i mean in the world.
the fact a government chooses not to recognize a human right does not make it any less so. free speech is a human right regardless of whether north korea recognizes it or not. same with individual armed self defense.
Gun Ownership - NO politics, just "Do you or do you not own a firearm"
- Thread starter UR20Z
- Start date
i mean in the world.
the fact a government chooses not to recognize a human right does not make it any less so. free speech is a human right regardless of whether north korea recognizes it or not. same with individual armed self defense.
DeezHorseNuts
Citizen of Zooville
I dont think the german government dont rocognize any human right.
Bloodwolf
Dumpster Diver
Post them up. We will learn ya.
Kydiell
BANNED
That's genuinely hilarious! I added a compound bow to my amazon wishlist like 2 weeks ago, and the wife kicked off about it!
I<3horses
Zooville Settler
I'm 100% certain that this is not a human right. It's a constitutional right in the US but not a human right in the entire world. That would mean that at least every european country is disobeing this right.
i use human rights interchangeably here with natural rights.
every human being in the world is born with the natural right to armed individual self defense. as they are born with the natural right to free speech.
authoritarian governments may not respect these rights, this does not make these rights invalid. nor does it make these rights not exist.
IHO
Citizen of Zooville
Mine's a pretty standard model similar to the below, but I have a mounted folding bi-pod and a scope attached, and 4 of the 30-round magazines. Mine also has the bayonet mount.
Last edited:
IHO
Citizen of Zooville
UR20Z didn't want this thread to get all political and stuff, but I will have to say that while I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, I kinda think the right-to-bear-arms should be a privilege, like driving. There are a lot of people that are way too arrogant, stupid and/or irresponsible to bear arms, er, to have firearms.
Last edited:
I<3horses
Zooville Settler
Ok, i see what you mean. But if you use human rights interchangeably with natural rights you should mention this other wise it can lead to misunderstandings
IHO
Citizen of Zooville
Good point. More reactive than proactive (moreso for driving), but still valid.
Or try being diagnosed with mental health issues or having a domestic violence record.
Yes, in theory we have rights, but "LEGALLY" speaking, we have privileges.
DreamerZoo
Tourist
Dont own. Would like to, but the process is almost impossible where I live.
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
OK, since it's pretty much inevitable, I'll go semi-political...
While I'm adamantly pro-2A, I do agree that there is a segment of the population who are too stupid, irresponsible, willfully ignorant, mentally ill, or just plain aggressive to be allowed access to firearms - put one in their hands, and they become a danger to all around them. But I'm not enough of an idealist to think that there's ANYBODY who can legitimately make that judgement before "something bad" goes down.
I've personally known guys who'd cheerfully kick your ass up around your ears in a bar-fight for looking at them wrong, and next week, buy you a beer when you walk into that same bar. I'm sure you know at least one of that type, no matter who you are or where you live. But when you put a gun in that same guy's hands, they turn into the most careful, well-mannered, conscientious, "totally chill" guys you'll ever meet - you could walk up to one of 'em, insult their mother, spit in their eye, piss on their shoes, snatch their hat and shit in it, and kick 'em in the shins, but rather than shooting you, they'd hand the gun to a bystander, then proceed to give you the ass-whoopin' you'd just walked up and begged for.
I agree that *SOME* felonies - specifically, those that involve violence or threat of same - should cause a person's gun-rights to be removed. But it's my opinion that the one-size-fits-all "if you catch a felony, you lose your gun rights forever" policy is going too far.
The guy convicted of negligent homicide 'cause his ill-kept car's brakes failed and he hit somebody isn't a "violent felon" - He's a dumbfuck, at least to some degree, for not keeping his gear in proper working order, but that doesn't warrant removal of his gun rights. A thrashing with the clue-bat, and mandatory visits to the mechanic, sure. Being barred from owning a gun ever after? No. Likewise, a so-called "white collar crime" where somebody makes money walk away from where it actually belongs and jump into his own pocket might be a felon, but it's NOT a crime that warrants denial of his gun rights. A guy who sticks up a 7-11 with a gun (or even pretends he has a gun during such a stickup)? Damn straight - No gun for you, son - you've proven that you're not fit to be trusted with one. The guy convicted of beating his wife/kids? Ditto. The key is *VIOLENT* felonies, versus what I categorize as "paperwork" felonies. A paperwork felony should mean you lose your gun rights WHILE YOU'RE DOING YOUR TIME - including any parole/probation/house-arrest/etc after you spend whatever amount of time in "The Big House". An actual violent felony, on the other hand, should mean "game over" for your gun rights, period.
Not that I have any illusions that this would keep violent felons from getting one if/when they get out of the clink, but unless you're deliberately playing stupid, you know what I mean. I'm QUITE aware of how easy it is to put your hands on a gun, with or without official approval. I'd estimate that if I wanted a "no questions asked" black-market gun, I'd need somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 minutes (plus commute time) to have one in my hand. And that's with me having *NO* special connections of any kind - not even the fabled "I know a guy who's a friend of a fellow that hangs with a guy who dates a girl whose sister's ex-boyfriend is a gang-banger and can hook you up with somebody that'll sell you a gun under the table".
Not that I need to have such a gun - Hell, I just got done renewing my concealed carry permit, and passed all the background checks and shit that goes with buying an AR-15 in this state just last month. If I want a gun, I can walk into anyplace that sells 'em, lay my money down, and (after the idiotic waiting period imposed by the idiot politicians who operate under the delusion that such things actually have any useful impact on crime) walk out with one. As should be the case for anyone who hasn't proven that they're not fit, for one reason or another, to be trusted with one.
While I'm adamantly pro-2A, I do agree that there is a segment of the population who are too stupid, irresponsible, willfully ignorant, mentally ill, or just plain aggressive to be allowed access to firearms - put one in their hands, and they become a danger to all around them. But I'm not enough of an idealist to think that there's ANYBODY who can legitimately make that judgement before "something bad" goes down.
I've personally known guys who'd cheerfully kick your ass up around your ears in a bar-fight for looking at them wrong, and next week, buy you a beer when you walk into that same bar. I'm sure you know at least one of that type, no matter who you are or where you live. But when you put a gun in that same guy's hands, they turn into the most careful, well-mannered, conscientious, "totally chill" guys you'll ever meet - you could walk up to one of 'em, insult their mother, spit in their eye, piss on their shoes, snatch their hat and shit in it, and kick 'em in the shins, but rather than shooting you, they'd hand the gun to a bystander, then proceed to give you the ass-whoopin' you'd just walked up and begged for.
I agree that *SOME* felonies - specifically, those that involve violence or threat of same - should cause a person's gun-rights to be removed. But it's my opinion that the one-size-fits-all "if you catch a felony, you lose your gun rights forever" policy is going too far.
The guy convicted of negligent homicide 'cause his ill-kept car's brakes failed and he hit somebody isn't a "violent felon" - He's a dumbfuck, at least to some degree, for not keeping his gear in proper working order, but that doesn't warrant removal of his gun rights. A thrashing with the clue-bat, and mandatory visits to the mechanic, sure. Being barred from owning a gun ever after? No. Likewise, a so-called "white collar crime" where somebody makes money walk away from where it actually belongs and jump into his own pocket might be a felon, but it's NOT a crime that warrants denial of his gun rights. A guy who sticks up a 7-11 with a gun (or even pretends he has a gun during such a stickup)? Damn straight - No gun for you, son - you've proven that you're not fit to be trusted with one. The guy convicted of beating his wife/kids? Ditto. The key is *VIOLENT* felonies, versus what I categorize as "paperwork" felonies. A paperwork felony should mean you lose your gun rights WHILE YOU'RE DOING YOUR TIME - including any parole/probation/house-arrest/etc after you spend whatever amount of time in "The Big House". An actual violent felony, on the other hand, should mean "game over" for your gun rights, period.
Not that I have any illusions that this would keep violent felons from getting one if/when they get out of the clink, but unless you're deliberately playing stupid, you know what I mean. I'm QUITE aware of how easy it is to put your hands on a gun, with or without official approval. I'd estimate that if I wanted a "no questions asked" black-market gun, I'd need somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 minutes (plus commute time) to have one in my hand. And that's with me having *NO* special connections of any kind - not even the fabled "I know a guy who's a friend of a fellow that hangs with a guy who dates a girl whose sister's ex-boyfriend is a gang-banger and can hook you up with somebody that'll sell you a gun under the table".
Not that I need to have such a gun - Hell, I just got done renewing my concealed carry permit, and passed all the background checks and shit that goes with buying an AR-15 in this state just last month. If I want a gun, I can walk into anyplace that sells 'em, lay my money down, and (after the idiotic waiting period imposed by the idiot politicians who operate under the delusion that such things actually have any useful impact on crime) walk out with one. As should be the case for anyone who hasn't proven that they're not fit, for one reason or another, to be trusted with one.
IHO
Citizen of Zooville
Yeah, my thoughts about it being a privilege instead of right are somewhat moot. People who want a gun - no matter who they are or what their background - can get a gun. If I didn't have my own and wanted one for malicious purposes, I could get one quite easily from friends or family (or acquaintances thereof) who have them. I could literally just go grab them with or without their knowledge (until they discovered them missing, but by then it would be too late), either from being allowed to freely enter their home or breaking-and-entering.
Geraldine Dupont
Lurker
In Germany firearms are very restricted, and most of the citizens approve this
Last edited:
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
Dunno where exactly you found that particular anti-AR-15 meme, but I can see at a glance it was put together by an idiot who knows little more than "Oh! Those scary black riles are evil! Think of the chillllldren!" about firearms.
Y'know How I can tell?
That AR-10 will do things that the AR-15 can only dream about - due to the fact that it spits .308, a round that's very nearly interchangeable with the Main Battle Rifle class .30-06 as far as bullet size, weight, range and power is concerned, rather than .223/5.56, which is, once you get past all the hype and idiocy that surrounds it, nothing but a slightly heavier and faster-flying .22 bullet. (faster due to having a bigger powder charge behind it) The typical .22LR bullet is the same diameter as the .223/5.56, but the bullet weight is usually between 28-40 grains, depending on maker and bullet style, while .223/5.56 ammo has a larger range of bullet weights available, but the overwhelming majority of folks who shoot them use either 55 grain full metal jacket, or 62 grain steel-core "windshield puncher" bullets.
In other words, that cute little meme that, at first glance, seems to actually convey a reasonable point is REALLY suggesting that us AR-15 folks should instead have a *BIGGER, BADDER, MORE POWERFUL* weapon than the AR-15!
Gotta love the ignorance of the anti-gun folks
(Also, I'm still trying to figure out how you tell the difference between "full semi-automatic" and "standard semi-automatic", and more importantly, how one of them can be any more or less safe than the other - Can anybody help me out on that score?)
In Canada this would classify as a firearm. Glad to see shooting as a hobby is alive and well!
Edit: fly, did you remember to remove the EXIF?
@UR20Z
I couldn't help but LOL when I saw that "the deer hunting round is safer than the .223." ? ? ?
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
They
Betcha didn't know:
The Lewis and Clark expedition that headed out to explore the Louisiana Purchase territory in 1803 carried a .36 caliber air-rifle capable of punching through a 1 inch thick pine board at 100 yards, and is said to have been able to repeat the performance at least 20 times (seems to vary depending on who's reporting it - absolutely nobody claims less than 20, while some say it could do as many as 40 shots before needing a reload) in under 2 minutes before needing to be pumped up again.
Still think an air rifle isn't a real gun? Neither do I!
Before I was given my first actual for-real firearm (a single-shot .22Short/Long/LR) for my 10th birthday, I packed several flavors of BB gun, spring-powered and "pump-up" air rifles, and CO2 pellet guns around the farm and surrounding woods for years - Took a deer with a .177 pump-up pellet gun once, in fact (and got my ass severely warmed, and a thorough reaming about never doing that again - rabbits and squirrels, fine - Deer, NO! Not without a REAL rifle!)
You think this boy is gonna look down on an air rifle owner? If so, you better sit yerself down and have yerself another think, sunny Jim!
They may not *TECHNICALLY* be FIREarms, but it's ENTIRELY within the realm of reality for an airgun to be AT LEAST as potent, and in some cases, moreso, than comparable gunpowder-powered boom-sticks, and with one helluva lot less noise.
Betcha didn't know:
The Lewis and Clark expedition that headed out to explore the Louisiana Purchase territory in 1803 carried a .36 caliber air-rifle capable of punching through a 1 inch thick pine board at 100 yards, and is said to have been able to repeat the performance at least 20 times (seems to vary depending on who's reporting it - absolutely nobody claims less than 20, while some say it could do as many as 40 shots before needing a reload) in under 2 minutes before needing to be pumped up again.
Still think an air rifle isn't a real gun? Neither do I!
Before I was given my first actual for-real firearm (a single-shot .22Short/Long/LR) for my 10th birthday, I packed several flavors of BB gun, spring-powered and "pump-up" air rifles, and CO2 pellet guns around the farm and surrounding woods for years - Took a deer with a .177 pump-up pellet gun once, in fact (and got my ass severely warmed, and a thorough reaming about never doing that again - rabbits and squirrels, fine - Deer, NO! Not without a REAL rifle!)
You think this boy is gonna look down on an air rifle owner? If so, you better sit yerself down and have yerself another think, sunny Jim!
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
Yep. And then to add insult to injury, whoever made the meme totally ignores the reality that the AR-10 was *ORIGINALLY DESIGNED* as a contender to replace the then-current Main Battle Rifle! It's not a "Military Style" rifle that looks like an AR-15 - It *IS* a MILITARY rifle, and the AR-15 is quite literally its "little brother".
Air rifles are exactly that - air rifles. They are not FIREarms or powder burners.They
They may not *TECHNICALLY* be FIREarms, but it's ENTIRELY within the realm of reality for an airgun to be AT LEAST as potent, and in some cases, moreso, than comparable gunpowder-powered boom-sticks, and with one helluva lot less noise.
Betcha didn't know:
The Lewis and Clark expedition that headed out to explore the Louisiana Purchase territory in 1803 carried a .36 caliber air-rifle capable of punching through a 1 inch thick pine board at 100 yards, and is said to have been able to repeat the performance at least 20 times (seems to vary depending on who's reporting it - absolutely nobody claims less than 20, while some say it could do as many as 40 shots before needing a reload) in under 2 minutes before needing to be pumped up again.
Still think an air rifle isn't a real gun? Neither do I!
Before I was given my first actual for-real firearm (a single-shot .22Short/Long/LR) for my 10th birthday, I packed several flavors of BB gun, spring-powered and "pump-up" air rifles, and CO2 pellet guns around the farm and surrounding woods for years - Took a deer with a .177 pump-up pellet gun once, in fact (and got my ass severely warmed, and a thorough reaming about never doing that again - rabbits and squirrels, fine - Deer, NO! Not without a REAL rifle!)
You think this boy is gonna look down on an air rifle owner? If so, you better sit yerself down and have yerself another think, sunny Jim!
the ar-10 meme is a troll lampooning anti-gunners and using their pseudo-logic to make arguments like they would make.
IHO
Citizen of Zooville
Maybe they do that to make it sound scarier? I mean, to my knowledge there is "auto" and "semi-auto" and no variants thereof.