this post was submitted on 30 May 2026
232 points (99.2% liked)

YUROP

870 readers
355 users here now

Welcome to YUROP
The Ultimate Eurozone of Culture, Chaos, and Continental Excellence

A glorious gathering place to celebrate (and lovingly roast) the lands, peoples, quirks, and contradictions of Her Most Magnificent Europa. From the fjords to the Med, the steppes to the Atlantic spray, this is a shrine to everything that makes Europe gloriously weird, wonderfully diverse, and occasionally passive-aggressive in 24 languages.

Here we toast:
🇪🇺 The progressive Union of Peace (and paperwork)
🧀 The freest of health care
🍷 The finest of foods
🏳️‍🌈 The liberalest of liberties
🌍 The proud non-members and honorary cousins 💶 And the eternal dance of unity, confusion, and cultural banter.

Post memes, news, satire, linguistic wars, train maps, cursed food photos, Eurovision fever, propaganda and whatever makes you scream “only in YUROP.”

Leave your stereotypes at the border control and enjoy the ride.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

While it takes some effort for German citizens to legally buy and carry loaded firearms, it’s entirely prohibited to own any weapons of war. According to Insider, the man violated the Weapons Control Act by possessing military-grade weapons. His lawyers, however, argued that because most of his collection was non-functioning, he could not be charged. ^(source)^

TL;DR He lost the whole collection because of all the stuff like the working machineguns and flak ammunition he had laying around, in addition to the tank.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

His lawyers, however, argued that because most of his collection was non-functioning, he could not be charged.

Yeah ... I don't think that "most of it is non-functional" argument is going to hold up in court when it's illegal to own even one functional piece.

Now, if he could say that all of it was non-functional, then maybe they'd have a point. But, yeah ... there's a reason they're not making that argument, isn't there?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yep, and from what I remember (this all happened like 5 years ago) the court said basically the same thing ("What do you mean he mostly didn't break the weapons control act??") and that's why they took his tank away

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Well, the tank was ENCLOSED in a reinforced room - it had no way of exiting that room and was thus "non-functional"!

[–] crater2150@feddit.org 11 points 1 month ago

I don't think it had no way of exiting:

It was common knowledge in town that the homeowner owned a tank, a man who grew up there told Stern. The tank even proved useful for clearing snow during the 1978 snowstorm. A news report mentions how the tank driver helped someone pull out trees

Original text in German

Im Ort sei bekannt gewesen, dass der Hausbewohner einen Panzer besaß, sagte dem stern ein Mann, der in dem Ort aufgewachsen ist. Der Panzer habe sogar in der Schneekatastrophe 1978 gute Dienste beim Schneeräumen geleistet. In einem Pressebericht ist die Rede davon, wie der Panzerfahrer jemandem beim Herausziehen von Bäumen geholfen habe

https://www.stern.de/panorama/weltgeschehen/panzer-im-keller---84-jaehriger-waffenfan-bekommt-mildes-urteil-30643576.html

[–] Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not just a room, a basement. It can't even crash the wall and leave.

[–] Noctambulist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Owning firearms in Germany isn’t really that difficult although you must invest considerably more time and money than in countries like the US. Legally carrying them in public is a whole other story. Unless you work as something like a judge or prosecutor or have some serious death threats against you, the chance of getting a license approved is extremely low.