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

[Hume]

that is the point, they won with small arms used effectively in guerrilla warfare.

they would have been stupid to try,

So which is it?

this country has a lot of room to support a group going off-grid.

Not for long, I’m afraid. 7 million people in Tennessee alone could extinct Appalachia of large mammals (like deer and dogs) in short order. The 6 million in Colorado alone would quickly do the same for the Rockys. You’d be down to rats and varmints in no time.

Fact is, the vast majority would go hungry mere weeks after your rebellion launched and the federal government stopped interstate commerce to the Walmarts and other mass food vendors in your area.

and again the taliban survived against 2 superpowers. who did the powers nuke?

The point there was that the foreign help you desperately need much more than your own personal arms won’t show up under threat of nuclear war.

 

[JonNC]

Do you think that they’ve successfully fought off Americans any time they’ve been openly found?

I think they have successfully used essentially the same tactic that the Vietcong used, that the French resistance used, that the American patriots used.
The American framers put the second amendment in place to protect the inherent individual rights to keep and bear arms precisely for this reason: the security of a free state. The argument that the militia cannot beat the government is actually irrelevant. It is like saying Republicans can’t win elections statewide in New York , so ban elections.
There are well over 300 million firearms in the hands of well over 100 million law abiding citizens in the United States. Of those, roughly 8 to 10 million are civilian semiautomatic rifles on the AR platform. And there is, thankfully, no national registry. NZ confiscated 50 thousand firearms, leaving an estimated 125 thousand held by citizens who are non-complaint. The US military cannot be used against the civilian population, and most would not turn their arms inward.
The individual right to arms in America has already worked.

 

[Hume]

I think they have successfully used essentially the same tactic that the Vietcong used, that the French resistance used, that the American patriots used.

And all of these examples had absolutely enormous amounts of foreign aid that another American rebellion would not have due to the American government being a nuclear power.

The VC were continually supplied by the Chinese and, to some part, the Russians.
The French Resistance had the same from the Americans and Brits.
The American Revolutionaries had the same from the French Monarchy.
The Taliban have Iran and Pakistan.

These conflicts would have certainly failed without foreign support. A new American rebellion will enjoy none as any state actor can be sure of a declaration of nuclear war will be made upon them by the American government in the defense of itself.

The American framers put the second amendment in place to protect the inherent individual rights to keep and bear arms precisely for this reason: the security of a free state.

The framers were men just like us. They simply couldn’t foresee the mechanization of warfare, making personal arms useless as a resistance measure.

The US military cannot be used against the civilian population, and most would not turn their arms inward.

Respectfully, please review your American history. It’s been done repeatedly.

 

[JonNC]

And all of these examples had absolutely enormous amounts of foreign aid that another American rebellion would not have due to the American government being a nuclear power.

None of them had 300 million arms in the hands of the law abiding civilian population, but who is talking about another American rebellion. The 2a actually prevents such a need.

The framers were men just like us. They simply couldn’t foresee the mechanization of warfare, making personal arms useless as a resistance measure.

What they could see is the never changing truth that armed government is the single biggest threat to the citizenry. Even here in our conversation, that is the reasoning you are using to disarm the citizenry. The framers did not need to see the 20th century to know that.

Respectfully, please review your American history. It’s been done repeatedly.

Then here you provide solid evidence why the civilian population should have their inherent right protected and not confiscated.

 

[Hume]

I’ll have to avoid quotes because I’m on my mobile now and using voice, so bear with me.

The plain fact is that neither our government nor any government I’ve ever read about has ever taken an action or refrained from an act because it was concerned about going against it’s own armed citizenry.

And why should governments be afraid? They’re absolutely always much better armed for conflict. Your AR15 is no match at all for an Abrams tank, Apache gunship or F35 stealth jet fighter. These are things that governments have and private citizens, by and large, do not.

As such, your comments here are much, much more accurately described as more belief rather than fact, which simply cannot be argued with.

Congratulations again to the people of New Zealand and their decision to destroy weapons that do nothing to keep them “free” but do plenty to empower those who wish to harm us. They’ve shown themselves paragons of reason and enemies of superstition on a national level.

Bravo!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Never had a house fire either but I keep an insurance policy just the same.

But there is no chance that if that fire insurance policy is discovered by a child that the child would accidentally kill himself with it.

 

[JonNC]

The plain fact is that neither our government nor any government I’ve ever read about has ever taken an action or refrained from an act because it was concerned about going against it’s own armed citizenry.

Every despot, every dictator attempts to disarm the citizenry. It is among the first things they do to consolidate power. The freedom fighters in Hong Kong do not have arms because the Chinese government doesn’t allow its citizens to have arms.
Which communist or fascist socialist state allowed or allows citizens to own arms?

And why should governments be afraid? They’re absolutely always much better armed for conflict. Your AR15 is no match at all for an Abrams tank, Apache gunship or F35 stealth jet fighter. These are things that governments have and private citizens, by and large, do not.

And that’s a reason for citizens to give up their arms? Make tyranny easier for tyrants? That’s a tyrant’s argument.

Congratulations again to the people of New Zealand and their decision to destroy weapons that do nothing to keep them “free” but do plenty to empower those who wish to harm us. They’ve shown themselves paragons of reason and enemies of superstition on a national level.

How many government arms did NZ destroy?

 

[Hume]

Jon, your vote and your exercised freedom of speech will do much, MUCH more to prevent government tyranny than anything you could ever stick in a gun safe.

As as an added benefit, no one can accidentally or deliberately kill themselves or innocent people with these things either - as was correctly pointed out by the other poster. Thanks leaf!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And that’s a reason for citizens to give up their arms?

No, that’s a refutation of a reason to hold on to them. The reasons to give them up have been discussed extensively.

 

[niceatheist]

New Zealand seems like a pretty tame tyranny to me

 

[JonNC]

But there is no chance that if that fire insurance policy is discovered by a child that the child would accidentally kill himself with it.

In 2016, there were 126 unintentional deaths of children due to firearms.
Over 4000 from automobiles
Over 700 from unintentional overdose or poisoning.
Almost 1,000 from drowning
Over 300 from fire or burns.

All of the 126 are a tragedy. So are the others.

 

[humbleseeker]

the child would accidentally kill himself with it.

A gun is an inanimate object that does not discharge by itself. It may be handled out of ignorance or irresponsibility, but it never fires by accident. Any gun I possess, and thereby have responsibility for, cannot be accessed by any child who hasn’t been trained in proper gun safety.

 

[JonNC]

New Zealand seems like a pretty tame tyranny to me

So far. Here in America, a presidential candidate referenced nukes in a discussion of firearms confiscation. Virginia is threatening are national guard troops.

 

[niceatheist]

Because America is the gold standard to which all other countries are compared…

 

[JonNC]

Jon, your vote and your exercised freedom of speech will do much, MUCH more to prevent government tyranny than anything you could ever stick in a gun safe.

Agreed. That is not a reason to hold arms as a last resort.

s as an added benefit, no one can accidentally or deliberately kill themselves or innocent people with these things either - as was correctly pointed out by the other poster. Thanks leaf!

Is that a reason to confiscate arms? Then why not cars? Swimming pools? At least with cars and swimming pools there is no constitutionally protected right involved.

 

[JonNC]

Because America is the gold standard to which all other countries are compared…

I agree. …

 

[niceatheist]

There are countries with stiffer gun laws than the US and far fewer gun related deaths which are multi party democracies governed by the rule of law.

The US is not the pinnacle of human society

 

[JonNC]

No, that’s a refutation of a reason to hold on to them.

There is no need of a reason to hold them. They are a constitutionally protected right. Rights require no explanation.

The reasons to give them up have been discussed extensively.

And none of them truly matter. All of them are entirely refuted.

 

[niceatheist]

This is up to the people of New Zealand. It does not affect you and judging by the number of gun deaths per capita in the US I don’t think any other nation is beholden to Americans for any advice on gun laws.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But there is no chance that if that fire insurance policy is discovered by a child that the child would accidentally kill himself with it.

In 2016, there were 126 unintentional deaths of children due to firearms.
Over 4000 from automobiles
Over 700 from unintentional overdose or poisoning.
Almost 1,000 from drowning
Over 300 from fire or burns.

All of the 126 are a tragedy. So are the others.

And there were zero deaths from kids finding their parents’ fire insurance policy.