New Zealand to Ban Certain Rifles

Foxi said:

This gripping poem ( of the submarine-commander in the 1st World War) and later Pastor Niemöller is well known to me.
A miracle that he survived the concentration camp.

But if crazy or overly dangerous stuff is to be controlled, then I am definitely for it and see no totalitarian desire of the state to forbid some things.
If I'm not a soldier, I don't need a assault rifle.
If I'm not a doctor or a pain patient, I don't need morphine in my bedside-table.
Just my 2cents
Sorry for highjacking this thread.
Foxi

Click to expand...

in this country we dont have to need it,we just have to want it,and thats good enough for me,and the hell with the corrupt politicians who use every excuse they get to try and milk as many votes as they can get for their behalf.this world was conquered 6 or 7 times in the far past and millions of people were killed,not ONE was killed with a fire arm,no bullet holes in any body.PEOPLE have been killing PEOPLE forever and will continue to do so until the last man or woman is standing.Christ was not killed in a drive by shooting by a bunch of gang bangers using ak47s with 30 round mags,just a plain ole hammer and nails.dont want a gun?your choice,but dont try to force me in to your way of thinking.it aint going to happen!!!!!!

Violence. In any form it seems to fascinate people. Turn on your TV, watch a film, check any news media. What is wrong with society? Maybe violence is cooked into our central nervous system and will out regardless of law or societal mores. We slow down when we pass a car wreck on the road... looking to see the injured people. Blood. Death. Fascinating.

The people who produce our 'entertainment' know we will watch. I see gun violence and mayhem every hour on TV... change the channel to the news and more of the same. Violence seems to be the solution to any problem - at least as it is presented on TV and in films. Think this has any effect on violent crime? Moreover, do you think it is responsible for the way we see the world.

I keep weapons for defense and recreation. But I abhor violence.

Foxi said:

My best, also we Germans have a constitution with state-guaranteed basic rights, although less are than in the USA ?
Do you seriously believe that a Frenchman or a Swede has less rights in his country than you have in yours?
You would have to prove this before you claim it (so I can belive it).

It is idle to compare a deadly hammer with a rapid fire rifle.
It is about the radius of action of the deadly effect to mass murder.You all know what you're getting at.
Airplanes were not forbidden of course, but the controls it to climb have been tightened on the whole world enormously.
Especially in the USA.
Only Angela Merkel, free as she is, let her a lot more criminal into our land

Click to expand...

Sure do believe it! Gun ownership is enough of the answer right there. Socialist leaning countries peoples like France and Sweden live their lives at the discretion and good will of the govt., and when that is gone, so is whatever perceived "freedom" they thought they had. Remember this. The more govt can do for you, the more it can do to you. That is the big problem with socialism and as the Iron Lady once said, "the only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money". Those born in nanny state countries of course think theirs is great, no problem with that here. But its not for us.

I live in Canada. I believe it's fair to say that we are somewhere between Europe and the US in terms of "firearms rights." If I had to pick one position or the other however, I would choose, without hesitation, the US position.

The first rule in the Dictator's Handbook (available at your local library!) is "Get the Guns." If you trust government, I am happy for you, but a little surprised that some of the most difficult lessons of history have been lost on you. Be that as it may, I believe that firearms ownership can provide the basis for a free and democratic society.

What of the horrific crimes such as that in New Zealand? If you believe that restricting guns will reduce the murder rate, you are not paying attention to reality, but to emotion. Many countries have high rates of gun ownership - including, by the way, New Zealand - without having murder rates equal to those in the US (or elsewhere). New Zealanders have historically chosen to own guns in greater numbers than citizens of many countries, but until recently, until one episode of violence, they did not have a murder rate anywhere near that of the US or many other countries. Does one example of violence, no matter how tragic, outweigh the experience of years?

When those who agree with restricting gun ownership in fundamental ways (I'm not talking about RPG's here) can show me that these are rational reactions logically connected to the expected outcome, without material unintended consequences, then I will consider coming on board. Until then, I will understand these emotional reactions, but I will not agree with them.

Well said Hank!

No one should cite the Australian disarmament as a virtuous model--they confiscated guns of artistic and historical significance which had no bearing on crime stats--it was criminal what they did to gun owners. I don't trust the government to decide matters in a quick, knee jerk manner, as is the case in NZ. The gun grabbers will never be satisfied.

CAustin said:

As in all of these tragic incidents.....it’s not the gun but the user who is at fault and has committed the crime.

Think about Terry McVay who killed so many in Oklahoma City with fertilizer, diesel fuel and a truck. Trucks weren’t banned, desiel fuel is still sold and sure enough fertilizer is still available. Why because banning those items would have been silly as the items did not cause the crime.
If some evil person or persons wants to kill people.....a way will be found.
Frankly that evil man in NZ didn’t need a semi automatic to do what he did..... Or as pointed out he could have waited until prayers were over and mowed the people down out front with a big truck.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct! as one who has lived through the murrah bombing as well as a lady mowing down a crowd on a sidewalk in Stillwater with her car, it is easy ammo to point out that no one has banned cars, Ryder trucks, diesel, and fertilizer as a result. Outlaw guns, then knives and we will be back to the original murder, hit Abel on the head with a rock. Again, a mental health issue not a gun issue.

Foxi said:

This gripping poem ( of the submarine-commander in the 1st World War) and later Pastor Niemöller is well known to me.
A miracle that he survived the concentration camp.

But if crazy or overly dangerous stuff is to be controlled, then I am definitely for it and see no totalitarian desire of the state to forbid some things.
If I'm not a soldier, I don't need a assault rifle.
If I'm not a doctor or a pain patient, I don't need morphine in my bedside-table.
Just my 2cents
Sorry for highjacking this thread.
Foxi

Click to expand...

If you don't want or need them, then don't buy them. Odd that a German would be chipping in against guns. I've heard more than one tattooed old Jew say "never give up your guns. Ever."

Do you have any idea how long it would take for the murder total in the US to equal the number of people murdered under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Here's a clue: it would take longer than civilization has existed for random murders committed by street thugs and crazies using firearms to equal what those 3 governments accomplished in the space of about 50 years. Assuming 100,000,000 (which is an ultra-conservative estimate, IMO) murders in that 50 years, it would take a bit longer than 5000 years for the death count in the US to equal what those guys did in 50 years. And I'm not counting the millions murdered by the Japanese throughout eastern Asia from 1931-1945, because we don't have even a clue. But I'd bet a lot of money that the Imperial Japanese murdered way more people than even Hitler.

IIRC my history, 7 untrained Jews held off 3 or 4 divisions of wehrmacht for a solid month in Warsaw in 1943. We have a few more than 7 people in this republic who would be willing to resist such tyranny.

sgt_zim said:

7 untrained Jews held off 3 or 4 divisions of wehrmacht for a solid month in Warsaw in 1943.

Click to expand...

Don’t want to hijack the topic but I’m curious which events you are referring to? The Warsaw ghetto uprising happened in 1943 but the estimates are 1000-1500 (hungry and sickly) participants on the Jewish side with supportive actions from Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army). This is off course in sharp contrast to over 2000 well armed and supported Nazi soldiers who participated in the fight every day.

Opposite Pole said:

Don’t want to hijack the topic but I’m curious which events you are referring to? The Warsaw ghetto uprising happened in 1943 but the estimates are 1000-1500 (hungry and sickly) participants on the Jewish side with supportive actions from Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army). This is off course in sharp contrast to over 2000 well armed and supported Nazi soldiers who participated in the fight every day.

Click to expand...

My understanding is there were 7 at the core of the resistance who were armed. They certainly received assistance from multiple quarters. At the very least, others covered for them. But do not overlook the fact that it started with only 7.

And there were certainly more than 2 or 3 battalions of wehrmacht in and around Warsaw in the Spring of '43.

Perhaps you are referring to the commanders of ŻOB (The Jewish Combat Organisation) - Anielewicz, Cukierman, Szajndmil, Edelman, Berliński, Morgenstern and Rozenfeld. With the highest respect to what they did, while they were instrumental to the uprising they were commanders of one of the organisations that fought in it, they did not singlehandedly resist Nazi army.

Judith Collins tells US lobby group NRA to 'bugger off' over New Zealand gun reform

National Party MP and former police minister Judith Collins has told the National Rifle Association to "bugger off" out of New Zealand's affairs as it prepares to introduce sweeping gun law reforms following the deaths of 50 people in an attack on two Christchurch mosques.

The question or angle that I often come back to is this—
The heart of man (or woman or child) ultimately is the issue for the cause of violence, subterfuge, etc. Prohibition was an attempt by the government to control the sheep’s moral behavior—alcohol was still produced and consumed. Drunk driver laws go after the driver’s money, not the heart (or the car). Tobacco is taxed and taxed and taxed again, and still, knowing all the health issue related to smoking and smokeless tobacco, all the govt attempts to control the sheep still results in smokers and smokeless tobacco and e cig use.

The govts of the world have failed to institute morality in the hearts of the people (and I would argue none ever will without a change in the heart of the said sheep!) with a single law. Britain said Guns killed people. Now they are limiting the size of knives ...
Criminals are still criminals. Sinners are still sinners. We are often consumed by our own selfish desires and when unchecked we will continue to do selfish things that cause harm or injury or death to others. No law of man will change that.
IMHO the second opinion was written in to existence knowing the govt and the people were capable of selfishly suppressing the people of the USA.

Refuse to watch the tv as it is wall to wall pandering to the group that is nearly always on the giving/doing end of this tragic event and are now playing the victim in a wordwide move to restrict even further the ability of anyone to critique their belief.
6000 Christians killed in Nigeria this year with 120 last week alone and never a word mentioned by the evil endorsing msm

Feeling based laws taken in almost zero time with absoutely no thought nor consultation with the usual advisors who have kept NZ free of the draconion laws they are now set to force on the country

sestoppelman said:

The level of personal freedom in Germany, the EU, Asia and for that matter the rest of the world does not equal the level of personal freedom we enjoy in the states. We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that enumerates and AFFIRMS those rights, it does not grant these rights. Thus most of us, not all, get our back up pretty rapidly when some folks feel its OK to forbid the ownership and use of tools, which is all guns are, tools. "Dangerous objects" you say". Tell me what tools cant be used as a weapon. Anything can be misused, guns, knives, hammers, ice picks, meat thermometer's, (Blacklist), tire irons, the list goes on forever. Don't be so much in a hurry to give up what little freedom you have in some false notion that you will be safer because of it. You wont, its a lie, and one perpetuated by the lunatic left every day. I am always very disappointed when gun owners wherever they may be are OK with banning somebody else's guns, because THEY don't personally own "one of those" for their own personal hunting. Ridiculous and shortsighted position to take. Lest some forget, the biggest mass murder in recent American history involved airplanes. Did anyone try to ban them?

Click to expand...

Well said. Let’s be very clear, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It in fact states that the government does not have the right to infringe on its citizens right to keep and bear arms. In other words, it is a God given right that is not granted by the state, nor can it be revoked by the state. And just to be extremely clear it was talking about assault rifles and ensuring that the citizens would have the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government if it ever became necessary again. It had absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

WAB said:

Well said. Let’s be very clear, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It in fact states that the government does not have the right to infringe on its citizens right to keep and bear arms. In other words, it is a God given right that is not granted by the state, nor can it be revoked by the state. And just to be extremely clear it was talking about assault rifles and ensuring that the citizens would have the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government if it ever became necessary again. It had absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

Click to expand...

Correct.

And never forget that our founders generally believed that a standing army was a threat to liberty...that is why they wanted the free state to be secured by the armed people...the Militia.

What's the old saw? An armed man is a citizen. A dis-armed man is a subject.

You would think the 100 million plus dead laying at the feet of Marxists, during the 20th century alone, would be enough to alarm people to the dangers of being an unarmed citizenry.

One thing seems to be certain...humans to not learn from history!

sgt_zim said:

My understanding is there were 7 at the core of the resistance who were armed. They certainly received assistance from multiple quarters. At the very least, others covered for them. But do not overlook the fact that it started with only 7.

And there were certainly more than 2 or 3 battalions of wehrmacht in and around Warsaw in the Spring of '43.

Click to expand...

It was a pretty significant uprising involving, according to some sources - several hundred to more than two-thousand resistance fighters. No one knows for sure, elements were deployed from numerous units including regular Wehrmacht troops and the Waffen SS, but committed German forces were essentially in reinforced brigade strength - in other words, committed combat strength of 2500 to 3000. There were indeed many more troops in the region, but they were awaiting an expected Soviet offensive which Stalin cynically halted until the ghetto could be liquidated. Interestingly, most of the Polish Home Guard prisoners and even some of the Jewish resistance fighters were treated as POWs. By 1944, many Wermacht senior officers could already see the writing on the wall.

The uprising began when a group of Jewish resistance fighters from a ZOB unit ambushed an einsatzgruppen unit sent into the ghetto to round up a group of Jews for shipment to one of the death camps. This may be the basis of the seven to whom you referred. But the battle was waged by anyone who had the strength to lift a weapon.

Red Leg said:

But the battle was waged by anyone who had the strength to lift a weapon.

Click to expand...

And had access to one! They were in a very short supply.