New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after 'assault weapon' ban

[Hume]

Hume pretending the inevitability of the earth turning equals the power of Governments . . .

No, I didn’t say they are equal. I just said they’re both things I can’t stop. As I can’t stop the sun, the mechanization of warfare means that I and a very very very large group of others cannot stop the government by force of arms.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Indeed. And you denied that as a right.

It is a right under US law, but not an inherent right, so you are correct that I do indeed deny it.

Owning a firearm shows the wisdom of having an effective to to defend oneself and others.

Practical wisdom, to be sure. But that does not establish a gun as an inherent right. You are dancing all around a claim that you can not support. Either support that claim or admit that you can’t.

Your position is that speculative preparation is not part of the right to self defense. I disagree, regardless of the tools are martial arts, firearms, or other tools that free people may choose.

I know you disagree. The question is does any Christian moral authority disagree?

In other words, you have no argument to defeat your position.

(I assume you meant “defend”) Once again, I need no argument. It is you that have made a positive assertion of an inherent right. All I need to do is shoot down your attempts at supporting it. We are back to proving there are no unicorns again.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

No, I didn’t say they are equal. I just said they’re both things I can’t stop

Fair enough Hume. Correction well-taken.

But likewise I did not talk about freedom and the Second Amendment limited to “you” either.

People toppling a hostile Government or at least freeing themselves from its oppression is not limited to you.

And if Governments have such overwhelming power, that is an argument FOR (not against) freedoms such as the Second Amendment include.

 

[Hume]

I understand that view. Years ago, I shared it. I collected a lot of fire arms. Went to a lot of gun shows. Really participated in the “Defend the Second” culture that even climaxed with me getting a lifetime membership to the NRA, unfortunately.

The issue is that in a world where warfare has fully mechanized since roughly WWI, “a man and his rifle” has absolutely no chance of toppling the American government.

First, successful rebellions require foreign aid. The US is a nuclear power that controls its domestric trade lanes, so foreign aid will never come.
Second, as warfare has mechanized, people couldn’t afford the things that would level the playing field. The average American couldn’t pay for one of the missiles on the underwing of an Apache, much less an Apache itself. And if by some miracle they could, Boeing wouldn’t sell it to them.
Third, the means they CAN afford are ineffectual against these machines of war. There’s nowhere you can hit an M1 Abrams with rifle fire to disable it.

In short, by making sure we have “The Most Powerful Military on the Planet”, we’ve created a military we have zero chance of rebelling against. Zero chance.

The vote and the freedom of expression are your best weapons against government tyranny. Any attempt to promote the armament of The People only arms those that would do you harm.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

The issue is that in a world where warfare has fully mechanized since roughly WWI, “a man and his rifle” has absolutely no chance of toppling the American government.

THIS is your “reasoning” for blowing off the Constitution!??

(Because if you can discard one Amendment, you can discard them all.)

This centers around YOU Hume.

Somebody else who even thinks the same way
may come to a completely different conclusion.

For example, check out the New Hampshire license plate. “Live Free or Die”.

I’m not advocating that (here). I am just simply pointing out, there are other people with other political outlooks.

The world does not revolve around your conclusions.

Other people would say, they CAN overcome a rogue Government with Second Amendment freedoms.

Why?

Because there are people in the Government who would have access to such freedoms, who COULD fight against such a rebellion that someone in power COULD wage against us.

Governments know that.

That’s why the guy in North Korea keeps killing so many people in his inner circle (and someday that will probably be his undoing too).

It seems to me like you have decided to embrace despair (on this issue).

I would suggest going back to your support of our Country’s Constitution.

 

[Hume]

THIS is your “reasoning” for blowing off the Constitution!??

I’m not “blowing off the constitution” (there you go again putting words in my mouth )

I wish to see the limitations placed on automatic weapons (that already exist) also placed on semiautomatic weapons.

I’m not advocating that (here). I am just simply pointing out, there are other people with other political outlooks.

Lol. So I’ve heard. So I show with my own life.

It seems to me like you have decided to embrace despair (on this issue).

I don’t think so. But we tell ourselves what we want a reason comes along for the ride.

But if I can’t convince you that I’m not in despair then, well… shrug

I would suggest going back to your support of our Country’s Constitution.

I never left. But as we must agree, the right to arms is not without limit. I’m just trying to further limit what arms the common citizen has ready access to.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

I’m not “blowing off the constitution” (there you go again putting words in my mouth )

I wish to see the limitations placed on automatic weapons (that already exist) also placed on semiautomatic weapons.

Then you are blowing off the Constitution.

But if I can’t convince you that I’m not in despair then, well… shrug

But you keep contradicting yourself.

Basically you keep repeating . . .

I’m not in despair.
There’s nothing we can do about it.

 

[Hume]

Hume . . .

I’m not “blowing off the constitution” (there you go again putting words in my mouth )

I wish to see the limitations placed on automatic weapons (that already exist) also placed on semiautomatic weapons.

Your right to semiautomatic weaponry is explicitly named in the constitution? A document written just under 100 years before the first semiautomatic rifle existed?

I can’t seem to find it.

But you keep contradicting yourself.

Basically you keep repeating . . .

As discussed using the sun as an example, not being able to do something about something else is not “despair”. Or at least so my dictionary tells me.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . . .

A document written just under 100 years before the first semiautomatic rifle existed?

Now you have me wondering about all that alleged Second Amendment advocacy, gun show attendance, etc. that you were talking about.

There were not only semi-automatic firearms when the country was founded, but fully automatic guns.

Many of the “gun guys” are aware of that.

How you missed it in all your alleged Second Amendment activism confuses me.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/2nd-amendment-muskets/

 

[Hume]

Hume . . . .

A document written just under 100 years before the first semiautomatic rifle existed?

The Mannlicher is the first semi-automatic rifle and it came about in the 1880s, 90s. Some time around in there.

Swing and a miss, it seems.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume to Cathoholic regarding my last post . . .

Swing and a miss, it seems.

Sure.

 

[Hume]

So if you don’t think the Mannlicher was the first semiautomatic rifle, could you be so kind as to tell me which one was?

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

So if you don’t think the Mannlicher was the first semiautomatic rifle

Go ahead and think that. Add to the definition to re-define it.

You can use wiki to re-define full autos too and say they were invented in the 1880’s.

You go ahead and think whatever you want to think.

 

[Hume]

I’ll take that as a concession that you couldn’t find any semiautomatic rifles to predate it.

And that’s fine. There likely weren’t any that saw production.

So back to the point, I want the government to place a soft ban on semiautomatics just like it presently does fully automatics.

 

[Cathoholic]

I’ll take that as a concession that you couldn’t find any semiautomatic rifles to predate it.

The only “concession” I can make is on a wikipedia re-definition.

Did you look at the video? There are others. I have posted them before.

Here it is again.

 

[Hume]

No, I’m not going to watch your video. It’s not my job to review your “research”.

Now you can watch it and present what you wish…

 

[Cathoholic]

To other readers here.

Hume . . .

No, I’m not going to watch your video.

That’s fine Hume.

Like I said. You can think whatever you’re going to think.

(For everybody else. Please remember this obstinacy when considering opinions like Hume to take away your rights.)

For all others (except Hume) . . .

Here it is again (starting right at the pertinent time too, to make it easy for you).

And if I recall correctly, I have posted OTHER historical videos too or at least one other one on this topic (if you do a search, you can probably still find it).

BELTON FLINTLOCK​

The Belton Flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, invented by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777, and a number of examples were commissioned and tested.[1]

DESIGN​

There are no known surviving examples of Belton’s gun; in fact, the only evidence of its existence is the correspondence between Belton and Congress. Belton described the gun as capable of firing up to “sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time”.

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Belton_flintlock

 

[Hume]

To other readers here.

Indeed. I don’t think they need much help in judging the dialogue, lol.

 

[Hume]

Since you expanded here, I will too.

At no point did I say “the framers only wrote the 2nd in defense of muskets only”.

I’m merely correctly pointing out that it can’t explicitly defend your right to semiautomatic rifles because they wouldn’t exist for another hundred years or so.

And I’m right.

As the 2nd isnt unlimited and the government already has a soft ban on automatic rifles, it can expand that ban to semiautomatic rifles as well.

This leaves for the citizenry such rifles where the actions must be manually operated in order to reload the weapon. Pump shotguns and both bolt and lever action rifles are common examples. These are more than sufficient for home defense with a very large portion of the Second Amendment crowd agreeing that a shotgun is the optimal home defense weapon.

---

As an aside, oddities like the Belton flintlock and Puckle gun never entered mass production due to various, serious design issues. They were never more than oddities.

 

[JonNC]

The interpretation can and does change over the years and - at extreme - this constitution can and has been changed.

By constitutional amendment. If you want the right to arms to lose its protection (no law cancels the actual right), a constitutional amendment is necessary.

For example, who knew the Commerce Clause, written over 200 odd years ago, legalized same-sex marriage?

I do not deny that progressives have done irreparable damage to the constitution, but in this issue, government has no business regulating marriage at all.

Let me explain. When the soft ban on automatics came into effect, it placed substantial restrictions on the sale of automatics on a forward-going basis .

There are well over 200 million semiautomatic firearms in the hands of civilians. In 1934, there was no where near that type of numbers of automatic firearms ( in 1986, it is estimated at 150,000). A ban on further sales of semiautomatic firearms only denies the young and economically emerging populations from exercising their rights. It is, at the least, discriminatory.

It’s just there are many on the left who realize that there is nothing you can do about it from a perspective of force.

And again, this is irrelevant. The certainty of success does not play a role in the right.
But the fact that many in the progressive movement, particularly those in power, specifically target the law abiding leads to the suspicion that government having all the guns is their motive.