Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you are agreeing with me. I said If in the US I too would keep a weapon on the land and in the city. But its not required here and in NZ and other Western countries, yet we enjoy enormous liberty. In all other western countries, gun ownership is not essential for liberty.
All the esteemed city fathers need to do is roll out a dumpster in verey town square and let those that want to, turn them in. Likewise if one decides the AR-15 is the devil they can simply not purchase one.
You would have to ask them about the law.
They probably want to make the AR-15 style rifles unavailable for purchase in the future. I'm sure some will still be around; not everyone there will turn their rifles in voluntarily.
New Zealand is a very pro-gun nation in general. They are pretty big on hunting and shooting sports there. So only the semi-auto assault style weapons will be banned.
They probably want to make the AR-15 style rifles unavailable for purchase in the future. I'm sure some will still be around; not everyone there will turn their rifles in voluntarily.
New Zealand is a very pro-gun nation in general. They are pretty big on hunting and shooting sports there. So only the semi-auto assault style weapons will be banned.
The question is why for it was not the hunters and the sports people who did the shooting.
This is sort of like the creation of Israel from the Palestinian point of view; why are we being punished, we weren't killing the Jews.
You will have to forgive me as I state, to me, you are another example of "gotcha" arguments and my initial point, offered pages ago.
I am advocating for bipartisan work and debate and educated discourse from and by our leaders and experts from many fields. Leaders who will be courageous to come together and propose sensible solutions that might protect our citizens and prevent them from having to face these types of weapons of war on our streets. I am not suggesting our country abolish the rights of sportsmen and people wanting gun self protection.
I freely admit that I do not know what that would "technically" look like in the end, but I protest those gun enthusiasts who are so uncompromising that they stop any attempt at solutions, discourse and understanding by throwing around technicalities and by bullying and threatening our leaders and citizens who possess a differing viewpoint. Sometimes by offering lame what-about-isms and what if scenarios and technicalities that seem meant to distract and/or win a useless point. I am protesting disingenuous statements of can't work by those who really mean they won't try.
It seems to me that mocking Prime Minister Ardern and her government for attempting to protect their citizens is not going to get us to any type of progress at solving this escalating problem in our country.
If you truly want to understand what I am saying you could try reading my initial posts and those that followed. We need to come together in this country and be part of a solution rather than part of the problem. A problem that has caused so much pain and senseless horror and one which is not partisan.
Not a gotcha argument and I've read every post in this thread. You want to ban "weapons of war" but you have not defined what a weapon of war actually is. Every style of firearm on the planet has or is currently in use by a military.
I'm not bullying or threatening anyone. I'm a live and let live guy. That is until you start encroaching into my rights and the right of self defense is my top priority. Why can't I have the most efficient way to protect myself?
I am uncompromising because the wording in the 2nd Amendment is clear "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All of the current laws have infringed and I'm tired of giving ground.
Only First World countries would beg for LESS RIGHTS. SMH
First World countries do everything in their power to protect their citizens. Third world countries are where gangs of armed bandits roam the countryside.
One.
of.
the.
last .
mass.
shootings...was. with. a. shotgun.
Emphasis on ONE. And he killed fewer people that the ones who has AR-15s or other semi-automatics.
Let me put it to you like this- if a homicidal guy was coming after you what kind of weapon would you want him to have? A revolver or a semi-automatic with 30 round cartridges?
Emphasis on ONE. And he killed fewer people that the ones who has AR-15s or other semi-automatics.
Let me put it to you like this- if a homicidal guy was coming after you what kind of weapon would you want him to have? A revolver or a semi-automatic with 30 round cartridges?
DEAD IS DEAD (or at least bad for there is that "What you do after you are hit") if he gets rounds into you, be it .44 Magnum (Burke certainly did enough damage in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifi...es_Flight_1771 ) or 9mm (the Uzi) or 5.56.
When I train, I don't really care what he is shooting (there is are exceptions which I will touch on in a moment). What I are about is putting rounds into him (and his friends which he will probably have) with my semi-automatic, of how fast, how easy I change out to the next magazine. The greater range I can do it (USP is good to 100 yards), the better!
Now, if in the heat of it, I can figure out what he is shooting, figure out the tactics with that particular piece, there may be some value to it.
But in reality, if he is coming at me with a gun, well, like they say of the number of thoughts in one's mind in a shooting situation. One thought, maybe two.............
........and "Gee, he's using a ..." probably won't be one of them.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 03-22-2019 at 08:39 AM..
Another country of European based Lemmings that are willing to allow Royalty to rule their lives. No Second Amendment to keep government from trampling all their rights. Watch NZ, there will be "Hate Speech" laws next that will put you in jail for speaking your mind. Just wait.
An American presuming his country is superior in all things while it's his country that has enacted more rights restricting nonsense than any other first world country. Thanks only to America do the rest of us in the flying public get our rights trampled by that idiotic TSA creation.
There's a reason why, when it comes to placing countries on a scale by measuring all of their citizens individual, economic, press..among other freedoms, the U.S. doesn't even make it into the top 25 while New Zealand is well within the top five "most free" nations
Not a gotcha argument and I've read every post in this thread. You want to ban "weapons of war" but you have not defined what a weapon of war actually is. Every style of firearm on the planet has or is currently in use by a military.
I'm not bullying or threatening anyone. I'm a live and let live guy. That is until you start encroaching into my rights and the right of self defense is my top priority. Why can't I have the most efficient way to protect myself?
I am uncompromising because the wording in the 2nd Amendment is clear "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All of the current laws have infringed and I'm tired of giving ground.
The whole problem with compromise is that they always come back for more until one day there will be nothing left to compromise. That's their ultimate goal.
There are already thousands of laws that address both the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. We don't need any more laws. Laws only serve to provide a method to arrest, prosecute and punish those who willfully break them. Those who willfully break them do not care how many laws are passed. They're just gambling that they won't get caught. Those who are planning on and commit mass murder do so with the understanding that they will probably not come out of it alive anyway. They're on a suicide mission that no law can prevent.
Quote:
The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently.
This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.
As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; if a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control” they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people.
This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,” will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.
So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.
It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.
There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski
NZ can do what they feel is appropriate but I think asking citizens to wear Muslim garb is over the top especially in light of what Muslims have done to Christians and the West in the last few decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
