Americans will defend this

>Americans will defend this

Never been fishing, Cecil?

>Bongistanians will defend this

yup

>locked in a display cabinet
I see nothing wrong here

Without Arma Lite, how can yankee defend self against Fed? Everyone knows after Ruby Ridge and Waco you cannot trust them.

Hail to The Order 14/88

why can't you return a firearm ? like, imagine if it has some default or some shit. and you just can't shoot in the Walmart just to be sure it works good before buying it

I honestly wish that i could go to a gun store and it was as easy as America.

But the lefties hate fun lmao

>like, imagine if it has some default or some shit. and you just can't shoot in the Walmart just to be sure it works good before buying it
If its default you talk to manufacturer.

A gun is like a car; no return policy. Once it leaves the store, condition plummets.

>Britbongs can't defend this

Don't you have a bike wheel to be confiscated?

Immigrate

Bait, I wish we had the same rights as they did. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

They aren't loaded.

the future you chose

I don't want to turn this into a Sup Forums thread but what is the general consensus on gun ownership there? I've heard mixed things.

sir i need you to put the television down and step back I SAID PUT IT DOWN

Shut up ya mongs do you really want all tv to be made by some rich fat kikes?

I predict guns will make a comeback in Australia.

The country has a small, but steadily growing gun support community.

Can someone explain to me why gun makers and gun owners want the AR-15 to have that tacticool look?

Just paint that shit in typical sporting rifle earthly colors. Remove the retarded rails.

>Buying an expensive precision tool at Walmart

Fucking Yanks.

>implying where you buy it affects how it was made
Granted I'd rather support local dealers than give money to Sam Walton's kids, but that's a shit argument.

If something is wrong you can contact customer support or send it back, guns are mechanically simple though so simpler return policies don't exist through sellers. Gunsmiths handle repairs but for the most part you shouldn't run into any problems from any reputable manufacturer.

Black isn't a sporty tactical look for that specific gun though, it's the default color. Why would you color polymer deep brown?

>their state has a few government channels, mostly comedy, sci-fi, some banter and some news, funded through taxes
>REE I'MA POST ABOUT THIS ON DA 4CHINS

>his state has underfunded charity-based channels which nobody watches, and dozens of channels with "news" funded, hosted, and presented by every lobby nameable, but even though it's a 24/7 advertisement pipeline into every home in america it's not even free
>muh freedums like if you crie every tiem :')

I actually respect their freedoms

>a mandatory licence and standard taxes are the same thing
Ok

Tbh if you gave it a woodgrain stock and handguard it would probably look less scary and calm the libshits down a bit.

>Why would you color polymer deep brown?

My point is, the AR is best suited as a small game hunting rifle.

It doesn't need to look cool or scary.

And it certainly doesn't need rails. What for?

You do realize the AR15 isn't the only gun that exists right? Everything you want already exists in many other guns.

>look less scary and calm the libshits down a bit
Yeah, no. Doubt it a lot. They call the cops when kids carry bright-orange airsoft guns.

Walmart does not even sell them like this anymore.

Bipods? Scopes? Flashlights? IR lasers?

>americans can buy AR15s at walmart and yet have 1/5th the violent crime of britburkas when they ban kitchen knives

>يتم البريطانية ، والحصول على مسلم

The hell I will; cheap plastic ARs are dogshit. You gotta go with milled aluminum.

It would also be much more expensive, heavier, less modular and less durable.

So like a wood version of one of these?

what do you have against guns my islamic friend?

...

then the cop proceed to kill him lol

>be american
>get shot

I agree with the first guy - fuck off to America.

The toy gun may have been orange, but the kid was black enough.

you're a disgusting human being, you should be ashamed of yourself

>Giving weebs guns
This is why you need background checks

i imagine the quality of guns from wallmart are pretty poor, would that be a correct assumption?

it looked exactly like a real gun.
one of these is a real gun and one is the toy tamir rice had. can you tell the difference.

I would too. We only have guns at outdoors shops and such, not general stores. Unfortunately.

no need for rampart gun ownership here

if you want to hunt you can get a gun for hunting, if you need it for farming you can get a gun for farming. guns aren't toys that you should just be able to obtain if you want one, and as for standing up to a tyrannical government you just have to place your faith in the army/police force would protect their family and friends over some faceless government organisation.

can you post your fedora collection too?

Top is fake right?

Its the one with two safety's

Dude. Those are mine.

>guns aren't toys
I beg to differ.

grow up mate they're designed to kill things

Yeah see, that's the distinct difference between American and Australian culture.

>image name
this is bait taken from somebody else baka

Not sure I see your point.

>dude POW POW lol me and guns are like wow so tight :D :P XD

fuck off child

>self defense
I'm sure they're being very conservative with what they classify as "self defense" lmao

It is endlessly amazing to me that people in other countries seem to think the US is riddled with gun crime.

We don't actually have much gun crime. If you cite our crime statistics, knives still kill more people over here than rifles. Roughly five times as many.

First you have to subtract about 50% of the gun deaths from suicides, which count as homicides and gun crime, so that lowers the number substantially.

Then you have to account for the fact that black people and gang related violence comprises about 60% of the deaths in all guns, primarily handguns. So that lowers it even further. Gangs will kill when the gangmembers need money to survive, so it's intimately related to drug crimes and a lack of mental healthcare. Two things more readily accessible in different countries. Gang warfare wouldn't cease because you cease making guns legal, it'd just increase the prevalence of illegal guns.

Then you subtract the thousand someodd deaths via police shooting in the course of duty.

You come down to about five thousand deaths/crimes involving guns in the US per year. Vehicular homicide kills what, 40k? 50k?

The US still has more people die from bare knuckled brawls and from people using hammers than actual gun crime. And you can't even really factor terrorism in, because if they lacked guns, they'd use bombs.

Make me.

ah yes a thought provoking rebuttal

well done mate full marks

>designed to kill things
For that matter, so is hand sanitizer.

>50%

63%

Me, actually

Oh don't be a smart arse you know exactly what he means.

clearly there is a huge difference between hand sanitizer and firearms, mate

mortein's also designed to kill things, so are mouse traps but we're not going to ban them because people dont go out, buy them, and then go shoot up a shopping centre, school, etc

i'm not even suggesting that you lot ban your guns, i just dont like the attitude a lot of you seem to have towards them. furthermore, i don't think citing the 2nd amendment is a valid argument for a number of reasons.

For fucks sake Finland I thought you were cool.

...

It is, it's why I have guns and animoo.

I know people who have had firearms for 50+ years and who have only ever 'killed' paper targets and clay pigeons. Should they relinquish their rights because some self-loathing arab faggot shot up a gay bar?

>the ar15 was the gun used at sandyhook, darkknight shooting, san bernardino, and the faggot shooting
but selfdefense right?

>furthermore, i don't think citing the 2nd amendment is a valid argument for a number of reasons.

Why not?

>i don't think citing the 2nd amendment is a valid argument
Your opinion on it as a non-citizen is literally irrelevant.

well because it was created at a time when they were using fucking muskets, wasn't it? it's called an amendment (hence its not cast in stone so it can be change), how do you define the right for a "well regulated militia" to bear arms? can you just let them be held in a communal vault until such a time as they're necessary?

well then dont fucking start a thread then you dumb as dog shit retard

What's the difference between dying because of a firearm, and dying because of a kitchen knife? :^)

>illegally modified AR-15
ftfy.

You ever light off fireworks in your cunt?

you do need them as protection against the government, sure right now we all live in great countries with fair and just governments but who knows how things will be in a hundred or two hundred years from now.

>i don't think citing the 2nd amendment is a valid argument for a number of reasons.

hmm.

>well then dont fucking start a thread then you dumb as dog shit retard
I'm clearly not OP, and you seem upset.

/k/orbo's comm/a/do

you're very sugoi oniichan

>well because it was created at a time when they were using fucking muskets, wasn't it? it's called an amendment (hence its not cast in stone so it can be change), how do you define the right for a "well regulated militia" to bear arms? can you just let them be held in a communal vault until such a time as they're necessary?

Yes, at the time the common people could own everything that was available to the military. That includes cannons and warships. The exact same applies to this day.

Also, claiming that 2A is only for muskets is like saying the first is only for printing press, not internet and telecommunications.

I'm not going to debate you. I've done enough of that over the years both here and even when I was in the US. I respect that we're different countries with incompatible notions of firearm rights and privileges.

But by doing some fallacy bullshit of:
> guns = killing machine
> Sanitiser = killing machine
> Therefore guns and hand sanitiser should be banned

Is just fucking ridiculous. Have some self-respect and actually put some thought and substance into your arguments. Don't be a facetious turd.

your right and the first amendmant was passed in a time before rapid communication and the internet .

It's like you're saying Nisan or Toyota sedans are the deadliest cars on the road because they are most often in car accidents.

The Supreme Court ruled that just being alive and an American citizen, you are part of a militia. It's a personal right, not a communal right that extends only to a collective. The founding fathers actually were quite adamant on the whole 'tyranny needs to be shot to death and shown who's boss' thing.

And you're right. They did only have muskets back in the day. And no body armor capable of defending against them. In essence, they knew exactly what they were doing when they said an army of citizens had the right to each have a boomstick capable of penetrating all but the most well fortified walls and killing all but the biggest of animals. And what they were saying is: It is never illegal to defend yourself from assault or battery, and you are reserved the right to the means to do so against any force.
Logically speaking, since the standards of defense against guns were what they were at the time, they'd probably be in favor of citizens with armor penetrating rounds and explosive ammunition, given exactly why they wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place.

yeah i think that's a fairly valid reason but why do you need handguns for that?

>you are just mad sweety ;)

o.k.

the 1st amendment is infinitely less harmful than the 2nd

>Therefore guns and hand sanitiser should be banned
I never made that argument.

>how do you define the right for a "well regulated militia" to bear arms

Also you misunderstand this part, the right is not the militia's, it's the right of the people. Well-regulated means "in working order", it does not imply regulation imposed by some entity.

>Logically speaking, since the standards of defense against guns were what they were at the time, they'd probably be in favor of citizens with armor penetrating rounds and explosive ammunition, given exactly why they wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place.

well then why do you look up to these people if they think such ludicrous things like that?

Finland you are my bro and I love you.

>need
You seem to have trouble with the concept of "rights".

>the 1st amendment is infinitely less harmful than the 2nd

Freedom of speech is the most powerful weapon of all time.

self defence.

but plenty of rights have been retracted in the past so it's not like removing rights is unheard of

maybe thats why your government is censoring it

>maybe thats why your government is censoring it

I don't disagree. Did you think I would ?

no i didn't say that to provoke you

>the 1st amendment is infinitely less harmful than the 2nd
Then why do they say that the feather is stronger than the sword?

Also, the 2nd A explicitly give the citizens the right to own guns in order to be able to form a militia if need be, not to only own them when they are part of the militia.
Other countries, other laws.

>but plenty of rights have been retracted in the past
One amendment prohibiting the consumption/sale of alcohol. And it created the mafia so it was revoked a few years later.
We don't take amendments to the Constitution lightly.

'Ludicrous'

Why do those whom abuse animals prefer to do it to soft, small, defenseless ones that have neither the mass nor often the instinct to fight back when cornered?

Because bullies like to reserve their most abuse for those whom are not a danger to them. Which is why you seldom see people who like to crush animals try and bully around wild boars, moose or bears. Because they know if they piss those fucking animals off enough, they will be destroyed by overwhelming force.

It's a very good 'act right' scenario, and nobody that holds office or tries to subvert peoples rights should EVER forget this.

you linked the two with the implicit notion that they serve the same purpose and thus should be treated similarly in order to undermine his argument.

It was a shit assertion. Like I said, have some self-respect and actually argue your views with some level of articulation and logic.