First off, he is an old man, so he has been hoarding this stuff for years, so it only makes sense the collection is so large. The media claimed the collection was mostly shotguns and rifles, for which you can pick up for like 200 bucks at their cheapest. Then they showed the ridiculous pile of revolvers, again a sign of not only his age, but of how cheap they can be picked up for, around 200~350 average for a mass produced low caliber revolver, some for as cheap as like 120. To me, if he was collecting, prepping, who knows what, since he is dead and we will never know, the age and the firearms themselves being hunting rifles and revolvers just all make sense.
Would it have made the media if he was a knife/sword collector? only other thing i could think of that the libs knees get all shaky about. Who makes the rules on what is obscure and what isnt? To me, collecting firearms isnt obscure, because i myself do it.
Europeans can mock Americans about their firearms all they want, but, most assuredly, the day will come, maybe not in my lifetime, but it will, and the only mockery occurring will be from the ones on the other side of the barrel.
