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

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, I have no doubt that they’ve made choices. I just don’t think that particular choice is a good one.
 
JonNC said:
America has an obligation to defend constitutionally protected individual rights, including the right protected by 2a.
Click to expand...
Only in America. Other nations need not have anything like the 2A, and America has no business regarding New Zealand’s non-existent 2A.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
JonNC:
America has an obligation to defend constitutionally protected individual rights, including the right protected by 2a.
Click to expand...
Only in America. Other nations need not have anything like the 2A, and America has no business regarding New Zealand’s non-existent 2A.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they did. They should, just like they should protect speech, religion, due process, property rights, etc, but few nations value individual rights in that way.
 
upant said:
nonsense, you think they would starve the non-combatant to stop the combatant?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. With Zero Doubt.
Step 1 will be depriving rebel zones of allies. Imagine how many will turn against the rebellion when they lose just their Facebook and Netflix?
But back to food, a rebel commander in hiding will be sold out by the first lieutenant that sees hunger in his child’s or grandchild’s eyes. A man’s first alliance is always with his belly, then the bellies of those he loves.
do you think the US would start a nuclear war with Russia and China?
Click to expand...
If they are sending material support to American territory in assistance of the American rebels?

Without a doubt. It is an actual case of national defense. If the US won’t use them then, they never will.
tanks, etc. are useless in a guerrilla war, too much collateral damage that would grow the rebellion.
Click to expand...
You’ve misunderstood. In a rebellion, the winning power wants to make use of the territory regained after the rebels have been crushed. You don’t use these tools to destroy everything, you use them in attrition campaigns. Post the tanks on the highways into rebel zones, killing commerce. So on and so on.

The sad truth for the rebels would be that Apaches and F35s simply won’t be needed. American rebels would have nothing that requires that kind of response.
you don’t see the real picture because you don’t understand the tool.
Click to expand...
No, I understand it perfectly. Homer summed it up in the 5th century BC-

“The blade itself incites to violence.”
upant said:
we would get rid of a lot of things if all items used to kill others were removed.
Click to expand...
Guns are much more efficient at it. In a moment’s despair, someone can end their life with a gun.
Other methods require more work or more time to be effective, giving the poor soul time to reconsider and/or call for help.
upant said:
what perp openly left the house with their gun?
Click to expand...
If you actually read the dialogue, we weren’t talking about perps. We were talking about the law abiding who didn’t want to turn their firearm in.
upant said:
what is the next great law you would impose?
Click to expand...
Economics. Make them expensive. Its the reason you see zero or near-zero gun crime in the US with automatics. 99.9% of folks simply cannot afford them.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Gun rights are not on the same level as the other rights you mention, even if the US treats them the same.
Click to expand...
Of course they are. It is the right that, in the end, protects the others. It is absolute and entirely equal to the others.
Click to expand...
As we’ve seen done to other amendments of the constitution, the 2nd is outmoded. Outdated.

The pace and cost of military technology has rendered “a man and his rifle” completely obsolete for the purposes of safeguarding liberty.

All the 2nd does now is enrich the NRA and their gun manufacturing masters and readily provide for a would-be criminal’s ability to easily obtain firearms in the United States.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Gun rights are not on the same level as the other rights you mention, even if the US treats them the same.
Click to expand...
Of course they are. It is the right that, in the end, protects the others. It is absolute and entirely equal to the others.
Click to expand...
Once you move outside the US gun rights have no special status. It is an unnecessary anomaly in the US constitution. This is obvious from the fact that most successful societies in the world are doing quite fine without it.
Xystus said:
Its the 2nd Amendment, NOT the 2nd Class Amendment.
Click to expand...
That may be true inside the US, but outside of the US (which is what this thread is about) it is not in the same class as the rights Jon listed. This can be seen from the fact that those other rights actually appear as beliefs in several world-wide religions, including Catholic. However there is not a single major religion that maintains as one of its doctrines the right to keep and bear arms. This make the 2A a 2nd class amendment.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Once you move outside the US gun rights have no special status. It is an unnecessary anomaly in the US constitution. This is obvious from the fact that most successful societies in the world are doing quite fine without it.
Click to expand...
A willingness to devalue one right of others indicates a willingness to deny others. We can see that here, where members of Congress protested due process rights of people on the no fly list that hadn’t been convicted of a crime. There are no certain red flag laws that also violate due process. Many progressives have no problem undermining these rights.
There are progressives on campuses calling for denial or limitation of political speech rights, while religious free exercise rights are under attack.
Again, minimizing or denying one individual right leads to minimizing or denying others. In favor of government power.
 
I originally came from Australia although it has been many years now…Australia has never had to fight for independence…or a civil war…so there isn’t that mindset for guns…it’s just the way it is…Australians don’t fear a tyrannical government…never have…no need to…they don’t feel a need for guns for self protection…again…never have…they don’t fear sending their kids to school that they might get shot…kids don’t fear they might get shot at school…don’t need armed teachers…nor armed school security…or going to the mall…or the movies…don’t feel a need to carry guns period…Catholics…Protestants…Jews…etc…the same…don’t feel they have any God given right to carry guns…it’s the same God they worship as here in the US…I’m pretty sure same can be said for New Zealand…they are different cultures than here in the US…it’s just pointless arguing one against the other.
 
I suspect the indigenous population wishes differently.
After they were conquered, outsiders have left NZ alone
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Once you move outside the US gun rights have no special status. It is an unnecessary anomaly in the US constitution. This is obvious from the fact that most successful societies in the world are doing quite fine without it.
Click to expand...
A willingness to devalue one right of others indicates a willingness to deny others. We can see that here, where members of Congress protested due process rights of people on the no fly list that hadn’t been convicted of a crime. There are no certain red flag laws that also violate due process. Many progressives have no problem undermining these rights.
There are progressives on campuses calling for denial or limitation of political speech rights, while religious free exercise rights are under attack.
Again, minimizing or denying one individual right leads to minimizing or denying others. In favor of government power.
Click to expand...
So, out of respect for the right of free speech, I should be very reluctant to minimize or undermine the right to keep and bear arms, because devaluing one constitutionally-protected right threatens all constitutionally protected rights. Is that it?
This falls under the heading of be careful what you wish for. The principle you just illuminated would then imply we should be very careful to undermine the right of every woman to have an abortion, for it too is presently classified as a constitutionally protected right since Roe v Wade. Obviously all so-called rights should be evaluated on their merits and not given a pass just because they were at some time seen as a right.
 
Last edited:
Yet we allow them to be armed 😉

And I was talking about the NZ history of conflict on their shores, not critiquing colonial aggression or purporting the US was different/special.
 
Well done New Zealand, we are proud of you! No need for anyone other than law enforcement and the military to have access to guns.
 
would you rather people have the opportunity to break the 6th commandment?
 
well why do the general public specifically need firearms? Just look at the lives they take. The US has had multiple shootings, London has had multiple shootings. Did God really put us on this earth for us to kill each other?
 
snavemarc said:
would you rather people have the opportunity to break the 6th commandment?
Click to expand...
Why do you equate the 6th uniquely with guns?

Self defense doesn’t break the 6th and murder is committed with hands alone or a multitude of other weapons.
 
Ok, sorry Im not getting into this argument. I’ve always been against the public having access to firearms, that may just be me I don’t know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top