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

[upant]

Automatics haven’t been completely eradicated from black markets, but they’ve become expensive enough that common criminals and those who need credit to afford them cannot obtain them.

parts to make a Glock pistol fully auto was selling for $20

fully auto’s aren’t sought because you can modify existing guns cheaper and privately so no one knows you have it.

 

[Hume]

I didn’t need another good reason to ban semi automatics but thank you for it.

 

[JonNC]

Ah, then as no law has 100% compliance, let us lift all laws.

There is no law that allows rights to exist. The notion that government grants rights is a fascistic one.

Meanwhile - back in reality…

The reality is that unless government can fully protect citizens from criminals, citizens have the right to the tools to defend themselves.
You are the one proposing the confiscation of rights and firearms, presumably using government firearms to do it. You have to prove that citizens will be safe from illegal firearms. And government firearms, for that matter.

Get rid of [easy access to] firearms and the crimes they are used in and you would see our gun crime rate be at about that level.”

Translation: take the arms from the law abiding who pose no threat to their fellow citizens. Leave arms in the hands of criminals.
This doesn’t end the crimes. It only ends the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves.

I’m lazy. Don’t want to climb the closet to get it out. I don’t want to research exactly where I’d take it to have it destroyed (local law enforcement auctions confiscations and surrenders). I don’t want to go through the effort of buying the things and doing the work to destroy it myself.

Good for you.

Is not unlimited, as we clearly see with limited access to automatics, nuclear material, etc. etc. etc.

These arguments are mere deflection. The SCOTUS has spoken to these issues. First and foremost, items such as nuclear weapons are not considered arms used by the individual, and are not covered by 2a.
Secondly, the Court has ruled that commonly or widely held civilian arms are protected. Automatic weapons were never in this category. Semiautomatic arms, on the other hand, are the most widely and commonly held, both in rifles and in handguns.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Once again, Jon, there is no inherent right to own a gun. Just because some men said so 200 years ago does not mean it is true.

The right to self defense is inherent. The right to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their rights is inherent.

Correct on the first point. Incorrect on the second point.

No. I’m right on both parts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you believe this supposed inherent right exists, show the evidence. Keep in mind that the founding fathers are not authorities on this question. Their opinion on gun rights has no more moral authority than mine. What I will consider as evidence is official moral teaching of any mainstream brand of Christianity. That should be good enough since you and I both nominally espouse that general authority. I can tell you that Catholicism states no such inherent right. Does your brand of Christianity have a catechism? If so, what does it say about this?

 

[JonNC]

If you believe this supposed inherent right exists, show the evidence.

Read Heller.

Keep in mind that the founding fathers are not authorities on this question.

In America, the constitution is the authority. The right to keep and bear arms, like all other rights, are antecedent to government.
“We hold these truths to be self evident…”
Now, you can either accept or reject these truths that are self evident, but the basic premise of the American system is based on the understanding that rights are inherent, that government has no legitimate power to grant or cancel rights.
I know this is contrary to the basic progressive premise that government has primacy over rights, but that is a fascistic premise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If a right is inherent, you will need a larger authority than the US to establish it.

 

[JonNC]

If a right is inherent, you will need a larger authority than the US to establish it.

Read Heller. The idea is not created by the founders.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If a right is inherent, you will need a larger authority than the US to establish it.

Read Heller. The idea is not created by the founders.

The founder “claim” the right is from God, but why should I take their word for it. They are not a moral authority in Christianity.

 

[JonNC]

The founder “claim” the right is from God, but why should I take their word for it. They are not a moral authority in Christianity.

And neither are you. Denying the tools necessary for self defense denies the right to self defense.
Christ, in the Garden if Gethsemane, tells the disciple to put his sword back in its place. He then warns them on not using them improperly. He doesn’t say turn them in to Caesar.

 

[niceatheist]

The Second Amendment has its origin in the English Bill of Rights 1689. It is not one of the Ten Commandments

 

[JonNC]

The Second Amendment has its origin in the English Bill of Rights 1689. It is not one of the Ten Commandments

The right to arms has its roots back a millennium or more.
Where does the Ten Commandments day thou shalt not own the tools of self defense?

 

[niceatheist]

In medieval times free men were expected to maintain arms, but that was not a universal right by any means.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The founder “claim” the right is from God, but why should I take their word for it. They are not a moral authority in Christianity.

And neither are you.

which is fine because I’m not claiming anything on my own authority.

Denying the tools necessary for self defense denies the right to self defense.

That does not follow. The right to self defense is a right granted by God to act in a certain way. It says nothing about guaranteeing you any specific tools.

Christ, in the Garden if Gethsemane, tells the disciple to put his sword back in its place. He then warns them on not using them improperly. He doesn’t say turn them in to Caesar.

Nor does he say anything about anyone having an inherent right to carry a sword wherever they want.

 

[JonNC]

which is fine because I’m not claiming anything on my own authority.

Sure you are. You’ve claimed on your own authority that this right is not inherent.

That does not follow. The right to self defense is a right granted by God to act in a certain way. It says nothing about guaranteeing you any specific tools.

Of course it follows, and I would contend that this is always the intention of a movement that believes in the primacy of government power.
By denying the tools, the power to act is denied.

Nor does he say anything about anyone having an inherent right to carry a sword wherever they want.

So short of any source on your part, one can assume that putting it back in its place implies its rightful place is where it was.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

which is fine because I’m not claiming anything on my own authority.

Sure you are. You’ve claimed on your own authority that this right is not inherent.

It takes no authority at all to challenge a positive assertion such as the one you made. When you make a positive assertion, such as “gun rights are inherent”, the burden in a debate is on you to provide the support. You can’t just assert it and then say “Prove it doesn’t exist”. Just because I can’t prove unicorns do not exist that does not mean that they do.

That does not follow. The right to self defense is a right granted by God to act in a certain way. It says nothing about guaranteeing you any specific tools.

By denying the tools, the power to act is denied.

You are mis-stating the right. The right is the right to act. It is not the right to always have the tools necessary to win the fight. That would be a ridiculous right, since one never knows what power of weaponry is necessary to win some future fight at some indefinite time. The right to self defense in Christian morality does not contain any reference to a right to have any specific weapon. Instead of continuing to assert that is does, provide a Christian reference - a church teaching - a sermon - a document from any Christian church that says what you assert is true.

Nor does he say anything about anyone having an inherent right to carry a sword wherever they want.

So short of any source on your part, one can assume that putting it back in its place implies its rightful place is where it was.

For the time being. Jesus’s words were specific for the situation of his arrest and not a sermon he preached to the crowds. He also told a blind man once to wash in the pool of Siloam. That does not mean that for all time the rightful place for everyone to wash is the pool of Siloam.

 

[JonNC]

It takes no authority at all to challenge a positive assertion such as the one you made. When you make a positive assertion, such as “gun rights are inherent”, the burden in a debate is on you to provide the support.

And I did. I provided the source. I provided a scriptural implication. The understanding goes back centuries before the founders.
You’ve provided only your assertion.

You are mis-stating the right. The right is the right to act.

And you are denying the right, but that is the current trend on the left.

It is not the right to always have the tools necessary to win the fight.

This is like saying a free press can be denied the right to acquire ink and newsprint.

The right to self defense in Christian morality does not contain any reference to a right to have any specific weapon.

Source.

e also told a blind man once to wash in the pool of Siloam. That does not mean that for all time the rightful place for everyone to wash is the pool of Siloam.

If the pool was that person’s private property, as was the sword, yes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It takes no authority at all to challenge a positive assertion such as the one you made. When you make a positive assertion, such as “gun rights are inherent”, the burden in a debate is on you to provide the support.

And I did. I provided the source. I provided a scriptural implication.

If you think it establishes gun rights as inherent, you have made up your own far-fetched scriptural implication that no Christian authority agrees with (that I have seen.)

You are mis-stating the right. The right is the right to act.

And you are denying the right,

No I am not. They have the right to do anything they want at the time they are attacked. But you are talking about doing something on speculation that you might be attacked. That is a different right.

It is not the right to always have the tools necessary to win the fight.

This is like saying a free press can be denied the right to acquire ink and newsprint.

Actually that is not so impossible. If scientists discovered that a certain ink used by printers was causing cancer, the government would be within its rights to outlaw the use of that particular ink and demand that if printers want to continue printing they must find an alternate source of ink that is not carcinogenic.

The right to self defense in Christian morality does not contain any reference to a right to have any specific weapon.

Source.

As I said, just because I cannot prove that unicorns do not exist, that does not mean they do. I do not need to find a source that proves unicorns do not exist. The burden is on you to find a source that proves they do. So have you found that unicorn yet?

e also told a blind man once to wash in the pool of Siloam. That does not mean that for all time the rightful place for everyone to wash is the pool of Siloam.

If the pool was that person’s private property, as was the sword, yes.

So, if that blind man happened to have a pool called Siloam, and Jesus told him to go wash there, then that would mean for all time everyone should get a pool, call it Siloam, and wash there? Crazy!

 

[Cathoholic]

Hume . . .

Since the mechanization of warfare, the proliferation of personal arms just provides for criminals. After all, a few men with AR15s are no threat at all to a government with tanks, helicopters and all the other trappings of modern warfare.

To stand ANY chance, would-be rebels/freedom-fighters require foreign intervention. . . .

Ban them all.

The problem is this has the phony built-in pre-supposition of law-abiding benevolent Governments.

These Governments thought just the way you do too. . . .

Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 5th PRINTING Edition​

by R. J. Rummel (Author)

. . . Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His results clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.”

Death by Government is a compelling look at the horrors that occur in modern societies. It depicts how democide has been very much a part of human history. Among other examples, the book includes the massacre of Europeans during the Thirty Years’ War, the relatively unknown genocide of the French Revolution, and the slaughtering of American Indians by colonists in the New World. This riveting account is an essential tool for historians, political scientists, and scholars interested in the study of genocide. . . .

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...r_1_3?keywords=Democide&qid=1577653608&sr=8-3

 

[Donkey]

The right to self defense is inherent. The right to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their rights is inherent.
You may choose to deny individual rights. I choose to stand up for them.

I agree with you 100%…I choose to stand up for my right to choose my tools.

You are being redirected...

There was a church shooting in Texas today.
Notice how some parishioners stepped into action.
Praying for the victims and one in critical condition.
It could have been much worse.