... perhaps [Ranty McRantFace] was speaking from memory of a verbal
exchange and merely did not correctly recall detail . . ..
... and in that case I understand [Shooty McShootFace] gained access to
the semi-automatic firearms through being a member of a gun club . . .
Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic >weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for sporting >purposes.
What kind of sport needs the ability to mow down lots of >victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic >>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for sporting >>purposes.
What kind of sport needs the ability to mow down lots of >>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool, >particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No >process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
before the bodies had been buried.
Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the >softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.
Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the >perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in
France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on their shopping list.
What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
guns make for a safer society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the >authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
will be packing heat.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed".
So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
and that the government has no business violating that right.
Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
any potential tyrant.
It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not >surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
opposition.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Completely irrelevant - this is about New Zealand - nowhere else. Overseas experiences come from vastly different dynamics and comparisons make no sense (just like you).
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic >>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for sporting >>>purposes.
What kind of sport needs the ability to mow down lots of >>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a
short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool, >>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No >>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
before the bodies had been buried.
Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the >>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.
Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the >>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage >>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in >>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on their shopping list.
What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
guns make for a safer society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the >>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government
will be packing heat.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be >>infringed".
So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially
codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
and that the government has no business violating that right.
Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood
that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
any potential tyrant.
It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun
confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not >>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
opposition.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.
New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and
some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Just the point I was making, Tony. The USA Constitution was based on
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Completely irrelevant - this is about New Zealand - nowhere else.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view.
Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic >>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for sporting >>>>purposes.
What kind of sport needs the ability to mow down lots of >>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely
when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a >>>short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them
would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer
enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand
over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool, >>>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails,
so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that
was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in
Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No >>>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even >>>before the bodies had been buried.
Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be
a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the >>>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.
Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the >>>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage >>>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The >>>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight >>>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in >>>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on their shopping list.
What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The
mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their
own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
guns make for a safer society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the >>>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government >>>will be packing heat.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free >>>state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be >>>infringed".
So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially >>>codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right
and that the government has no business violating that right.
Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment.
In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to
keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to
defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood >>>that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to
any potential tyrant.
It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever >>>bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun >>>confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not >>>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators.
All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
opposition.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY >>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.
New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and
some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.
OverseasAustralia is however closer to us in terms of laws and criminal
experiences come from vastly different dynamics and comparisons make no sense >(just like you).
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:46:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant as I said before and if you agree (and you said you did) why do you continue to post off topic nonsense.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Just the point I was making, Tony. The USA Constitution was based on >conditions well before the Treaty of Waitangi. and for different
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:13:30 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Completely irrelevant - this is about New Zealand - nowhere else.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:54:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Where did you get that article, BR? It gives a very USA -centric view. >>>New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
Nicole McKee is talking about re-legalizing military-style semi-automatic >>>>>weapons (of the kind used in the Ides of March massacre) for sporting >>>>>purposes.
What kind of sport needs the ability to mow down lots of >>>>>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htargets in a single shooting spree?
I read some of the blather earlier about banning gang patches.
If you want to solve the gang problem, punish the gangsters severely >>>>when they break the law, and I mean severely. Put them in jail for a >>>>short time but make that time so damn unpleasant that none of them >>>>would dare risk a repeat of the experience. Make sure they suffer >>>>enough that their balls are broken by the time they are let out.
Anyone who believe that criminals, patches or no patches, would hand >>>>over their guns just because the government tells them to is a fool, >>>>particularly with the soft on crime attitude that currently prevails, >>>>so now seems a good time to repost an updated version something that >>>>was posted shortly after the Christchurch mosque attacks.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
In their hasty response to the act of terrorism committed in >>>>Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No >>>>process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even >>>>before the bodies had been buried.
Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there might be >>>>a problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that
day was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the >>>>softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.
Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the media can't shut
up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards, labouring
their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and giving the >>>>perpetrator what he so desperately craves, publicity and notoriety.
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage >>>>further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The >>>>greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as >>>>far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight >>>>with a fertilizer bomb) in 2011. That is fewer than the Nice attack in >>>>France in which 86 people were killed using a truck. The 9/11 >>>>terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people without a gun.
It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder >>>>as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items >>>>on their shopping list.
What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent >>>>on shooting up a town is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The >>>>mainstream media and the politicians will not be diverted from their >>>>own narrative in which they would have everyone believe that fewer
guns make for a safer society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking >>>>guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference to
gun crime. Criminals will not be surrendering their firearms to the >>>>authorities, and that means that only the bad guys and the government >>>>will be packing heat.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free >>>>state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be >>>>infringed".
So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the federal government, essentially >>>>codifies the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right >>>>and that the government has no business violating that right.
Personal self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment. >>>>In fact it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to >>>>keep and bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to >>>>defend themselves against their own government. The framers understood >>>>that a well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to >>>>any potential tyrant.
It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever >>>>bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off his campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy",
and then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun >>>>confiscation legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not >>>>surprise anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators. >>>>All this happened with the approval of the weak and gutless
opposition.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY >>>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there. They do have a gang problem, though, and >>>some of our current problems come from Australia having exported quite
a few of those who had been in Australian gangs to New Zealand.
purposes that are largely irrelevant today. Many scholars believe that
it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.
Off topic as previously stated - but repeated by Rich the fool.OverseasAustralia is however closer to us in terms of laws and criminal
experiences come from vastly different dynamics and comparisons make no sense >>(just like you).
experience - read about the result of those changes here: >https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) did well to get agreement from
other parties and each of the State parliaments to make a fairly quick >change. We have been slower to follow, but the changes made under the >leadership of Jacinda Ardern were widely supported. Unfortunately we
now have the Three Stooges deciding what parliament will agree to -
and ACT are strongly supporting "Freedumb" policies - for tobacco that
will mean increased deaths from emphysema and other horrible results
of smoking tobacco; with firearms they may well result in more mass
killings - and all of it based on who has best funded the policies
they want - there is no honour in any of the three parties in
government.
You may have a different view of course, Tony . . .You stole my opinion . No surprise however, you don't think for yourself.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAYWhere did you get that article, BR?
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.
It gives a very USA -centric view.
New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there.
They do have a gang problem, though, and some of our current problems
come from Australia having exported quite a few of those who had been in >Australian gangs to New Zealand.
On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:37:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Just interest. Are you ashamed of the source of your post?DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY >>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.Where did you get that article, BR?
Bill.
Why does that matter?
It gives a very USA -centric view.
And?
New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there.
Did the gun confiscation lead to a reduction in gun crime?
Normal policing, reducing poverty, and reducing unemployment. SadlyThey do have a gang problem, though, and some of our current problems
come from Australia having exported quite a few of those who had been in >>Australian gangs to New Zealand.
So what should be done about it?
Bill.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 07:52:25 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Not here in NZ.
On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:37:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Just interest. Are you ashamed of the source of your post?
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY >>>>COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.Where did you get that article, BR?
Bill.
Why does that matter?
It gives a very USA -centric view.
And?
New Zealand was slow to follow the changes made in Australia after a
mass shooting there, but I don't think they have experienced an
increase in shootings there.
Did the gun confiscation lead to a reduction in gun crime?
Yes. You appear to have snipped the link I gave: >https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
It didn't work last time.Normal policing, reducing poverty, and reducing unemployment. SadlyThey do have a gang problem, though, and some of our current problems >>>come from Australia having exported quite a few of those who had been in >>>Australian gangs to New Zealand.
So what should be done about it?
the current government has made it clear that increasing poverty and >unemployment are their strategy for trying to reduce wages - that
creates more poverty, and helps the gangs recruit new members.
It would also be helpful for reducing gun crime if our gun laws were >stronger, by requiring every firearm to have a unique identifier, and
police able to know where all registered firearms are stored.
Bill.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:19:41 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
The wording is simple. It says: "The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and"The People" does not refer to an individual person, but to a
bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the government, or >>local militia or anybody else.
collection of people - for example a community of people, a militia,
an army. It may refer to the government, or local militia, but does
not refer to any person.
On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:19:41 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:You have no basis for that - just a guess.
On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 16:40:30 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:"The People" does not refer to an individual person, but to a
Many scholars believe that
it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.
The wording is simple. It says: "The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the government, or >>local militia or anybody else.
collection of people - for example a community of people, a militia,
an army. It may refer to the government, or local militia, but does
not refer to any person.
That is all irrelevant to New ZealandWhy the abuse?
however - we do not have a constitution or laws that use those terms.
I really do not know why you misunderstood that, Bill, sorry I cannot
How could anybody misunderstand that?
help there.
Why did you do that?
Bill.
Discussion has however drifted off the Subject of the thread though,
which is "Why Do You Want Semi-Automatics For Sport?"
On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 16:40:30 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>"The People" does not refer to an individual person, but to a
wrote:
Many scholars believe that
it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.
The wording is simple. It says: "The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed". Not the right of the government, or
local militia or anybody else.
How could anybody misunderstand that?I really do not know why you misunderstood that, Bill, sorry I cannot
Bill.
Many scholars believe that
it was intended to authorise local militia, not individuals, and that
it is being badly mis-interpreted by the gun lobby there.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 123:31:51 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,703 |