• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Zealand to Ban All Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Announces

haymarket said:
By all means, tell us about it here in the USA.
Click to expand...

I'd love hear your thoughts on how a ban on adjustable stocks and pistol grips on a rifle help the situation, and how banning of "assault weapons" make anybody safer. Seems like an empty platitude
 
jdog21 said:
I'd love hear your thoughts on how a ban on adjustable stocks and pistol grips on a rifle help the situation, and how banning of "assault weapons" make anybody safer. Seems like an empty platitude
Click to expand...

Time will tell if it does. Any society has the right to shape itself according to what the majority want keeping with the rights in the constitution.
 
haymarket said:
Time will tell if it does. Any society has the right to shape itself according to what the majority want keeping with the rights in the constitution.
Click to expand...

And what are your thoughts, do you think it helps? And how so if you do?
 
jdog21 said:
And what are your thoughts, do you think it helps? And how so if you do?
Click to expand...

I do not know. I suspect - based on other first world cultures - that less guns means less crime in society. We will see how it works out. Maybe it will - maybe it will not. I really do not know - nor does anybody else.

I base my support for gun laws on what society wants from the majority and their right to have the environment they want. Guns are part of that social environment. I do NOT base it on predictions about crime and guns.
 
HumblePi said:


New Zealand to Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Says - The New York Times[h=1]

New Zealand to Ban All Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Announces[/h]

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Thursday announced a national ban on all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.

“What we’re banning today are the things used in last Friday’s attack,” she said, adding: “It’s about all of us, it’s in the national interest and it’s about safety.”Ms. Ardern is expected to encounter little resistance in Parliament to the weapons ban.

Ms. Ardern said her goal was to eliminate from New Zealand the weapons that the killer used in Christchurch. She emphasized that it will require a mix of regulation around both firearms and ammunition.

(mine)

I knew that woman had guts. Thank God some country leaders still do! So expect tomorrow a BURST of sales in weapons here in the US because rednecks always get nervous and buy more weapons and ammo when there's a ban of any weapons anywhere. The NRA and gun shops will use their normal scare tactics and NZ propaganda on US gun lovers and do some marketing, maybe even offer discounts.
Click to expand...

good for her and the elected officials in New Zealand. Semi-automatic guns IMHO have no place in civilian life. Now in the US with it's dangerous animals maybe, but that is just maybe but no mountain lions, black bears, grizzly bears, etc. etc. etc. are there to kill you so no real need for it. I think it is a smart move to ban a gun for which no real civilian need exists. It is not like the zombie end of the world is going to start in NZ.

And as long as it is democratically decided, I don't see the reason why it should not be made into the law of the NZ land.
 
PoppyCock said:
a common pattern on the road to an all out ban. Next time a Ruger 10/22 (lets say) is used, they will ban semi auto sporting guns, and so it will go.
Click to expand...

A 10/22 and a few dollars worth of bolt ons converts the most common training rifle into an evil killing machine. Two more of the following. That's all it takes.
 
haymarket said:
I do not know. I suspect - based on other first world cultures - that less guns means less crime in society. We will see how it works out. Maybe it will - maybe it will not. I really do not know - nor does anybody else.

I base my support for gun laws on what society wants from the majority and their right to have the environment they want. Guns are part of that social environment. I do NOT base it on predictions about crime and guns.
Click to expand...
Banning a style of stock or banning a style of grip on the rifle doesn't mean their are less guns in a society. They will have the same gun just with out those features. So why do it?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Nobody in Europe or New Zealand is taking your tin foil hat or your automatic weapons away from you Americans, don't you understand?



Stop posting hyperbole for the American NRA types on here, I'm not an American. Where am I trying to force sensible gun laws / lifestyle choices on American society? Until your society sees and understands the damage and loss of life caused by your 2nd Amendment nobody is taking your semiautomatic guns away from you.
Click to expand...

You brought up the NRA. I was pointing out that our socialist politicians here were the first ones to take a tragedy from another country, and blame it on the NRA. But, you are right about one thing. As long as the 2nd amendment exists, the U.S. government will never be able to do what NZ just did. The 2nd amendment was penned by men that knew the importance of an armed citizenry, and the danger of a tyrannical government with a standing army. They experienced it first hand. Of course, since your post was just an unimaginative attempted insult, don't bother unless you're interested in an honest exchange of ideas that may contribute to the discussion in a positive way. :peace
 
jdog21 said:
Banning a style of stock or banning a style of grip on the rifle doesn't mean their are less guns in a society. They will have the same gun just with out those features. So why do it?
Click to expand...

You do it to help create the environment the majority of Americans wants to live with in accordance with the rights in the Constitution.
 
jimbo said:
A 10/22 and a few dollars worth of bolt ons converts the most common training rifle into an evil killing machine. Two more of the following. That's all it takes.
Click to expand...

I can remember the "Saturday night specials" were "the problem." "We're not talking about your well made products , or your rifles and shotguns for God's sake"...… That was in the 70s. lol They're so predictable.
 
HumblePi said:


New Zealand to Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Says - The New York Times[h=1]

New Zealand to Ban All Semiautomatic Guns, Jacinda Ardern Announces[/h]

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Thursday announced a national ban on all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.

“What we’re banning today are the things used in last Friday’s attack,” she said, adding: “It’s about all of us, it’s in the national interest and it’s about safety.”Ms. Ardern is expected to encounter little resistance in Parliament to the weapons ban.

Ms. Ardern said her goal was to eliminate from New Zealand the weapons that the killer used in Christchurch. She emphasized that it will require a mix of regulation around both firearms and ammunition.

(mine)

I knew that woman had guts. Thank God some country leaders still do! So expect tomorrow a BURST of sales in weapons here in the US because rednecks always get nervous and buy more weapons and ammo when there's a ban of any weapons anywhere. The NRA and gun shops will use their normal scare tactics and NZ propaganda on US gun lovers and do some marketing, maybe even offer discounts.
Click to expand...

Brain dead post of the month.

Chock full of ignorance & stupidity.

You nanny state utopia will never happen.
 
New Zealand--smart people.

USA--the Land of the Stupid
 
mrdeltoid said:
I can remember the "Saturday night specials" were "the problem." "We're not talking about your well made products , or your rifles and shotguns for God's sake"...… That was in the 70s. lol They're so predictable.
Click to expand...

Before that it was zip guns. A block of wood, an old inner tube, a nail, and a broken off car antenna, you had yourself a workable firearm.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You do it to help create the environment the majority of Americans wants to live with in accordance with the rights in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you want to ban 'assault weapons' so that americans are used to living in an environment were they are used to having small parts of guns being made illegal for them to own??
 
RetiredUSN said:
Brain dead post of the month.

Chock full of ignorance & stupidity.

You nanny state utopia will never happen.
Click to expand...

Even their own post contradicts itself. First it's all semi auto's, then it's military style semis. I don't even know what a military style semi auto is. The military declined the AR 15 in favor of select fire or 3 round bursts. Maybe it has something to do with skeery looking semi auto
 
jdog21 said:
So you are saying you want to ban 'assault weapons' so that americans are used to living in an environment were they are used to having small parts of guns being made illegal for them to own??
Click to expand...

What I am saying is the majority of Americans have a right to create a society in keeping with the US Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
What I am saying is the majority of Americans have a right to create a society in keeping with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

So the majority say they want to outlaw the color red do to all these mass shootings, anyone caught with red clothing, red cars, red phone cases etc. will have to turn them in or they will be arrested. The majority said so, so it now should happen? Keeping in line with your reasoning it should.
 
jdog21 said:
So the majority say they want to outlaw the color red do to all these mass shootings, anyone caught with red clothing, red cars, red phone cases etc. will have to turn them in or they will be arrested. The majority said so, so it now should happen? Keeping in line with your reasoning it should.
Click to expand...

What does our Constitution say about the color RED?
 
haymarket said:
I do not know why you are lying;

Here is what I asked you about your statement #1 from post 193 and your reply to me
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what you asked, and what you quote was part of my reply--the rest of which, that you did not quote, was an indication that your question is irrelevant. Your question would be relevant if my claim were:

1. Asymmetric warfare has worked in contemporary America.

But I never claimed 1. I don't claim 1. Nor do I need to claim 1 to make my point. Your question, and my response to it, are irrelevant as arguments or evidence against my position.

My actual claim, again, was this:

2. History shows you are wrong. Small groups armed with small arms have overcome much larger and more well-armed groups by practicing asymmetric warfare. That's been the case frequently enough to call into question your assertion. At the very least, there's no good reason to believe it.

Nowhere in 2 do I say that asymmetric warfare has worked in the contemporary US. I merely said that it has worked--and the examples I had previously given were Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam--none of which are in the contemporary US. To state the point differently, it is:

3. That asymmetric warfare has worked elsewhere in the world fairly often is reason enough to believe that it could work here in the US.

You're arguing against 1--a claim I have never made. Argue against 2 or 3--I take them to be saying basically the same things--if you can. What you're doing now is straw manning my argument.
 
haymarket said:
It is in Amendment 2.
Click to expand...

This Amendment 2?

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.

Can you point out the exact part?
 
jimbo said:
This Amendment 2?

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.

Can you point out the exact part?
Click to expand...

That is the exact part. It is only a single sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom