|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 22 2019 04:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 03:15 Sermokala wrote:On March 22 2019 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Again, who is banning hacksaws screw drivers and heating coils?
Because that is what you actually wrote. The NZ government by banning and tools and parts capable of making a semi automatic gun into a military style semi automatic gun. I know its vauge and the annoucement isn't the law but thats the effect of what they annouced. Thats the theme of everything I've written so far Ok, before we go any further, I need to know whether you genuinely think that the government of New Zealand are planning to "ban hacksaws screw drivers and heating coils in a crusade to ban scary weapons" ? Just so we know whether to take you seriously or not. Edit: This is a Yes or No question btw.
No I don't think that they're going to go door to door arresting people for having any basic tool that could potentially modify a gun to carry a detachable magazine or remove a magazine making it detachable. I also don't think that they're going to confiscate every piece of malable material that could be used in one way or another to make a magazine or to secure a magazine to a rifle.
But I think that thats exactly what she was saying in her announcement. I think this whole nonsense behind a "Military style semi-automatic" is about as vauge and werid enough to mean that. I've never said specifically thats what the law would be but its a pretty clear overreach if what the announcement the PM of AZ said was to be taken seriously.
|
It isn’t really that vague. All modern military rifles hail from a design for urban combat in a cold war conflict. They have a style, form factor and shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.
And, I'm sorry, when did you become an expert on NZ’s laws or rights? How would you know what an overreach is?
|
He probably just know how to surpress and pin down a flock of deer and how this would be hard if he had to reload every 5 shots.
|
On March 22 2019 06:33 Plansix wrote:
It isn’t really that vague. All modern military rifles hail from a design for urban combat in a cold war conflict. They have a style, form factor and shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.
And, I'm sorry, when did you become an expert on NZ’s laws or rights? How would you know what an overreach is?
I became an expert on potential NZ gun laws by reading the entirety of the potential NZ gun laws. This being about a paragraph. A MSSA is defined and only defined by its potential to have a detachable magazine capable of holding 5 or more cartridges. This is what we've been discussing. This is vauge, this has nothing to do with urban combat or cold war conflict or style or form factor or the rate of fire ( I would add the rails to add an ability to add accessories or attachments as apart of a modern rifle but hey). We're talking about its potential to have a detachable magazine capable of holding 5 or more cartridges.
You would know if we were talking about those things if we talked about any of those things. Which we didn't in relation to NZ's proposed laws.
For reference, I hunt deer mostly with a 30-30 Winchester lever action that stores one in the chamber and seven in the tube. This would not be an MSSA due to it not being semi-automatic but I saw when I was in college a guy who made a couple magazines for a 30-30 and modified the 30-30 to use them.
|
The proposed changes now also include a mandatory buyback program in New Zealand. Legally purchased and owned firearms. Confiscation with a money sweetener. If the government calls your semi auto “military style” for reasons previously discussed in thread, you’re about to part with it.
She also instituted a mandatory buyback program, in acknowledgment that many such weapons now exist.
“Fair and reasonable compensation” will be paid, she told reporters.
Ms. Ardern acknowledged however, that she doesn’t know how many such weapons are in circulation among New Zealanders.
“We’re very much in the dark” on that, she said.
When asked whether people who might hold such guns illegally would be arrested if they turned them in, she said that would not happen: “Amnesty applies. We just want the guns back.”
Washington Times
|
|
|
If this was something that was happening out of the blue then I would have some questions about it, but the items that they want back were recently used to murder 50 people. Seems ENTIRELY reasonable.
|
United States43262 Posts
On March 22 2019 22:52 Danglars wrote:The proposed changes now also include a mandatory buyback program in New Zealand. Legally purchased and owned firearms. Confiscation with a money sweetener. If the government calls your semi auto “military style” for reasons previously discussed in thread, you’re about to part with it. Show nested quote +She also instituted a mandatory buyback program, in acknowledgment that many such weapons now exist.
“Fair and reasonable compensation” will be paid, she told reporters.
Ms. Ardern acknowledged however, that she doesn’t know how many such weapons are in circulation among New Zealanders.
“We’re very much in the dark” on that, she said.
When asked whether people who might hold such guns illegally would be arrested if they turned them in, she said that would not happen: “Amnesty applies. We just want the guns back.” Washington Times
Reimbursing people for the value of confiscated property seems like a good thing to do from where I’m sitting. Considerably better than the way American cops seem to routinely operate. Is there a more generous approach the government could take when outlawing goods that are already in circulation?
|
On March 22 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 22:52 Danglars wrote:The proposed changes now also include a mandatory buyback program in New Zealand. Legally purchased and owned firearms. Confiscation with a money sweetener. If the government calls your semi auto “military style” for reasons previously discussed in thread, you’re about to part with it. She also instituted a mandatory buyback program, in acknowledgment that many such weapons now exist.
“Fair and reasonable compensation” will be paid, she told reporters.
Ms. Ardern acknowledged however, that she doesn’t know how many such weapons are in circulation among New Zealanders.
“We’re very much in the dark” on that, she said.
When asked whether people who might hold such guns illegally would be arrested if they turned them in, she said that would not happen: “Amnesty applies. We just want the guns back.” Washington Times Reimbursing people for the value of confiscated property seems like a good thing to do from where I’m sitting. Considerably better than the way American cops seem to routinely operate. Is there a more generous approach the government could take when outlawing goods that are already in circulation?
Well stated, and I completely agree that it's a fine and generous program. Some would never like it because 2nd amendment.
People could instead take the money and use it to buy a really nice guitar... something they could actually use... every day... if they wanted. Instead of a piece of metal that sits in a closet and gives the illusion of safety.
On another note, here is a contrast from our leaders to the rest of the world.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/22/outrageous-unacceptable-indiana-teachers-shot-execution-style-pellets-school
|
From what I have been reading about the public response in New Zealand, many gun owners support the buyback program and will be well paid for their fire arm. There is no specific attachment to semi automatic rifles and they are not seen a fundamental to gun ownership.
|
|
|
On March 23 2019 00:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2019 22:52 Danglars wrote:The proposed changes now also include a mandatory buyback program in New Zealand. Legally purchased and owned firearms. Confiscation with a money sweetener. If the government calls your semi auto “military style” for reasons previously discussed in thread, you’re about to part with it. She also instituted a mandatory buyback program, in acknowledgment that many such weapons now exist.
“Fair and reasonable compensation” will be paid, she told reporters.
Ms. Ardern acknowledged however, that she doesn’t know how many such weapons are in circulation among New Zealanders.
“We’re very much in the dark” on that, she said.
When asked whether people who might hold such guns illegally would be arrested if they turned them in, she said that would not happen: “Amnesty applies. We just want the guns back.” Washington Times Reimbursing people for the value of confiscated property seems like a good thing to do from where I’m sitting. Considerably better than the way American cops seem to routinely operate. Is there a more generous approach the government could take when outlawing goods that are already in circulation? Well stated, and I completely agree that it's a fine and generous program. Some would never like it because 2nd amendment. People could instead take the money and use it to buy a really nice guitar... something they could actually use... every day... if they wanted. Instead of a piece of metal that sits in a closet and gives the illusion of safety. On another note, here is a contrast from our leaders to the rest of the world. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/22/outrageous-unacceptable-indiana-teachers-shot-execution-style-pellets-school
Tbf shooting on a shooting range or hunting are hobbies people pursue. Not hobbies you need a semi-automatic rifle for and hobbies I have no interest in, but still legitimate hobbies compared to other hobbies/jobs that are accepted in society.
But yeah, good riddance. Also if there are people I'm legitimately scared of while visiting the US then it's cops. Constant news about a cop in the US doing something entirely unreasonable portraying a significantly disturbed relation to violence and power. As if the border protection people weren't bad enough already.
|
NZ doing exactly what the terrorist wanted. That's funny.
|
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble.
|
On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble.
He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that.
I don't know what Wegandi is on about.
|
United States43262 Posts
On March 23 2019 03:30 Wegandi wrote:
NZ doing exactly what the terrorist wanted. That's funny.
Doesn’t make it wrong.
|
On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about.
His goal was to get guns banned in NZ and stoke the flames in the US. Reactionary "lefty" forces playing into his bait. Why would people stop terrorist acts when it gets shit done. The US reacted to Bin Laden just how he wanted and it continues to this day. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace...
|
On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. His goal was to get guns banned in NZ and stoke the flames in the US. Reactionary "lefty" forces playing into his bait. Why would people stop terrorist acts when it gets shit done. The US reacted to Bin Laden just how he wanted and it continues to this day. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace...
His reasons are irrelevant if the end result is that guns are banned and this doesnt happen again.
What's the message about countries disarming their populace supposed to be?
|
On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. His goal was to get guns banned in NZ and stoke the flames in the US. Reactionary "lefty" forces playing into his bait. Why would people stop terrorist acts when it gets shit done. The US reacted to Bin Laden just how he wanted and it continues to this day. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace...
This is quite a stupid way to look at things. If my goal in life is to go to prison, and I murder 30 children to get there, people will be playing right into my hands when I get a lifetime sentence!
Just because something a terrorist wanted happens to overlap with procedures to make sure it doesn't happen again, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
|
On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace...
So are we
I can't recommend that people read the manifesto obviously but I've seen a leftist go over it on Youtube, and Wegandi saying that this is what the mass shooter wanted is super self-serving (as should be expected coming from him).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
