New Zealand to Ban Certain Rifles

Shootist43, I am not sure that I agree with you. I am really not clear on what the definition of an assault rifle is. However, if it is intended to denote a weapon used by infantry in war then a Mauser 98 is an assault rifle, a Brown Bess is an assault rifle, as are the more modern semi-automatic and select fire weapons. Our founding fathers, in crafting the second amendment, were certainly referencing the military weapons of their day, hence assault rifles, if the above definition is correct.

I suspect that the term 'assault rifle' is a fabrication of the media driven by a misunderstanding of what AR stands for.

Art, I wasn't correcting you, I was agreeing with you on the media misrepresentation. The term "Assault Rifle" came from a compact, automatic rifle that were used by assault troops. At least that is the common thinking. Somewhere along the way........1960s or 70s, the media dubbed the AR-15 as to mean Assault Rifle-15 and that was not the case. Regrettably, the name stuck.

I found this on the internet, so it must be right............

The link lists every single assault rifle made. The Ruger mini-14 and 30 aren't listed, which is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

An assault rifle is a rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge, a detachable magazine, and can switch between semi-automatic/fully automatic fire. Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies.

By strict definition, a firearm must have the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[1][page needed][2][page needed][3][page needed]

• It must be an individual weapon;
• It must be capable of selective fire, which means it has the capacity to switch between semi-automatic and burst/fully automatic fire;[4]
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle. For full-power automatic rifles, see List of battle rifles;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine;
• It should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

IMHO the terms magazine and clip are used interchangeably especially by those that have seen Military service. The term clip may have come into common use during WWII referring to the enblock clips used for the M1 Garand. Stripper clips have been used to load rifles since the 1890(s.) While magazine may be the "proper" term every GI or Ex GI knows what a clip is.

The legislation that was just passed is purely political ment to allay the fears of the masses.
The first weapon used in the shootings was a semi auto shotgun, but they have been mainly excluded from the ban because farmers use them a lot for pest destruction. Also .22 semi autos have been excluded once it was pointed out that the cost of buying back all the 10/22's would be far too expensive.
Basically they have banned all centre fire semi autos with detachable magazines. Even the likes of Remington Woodmasters.
They have done this by banning all centre fire semi autos that are "capable" of having a detachable mag that holds more than 5 rounds inserted. You may not own a mag that holds more than 5 rounds, but if one exists somewhere in the world, then it is banned.
This is just the start of the anti-gun legislation. There is more to come in the next few weeks/ months.

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...

The last 60 years has been the first time in US history that the military had more “dangerous” small arms than the general public.
When the military was armed with smoothbore muskets, civilians owned rifles muskets.
When the military armed with rifled muskets, civilians were starting the transition to metallic cartridges and lever actions. Union use of lever actions in our civil war was almost exclusively restricted to privately purchased weapons.
Same thing after the civil war, the army was using trapdoor springfields while the civilian market had fully embraced repeaters.


This pattern did not change until the DOD transitioned to M-16’s. Only the prohibitive tax on machine guns prevented the widespread acceptance in the civilian market.

Btw, the AR-15 is not the civilian version of the M-16.
The M-16 is the military version of the AR-15.

stug, it is gut wrenching for me to see politicians punish law abiding citizens because of the act of a terrorist and or an otherwise deranged individual. Laws should have to pass the test of "LOGIC" before being put on the books. If lawmakers cannot prove that the new law will have the desired effect it cannot be implemented. I.E. be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that this action will 100 % preclude any future mass killings of innocents. I wonder if they remember or know what a Molotov Cocktail is. A simple bottle, partially filled with gasoline and a burning rag. If thrown into a crowd a lot of damage is going to be done. Yet none of the readily available ingredients has been banned. It puzzles me to no end how "STUPID" gets elected to govern.

The descendants of the last people to openly resist US Government tyranny are now living on reservations. They had guns. They lost.

Nevada Mike said:

The descendants of the last people to openly resist US Government tyranny are now living on reservations. They had guns. They lost.

Click to expand...

At the time, the Indians were not citizens, the Indian wars were much more analogous to sovereign nations going to war.

Well so much for moving to New Zealand when thing so to sh*t in the USA. They have already gone to sh*t there.

Nevada Mike said:

The descendants of the last people to openly resist US Government tyranny are now living on reservations. They had guns. They lost.

Click to expand...

Can you please elaborate on this for us a bit? I am not exactly sure what you are trying to convey.

Nevada Mike said:

The descendants of the last people to openly resist US Government tyranny are now living on reservations. They had guns. They lost.

Click to expand...

So therefore no one needs guns, got it. We've been in Afghanistan 18 years and they have guns. See we can all give examples.....

Nevada Mike said:

The descendants of the last people to openly resist US Government tyranny are now living on reservations. They had guns. They lost.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I'm not sure what conclusions one is supposed to draw from this. In every conventional battle or war, two sides are armed and one comes out the victor. I don't see how we can conclude from this that guns are useless in terms of war.

In addition, I should point out that Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota Sioux war chief, did in fact beat the US in what has become known as "Red Cloud's War" - a war which was settled by the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1867 which saw the US withdraw completely from all Lakota territory. The victory did not last, but Red Cloud did triumph over a better armed opponent.

I believe the relevant point should be that we live in a violent world, with none so violent as sovereign nations. Faced with this violence, or any violence for that matter, if you are unarmed, you have no choice but to do as you are told.

Hank2211 said:

With all due respect, I'm not sure what conclusions one is supposed to draw from this. In every conventional battle or war, two sides are armed and one comes out the victor. I don't see how we can conclude from this that guns are useless in terms of war.

In addition, I should point out that Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota Sioux war chief, did in fact beat the US in what has become known as "Red Cloud's War" - a war which was settled by the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1867 which saw the US withdraw completely from all Lakota territory. The victory did not last, but Red Cloud did triumph over a better armed opponent.

I believe the relevant point should be that we live in a violent world, with none so violent as sovereign nations. Faced with this violence, or any violence for that matter, if you are unarmed, you have no choice but to do as you are told.

Click to expand...

Being unwillingly subjected to the whims of others has proven throughout human history to produce the worst horrors ever endured.

This legislation will be touted as a triumph. Months and years down the road the media will exclaim "Look there hasn't been any shootings!" Yet they will conveniently forget that NZ went years and years without this type of senseless tragedy up until now, without any ban. It seems like everyone, from governments to corporations to individuals, seeks nothing but the approval of the masses - not whatever is logical or practical or rational but rather the "popular" point of view. Knee-jerk reactions are the norm, not well thought out and purposeful decisions.

this was a post on FB page for NZ Hunters buy/sell and well worth the read.It was the failure of the system that alllowed this to come about.


I would like to approach what has happened from a mental state of calm and try to leave emotion to one side (I know that is hard to do) but we need to ask some serious questions.

Evil people do evil things. As a friend said (paraphrasing here) an evil person will always want to harm someone else. If a tin of peaches is available as a weapon, he will kill the other person with that tin of peaches.

Here are some of the questions which I think need to be asked:

1. If we should follow the example of Australia, why does Australia with its gun ban currently have almost 2 gun related homicides per million people per annum whereas NZ with our ‘lax’ gun laws has 1.1 gun related homicides per million? 2016 figures.

2. How did this man get a firearms licence so quickly?

3. How did he get a licence without being a citizen?

4. Did his travel not raise any red flags?

5. Were his referees really a father and son who only knew him from online chat rooms and never met him in person?

6. Why was his next of kin, partner / spouse seemingly not interviewed?

7. Is it true that the Police did not interview him in his home and instead interviewed him at work?

8. Why did he not want to be interviewed in his home? What was he hiding?

9. Why is it seemingly that the Police District he was in is known as an ‘easy’ place to get a firearms licence?

10. Why is there doubt that the Police inspected his home (which is mandatory)?

11. Did the Police act on the information they received about the Bruce Gun Club in Milton (to which he was a member) by a member of the public (recently mentioned in an uploaded Facebook video from the licenced member of the public)?

12. How is it that NZ is a part of a world-wide spy network called 5 EYES which monitors every single call, text, email, transaction, twitter, instagram, Facebook and every other conceivable type of communication in the world and yet was not alerted to his seemingly blatant references, posts and discussions?

13. How is that system actually working for us when it appears to have blatantly failed?

14. Why is it that we have fixated on the firearms he used as a weapon when we should be asking some other, exceptionally pregnant questions of the people we have entrusted to do their job?

15. How come he's a White Supremacist and not a Christian Fundamentalist (read his manifesto).

16. Most importantly – how did he slip through the cracks and how do we fill them so that this cannot happen again?

If you want to ban firearms just remember that Tesco in the UK no longer sells kitchen knives because of knife crime, which is now endemic there.

A terrorist used a truck to kill 86 and injured 458 people in Nice, France. Read what I just typed. WITH A TRUCK.

Did they ban trucks? If you look at how Jacinda’s responded, you’d have thought so – four hundred and fifty-eight human beings injured, legs / arms amputated, bodies and lives irreparably damaged. Not to mention the 86 lives abruptly ended. All because of belief.

If we want to fix the problem, we have to fix the cause, not attack the periphery things. He stated in his manifesto that he had plenty of options and he chose using firearms because of the damage it would do to us as a nation, and we're giving him exactly what he wanted. What a win for terrorism!
We have to stop interfering in other countries and causing blowback.
We have to fix the fact that the media bombard us with reasons to hate each other instead of helping us love each other.
We have to fix the way the media manipulates or outright provides false statements to incite anger and misinform the public.
We have to fix the social issues which result in poverty and envy and hate.
We have to understand that we're being driven to hate our fellow man.
We have to fix the big issue of 'my God is better than your God' which appears to be the prime motivator in these atrocities.

Changing the law the way they have doesn't answer a single question I pose to you all and doesn't actually make anything safer for us.

Not to put too fine a point on this, or step on anyone's toes here on AH, but what does this mean for us here (especially in the US?) Unless we are willing to completely stop traveling to NZ, and let the NZ government know why we are spending our money on other locations, we have to let the people of NZ decide for themselves what they are willing and not willing to have liberty to own. The only way to "help" NZ is to boycott and make sure the government knows why. Do we also by definition boycott Australia, or Africa which has not allowed semi-automatics for hunting for many years now? I feel empathy for the law-abiding gun owners of NZ that will have there lives changed because of a lunatic.

WAB said:

A very good friend of mine is a Jew who survived Tarnow. His father and another man hid their families in a room in a factory for the final years of the war. He recently wrote a book, 'The Unwritten Diary of Israel Unger'. If you need any convincing that we need to stand ready to oppose evil and tyrannical governments, you need look no further than this book. The recent increase in anti-Semitism in the West is alarming. We cannot disarm ourselves in a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy, nor can we assume that governments will stand for what is right and just.

Click to expand...

I visited Terezine, just north of Prague, last week. Though it may arise in a different flavor, this is reason enough to resist gun laws

Foxi said:

Of course a dictator needs a manual, Kim in North Korea leafs through it every day, otherwise it won't work. What would have happened to Hitler or Stalin without their manual? Nothing.

People,I'm not against gun ownership.
My closet is full of rifles
But I imagine myself to be a law-abiding citizen, who gets up every morning and does his duty,so that my chimney will smoke.
If I would hang on the needle or on the bottle,
could someone then agree to my possession of guns?

But perhaps one sees also dangers for the society in too liberal handling .Lawyers would say negligently to it.
Hard to imagine that the Second Amendment was created for guys like Marilyn Manson + Co.
Whether such guys had the founding fathers in mind?

Click to expand...

Not unexpected that you do not understand the nature of rights, as enshrined in our constitution. Few enough Americans understand them, and fewer still non-Americans.

The government did not give us our rights. Those rights pre-existed the formation of our government. Some of our founders, notably Alexander Hamilton, were completely against including a list of rights in the constitution for the precise reason that it would be assumed, as you have done, that those rights came from the government itself.

Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist Paper #84

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Click to expand...

Shootist43 said:

stug, it is gut wrenching for me to see politicians punish law abiding citizens because of the act of a terrorist and or an otherwise deranged individual. Laws should have to pass the test of "LOGIC" before being put on the books. If lawmakers cannot prove that the new law will have the desired effect it cannot be implemented. I.E. be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that this action will 100 % preclude any future mass killings of innocents. I wonder if they remember or know what a Molotov Cocktail is. A simple bottle, partially filled with gasoline and a burning rag. If thrown into a crowd a lot of damage is going to be done. Yet none of the readily available ingredients has been banned. It puzzles me to no end how "STUPID" gets elected to govern.

Click to expand...

Yeppers. Nothing like trying to craft legislation for Black Swan events.