Agent Double Zero

[BD80]

Gilbert Arenas is in trouble (contractually) for guns he ordered in 2006.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/29/gilber...encers-felony/

Arenas bought five custom Beretta pistols with five silencers in February of 2006

Not to take this to PPB area, but what legitimate purpose does one have for FIVE pistols with SILENCERS? If the guns are for self-defense, why the silencers? So the police don't know you are in trouble? So you won't scare away the rest of the attackers?

These are guns he didn't pick up, so these would have been in addition to the four handguns he took to the arena, plus whatever other guns he kept in his houses or cars.

This idiot is a real loose canon, pun intended.

[yancem]

I agree about the silencers! The only people that need a silencer are snipers and assassins. Seriously! And why would someone need 5 of the same gun unless he was planning on giving matching guns to his gang? Weird.

[mph]

I agree about the silencers! The only people that need a silencer are snipers and assassins. Seriously! And why would someone need 5 of the same gun unless he was planning on giving matching guns to his gang? Weird.

If he was planning on hunting with a Beretta the silencer would have come in handy. It's hard to hit a deer with a single shot from a handgun!

[theAlaskanBear]

I agree about the silencers! The only people that need a silencer are snipers and assassins. Seriously! And why would someone need 5 of the same gun unless he was planning on giving matching guns to his gang? Weird.

Well sure, its stupid...but its no different than the 1000s of NRA members or gun collectors who order automatic weapons and other ridiculous amounts of guns. I know hunters who have 2-3 rifles and 10 handguns just because they can and its cool. Its just dumb men flashing their cash and cred, whether its Gilbert or some redneck hunter.

[oldnavy]

Well sure, its stupid...but its no different than the 1000s of NRA members or gun collectors who order automatic weapons and other ridiculous amounts of guns. I know hunters who have 2-3 rifles and 10 handguns just because they can and its cool. Its just dumb men flashing their cash and cred, whether its Gilbert or some redneck hunter.

Why would you think legally collecting and enjoying guns is ridiculous? Hunting is a very popular in most areas of the country, and depending on the game being hunted different guns have different uses, so owning more than one gun is very practical to a hunter. I happen to enjoy target shooting and own a couple of different hand guns for that purpose because shooting different caliber guns poses different challenges and skills. I also carry a concealed weapon (completely legal). I found it necessary after being held up at gun point for drugs in my pharmacy by an idiot crack head that would have just as soon shot me as to look at me. BTW your use of the term redneck hunter is offensive, and honestly displays an alarmingly level of ignorance on your part.

Comparing Gilbert Arenas to NRA members is just plan "stupid" to use your choice of words and very judgmental. Gun ownership in this country is legal, and a protected right under our constitution, if you care about such things as the constitution.

Buying illegal guns, and carrying them into public places against the law is criminal and should be prosecuted as such whether by Gilbert Arenas or by Ted Nugget.

If you cannot see the difference in the two, then I would suggest you have a problem.

Besides, this is not the forum for anti-gun, anti-hunter activism. Please, take it somewhere else...

OK Mods, I am ready for my spanking...

[BD80]

Why would you think legally collecting and enjoying guns is ridiculous? Hunting is a very popular in most areas of the country, and depending on the game being hunted different guns have different uses, so owning more than one gun is very practical to a hunter. I happen to enjoy target shooting and own a couple of different hand guns for that purpose because shooting different caliber guns poses different challenges and skills. I also carry a concealed weapon (completely legal). I found it necessary after being held up at gun point for drugs in my pharmacy by an idiot crack head that would have just as soon shot me as to look at me. BTW your use of the term redneck hunter is offensive, and honestly displays an alarmingly level of ignorance on your part. ...

We should be clear, you aren't defending Arenas' purchase of 5 identical handguns with silencers. Correct?

I raised the issue because Arenas' actions seemed to transcend the debate. To me the purchase demonstrated just how far removed Arenas is from my perception of normalcy.

[moonpie23]

silencers are excellent for home defense....if you miss without one, the perp knows what's up....if you've got your Glock silenced, they just think the dog farted or whatever and you can squeeze off a couple more rounds...


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ok...total sarcasm in case the internet sucked all the joy of this post out

[oldnavy]

We should be clear, you aren't defending Arenas' purchase of 5 identical handguns with silencers. Correct?

I raised the issue because Arenas' actions seemed to transcend the debate. To me the purchase demonstrated just how far removed Arenas is from my perception of normalcy.

Tricky question. I would have to say that if, and this is a tremendous IF the purchase was legal, made with the appropriate permits and licensing, then yes I would defend his right, your right, or anyone's right to buy 5 handguns. I spent over 20 years in the military doing just that and firmly believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms.

But let's be reasonable here, there is no legitimate civilian use for a silencer, and I am not ever sure they are legal. And if they are legal, then my opinion is that they should not be. So, NO I am not defending Gilbert Arenas in this case.

The issue I have is with others imposing their biases and opinions on others... “you own a couple of guns, then you are a redneck, criminal, or just someone with an inferiority complex trying to make up for feelings of inadequacy”. THAT type of thinking is stupid.

The comments made by AlaskanBear express the narrow-mindedness that scares the heck out of me. What business is it of his if I want to own 200 hand guns? His comments about automatic weapons demonstrate his basic lack of understanding on the issue since fully automatic weapons are illegal for civilians to own. I suggest that if he knows someone with fully automatic weapons he report them to the appropriate authorities.

[Duvall]

What business is it of his if I want to own 200 hand guns?

What business is it of ours if someone wants to own five silencers?

(Not Arenas - he's shown that he's too much of a fool to handle the responsibilities of gun ownership. But in the abstract, the difference isn't obvious.)

[oldnavy]

What business is it of ours if someone wants to own five silencers?

(Not Arenas - he's shown that he's too much of a fool to handle the responsibilities of gun ownership. But in the abstract, the difference isn't obvious.)

The distinction I make is that it is hard to make a legitimate argument for having a silencer. Although the comment about using one to miss an intruder in your house has given me pause... Anyway, back to the point, IF it is legal, and I am not sure if it is or isn't, then I could care less if someone owned 200 silencers...

This whole issue began with AlaskanBear making a ridiculously narrow-minded, and dumb comment that was both offensive and bigoted. Now he has made an even more ridiculous attempt to make this a race issue. I had just as soon forget the whole mess...

[Duke4Ever32]

“you own a couple of guns, then you are a redneck, criminal, or just someone with an inferiority complex trying to make up for feelings of inadequacy”.

Certainly this doesn't describe all gun owners, but certainly it does describe some gun owners.

[oldnavy]

Certainly this doesn't describe all gun owners, but certainly it does describe some gun owners.

So does, "you drive a car" what is your point???

[Duke4Ever32]

So does, "you drive a car" what is your point???

That AlaskaBear's statements aren't inaccurate as applied to some individuals. It's not that the shoe doesn't fit, it just doesn't fit everyone. There is some truth there, just not as a general across-the-board proposition. I'm not willing to dismiss his statement as being completely invalid as quickly as others are.

[oldnavy]

That AlaskaBear's statements aren't inaccurate as applied to some individuals. It's not that the shoe doesn't fit, it just doesn't fit everyone. There is some truth there, just not as a general across-the-board proposition. I'm not willing to dismiss his statement as being completely invalid as quickly as others are.

I am not sure I am following your logic. Are you defending broad sweeping bigoted statements, because that they may actually define certain people who fit those criteria? For example, you would be OK with all (insert race) are lazy, because some (insert race) are in fact lazy?

Have I landed on a different planet here or something???

[El_Diablo]

I am not sure I am following your logic. Are you defending broad sweeping bigoted statements, because that they may actually define certain people who fit those criteria? For example, you would be OK with all (insert race) are lazy, because some (insert race) are in fact lazy?

Have I landed on a different planet here or something???

Just go back and read post #5...the statement was not as broad and sweeping as the knee-jerk reactions have made it out to be.

[Duke4Ever32]

Just go back and read post #5...the statement was not as broad and sweeping as the knee-jerk reactions have made it out to be.

Exactly. And that's my point. There are idiots who carry guns just to show them off and be macho (see Arenas, Gilbert) and also redneck gun-owners, and thus AlaskaBear's characterization in this regard in post #5 isn't completely illegitimate and invalid as the hue and cry that followed it would suggest.

[Scorp4me]

I own guns and most people don't even know it. Like someone said I hope I never have to use one.

But trying to equate someone who brings guns into an arena and is now in trouble for multiple gun violations with NRA members or hunters is just plain silly.

But dragging the race card into the discussion, now that was unexpected

[-jk]

Sigh. We're done here, folks. This is why we closed the policy board.

-jk

[BD80]

Tricky question. I would have to say that if, and this is a tremendous IF the purchase was legal, made with the appropriate permits and licensing, then yes I would defend his right, your right, or anyone's right to buy 5 handguns. I spent over 20 years in the military doing just that and firmly believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms.

But let's be reasonable here, there is no legitimate civilian use for a silencer, and I am not ever sure they are legal. And if they are legal, then my opinion is that they should not be. So, NO I am not defending Gilbert Arenas in this case. ...

We are in complete agreement. It is the silencers that puts it way over the top for me. The five of a kind takes it out of the realm of "collectibles."

What is the protocol for obtaining silencers and what justification must be shown? I liked the "indoor firing range" justification.

[weezie]

Didn't Gil have a bullet proof vest in his possession?