New Zealand To Ban Semi-Automatic Firearms

a reply to: XXXN3O
I think Americans have a better understanding, or acceptance that the illusions of safety has Lways been just that, an illusion. Which is why we literally just keep on partying even as people are killed next to us. It's like " oh well #, I'm not going to stop just because they dead, I'm still alive, #ing live baby!" Know what I mean Vern??

Never mind, cannot be bothered anymore, made my point

a reply to: infolurker

Yeah - Never let a tragedy go to waste.

I trust Trump defending 2nd amendment rights

Yeah everything involves the USA - even half way around the world

originally posted by: XXXN3O

originally posted by: Lysergic
Will not happen in the USA.

It will. The internet is the problem and solution with social engineering by controlling the context, although we do not like to think like that, cause its bad to think we cannot think for ourselves anymore.

Think about it, quite easy to see if you step back from the noise.

All in context, all shaped by context and controlled by context, even when we know its all bullsh*t whatever is said, we still complain against or agree with the context given. So simple really and effective.

Agreed. It will happen one way or another. Once they have a goal, they will find a way to make it happen. And this one has been an obvious wet dream type goal of theirs for a very long time. They've really been hammering away at it in recent years. Which really makes me wonder what they're up to and why they needed to accelerate it their much.

Maybe they just figured this generation is the softest one in history and they might not get another chance like this.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: infolurker

From what I understand, SCOTUS has decided that the 2nd does not apply to weapons of war.

Proponents of gun infringement argue that a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon of war.

I've yet to see semi-automatic weapons used for war. If one were to bring handguns into that argument, that could be debatable however I'd like to see statistics on mass shootings using semi-automatic handguns.

You do realize the main US battle rifle during WW2, the M-1 Garand is a semi-automatic rifle.

Edit: The Barrett M82, standardized by the U.S. military as the M107, is a recoil-operated, semi-automatic anti-materiel sniper system developed by the American Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company. Despite its designation as an anti-materiel rifle, it is used by some armed forces as an anti-personnel system. The M107 variant is also called the Light Fifty for its .50 BMG (12.7×99mm NATO) chambering and significantly lighter weight compared to previous applications and the 15% heavier base M82 model [1] [2]. The weapon is found in two variants, the original M82A1 (and A3) and the bullpup M82A2. The M82A2 is no longer manufactured, though the XM500 can be seen as its successor.

a reply to: CharlesT

Meaning what exactly?

a reply to: JinMI

I've yet to see semi-automatic weapons used for war.

Meaning exactly what I said.

Also:

Edit: The Barrett M82, standardized by the U.S. military as the M107, is a recoil-operated, semi-automatic anti-materiel sniper system developed by the American Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company. Despite its designation as an anti-materiel rifle, it is used by some armed forces as an anti-personnel system. The M107 variant is also called the Light Fifty for its .50 BMG (12.7×99mm NATO) chambering and significantly lighter weight compared to previous applications and the 15% heavier base M82 model [1] [2]. The weapon is found in two variants, the original M82A1 (and A3) and the bullpup M82A2. The M82A2 is no longer manufactured, though the XM500 can be seen as its successor. edit on 16-3-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)

a reply to: CharlesT

Ah cool. So there is a source for a M82/M107 using in a mass shooting to justify the gap between semi automatic and weapons of war?

Semantics aren't going to help you here.

a reply to: JinMI

No semantics here. You stated what you stated and I pointed out the error. If you take offence to this little tidbit, tough tits. Go argue with your better half because I could care less.

Now watch carefully and they will ban ALL semi autos including .22 LR and all the rim fires.

Problem and a difference to Australia, the Government and Police in NZ do not have a data base of who owns what so it will be interesting to see how many people will hand them in.

While the announcement has been made, this still has to get through NZ Parliament. We have not heard from the regular gun owners yet.

Take away the guns and make everybody a target.

P

I think its weird how humans want to have their rights or lives ruled by other people. Here just take away everything I have. Tell me how I can live because I obviously have no clue. Yeah I know we need rules, because criminals always follow them.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: JinMI

No semantics here. You stated what you stated and I pointed out the error. If you take offence to this little tidbit, tough tits. Go argue with your better half because I could care less.

Offense? Heh, that's cute. You'd have to try just a little harder to get my precious feels up in a tizzy.

So your position is that a WWII era weapon was semi automatic and a specialized rifle that is currently used is semi auto, that reinforces the stance that semi auto is a weapon of war?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: infolurker

From what I understand, SCOTUS has decided that the 2nd does not apply to weapons of war.

Proponents of gun infringement argue that a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon of war.

I've yet to see semi-automatic weapons used for war. If one were to bring handguns into that argument, that could be debatable however I'd like to see statistics on mass shootings using semi-automatic handguns.

I've seen semi-automatic weapons used in war all the fricking time...

Every handgun, the Mk14, m107, ar10, svd, hk g3, m110, m1 carbine, etc and etc...

For # sake...

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: JinMI

No semantics here. You stated what you stated and I pointed out the error. If you take offence to this little tidbit, tough tits. Go argue with your better half because I could care less.

Offense? Heh, that's cute. You'd have to try just a little harder to get my precious feels up in a tizzy.

So your position is that a WWII era weapon was semi automatic and a specialized rifle that is currently used is semi auto, that reinforces the stance that semi auto is a weapon of war?

Every piece of equipment that can hurtle a projectile at an enemy is a weapon of war, or weapon of defense.

Ugh....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

In other news, to combat the rise in obesity, a call has been put out to ban forks.

I've already told you that you can make a nice bit of art with some mashed potato and a fork. What next, pencils to stop illiteracy??

When will you lot listen!!

Orf to make a nice painting with my .45.

:/

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

True on all counts.

But, for what use is a stick, primarily?

What use is a shovel, a rake, a fork.

Anything can be used as a weapon. No one is denying that. But only a weapon can be dedicated to be used as a weapon.

So tell me now, can you dig a hole, empty an area of leaves, or eat a steak, with a gun? Nerp..

Don't get me wrong.. I agree with the right to own a gun. But these equations are petty at best, and easily countered. Time to get some new material.

And I will never give up my write to use a pencil.. no matter how many memes are created.. Oo

They should add more guns not ban them! #mericuh #zealuhnd!

So New Zealand wants a police state.

Only the cops,state, and criminals will have them.

Like sheep to the slaughter.

is this really how easy that is? Duplicate what happened in Australia, and *poof*, you get the same results. It's a shame they decided to kill innocents, but I suppose as long as they got the results they were looking for, it's all good. Or was this just a random act of violence? I only ask, because if it was random, then kowtowing to the gunman's wishes, just seems a bit stupid. Will this embolden the next would be killer?

Here's the thing, and it's very simple...
Murder is already illegal.
Going on a shooting spree is already illegal.
Making one more aspect of that act illegal isn't going to do anything. Someone who decides to go on a shooting spree isn't going to think "Well, I don't care if I get in trouble for murdering 40 people, but I sure don't want to get in trouble for having this gun - I better not do it".
People like to imagine that making guns illegal will make guns disappear, and that's not how it works. If someone wants an illegal gun, they'll just buy one illegally... Kindof like how people buy illegal drugs.

What happens when someone goes on a shooting spree after the guns are banned? Will they get into super-extra trouble on top of the mass murder?