New Zealanders buying up guns as new laws proposed after Christchurch mosque shootings

a reply to: lordcomac

Did you just advocate taking "deformed kids" out and shooting them???? See this is why people like you should not be allowed access to guns. Dear lord.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Jesus you people are deluded. Yes banning guns stops mass shootings, it works. Who needs a semi automatic rifle other than a psycho looking to kill as many people as possible?

Who needs a semi automatic for a mass shooting? So then we just get rid of all guns right?

If you are a bad person, you will do bad things.

Maybe we should make killing illegal... Oh wait.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Jesus you people are deluded. Yes banning guns stops mass shootings, it works. Who needs a semi automatic rifle other than a psycho looking to kill as many people as possible?

I am going to guess you do not understand what semi-automatic means...

2

A few points need to be made here.

1. This is NZ not the US... So they never had a constitutional "right to bear arms" in the first place.

2. Owning a firearm in NZ for self defence is not considered a legally legitimate reason. So any gun restrictions should only affect hunters and sport shooters... Plus, considering NZ is considered one of the safest countries on the planet, I highly doubt there's very much people over there who even desire a firearm for self defence.

3. The Christchurch shooter wasn't even a NZ citizen, he was an Aussie...Allowing non-citizens to legally purchase & possess semi-automatic rifles seems like massive flaw in their gun laws to me, even by US standards.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Jesus you people are deluded. Yes banning guns stops mass shootings, it works. Who needs a semi automatic rifle other than a psycho looking to kill as many people as possible?

The delusion is thinking people will automatically stop killing one another if you just remove the tool. Proper vetting and regulations is the answer.

Your solution has made stabbing so common in the UK now they are talking about putting GPS devices on knives. Disarming law abiding citizens is not the answer.

Side note:
I live in the country. Bears are frequently seen on my property. When you have to walk out into the cold dark forest at 2am looking for your pup I don't take a baseball bat I assure you that.

a reply to: 727Sky

Glad to see it!

Hopefully they are buying enough of them to cash in on any potential bans - lots of money to be made, black market... gray market... internationally... who cares. Proliferation = strength in numbers.

I strongly encourage and support folks ignoring any and all gun laws, at their own personal discretion. Those laws are unenforceable - as they should be. This "pre crime" bull# doesn't fly with me.

You punish someone when they do something wrong, not for merely possessing something. Sad we have to share the same planet/oxygen as morons who actually think this way

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: a325nt
they're not willing to ban mental illness.

Lol. How do you propose we do that? It's estimated that 1 in 5 people have some kind of mental illness. Myself included. If we ban it will we all be better?

4 out of 5 of us would be.

The mosque shooting in New Zealand was organized by EU royals from the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg and all the rest of the EU anti-gun / neo-liberal / salafist establishment like Macron, Merkel, Steinmeier etc ...

In Utrecht the same people demonstrate how they fail to control their own terrorists. Now some newspapers are claiming that it wasn't a terrorist attack ... the Islamist only needed urgently to go to the toilet ... that's why he opened fire in tram in the middle of Utrecht !

FYI: I just came across this sad story of a man in New Zealand who might spend 14 years in prison, simply because he "shared" the Mosque shooting video.

Philip Neville Arps Arraigned Today: twitter.com...

It's disturbing that the leader(s) of a civilized, modern nation like New Zealand, would behave like the leaders of North Korea, or Russia!

a reply to: carewemust

Yep.. And so it begins. A woman has been arrested for commenting on face book,so has a 18yr old boy,all denied bail. Jacinda is doing all this for votes,and will ruin this country while doing it.
1984 to begin?

post removed after further thought

originally posted by: carewemust
FYI: I just came across this sad story of a man in New Zealand who might spend 14 years in prison, simply because he "shared" the Mosque shooting video.

Philip Neville Arps Arraigned Today: twitter.com...

It's disturbing that the leader(s) of a civilized, modern nation like New Zealand, would behave like the leaders of North Korea, or Russia!

As I stated in the other thread:

originally posted by: Guyfriday

Shutting down free speech by blocking videos, preventing discussions, and then finally arresting anyone the questions the official narrative as being a "Co-Conspirator". The fact that the NZ PM wore the attire of the victims, and had that gun restriction bill already to go seemed strange, and this flat out controlling the media in the name of "safety" seems that there may be more at work here then the simple protect and serve mindset.

We can only hope the it's votes their PM is going after. Because as I stated here:

originally posted by: Guyfriday

I'm wondering if this has to do with the rise in Trotskyism around the globe?

***TEXT WAS EDITED OUT, BUT IS POSTED UNDERNEATH THIS FOR READIBLITY***

Is this what is being forced on the people of New Zealand? Pushing strict rules and censorship on the people in order to get them to revolt against a Democratic System, and then swoop in with a Trotskyist styled government to replace it while the populace is in disarray? I hope not!

From: The WIKI

In 1905, Trotsky formulated his theory of permanent revolution that later became a defining characteristic of Trotskyism. Until 1905, some revolutionaries claimed that Marx's theory of history positioned that only a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to this position, it was impossible for a socialist revolution to occur in a backward, feudal country such as early 20th century Russia when it had such a small and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of permanent revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win their own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid and socialism could develop worldwide

***IMPORTANT NOTE***

I edited the above posts, since it made it easier to reread them. Since the posts were done by me, I see no other reason to address the editing.

originally posted by: a325nt

Banning guns will never solve the problem of nutters.
They'll put you in prison for owning a banned gun, but they're not willing to ban mental illness. Society is fundamentally broken because people aren't willing to accept the fact that not everyone is created equal.

Of course. But where does that end? What is the definition of "nutter"? Who is too nuts to be allowed to be free? What does it take? If you're going to pass laws against "nutters" what are they going to say? How would a law aimed at preventing a "nutter" function?

Most of these people never did anything like this before (I'm assuming 100% of them never committed mass murder before) so you would be left with trying to predict the future.

Now, when you REALLY think about it (not that I would ever suggest that anyone should ever actually use their brain here) there are relatively few mass shootings. And before you go off half-cocked, I said RELATIVELY so let that soak in for a minute. 7 billion people. How many mass shootings per year on the entire planet? Or even just in the US (the most heavily armed civilian population anywhere)? Not really that many.

Even if you take into account all the murders by firearm (even if it's just one dude shooting another dude) it's still not really that significant in the grand scheme of things. IOW, humans are not going to go extinct from gun violence anytime soon.

Anyway, I got sidetracked. There are (indisputably) a large number of people who would qualify as "nutters" (independently of how you define it) in every single country on this planet. But for the sake of argument, let's just define a "nutter" as someone who spends more than 1% of their life thinking about politics. I think that's a good start, don't you? That would make every politician a nutter right off the bat.

Anyway, we have millions and millions and millions and millions of "nutters" and yet we have relatively (there's that complicated word again, relatively) few murders. By all logic, there should be millions more murders than there actually are if just being nuts is what causes murder. How do you explain this discrepancy in your attempt to blame "# happens" on mental illness?

And how many mentally ill (however you define that) people would you need to persecute to keep any shootings at all from ever happening? Talk about hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer.

And we haven't even scratched the surface. We are not even taking into account the acts of murder and random violence where the perpetrator chooses some other instrument than a firearm. Like a bat or some other blunt object. Many of the murderers of the world are sitting in prison because they were deemed to not be insane when they were charged with deliberate and premeditated murder (which implies they knew what they were doing enough to where they could have reasonably been expected to know it was wrong).

So the legal definition of insanity has to be wrong because most of these shooters know what they're doing. They know it's wrong. It is clearly demonstrable that they understand that. They understand the consequences of what they're doing. They take great pains to be sneaky and conceal their plan until it's too late to stop them. And many of them will shoot themselves or commit suicide by cop because they don't want to be taken into custody. Because they know that what they're doing has enormous legal consequences that would suck for them. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't know what they're doing to me. So they are obviously not legally insane.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
4 out of 5 of us would be.

Classy. I have "major depressive disorder". Nothing is wrong with my life, my childhood was fantastic, and I have very few worries. I just lack the ability to be happy and want to live without medication. It's a chemical imbalance, and I'm a danger to nobody other than myself. But to you, the world is better off without me? Are my wife and children better off without me?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
4 out of 5 of us would be.

Classy. I have "major depressive disorder". Nothing is wrong with my life, my childhood was fantastic, and I have very few worries. I just lack the ability to be happy and want to live without medication. It's a chemical imbalance, and I'm a danger to nobody other than myself. But to you, the world is better off without me? Are my wife and children better off without me?

Here's the issue... my right to own firearms has zero adverse impact on someone's right to be happy and remain sane. When we start allowing someone's right to be mentally ill to adversely impact the rights of the mentally healthy, such as enacting gun control measures that effect normal people in the name of preventing the crazies from getting firearms, we are allowing the rights of some to infringe upon the rights of all. We've had ancestors fight and die to obtain and defend those rights so, yeah... I'm saying when it comes right down to it and the non-enumerated "rights" of the few begin to be used as excuses to infringe on the enumerated rights of the whole, the nation would be better off simply eradicating the few under the same logic as was used sending young men to fight and die to secure the rights in the first place.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

You're a fantastic person. Guns before the wellbeing of those born with a mental problem. Please don't breed.

What about veterans who return from war with PTSD? Execute them for the better good of #PewPew?

a reply to: LordAhriman

I never said execute or kill anyone. I also don't believe half of what is currently classified as mental illness is mental illness at all. Everybody wants to feel special and unique, so it's impossible for someone to have a couple of days out of the week where they naturally feel a bit down... that's now clinical depression. Little children aren't allowed to fidget and fuss about when adults think they should be sitting still and quiet, so the kids have ADHD now. A normal human reaction of laughter and happiness for no apparent reason on a sunny day isn't just your soul enjoying a beautiful day, you're manic.

It's bullsnip.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

I've dealt with it my entire life, starting with a suicide attempt at age 12. I'm 39 now and just sought help last year as the urge to die was overwhelming and I want to live to see my kids grow up. People like you are the ones who make it hard for people like me to seek help. It's not just a made up condition in which I feel down a couple times a week. It's deadly.

Now, back to my original question, how do you propose we ban people like me from society? I pose no harm to anyone, I've worked full-time since I was 16, I am a fantastic father of 4 who provides for the entire household with no government dime. I just have a mental illness that could be deadly to me, and only me, if I don't continue medication.

You were the one who proposed we ban mental illness. Let's hear it.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. I'm saying in the face of restriction of Rights of all versus restriction of Rights for the 1 in 5, I'm supporting restriction of Rights of the 1 in 5 rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and hosing the 4 in 5 people who aren't part of the problem.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

I just realized it wasn't your original quote. It was a325nt who said, "They'll put you in prison for owning a banned gun, but they're not willing to ban mental illness." and I asked how we ban mental illness. Then you responded that 4 out of 5 of the population would be better off if we "banned mental illness", then you proceeded to call mental illness a right... Okay?

So it wasn't your original quote, but your statements lead me to believe that you feel mental illness is a choice, and a right, and we can somehow ban it. Explain.

"When we start allowing someone's right to be mentally ill to adversely impact the rights of the mentally healthy"

Your words.