and oppression. I certainly don't intend to impose my ideas of freedom on other cultures. Our american revolution is hardly won here at home. Perhaps a little real revolutionary fervor discrete from affected black beret, Che Guevara T shirt wearing cafe orators and their kissing cousin cammie clad, Idaho seperatist fellow losers is in order first.

Chris:

You are right about the idiocy of war in general, but the idea that government bodies like the TSA seem to be a harbringer of the type of doctrines that so many of us feel revulsion for, makes one feel good to vent and dream of changing injustices to the masses on any scale, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

Bountyhunter

"If you don't like the news, go out and make some." Or, as Ralph Nader says " If you don't turn onto politics, politics will turn on you." Sometimes I want to shoot the TV and hide,flee, escape into pleasures, loved ones,religon or a six pack of Guiness.Then I see the latest moral insult by some efeet, slack jawed elitist who can't put his own pants on without instructions and get good and mad again <img src="images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> I'm a dangerous man when angry: I vote, withold taxes, walk instead of drive, and talk treason in irish pubs.

I think you go over the line if you have "seven homemade bombs"

I have heard stories of rather common items being described in official reports as "bombs". Such things as vinegar and baking soda in close proximity to a 2 liter soft drink bottle. Since the soft drink bottles can take up to 300 psi in certain circumstances, it could build up some rather impressive pressure before failure of the pressure vessel, and might actually damage or at least scare someone, I would hardly call it a "home made bomb" especially if it was not even constructed as something that would actually perform as feared, but such has been officially described at least once.

My point is that from the article, I can not tell if the bomb was actually constructed, or more like parts, or just his containers of smokeless powder for reloading, stored all too close to primers, or just in the same building. I have to grant that I do not know for sure that there were not pipebombs or other obviously functional thingies found that I would hate to have in close proximity to any children if at all avoidable, but the description is just vague enough to sound like the truth was being stretched yet again, at least to some extent.

I'll try to be careful to not offend, but here's my opinion.

This forum is a great place to express ideas and to help each other. I have great respect for the posters here at ETS. That's why I guess I'm so surprised that people here are giving this guy so much latitude.

It seems to me that we, as a group, have evaluated his collection based on the individual pieces he possesed. I think we need to look at the bigger picture here. He's is a dangerous guy. No question in my mind. Not beacuse of his Spam or his reading material, but rather his collection viewed as a whole.

Sure, if he had 13 weapons and bomb components in a rural North Dakota, it might not be the same issue. Unfortunately, however, for his many neighbors in NYC he is reckless at the very least.

I really don't think the police closed down the neighborhood begause of his vingear and baking soda. He's not shooting cans off the fence on his rural property with a .22 either.

Throw the book at him. Lock him up. It seems like common sense and the right thing to do. I wouldn't call him a "Survivalist". I'd call him a "Felon". (if proven guilty .... of course.) <img src="images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

etehiver,

The only problem is that you are making an assumption that he had bombs just because it is in the report. What kind? Pipe bombs? Grenades? Cherry bombs?

I don't believe most conspiracy theories, but I do believe we have an over zealous ATF and FBI in this country. And there are a lot of over zealous prosecutors who want to make a name for themselves. This guy may be guilty, but not until he has his day in court.