# New Zealand bans military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles



## WiiUBricker (Mar 21, 2019)

> Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced a ban on military style, semi-automatic (MSSA) guns and assault rifles in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings.
> 
> All semi-automatic weapons used during the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned, she said.
> 
> Related parts used to convert the guns into MSSAs would also be banned, along with all high-capacity magazines.



 Source with additional info

This is how it’s done, america.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 21, 2019)

Note how people still are free and government isn't enslaving anyone.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 21, 2019)

They went right past the “Thoughts and prayers” and “But it too soon” bullshit and went straight to solving the problem.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 21, 2019)




----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 21, 2019)

Why were they legal in the first place? I don't think any normal person needs a weapon like that. You don't need that to defend yourself, you can defend yourself just as well with a simple pistol. Larger, more destructive firearms should be reserved for war time, and for law enforcement in extreme situations.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Why were they legal in the first place? I don't think any normal person needs a weapon like that. You don't need that to defend yourself, you can defend yourself just as well with a simple pistol. Larger, more destructive firearms should be reserved for war time, and for law enforcement in extreme situations.


You've got plenty of people that will argue semi-auto rifles are a necessity for hunting, but any decent hunter can manage just fine with a bolt-action.  And a real man uses bows/knives.  Far more silent and efficient in terms of ammo costs.

Not that I've ever been a hunter, mind you, but I have had friends who hunt and I do enjoy target archery.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You've got plenty of people that will argue semi-auto rifles are a necessity for hunting, but any decent hunter can manage just fine with a bolt-action.  And a real man uses bows/knives.  Far more silent and efficient in terms of ammo costs.
> 
> Not that I've ever been a hunter, mind you, but I have had friends who hunt and I do enjoy target archery.


For hunters it makes some sense. I don't know exactly how difficult it is to get a gun down there but it shouldn't be easy to get bigger guns like that. It should come with an extensive background check, and also mandatory instructions on how to store it safely (out of the reach of anyone who shouldn't have access to it), as long as they do that to every hunter that wants one, I guess it's okay.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> For hunters it makes some sense. I don't know exactly how difficult it is to get a gun down there but it shouldn't be easy to get bigger guns like that. It should come with an extensive background check, and also mandatory instructions on how to store it safely (out of the reach of anyone who shouldn't have access to it), as long as they do that to every hunter that wants one, I guess it's okay.


All very reasonable proposals, which is why I can't help but think they should've been instituted years, if not decades ago.  Even a number of Republicans are _for_ common-sense reforms like mandatory background checks on _all_ weapons sales including gun shows.  The only thing that's been holding the US back from making those much-needed reforms are massive lobbying groups like the NRA.  Now headed by Oliver North of Iran-Contra infamy.  The organization is also entangled in a Russian money funneling scandal which occurred during the 2016 election cycle.  So essentially foreign countries are deciding our gun policy for us at this point, in order to keep us divided.


----------



## DBlaze (Mar 21, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> They went right past the “Thoughts and prayers” and “But it too soon” bullshit and went straight to solving the problem.


Yes, blocking access to websites that may or may not have any sort of video of the shooting is "solving" the problem.
The gun thing is good, the rest not so much

As horrible as it is to say it, it has to be said: they are abusing the situation to push agendas.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 21, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Note how people still are free and government isn't enslaving anyone.


A little too soon to be judging that don’t you think.

If you pay attention to the news they are freaking out and already pushing for authoritarianism. Even blocking access to websites and limiting access to information. And arresting people for posting the shooting video.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Mar 21, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> You don't need that to defend yourself, you can defend yourself just as well with a simple pistol.


Or not? Not sure if pistoles fall in the category of guns/firearms but obtaining a gun for self defense was always illegal in New Zealand.

Quote from a reddit comment:



> So to get your license you need to
> 
> * Be 16 or older;
> * Be interviewed by a police officer
> ...


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> A little too soon to be judging that don’t you think.
> 
> If you pay attention to the news they are freaking out and already pushing for authoritarianism. Even blocking access to websites and limiting access to information. And arresting people for posting the shooting video.




As  they damn well should. Because you know they're not blocking legitimate websites, they're blocking shitholes that have delivered the western world a constant stream of nazi trolls and whiners that keep on fantasizing about how they'd one day just rape and kill a bunch of women to 'show them'.
Same with the shooter video. There really is no place for that piece of white nationalism propaganda anywhere. All it serves is to shock people, intimidate people like the victims, or empower people like the shooter. It rightfully falls under all the rules that forbid sharing/owning of such material in many countries.

We can all argue about the level of punishment, but not about wether or not what they did is punishable.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 21, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> As  they damn well should. Because you know they're not blocking legitimate websites, they're blocking shitholes that have delivered the western world a constant stream of nazi trolls and whiners that keep on fantasizing about how they'd one day just rape and kill a bunch of women to 'show them'.
> Same with the shooter video. There really is no place for that piece of white nationalism propaganda anywhere. All it serves is to shock people, intimidate people like the victims, or empower people like the shooter. It rightfully falls under all the rules that forbid sharing/owning of such material in many countries.
> 
> We can all argue about the level of punishment, but not about wether or not what they did is punishable.


"Censorship is okay as long as it doesn't go against my agenda." That's all I got out of that... Anyway, I'm all for the banning of military style weapons. I just don't agree that will solve all of our problems like some of you here. People are stabbed, and killed via other means every day. It may lessen the problem, to an extent.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 21, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> As  they damn well should. Because you know they're not blocking legitimate websites, they're blocking shitholes that have delivered the western world a constant stream of nazi trolls and whiners that keep on fantasizing about how they'd one day just rape and kill a bunch of women to 'show them'.
> Same with the shooter video. There really is no place for that piece of white nationalism propaganda anywhere. All it serves is to shock people, intimidate people like the victims, or empower people like the shooter. It rightfully falls under all the rules that forbid sharing/owning of such material in many countries.
> 
> We can all argue about the level of punishment, but not about wether or not what they did is punishable.


People have a right to see the video and learn from it. People have a right to gather and form any groups they want. You block people and it will only further push them to white nationalism because they’ll have no where else to go but kkk rallies the only place that’ll accept them.

You have no idea how the U.S. constitution and 1st amendment is coveted around the world.

There is a big problem having government dictate what you can and can’t read, you can ask Iran about that. Freeeom of Press and information is important, its why Sweden even became a wealthy country when they were blocking the press, information got out about certain economic ideals and it helped them become wealthy.

The problem is everything is considered alt right, and will be subjected to be blocked. PewDiePie is consider alt right, which is ridiculous if you know anything about PewDiePie, he’s just a guy that makes jokes and memes, his channel is hardly political at all. 1,000 dollar UBI Democrat Andrew Yang is considere alt right. Kind of socialist left wing Joe Rogan is considered alt right. People that say that the male female wage gap is a myth is alt right. People that say that gender is not a social construct including the majority of sex researchers are alt right.  Should they be blocked?

You can’t let these crazy people dictate what you can or can’t read because the power will be abused.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 21, 2019)

I'm sure all the  criminals are turning in their weapons as well, wait

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I swear the amount of people who would give up their rights to bear arms for the illusion of safety is sickening.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 21, 2019)

We are at a point in history where the state has all of the power

They can tap our phones, monitor our every location, possess sophisticated weaponry

The people have no recourse 

That's great if you trust the government to respect your rights - however too many times in human history governments have turned on their own people

The number of people who die due to assault weapon crimes is very low overall - sure it makes headlines, but it's comparatively small

By giving up military grade weapons you are essentially making it impossible for the populace to effectively stage a revolution - a revolution which would already be quite difficult considering the state has every advantage (air support including drones, tanks, fully automatic weapons etc)


----------



## spinal_cord (Mar 21, 2019)

Coming from a country where we are not so in love with guns, I fail to see the issues that many Americans raise about tightening their gun laws.

The old "we'd be over-run with criminal gun-toting gangs" doesn't hold up simply because the police would do their jobs and arrest anyone who has an illegal weapon. Unless that is, you think owning an illegal weapon would not be an arrestable offence?


----------



## x65943 (Mar 21, 2019)

spinal_cord said:


> Coming from a country where we are not so in love with guns, I fail to see the issues that many Americans raise about tightening their gun laws.
> 
> The old "we'd be over-run with criminal gun-toting gangs" doesn't hold up simply because the police would do their jobs and arrest anyone who has an illegal weapon. Unless that is, you think owning an illegal weapon would not be an arrestable offence?


It's not about the criminals, it's about having recourse to the government itself

Time and time again we have seen governments take action against their own people

Holocaust, Japanese internment in the US, Uyghur internment in China etc

Revolutions seldom work without guns


----------



## DBlaze (Mar 21, 2019)

x65943 said:


> It's not about the criminals, it's about having recourse to the government itself
> 
> Time and time again we have seen governments take action against their own people
> 
> ...


So what's stopping the trump bashers to take up their guns and overthrow office?


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 21, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Why were they legal in the first place? I don't think any normal person needs a weapon like that. You don't need that to defend yourself, *you can defend yourself just as well with a simple pistol.* Larger, more destructive firearms should be reserved for war time, and for law enforcement in extreme situations.



Absolutely not true. Handguns are much less effective at stopping a human threat, and much more difficult to shoot accurately. There's no comparison.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 21, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> So what's stopping the trump bashers to take up their guns and overthrow office?



I was unaware Trump was throwing Mexicans in gas chambres.


----------



## BiggieCheese (Mar 21, 2019)

Memoir said:


> "Censorship is okay as long as it doesn't go against my agenda." That's all I got out of that... Anyway, I'm all for the banning of military style weapons. I just don't agree that will solve all of our problems like some of you here. People are stabbed, and killed via other means every day. It may lessen the problem, to an extent.


White nationalist crap and other alt-right stuff should be against everyone’s agenda, it’s an extremely destructive belief system that has caused a lot of problems in the past, still is and will continue to do so. Some things are better off deplatformed.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 21, 2019)

BiggieCheese said:


> White nationalist crap and other alt-right stuff should be against everyone’s agenda, it’s an extremely destructive belief system that has caused a lot of problems in the past, still is and will continue to do so. Some things are better off deplatformed.




Yeah, we should talk about communism/socialism forget all the dead bodies.

OR we could allow both ideas on the table and debunk them that way.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 21, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> So what's stopping the trump bashers to take up their guns and overthrow office?


Because people in the U.S. are not savages. Most people in the U.S. are indifferent ever since Trump became president. Life continues like it always has. They are not being put into internment camps.

Seems like not much has changed. It’s the same it’s always been. And he doesn’t have all this power either, he’s been trying to get money for a border wall since the beginning but still can’t do it. His power is extremely limited. So no reason to overthrow trump with guns.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 21, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> So what's stopping the trump bashers to take up their guns and overthrow office?


Because democrats are anti-gun for starters? The police are killing everyone and Trump is literally Hitler, but let's take all the guns.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 21, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Because democrats are anti-gun for starters? The police are killing everyone and Trump is literally Hitler, but let's take all the guns.


The irony is that the very people who think only the police should have guns, are the same people who think the police are abusing their power and killing innocent civilians


----------



## Viri (Mar 21, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> So what's stopping the trump bashers to take up their guns and overthrow office?


We did already. Didn't you see? We overthrew Fuhrer Trump, after he started gassing Mexicans, and start making land demands from Canada and Mexico.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, New Zealand police are trying to get IP addresses from forums, this guy responded in a pretty amusing way. 

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/2019-...uding-ip-addresses-email-addresses-etc.54376/


----------



## BiggieCheese (Mar 21, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> Yeah, we should talk about communism/socialism forget all the dead bodies.
> 
> OR we could allow both ideas on the table and debunk them that way.


Whataboutism isn’t going to help anyone.
Besides, I don’t remember some of the nations that would soon go on to form the Allies saying “Wait, let’s hear them out first” when Nazi Germany invaded Poland.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 21, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The irony is that the very people who think only the police should have guns, are the same people who think the police are abusing their power and killing innocent civilians


Most of the U.S. is relatively safe. You can live your entire life without ever seeing any gun violence or mass shooting. But people from other countries think the U.S. is highly dangerous where gun and cop murders is everywhere.

It’s only a very few areas and ghettos where most of the crime is coming from.  The U.S. is essentially the rich kid that has never seen how horrible life is on the outside world so doesn’t know how bad it really is in other contries. I know people that come from communist regimes where they see death and abuse of power and say the U.S. is a great safe place.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 21, 2019)

BiggieCheese said:


> Whataboutism isn’t going to help anyone.
> Besides, I don’t remember some of the nations that would soon go on to form the Allies saying “Wait, let’s hear them out first” when Nazi Germany invaded Poland.




The reason I bring up whataboutism is because of the blatant hypocrisy the left shows.

They are allowed to peddle their bullshitand nobody stops them. Someone on the right says something equally stupid and they are doxxed, deplatformed Etc.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 21, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Note how people still are free and government isn't enslaving anyone.


I don't know how you define "free" but people aren't free of anything. If we were all free, we'd not have to have certificates, IDs and so on which are proof that we're property. Nothing in the world is truly free and it comes at a cost.

Read up on Maritime Law if you're interested.

Also, the NZ shooting case has been fairly strange and hard to make sense out of it. I've skimmed through the shitbag's manifesto and that was just a bunch of nonsense. He goes on as how 'invaders' are taking over his land but he forgets that NZ/Australia and the Americas do not belong to the Europeans but rather that our ancestors colonized it. NZ is of the Maoris, just an example.

Brenton Terrant wanted to create division and chaos, and he kind of got that as people stupidly fell into his trap. Not surprised NZ's leader has decided to ban guns or limit to a certain extent as that's where it's all going but even then crime still exists as crooks find their 'tools' by other means. Take Britain for example, the media is constantly talking about Brexit but they forget that London is still a crime-ridden city and regardless that guns are banned, criminals can acquire them and also use kitchen utensils.

I could have sworn that yesterday I heard a gunshot and then around 4am a woman saying something like "You murderer, you killed my family and friends" from down the street and then it stopped. I didn't look outside so I don't know what happened afterwards but hey, just talk about Brexit and never mind crime.


----------



## Viri (Mar 21, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Take Britain for example, the media is constantly talking about Brexit but they forget that London is still a crime-ridden city and regardless that guns are banned, criminals can acquire them and also use kitchen utensils.


London is a legit crime ridden shit hole. I went there a few years ago to visit my cousin, and boy was I blown away. I live in a pretty shitty city in the US, and London made me feel right at home. I was expecting a nice peaceful city back then, lol.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 21, 2019)

Left-wing America is outraged at President Trump's abuse (in their opinion) of executive power for declaring an emergency re: illegal immigration, but simply thrilled with New Zealand's Prime Minister Dictator, and her politically correct Maori sign language sidekick. Authoritarian, unilateral government action to deprive the citizenry of rights and liberty is hunky dory with the left, apparently, so long as the action accords with their agenda.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 2, 2019)

They don't even have a way to track the guns. They pretty much said they expect everyone to come forward voluntarily.

So in other words, the criminals still have guns.


The first step should've been to require registration.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Left-wing America is outraged at President Trump's abuse (in their opinion) of executive power for declaring an emergency re: illegal immigration, but simply thrilled with New Zealand's Prime Minister Dictator, and her politically correct Maori sign language sidekick. Authoritarian, unilateral government action to deprive the citizenry of rights and liberty is hunky dory with the left, apparently, so long as the action accords with their agenda.


Yes, the left-wing does tend to like it when leadership attempts to solve problems/crises rather than creating entirely new problems from thin air.  And the right-wing cries wolf on this topic so goddamn much that we're desensitized to hearing that "teh gubment is gunna cum take our gunzz!"  Literally only one president in history has ever suggested such an authoritarian tactic, and that president is currently in office.


----------



## Captain_N (Apr 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Left-wing America is outraged at President Trump's abuse (in their opinion) of executive power for declaring an emergency re: illegal immigration, but simply thrilled with New Zealand's Prime Minister Dictator, and her politically correct Maori sign language sidekick. Authoritarian, unilateral government action to deprive the citizenry of rights and liberty is hunky dory with the left, apparently, so long as the action accords with their agenda.



As long as it gives more control to the government, the left/progressives  love the idea. First thing Castro did in cuba when he took over is take all the guns. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is always key to control.

@Xzi My problem with the left is they think the problems are solved with more government control. Larger government control is what they are all about. Its their fundamental base. The forefathers wanted a limited central government. State and local government would handle their own stuff. The federal government was never ment to be as bloated as it is now.

The reason the liberals/progressives hate trump because he does not follow their game They thought Hilary would win and their larger government control would progress as it was doing under Obama. More government control always leads to extremes. The goal since the 1920s progressive movement has been to slowly grow the government. They knew taking away guns would not fly so they have to do more indirect approaches like passing laws requiring guns to be registered so the government knows who has what. Obama said it best when he said "I want to fundamentally change America"


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> As long as it gives more control to the government, the left/progressives  love the idea. First thing Castro did in cuba when he took over is take all the guns. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is always key to control.





Xzi said:


> Literally only one president in history has ever suggested such an authoritarian tactic, and that president is currently in office.



Hate to simply quote myself, but it covers exactly what my reply would've been anyway.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, the left-wing does tend to like it when leadership attempts to solve problems/crises rather than creating entirely new problems from thin air.  And the right-wing cries wolf on this topic so goddamn much that we're desensitized to hearing that "teh gubment is gunna cum take our gunzz!"  Literally only one president in history has ever suggested such an authoritarian tactic, and that president is currently in office.





Yeah well he got schooled after that and never repeated it. Trump's like a frontman for a garage band ... can't play the guitar so good, but he's good at standing at the mic and belting out a tune. A lawyer he ain't.


----------



## Captain_N (Apr 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Hate to simply quote myself, but it covers exactly what my reply would've been anyway.



I was typing more while you responded. Obama passed a lot of executive orders as well. Some of which are not legal. Tell me what trump is doing thats equivalent to saying "Give me all your guns", you will not be able to have gas burning cars past 2030, You will be forced to have green buildings, no air planes only high speed rails, even to Hawaii, not sure how that is gonna work. In California, you have to have solar panels when you build a new house.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah well he got schooled after that and never repeated it. Trump's like a frontman for a garage band ... can't play the guitar so good, but he's good at standing at the mic and belting out a tune. A lawyer he ain't.


He's about as much a "frontman" as GWB was.  You just said it yourself: Trump is nothing but an empty vessel through which to push the neocon agenda, he has to be "schooled" on everything about being president.  So in this metaphor that perhaps makes him...the band's third pick for drummer.  A lawyer he ain't and a leader he ain't.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He's about as much a "frontman" as GWB was.  You just said it yourself: Trump is nothing but an empty vessel through which to push the neocon agenda, he has to be "schooled" on everything about being president.  So in this metaphor that perhaps makes him...the band's third pick for drummer.  A lawyer he ain't and a leader he ain't.



Your opinion.

As for the 'take the guns first' thing ... isn't that what these "Red Flag" laws getting passed in blue states now do? Someone files a petition (similar to a DVP order petition), then they go get the guns from the person, and _then_ they can have a hearing. They don't even get put on notice the order's been issued first. A guy in Baltimore got shot dead by police coming to take his guns away, because he answered his front door with a gun in his hand when unknown persons were banging on it at 5am.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Your opinion.


How is that my opinion when I just showed you video evidence of Trump's massive ignorance on the topic of guns?  It's not like you can pretend this is the only topic where that's been the case, either.  He thought ID was required to buy groceries, FFS.  Democrats could run 20-somethings with more actual life experience than DJT.



Hanafuda said:


> As for the 'take the guns first' thing ... isn't that what these "Red Flag" laws getting passed in blue states now do?


The first one to come up when I Googled it was the Colorado law, and that one at least requires a court to determine that the individual poses a significant risk to themselves or others.

https://kdvr.com/2019/04/01/colorad...ag-gun-bill-sends-it-to-gov-jared-polis-desk/

Not sure about any other states, but the wording is likely similar.



Hanafuda said:


> A guy in Baltimore got shot dead by police coming to take his guns away, because he answered his front door with a gun in his hand when unknown persons were banging on it at 5am.


That is tragic, but certainly not the first time we've seen mistakes coming from the Baltimore police department.  The more guns off the street there the better, but it is a very tall order.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 4, 2019)

1.2 Million registered guns and only 37 have been turned in. One wonders how many more illegal unregistered weapons there are. I wish I could find the drawing someone did of a person seeing a mass shooting on TV and the speech bubble says "Gee, I sure wish I was less capable of defending myself!" Describes this situation perfectly.

Fun fact: in the US, statistically you are more likely to be killed by a cop than die in a mass shooting or terrorist attack. Now for the average citizen, it is already pretty rare for a police encounter to ever become violent (it still happens more than it should, but that's a topic for its own thread). Hopefully that gives some perspective to this debate.

I also think it's kind of convenient that the legislation was already drawn up and ready to pass just mere days after the incident occured. It took longer than that for the US Congress to pass the Patriot Act, and that was drafted way back in 1996.

The fact is, having armed citizens and them forming state militias is a deterrent to tyranny. The citizens should be as well armed as the government, even the Supreme Court said that once. Before anyone says it would be a losing battle, 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Vietnam war prove that would not necessarily be the case.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> 1.2 Million registered guns and only 37 have been turned in. One wonders how many more illegal unregistered weapons there are.


Hard to know.  Remember, this isn't a blanket ban on guns, only on "military-style" ARs/semi-autos.  I'm guessing the list of impacted weapon models is actually fairly short.



Subtle Demise said:


> The fact is, having armed citizens and them forming state militias is a deterrent to tyranny.


_Possibly_.  Nobody ever mentions the fact that militias and citizens with guns might end up in support of an authoritarian government.  And it is a distinct possibility.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Hard to know.  Remember, this isn't a blanket ban on guns, only on "military-style" ARs/semi-autos.  I'm guessing the list of impacted weapon models is actually fairly short.
> 
> 
> _Possibly_.  Nobody ever mentions the fact that militias and citizens with guns might end up in support of an authoritarian government.  And it is a distinct possibility.


Ok, yes, I forgot the fact that it only applies to a specific style of firearm, so maybe that's all there was to begin with. It's hard to say either way.

Yes, an authoritarian regime could try to overthrow the USA some day, but that is less likely than a rebel group of freedom fighters. I haven't heard or seen anything about a communist uprising like what happened in Russia or Cuba. Plus, think about how many right-wing gun owners there are that absolutely would never allow that to happen. If you're worried about the skinheads/neo-nazis/whatever-they-call-themselves: 1) That's already a pretty niche group of people, so they simply wouldn't have the manpower to do anything remotely noteworthy 2) literally anyone with common sense would gladly take up arms and help the military wipe those guys out. They really wouldn't stand a chance here. Besides those two groups, the only real push for absolute authoritarianism I could see would be from our own government under the guise of some kind of "state of emergency" which is the most likely scenario considering how many times we've been under martial law throughout our history.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> If you're worried about the skinheads/neo-nazis/whatever-they-call-themselves: 1) That's already a pretty niche group of people, so they simply wouldn't have the manpower to do anything remotely noteworthy 2) literally anyone with common sense would gladly take up arms and help the military wipe those guys out.


I'm not _worried_ about it, just pointing out the fact that an authoritarian government would be in support of these types of groups, and they'd likely support that authoritarian government in return.  At that point, the alliance would be anything but niche.

That said, I wouldn't be quick to count out modern white supremacy as a threat to this country, either.  The director of the FBI certainly isn't:

https://thehill.com/homenews/437384-fbi-head-white-supremacy-a-persistent-pervasive-threat


----------



## bodefuceta (Apr 4, 2019)




----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


>


This is why nobody should use memes in actual discussion.  The logic here is incredibly lacking.  The first wolf went to jail/got the death penalty, and any subsequent wolves approaching the sheep will be far more likely to be pulled over by wolf law enforcement, have their teeth removed, and then be sent to jail.

Also a sheep's teeth were never going to do anything against wolves anyway.  Yet another reason it's a stupid metaphor.

The lesson: we don't make laws so that criminals will follow them.  We make laws so that criminals will be punished when they're caught _not_ following them.


----------



## bodefuceta (Apr 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is why nobody should use memes in actual discussion.  The logic here is incredibly lacking.  The first wolf went to jail/got the death penalty, and any subsequent wolves approaching the sheep will be far more likely to be pulled over by wolf law enforcement, have their teeth removed, and then be sent to jail.
> 
> Also a sheep's teeth were never going to do anything against wolves anyway.  Yet another reason it's a stupid metaphor.
> 
> The lesson: we don't make laws so that criminals will follow them.  We make laws so that criminals will be punished when they're caught _not_ following them.


I won't underestimate your intelligence by assuming this isn't bait.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> I won't underestimate your intelligence by assuming this isn't bait.


Not bait at all, just pointing out the facts.  Although I should also note the entire premise of the meme is based on a lie as well.  The only time I ever hear anyone suggesting a blanket gun ban is when it's a conservative using it in a sad attempt to mock liberals for something they don't even support.  There was also the time Trump suggested taking away guns without due process, but that's about it.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Apr 4, 2019)

I don't supported guns of any kinds but it will not resolve the problem. There are guns anywhere under black market. That's the problem. It is going to be killing and terrorists anywhere because of black market still exists.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The lesson: we don't make laws so that criminals will follow them.  We make laws so that criminals will be punished when they're caught _not_ following them.




Well, murder's already illegal last time I checked. As is attempted murder. And malicious wounding. And all manner of public safety laws in all jurisdictions criminalizing the discharging of a firearm, even if only negligent and not intentional, within city limits, within a certain distance of a dwelling, etc. Not to mention all the 'gun free' zones, and most states having laws that add 5 years onto a criminal's sentence if they used a firearm when committing their crimes (even if they didn't shoot anyone).

So what's the rationale behind punishing people just for possessing firearms, when the Constitution guarantees that as a right? Why make _those_ people into criminals, if they haven't committed any true criminal offense?


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 5, 2019)

WiiUBricker said:


> Or not? Not sure if pistoles fall in the category of guns/firearms but obtaining a gun for self defense was always illegal in New Zealand.
> 
> Quote from a reddit comment:


NZ has their shit backwards thenwhat am i suppose to do then low blow a gunman and still get arrested for assault?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> So what's the rationale behind punishing people just for possessing firearms, when the Constitution guarantees that as a right? Why make _those_ people into criminals, if they haven't committed any true criminal offense?


It's not about possession, but intent.  There aren't any good reasons I can think up as to why a person would need to carry an assault rifle around in plain view of the public.  A handgun is far more reasonable, and also a different discussion.


----------



## Quetzal (Apr 5, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> NZ has their shit backwards thenwhat am i suppose to do then low blow a gunman and still get arrested for assault?



Ok, for the uneducated: There are very few guns present in public here in NZ, full stop. I have _never _seen a pistol or assault rifle in public. About 1 in 200 people own a gun. Mostly hunters and farmers, for genuine purposes. I don't know anyone who owns a gun for personal protection.  The majority of gun related deaths in NZ would be gang related, who _illegally_ own the guns. The public is almost _never_ assaulted. So, to your point, there are hardly an 'gunman' shooting people. What happened on March 15 was that one lone wolf, who _legally_ purchased assault rifles, and then committed the atrocity. It's a simple argument: he would not have been able to get his hands on the assault rifle, and murdered so many people, if he couldn't walk in to a store and buy one.  Guns are not being banned, but high powered guns are.

It was a backwards step allowing them to be purchased in the first place. And a forwards step in trying to eliminate them from being in NZ.

Our police don't carry guns unless in exceptional circumstances. Has the country turned upside down? No.

BTW, the police we on site 6 minutes after the first shot fired, and the man was arrested after 26 minutes, on the other side of town. Not bad for a country who has their 'shit backwards'.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 5, 2019)

The fact that there aren't guns everywhere is one of the few things I like about New Zealand.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's not about possession, but intent.  There aren't any good reasons I can think up as to why a person would need to carry an assault rifle around in plain view of the public.  A handgun is far more reasonable, and also a different discussion.



You won't find me defending the 'open carry' idiots who go walking into Panera or Target with a rifle slung over their backs. That kind of intentional provocation is a breach of the peace. But my question was why ban possession/ownership and _legal_ use (target shooting, varmint/pest control, home defense), and you say it's not about possession. It's a ban that criminalizes possession of property that was previously perfectly legal, so I don't understand your response. Sorry if I missed something in an earlier exchange.

Anyway it's New Zealand, so it's New Zealanders' business. I don't know the context or history of civilian firearm ownership in that country, or what protections their Constitution may guarantee against rule by executive fiat. Seems like none.




Quetzal said:


> Guns are not being banned, but high powered guns are.



Just for the sake of truthful information being available here - an AR-15 rifle in its standard 5.56mm caliber is not a high-powered gun. It is effective for military use because the small, light and high-speed projectile it shoots tends to tumble and fragment on impact, resulting in wounds that are more certain to incapacitate. That means for every person who gets shot, more personnel must take themselves from the fight to assist in transporting the wounded. 

Compared to the 30.06 rifles used by the Americans in WWII, the 7.62x51 caliber they went to in the 50's before transitioning to the M16, the 7mm rifles used by the Germans, the .303 Enfields used by the Brits, the 7.62x54 Mosins used by the Russians, and any rifle currently and commonly used to hunt anything the size of a deer or larger, the AR-15 5.56mm is a wimp rifle. It is suitable for varmint control (prairie dogs and groundhogs, for example, which endanger cattle due to their burrows, and coyotes which have become a danger to people's pets on the East Coast where I live) and sport shooting. It is also a very good home defense weapon, since it 1) definitely does stop a human attacker very effectively, but 2) the small, light bullets it shoots don't tend to overpenetrate as much as typical handgun bullets or shotgun buckshot, meaning there is less risk to others in the home or even neighbors.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> But my question was why ban possession/ownership and _legal_ use (target shooting, varmint/pest control, home defense), and you say it's not about possession. It's a ban that criminalizes possession of property that was previously perfectly legal, so I don't understand your response. Sorry if I missed something in an earlier exchange.


I was referring to military and assault-style weapons in reference to the NZ ban.  I own a couple guns myself, but I still don't see a reason why civilians in the US need access to those types of weapons.  Not that a ban on them would fix much in the US at this point, given the number of them already in circulation.

All I really want are common-sense reforms like universal background checks, and a means (involving due process) by which to take weapons away from clearly unstable individuals.  The latter we now have in Colorado, would be nice if other states implemented something similar.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not that a ban on them would fix much in the US at this point, given the number of them already in circulation.




Indeed. The AR-15 is the best selling centerfire rifle type in the US for many years now. It's a darned practical firearm. Also see my post above, however, about its 'power' relative to other rifles. A Springfield M1A for example (civilian, semi-auto version of the M14) in .308 is a real battle rifle, a true devastation machine. (And unlike the AR-15, it's a suitable and humane deer rifle.) And yet AFAIK it doesn't fall into the 'assault weapon' definition used in most AWB legislation, because it doesn't 'look' evil.


----------

