The firearm thread

[pritch]

Not only does TDL claim to know more about security than the FBI


To be fair the average receptionist might know more than the FBI. Although to be fair it was probably the Secret Service, but they regard themselves as the cream of the crop, despite the recent-ish stories about drunkeness, prostitutes, missed trespassers in the White House etc etc.

Last weekend a woman, a Chinese national, fronted at Mar a Largo, Trump's "summer whitehouse" telling the Secret Service she was there to use the pool. They let her in. When she got to the Reception desk the receptionist was not happy with her story and phoned the Secret Service. When they spoke to her the second time her story was considered suspect. She had no swimming gear, but she did have four cell phones, a laptop, an external hard drive, and a thumb drive containing malware, among other things.

Yes, Trump was in residence.

[husaberg]

To be fair the average receptionist might know more than the FBI. Although to be fair it was probably the Secret Service, but they regard themselves as the cream of the crop, despite the recent-ish stories about drunkeness, prostitutes, missed trespassers in the White House etc etc.

Last weekend a woman, a Chinese national, fronted at Mar a Largo, Trump's "summer whitehouse" telling the Secret Service she was there to use the pool. They let her in. When she got to the Reception desk the receptionist was not happy with her story and phoned the Secret Service. When they spoke to her the second time her story was considered suspect. She had no swimming gear, but she did have four cell phones, a laptop, an external hard drive, and a thumb drive containing malware, among other things.

Yes, Trump was in residence.

To be fair, there maybe presidential orders to let in some people who bit broad physical descriptions.
I commented on the poor standard of security the Secret service used letting in someone with trump enter through the outside door on the limo the other day, when Trump lost the Limo i think you posted it.
I guess the staff are a reflection of their management.

[TheDemonLord]

No i know what loopholes were there and how thr police wanted them shut and were constantly challanging the importation of AR15's
i also know as well as you do that a a cat licence holder could purchase alternate large capiscty mags for a AR15. if you cant see and admit that is a loophole you are even dimmer than i expected.

I've repeatedly said that removing the loophole that allowed for the purchase of large capacity magazines that are patterned for a Semi-Auto lower receiver should be closed. I've bought Magazines for my Rifle, all of them hold 5 rounds.

If that was the law change, I'd be happy with it.
If it also required additional oversight or vetting of potential Applicants, I'd also be happy with it.

But it's neither of those things - it's "Ban everything that looks scary".


Really, the leader of a gun lobby doesnt like the rules that's incredible,but unlike you he doesnt say it would or it does he says it could.
Also is that isn't it odd that wasn't contained in the submission they put to the select committee in 2016. but what was, was stuff cut copied and pasted direct from the NRA in the USA.
unless all of a sudden in NZ we often use the term varmint. Its not a professional organisation is it nor are they exactly without bias.
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d

So you were happy to quote them as an Authority when they made a point you thought agreed with your rubbish (whilst ignoring that it was made prior the release of the law change) and now they are saying something you don't like they aren't credible? Funny that...

The problem of 'Could' is because of the vagueness of the legislation. As it is written, the police could declare any Sight (Optic, Iron, Holo, red-dot, NV, Thermal etc.) as a Prohibited Item since all of them can fit onto a Prohibited Firearm and Sights are an integral part of all Firearms. That makes all sights in NZ potentially Illegal to own without a Cat-E Licence. All Firearms have Sights.

Do you understand how that works?


Still Doesnt say banned by the law
Nor does it ban sport shooting.

Can you point to the legislation to show that Sport Shooting is a valid exemption for owning a Prohibited Item or Rifle? Cause if you can't (and we both know you can't, since you've already quoted the relevant parts which state the valid exceptions) - then you are wrong.


So the gun lobby wants more money
Maybe they should look for some Russian donors like the NRA does to help fill its coffers.

No, they don't want more money. People like me want to be compensated for what is being taken from us at gunpoint.

Do you want to sell me your house for $5? If the answer is no, then you are no different from me. With the wording of the Legislation as is, all ancillary items are now prohibited and they need to be compensated.

The removal of Sport-Shooting as a reason to own E-Cat Rifles means that all of the high-end competition stuff (which can easily be $10k+ in a Rifle) is also now prohibited.

Add in the restrictions of ITAR, it means that NZ Businesses with stock cannot onsell them elsewhere.


Really

The same firearms as before just more restricted in who can own what based on licence endorsement.

The same Firearms - except all the ones being banned - You are contradicting yourself. I've acknowledged they've removed the phrase 'Military Ammunition' - doesn't change that this was what was in the first draft, nor does it change the fact that any Ammunition can be declared prohibited with no democratic process.

[husaberg]

I've repeatedly said that removing the loophole that allowed for the purchase of large capacity magazines that are patterned for a Semi-Auto lower receiver should be closed. I've bought Magazines for my Rifle, all of them hold 5 rounds.

If that was the law change, I'd be happy with it.
If it also required additional oversight or vetting of potential Applicants, I'd also be happy with it.

But it's neither of those things - it's "Ban everything that looks scary".
Thats tough for you then, because that is not whats going to happen, nor is it what happened in Australia after Port Arthur.
You don't seem to associate that when people use a weapon such as a AR15 to shoot and wound multiple people, while thay are clearly committing a crime.
They are also using the AR15 for its only solely designed purpose, TThe exact same one that Eugene stoner designed it for.
Killing and wounding people as fast and as many as possible. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do as cheaply and as easily as possible.
The public at large does not seem to support your view either.



So you were happy to quote them as an Authority when they made a point you thought agreed with your rubbish (whilst ignoring that it was made prior the release of the law change) and now they are saying something you don't like they aren't credible? Funny that...
I only used their figures, as they were bound to be over the top as they were trying to make out any change will cost to much
But in case you missed it the majority of NZ supports this move the Parliament supports this move.
the cost of doing this has been deemed as irrelevant when it comes to protecting people in NZ. its also a one off cost.
The ongoing costs of the database etc will likely be covered in increased licence costs to cover the expenses. Thata only fair.


The problem of 'Could' is because of the vagueness of the legislation. As it is written, the police could declare any Sight (Optic, Iron, Holo, red-dot, NV, Thermal etc.) as a Prohibited Item since all of them can fit onto a Prohibited Firearm and Sights are an integral part of all Firearms. That makes all sights in NZ potentially Illegal to own without a Cat-E Licence. All Firearms have Sights.

Do you understand how that works?
Clearly you dont police cant declare anything as being legal that is not written into law.
ANyone who objects to the crown in NZ can challenge the interpretation just as Gun city did to bring in the AR15's used by the CHCH terrorist.
If you actually understood what was written and i posted it plain as day what you are implying is again complete and utter nonsense.


Can you point to the legislation to show that Sport Shooting is a valid exemption for owning a Prohibited Item or Rifle? Cause if you can't (and we both know you can't, since you've already quoted the relevant parts which state the valid exceptions) - then you are wrong.

The draft bill does not ban any sport it merely defines who can operate what weapons and what weapons are what class and what parts are allowed to be purchased and sold by what endorsement If you cant understand this this is your problem.


No, they don't want more money. People like me want to be compensated for what is being taken from us at gunpoint.
Though, thats life get over it. nothing is being taken from you at gunpoint. You are kidding if you expect to be paid for your emotional attachment or your loss of ability to play bang bang.


Do you want to sell me your house for $5? If the answer is no, then you are no different from me. With the wording of the Legislation as is, all ancillary items are now prohibited and they need to be compensated.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times unless its an integral part to the operation of the Prohibited item its not a prohibited item.
I also know you have unrealistic expectations as for one you claimed your second hand firearm should be worth what you paid for it. You are to emotional to even realize this.
You are also far to hysterical and are unable to act in a reasonable manner. As you dont understand what something is worth or what is fair or reasonable. I actually have to start questioning if you should have ever owned such firearms in the first place.
Also if we couple that with the thoughts and views expressed on KB previously, about right wing extremism and islamic people and attacks on them plus you imediate comments after the atttack, its becoming clear that if any watch list that existed that included the CHCH terrorist should have also included you.


The removal of Sport-Shooting as a reason to own E-Cat Rifles means that all of the high-end competition stuff (which can easily be $10k+ in a Rifle) is also now prohibited.
Only probltlem is Sport shooting was not deemed a valid reason E to own a MSSA in the E cat endorsement previously.


The same Firearms - except all the ones being banned - You are contradicting yourself. I've acknowledged they've removed the phrase 'Military Ammunition' - doesn't change that this was what was in the first draft, nor does it change the fact that any Ammunition can be declared prohibited with no democratic process.
No the bill defines what weapons and what parts fall under what category. plus what is allowed to be purchased under what licience or not.
I hate to point this out to you in a democracy an individual doesn't get to vore on each law change or amendment.
The draft bill doesnt say what you said it said its that simple, you posted a heap of crap. You still are you will likely do so in the future.

[TheDemonLord]

Thats tough for you then, because that is not whats going to happen,

Exactly - well thought out gun legislation that actually deals with the problem isn't going to happen.
Emotionally pandering to the ignorant masses is what is happening.


You don't seem to associate that when people use a weapon such as a AR15 to shoot and wound multiple people, while thay are clearly committing a crime.
They are also using the AR15 for its only solely designed purpose, TThe exact same one that Eugene stoner designed it for.
Killing and wounding people as fast and as many as possible. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do as cheaply and as easily as possible.
The public at large does not seem to support your view either.

So, how do you explain the nearly 30 years in NZ, where people have had ARs (remember, it was designed in the 1960s) with no Mass Shootings? If an AR can only be used to shoot people and lots of people have ARs - how do you explain that?

Unless, of course, all of those people used them for lawful purposes...


I only used their figures, as they were bound to be over the top as they were trying to make out any change will cost to much
But in case you missed it the majority of NZ supports this move the Parliament supports this move.
the cost of doing this has been deemed as irrelevant when it comes to protecting people in NZ. its also a one off cost.
The ongoing costs of the database etc will likely be covered in increased licence costs to cover the expenses. Thata only fair.

Protecting NZ people? Has there been a change in the Police Vetting procedures? No? So someone like the Terrorist could still access a Firearm? It won't do SHIT for safety.

Then you have to contend with the fact that other items (Trucks, Cars, Planes, Chemicals etc. etc.) have all been successfully used in Terrorist attacks that killed more people - you going to ban those too to make NZ 'safe'?

You used their figures deceptively, When it was just the Semi-Autos and no components, the Governments estimate was wrong by a factor of about 5 (and that was using some exceptionally conservative numbers) - now we know the details of the Ban, that figure ballooned to over a Billion - whereas the Government figures are still laughably low.


Clearly you dont police cant declare anything as being legal that is not written into law.
ANyone who objects to the crown in NZ can challenge the interpretation just as Gun city did to bring in the AR15's used by the CHCH terrorist.
If you actually understood what was written and i posted it plain as day what you are implying is again complete and utter nonsense.

Except the Law as written could mean Any Sight. Because of exceptionally sloppy wording. I'll spell it out again: A sight is an Integral part of Any firearm. Any Integral part of a Prohibited firearm (semi-auto) is now a Prohibited Item, with Sights specifically named. Since any sight can be fitted to any prohibited firearm: ANY SIGHT CAN BE CONSIDERED A PROHIBITED ITEM.

Now, if the wording was changed to draw some very clear distinctions (ya'know - if it was written by people who understood firearms) then we can get passed this point.


The draft bill does not ban any sport it merely defines who can operate what weapons and what weapons are what class and what parts are allowed to be purchased and sold by what endorsement If you cant understand this this is your problem.

Yes, and people who used to be able to operate those Firearms now have their exemption revoked. If you can't understand THIS then it's your problem.


Though, thats life get over it. nothing is being taken from you at gunpoint. You are kidding if you expect to be paid for your emotional attachment or your loss of ability to play bang bang.

What happens if I don't hand in my Rifle? Do the Police show up? If I refuse to comply - what happens next? That's right - the Armed Offenders squad.

But prove me wrong - sell me your house for $5 - afterall "You are kidding if you expect to be paid for your emotional attachment to your house."

Not to mention that the whole point of the buyback is to encourage compliance - if people get low-balled, do you think that will encourage them to comply?



As has been pointed out to you numerous times unless its an integral part to the operation of the Prohibited item its not a prohibited item.

If you are trying to claim that, then NO sight makes a Rifle Semi-Automatic. So why include it? Also - the Legislation doesn't specify 'operation' - so stop lying. As I keep explaining the wording is so sloppy that it encompasses any sight.



I also know you have unrealistic expectations as for one you claimed your second hand firearm should be worth what you paid for it. You are to emotional to even realize this.
You are also far to hysterical and are unable to act in a reasonable manner. As you dont understand what something is worth or what is fair or reasonable. I actually have to start questioning if you should have ever owned such firearms in the first place.

It's had less than 200 rounds through it, that's pretty much brand new. I expect to be paid accordingly. Forcing someone to hand over private property and not paying them properly for that is a Crime.


Also if we couple that with the thoughts and views expressed on KB previously, about right wing extremism and islamic people and attacks on them plus you imediate comments after the atttack, its becoming clear that if any watch list that existed that included the CHCH terrorist should have also included you.

Keep dreaming. If you can't distinguish between being critical of the Qu'ran and the extremist strains of Islam with terrorism, then you are using the same brush the Terrorist used when he committed his act.


Only probltlem is Sport shooting was not deemed a valid reason E to own a MSSA in the E cat endorsement previously.

Except for all those E-Cat licence holders whose reason for owning was sport shooting... Fuckwit.


No the bill defines what weapons and what parts fall under what category. plus what is allowed to be purchased under what licience or not.

It really doesn't, because the wording is so broad and nebulus is could mean anything - see the comments from COLFO.


I hate to point this out to you in a democracy an individual doesn't get to vore on each law change or amendment.
The draft bill doesnt say what you said it said its that simple, you posted a heap of crap. You still are you will likely do so in the future.

I'll remember that next time you champion a Minority cause (for example, Gay rights or Trans rights or similar) and I'll use the same standard you've used - that Tyranny by the Majority against the Minority is just fine.

[Grumph]

Excessive use of the multi-quote button should be a crime. I'd like to see that limited to 5 shots please, Mods.

For once, like it or not, gun lovers, looks like the public will get what we want. Hard cheese if you have to surrender something.

[jasonu]

What happens if I don't hand in my Rifle? Do the Police show up? If I refuse to comply - what happens next? That's right - the Armed Offenders squad.

.

They'll show up at your house loooooooong before they try to get the gang guns.

[TheDemonLord]

Excessive use of the multi-quote button should be a crime. I'd like to see that limited to 5 shots please, Mods.

For once, like it or not, gun lovers, looks like the public will get what we want. Hard cheese if you have to surrender something.

Just remember that if/when they come for something you like.

Be very wary of the Standards you set for others, lest they be used against you.

[TheDemonLord]

They'll show up at your house loooooooong before they try to get the gang guns.

The same Gangs that publicly admitted to owning illegal firearms and publicly admitted they wouldn't hand them back.

Yes, The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't tragic.

[husaberg]

The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't tragic.

Its it be as tragic as you losing the ability to play rambo.
PS third times acharm.

2C Meaning of prohibited part
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, prohibited part means—
(a)a part of a prohibited firearm:
(b)a component that can be applied to enable, or take significant steps towards enabling, a firearm to be fired with, or near to, a semi-automatic or automatic action.


They'll show up at your house loooooooong before they try to get the gang guns.
2010
1146 illegal guns seized
They got something like 6000 gun off criminals in the last few years.

2017
557 guns have been seized in Christchurch since January 1. Of those, 219 were due to criminal offences and 138 were destructions, some of which were handed in voluntarily. Sixty-three involved family harm incidents where police decided to take guns from the property.
In america they give them back afterwards just like they did to the North Hollywood shootout bank robbers aye.

[TheDemonLord]

Its it be as tragic as you losing the ability to play rambo.
PS third times acharm.

So why are Sights or Suppressors included? Neither of those components have an impact on the Action of a Firearm. A Suppresor or a Sight cannot make a Rifle Semi-Automatic or Fully-Automatic.

This is the problem, the wording is TERRIBLE, which you refuse to admit. That Terrible wording is why this is Bad legislation, even if you agree with the Ban of Semi-Autos.

If that was the goal, then you'd only specify components which actually affected the Action of a Firearm - but that's not what we've got... We've got a wording which paraphrased is 'Ban everything that looks Scary'

[husaberg]

So why are Sights or Suppressors included? Neither of those components have an impact on the Action of a Firearm. A Suppresor or a Sight cannot make a Rifle Semi-Automatic or Fully-Automatic.

This is the problem, the wording is TERRIBLE, which you refuse to admit. That Terrible wording is why this is Bad legislation, even if you agree with the Ban of Semi-Autos.

If that was the goal, then you'd only specify components which actually affected the Action of a Firearm - but that's not what we've got... We've got a wording which paraphrased is 'Ban everything that looks Scary'
The problem is it doesnt say what would suit you for it to say and you are steadfastly refusing to see logic.
Look i can't make you understand, as you are behaving in a hysterical manner but i have given you what is in the act the PARTS THAT MAKE UP AN AR15 or similar are included when they are part and only PART OF WHAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO ASSEMBLE A ND OPERATE A FUNCTIONAL working AR15 or similar. This is clearly to stop people selling parts of a prohibited weapon in pieces to a A class licence holder.

[Katman]

Verbal ping-pong played by two retards.

[jasonu]

In america they give them back afterwards just like they did to the North Hollywood shootout bank robbers aye.

Woshu talkin bout Willis?

[husaberg]

Verbal ping-pong played by two retards.

Cool story. That pic i posted the other day of you following around and stalking me like a love sick puppy has nearly go a hundred views already cheers.:yes:
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/186796-Desperately-seeking-husabergs-attention?p=1131129061#post1131129061

[husaberg]

Woshu talkin bout Willis?


On July 20, 1993, Phillips and Matasareanu robbed an armored car outside a branch of FirstBank in Littleton, Colorado. On October 29, they were arrested in Glendale, northeast of Los Angeles, for speeding. A subsequent search of their vehicle—after Phillips surrendered with a concealed weapon—found two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, more than 1,600 rounds of 7.62×39mm rifle ammunition, 1,200 rounds of 9×19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates.[ Initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery,both served one hundred days in jail and were placed on three years' probation. After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them, except for the confiscated firearms and explosives.

My memory is even most of the guns were returned.
Watch the video or the movie

[jasonu]

My memory is even most of the guns were returned.
Watch the video or the movie

So its not true and you are just making shit up. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Katman]

That pic i posted the other day of you following around and stalking me like a love sick puppy has nearly go a hundred views already cheers.

Stunning effort.

[husaberg]

Going by what you just quoted, your memory is incorrect.
I reailse that thats why i added what my recollection was.
That still means they returened the vests scanner and ammunition and released them after 100 days.

Stunning effort.
little effort was needed to be expended in making you look foolish.
look at another 50 views
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/186796-Desperately-seeking-husabergs-attention?p=1131129061#post1131129061

[FJRider]

Both. If it is law it should be written water tight or at least close to it. This is far from that standard.

How it is written ... means both law enforcement and the general public ... might get their chance to prove themselves correct in a court of law.

[Delerium]

Thats tough for you then, because that is not whats going to happen, nor is it what happened in Australia after Port Arthur.
You don't seem to associate that when people use a weapon such as a AR15 to shoot and wound multiple people, while thay are clearly committing a crime.
They are also using the AR15 for its only solely designed purpose, TThe exact same one that Eugene stoner designed it for.
Killing and wounding people as fast and as many as possible. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do as cheaply and as easily as possible.
The public at large does not seem to support your view either.



I only used their figures, as they were bound to be over the top as they were trying to make out any change will cost to much
But in case you missed it the majority of NZ supports this move the Parliament supports this move.
the cost of doing this has been deemed as irrelevant when it comes to protecting people in NZ. its also a one off cost.
The ongoing costs of the database etc will likely be covered in increased licence costs to cover the expenses. Thata only fair.


Clearly you dont police cant declare anything as being legal that is not written into law.
ANyone who objects to the crown in NZ can challenge the interpretation just as Gun city did to bring in the AR15's used by the CHCH terrorist.
If you actually understood what was written and i posted it plain as day what you are implying is again complete and utter nonsense.



The draft bill does not ban any sport it merely defines who can operate what weapons and what weapons are what class and what parts are allowed to be purchased and sold by what endorsement If you cant understand this this is your problem.


Though, thats life get over it. nothing is being taken from you at gunpoint. You are kidding if you expect to be paid for your emotional attachment or your loss of ability to play bang bang.


As has been pointed out to you numerous times unless its an integral part to the operation of the Prohibited item its not a prohibited item.
I also know you have unrealistic expectations as for one you claimed your second hand firearm should be worth what you paid for it. You are to emotional to even realize this.
You are also far to hysterical and are unable to act in a reasonable manner. As you dont understand what something is worth or what is fair or reasonable. I actually have to start questioning if you should have ever owned such firearms in the first place.
Also if we couple that with the thoughts and views expressed on KB previously, about right wing extremism and islamic people and attacks on them plus you imediate comments after the atttack, its becoming clear that if any watch list that existed that included the CHCH terrorist should have also included you.


Only probltlem is Sport shooting was not deemed a valid reason E to own a MSSA in the E cat endorsement previously.


No the bill defines what weapons and what parts fall under what category. plus what is allowed to be purchased under what licience or not.
I hate to point this out to you in a democracy an individual doesn't get to vore on each law change or amendment.
The draft bill doesnt say what you said it said its that simple, you posted a heap of crap. You still are you will likely do so in the future.


You're full of shit

[husaberg]

You're full of shit
Thats nice, were you unable to refute what was written, but suddenly overcome with emotion and felt the need to share anyway.
Weren't you the guy that used to wrist off to Helen Clark pics?

maybe you ought to listen to your own advice

Oi, dick head. post some evidence or fuck off.

[Katman]

Weren't you the guy that used to wrist off to Helen Clark pics?

Weren't you the guy who started this fucking embarrassment?

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/162258-Flirty-Friday

[husaberg]

Weren't you the guy who started this fucking embarrassment?

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/162258-Flirty-Friday

Touched a nerve did I
Maybe you just need some alternative fuel.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels
WHy are we not driving around i coffee powered cars yet.
For a guy that claims to be a mechanic you arevery dm when it comes to how a internal combustion engine works.

[Katman]

Touched a nerve did I
Maybe you just need some alternative fuel.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels
WHy are we not driving around i coffee powered cars yet.
For a guy that claims to be a mechanic you arevery dm when it comes to how a internal combustion engine works.

The major difference being that I don't feel any embarrassment whatsoever from that thread.

Can you say the same for your 'Flirty Friday' cry for attention?

[husaberg]

The major difference being that I don't feel any embarrassment whatsoever from that thread.

Can you say the same for your 'Flirty Friday' cry for attention?

Of course why woukd a bike mechanic fee embarrassed about thinking a otto cycle engine would be able to round on Coffee grounds due to a secret process you two can buy for only a few thousand dollars.
Then telling heaps of people it was a real deal thing that big oil wa trying to keep under wraps.
Tell us all more about this modern day Nikola tesla and how the government tried to torture him by removing his teeth
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels

[Katman]

Of course why woukd a bike mechanic fee embarrassed about thinking a otto cycle engine would be able to round on Coffee grounds due to a secret process you two can buy for only a few thousand dollars.

Where did you get coffee grounds from?

[husaberg]

Where did you get coffee grounds from?
From coffee beans that are ground then used to make coffee.
From the claims of the moronic con that you fell for.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/oklahoma-survivalist-claims-motor-will-run-anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FblcOKur8w

[TheDemonLord]

The problem is it doesnt say what would suit you for it to say and you are steadfastly refusing to see logic.
Look i can't make you understand, as you are behaving in a hysterical manner but i have given you what is in the act the PARTS THAT MAKE UP AN AR15 or similar are included when they are part and only PART OF WHAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO ASSEMBLE A ND OPERATE A FUNCTIONAL working AR15 or similar. This is clearly to stop people selling parts of a prohibited weapon in pieces to a A class licence holder.

So, why include Suppressors or Sights?

Especially when both items are named SPECIFICALLY.

You can build an AR without a Suppressor or a Sight.

However, the problem is the wording - since a Sight is considered an Integral part of any Firearm (Aiming is kinda of important - Identify your target beyond all doubt, be aware of your firing zone etc.) and any sight can fit an AR, Any sight is illegal.

You still haven't provided a Suppressor that can turn a Rifle into a Semi or fully-automatic Firearm. Which means the Wording of the Law is demonstrably piss-poor.

And the funny part is - if you want to stop people from building a functional AR:

Upper Receiver.
Lower Receiver.
Gas Ported Barrel.
Gas Block.
Gas Tube.
Bolt Carrier Group.
Buffer tube.
Buffer.
Recoil Spring.
Trigger group.

That's the absolute bare minimum to build an AR that will discharge a round. Remove any of those components, the Rifle will not function as a Semi-Auto. If you want to generalise it for any semi-auto rifle:

Upper Receiver.
Lower Receiver.
Gas System (any component of).
Bolt Carrier Group.
Recoil System (any component of).
Trigger group patterened for a Semi-Auto lower receiver.

But I'll repeat - that's not what written - they are including Buttstocks, Suppressors, Sights etc. Everything that just looks Scary.

[husaberg]

So, why include Suppressors or Sights?

Especially when both items are named SPECIFICALLY.

You can build an AR without a Suppressor or a Sight.

However, the problem is the wording - since a Sight is considered an Integral part of any Firearm (Aiming is kinda of important - Identify your target beyond all doubt, be aware of your firing zone etc.) and any sight can fit an AR, Any sight is illegal.

You still haven't provided a Suppressor that can turn a Rifle into a Semi or fully-automatic Firearm. Which means the Wording of the Law is demonstrably piss-poor.

And the funny part is - if you want to stop people from building a functional AR:

Upper Receiver.
Lower Receiver.
Gas Ported Barrel.
Gas Block.
Gas Tube.
Bolt Carrier Group.
Buffer tube.
Buffer.
Recoil Spring.
Trigger group.

That's the absolute bare minimum to build an AR that will discharge a round. Remove any of those components, the Rifle will not function as a Semi-Auto. If you want to generalise it for any semi-auto rifle:

Upper Receiver.
Lower Receiver.
Gas System (any component of).
Bolt Carrier Group.
Recoil System (any component of).
Trigger group patterened for a Semi-Auto lower receiver.

But I'll repeat - that's not what written - they are including Buttstocks, Suppressors, Sights etc. Everything that just looks Scary.

You do realise there arte other Semi autos other than AR aye?:msn-wink:
You also realise i dont have to provide you with detials about buggar all for claims i never amde buyt you keep trying to infer i did? well its obvious you dont.:2thumbsup

[TheDemonLord]

You do realise there arte other Semi autos other than AR aye?:msn-wink:

If only...


if you want to generalise it for any semi-auto rifle:



You also realise i dont have to provide you with detials about buggar all for claims i never amde buyt you keep trying to infer i did? well its obvious you dont.:2thumbsup

I realize you can't provide me with details that I asked for, because they don't exist, because you have no clue as to what you are on about. Just like the Politicians and Lawyers who drafted this bill.

That was the whole point of asking for them - thank you for confirming my point.

[Katman]

From coffee beans that are ground then used to make coffee.
From the claims of the moronic con that you fell for.

Dude, the coffee grounds had nothing to do with it.

It was a joke, as in needing coffee to kick start your morning.

[husaberg]

If only...

I realize you can't provide me with details that I asked for, because they don't exist, because you have no clue as to what you are on about. Just like the Politicians and Lawyers who drafted this bill.

That was the whole point of asking for them - thank you for confirming my point.

its pretty funny that you keep suggesting I should provide you with the details to justify something i never said full stop. do you need a hint why?

[husaberg]

Dude, the coffee grounds had nothing to do with it.

It was a joke, as in needing coffee to kick start your morning.
Sure sure........

[Katman]

Sure sure........

Did you truly think the video was trying to suggest the motor was running on coffee grounds???

:killingme

Fucking priceless!!!

[husaberg]

Dude, the coffee grounds had nothing to do with it.

It was a joke, as in needing coffee to kick start your morning.

The whole thread about the geet engine you posted was a joke it was a con that you spread arround, Yet you claim to be a bike mechanic
Bo ammount of you attempting to wriggle out will ever work.
341479


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FblcOKur8w
Tell us all more about the transmuting and elements that we dont know that eist that are in his reactor.

[Katman]

Tell us all more about the transmuting and elements that we dont know that eist that are in his reactor.

No please, tell us more about the coffee grounds.

:killingme

[husaberg]

No please, tell us more about the coffee grounds.

:killingme


The whole thread about the geet engine you posted was a joke it was a con that you spread arround, Yet you claim to be a bike mechanic
Bo amount of you attempting to wriggle out will ever work.
I would like to say it was the most stupid thing you posted on the internet, but the laws of probability lead me to suggest you have posted even more stupid stuff in the past
341479


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FblcOKur8w
Tell us all more about the transmuting and elements that we dont know that exist that are in his reactor.

here is the video you posted on theirst page were he says it will run on anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3HHThgm6nY

[Katman]

here is the video you posted on theirst page were he says it will run on anything

Dude, fuck off back to that Alternative Fuels thread you so love quoting and have a closer look at post #10.

Do you see coffee grounds mentioned anywhere there?

[husaberg]

Dude, fuck off back to that Alternative Fuels thread you so love quoting and have a closer look at post #10.

Do you see coffee grounds mentioned anywhere there?

The geet engine is a scam its a well known scam that you would seem to admit even now.
remember how i said it wasnt the most stupid thing you ever said this one is in the top ten

See, that's what makes you a fucking moron.
What the fuck has him being sent to a nuthouse have to do with the theory of what we're discussing?


Coffee grounds is mentioned multiple times despite your protests.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels?p=1130863761#post1130863761
what does this video say 80% gasolene 20% soda pop and cofee grounds.
2,47seconds

https://youtu.be/Xk7Y7NippQ4?t=167

[Laava]

Can someone please post some pictures of lesbians? Where's Madness at?

[TheDemonLord]

its pretty funny that you keep suggesting I should provide you with the details to justify something i never said full stop. do you need a hint why?

Well, either the Legislation is perfectly written and so you should be able to provide the examples.

OR.

It's terribly written and you will be unable to provide the examples asked for.

Seeing as you are refusing to provide the details....

[husaberg]

Well, either the Legislation is perfectly written and so you should be able to provide the examples.
OR.
It's terribly written and you will be unable to provide the examples asked for.
Seeing as you are refusing to provide the details....

Provide details of a claim i never made, exactly how does none do such a thing in the land you inhabit?
Do i need to shoot a unicorn or fart in your general direction or what?
Here is a hint i dont need to provide you with anything, but i will let out a sigh of relief when you lose your AR10 bang bang.

[TheDemonLord]

Provide details of a claim i never made, exactly how des none do suh a thing in the land you inhabit?
Do i need to shoot a unicorn or fart in your general direction or what?
Here is a hint i dont need to provide you with anything, but i will let out a sigh of relief when you lose your AR10 bang bang.

I never said you made the claim.

I said the legislation was badly worded.

You refuted this.

So I pointed to several examples of the terrible wording and how they are impossible statements.

You continued to defend the legislation.

So I asked you to provide an Example or two.

Then you got bitched the fuck out cause you don't know shit about what you are talking about.

Also - since you kept raising it - I'm assuming you are all onboard with the Sultan of Brunei stoning Gay people and Adulterers to death - cause that's what is says to do in the Qu'ran.

[husaberg]

I never said you made the claim.

I said the legislation was badly worded.

You refuted this.

So I pointed to several examples of the terrible wording and how they are impossible statements.

You continued to defend the legislation.

So I asked you to provide an Example or two.

Then you got bitched the fuck out cause you don't know shit about what you are talking about.

Also - since you kept raising it - I'm assuming you are all onboard with the Sultan of Brunei stoning Gay people and Adulterers to death - cause that's what is says to do in the Qu'ran.
You are behaving like a total headcase i am glad you will no longer have access to either large of intermediate calibre semi autos.
As you clearly lack both common sense and deductive reasoning skills.
I have patently explained a number of times how the the act has two parts for definition but you are that hysterical you cant even understand why or how it works.
Instead you just keep banging on with the stupid examples that you have somehow conjured up in your mind for a combination of unrelated factors. then keep saying blah blah.
The end result for you is the same regardless of your increasing hysterical sounding rants
https://i.imgflip.com/2xq70i.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/2xq70i)

[jasonu]

So, why include Suppressors or Sights?

Especially when both items are named SPECIFICALLY.

You can build an AR without a Suppressor or a Sight.

However, the problem is the wording - since a Sight is considered an Integral part of any Firearm (Aiming is kinda of important - Identify your target beyond all doubt, be aware of your firing zone etc.) and any sight can fit an AR, Any sight is illegal.

You still haven't provided a Suppressor that can turn a Rifle into a Semi or fully-automatic Firearm. Which means the Wording of the Law is demonstrably piss-poor.

And the funny part is - if you want to stop people from building a functional AR:

Upper Receiver.
Lower Receiver.
Gas Ported Barrel.
Gas Block.
Gas Tube.
Bolt Carrier Group.
Buffer tube.
Buffer.
Recoil Spring.
Trigger group.

That's the absolute bare minimum to build an AR that will discharge a round. Remove any of those components, the Rifle will not function as a Semi-Auto. If you want to generalise it for any semi-auto rifle:

Upper Receiver.
Lower Receiver.
Gas System (any component of).
Bolt Carrier Group.
Recoil System (any component of).
Trigger group patterened for a Semi-Auto lower receiver.

But I'll repeat - that's not what written - they are including Buttstocks, Suppressors, Sights etc. Everything that just looks Scary.

Over here the only part that is considered a firearm is the lower receiver. The lower receiver is also where the serial number is found.

[TheDemonLord]

You are behaving like a total headcase i am glad you will no longer have access to either large of intermediate calibre semi autos.
As you clearly lack both common sense and deductive reasoning skills.
I have patently explained a number of times how the the act has two parts for definition but you are that hysterical you cant even understand why or how it works.
Instead you just keep banging on with the stupid examples that you have somehow conjured up in your mind for a combination of unrelated factors. then keep saying blah blah.
The end result for you is the same regardless of your increasing hysterical sounding rants

So you got nothing then. Thanks for proving my point again that you don't know shit.

I understand the act has two parts, the problem is, when you combine them they either:

1: Don't make sense (like a Suppressor making a Rifle Semi or Full Auto)
2: Are so vague as to potentially encompass all items (such as Sights or Suppressors)

Furthermore the fact that the Act does nothing to change the application process, the vetting process or anything that would actually prevent this tragedy from re-occuring is a further insult.

And your refusal to say that Stoning of Gay people and Adulterers to death is bad is rather telling.

As for Hysterical - who is the one quoting memes and acting like a Child saying 'No more Bang Bang'? As I've said to others, you should be very careful about the standards you are setting here, lest they be applied against you.

[TheDemonLord]

Over here the only part that is considered a firearm is the lower receiver. The lower receiver is also where the serial number is found.

Yup, in UK and most derived Legal Systems (Aus, NZ etc.) it's the Pressure bearing components that are the Firearm (Bolt, Barrel etc.)

But again - the point was to show what a law that just banned semi-autos would look like - in order to prove the point that this is a massive overreach.

Hell - Even the Law Society (well known for being the most fanatical gun-nuts.... Not!) made a submission that said (paraphrased): Law is complex and needs time to be done properly, this rush is not doing it properly.

[husaberg]

So you got nothing then. Thanks for proving my point again that you don't know shit.

I understand the act has two parts, the problem is, when you combine them they either:

1: Don't make sense (like a Suppressor making a Rifle Semi or Full Auto)
2: Are so vague as to potentially encompass all items (such as Sights or Suppressors)

Furthermore the fact that the Act does nothing to change the application process, the vetting process or anything that would actually prevent this tragedy from re-occuring is a further insult.

And your refusal to say that Stoning of Gay people and Adulterers to death is bad is rather telling.

As for Hysterical - who is the one quoting memes and acting like a Child saying 'No more Bang Bang'? As I've said to others, you should be very careful about the standards you are setting here, lest they be applied against you.

You clearly do not undestand
I have expalined it on at least three occasions you just keep ignoring the obvious and going back to your original faulty conclusion.
All you do is say but "three" doesn't make sense i want you to explain three.
Well that's because 1 and 1 make two not "three"

As for what has according to your latest post happened in Brunei.
I have never mentioned anything about stoning any people to death as being good or not bad either.
its a non question that hasnt been asked i haven't said anything about it, Perhaps as i dont know what you are talking about?
Somehow in your hysterical state, you decided it was part of the conversation about firearms control in NZ.
I ignored it as it wasn't?
Do you think you need a semi auto to protect yourself from the sultan of Brunei?

[husaberg]

Over here the only part that is considered a firearm is the lower receiver. The lower receiver is also where the serial number is found.

How about on a SKS how many serial and makers numbers do they have?
They used all parts and there has been a fully functioning submachine gun made here and used to murder someone using multiple parts both manufactured and homemade.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10010589
I also believed there is restricted parts in the usa also or are you allowed to purchase large capacity mags still in some states and there was also a federal ban in place in 1994
Which might explain why the NRA hates the clintons and spent 130 million on Trumps election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[TheDemonLord]

You clearly do not undestand
I have expalined it on at least three occasion
All you do is say but "three" doesn't make sense i want you to explain three.
Well that's because 1 and 1 make two not "three"

You've explained nothing, because you know nothing. You cannot admit that the Legislation as worded is deeply flawed, nor can you produce evidence that shows it's not. I've given you two instances where you could provide an example to show the legislation is well written. But you can't produce these examples because they don't exist. The reason they don't exist is because the Legislation is written badly.

This is not just my view, it's the view of COLFO, the NZ Law Society, NZDA etc.


AS for what the sultan has according to your latest post happened in Brunei.
I have never mentioned anything about stoning any people to death as being good or not bad either.
its a non question that hasnt been asked i haven't said anything about it,Perhaps as i dont know what you are talking about?

I know - you call me Islamophobic for being Critical of Islam and the Qu'ran.

If you say that Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are as Islamophobic as I am.
If you don't say Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are a Terrible human Being.

Pick one.

(but we both know you won't)


Somehow in your hysterical state, you decided it was part of the conversation about firearms control in NZ.
I ignored it as it wasnt?
Do you think you need a semi auto to protect yourself from the sultan of Brunei

Considering Self-defence is not a valid reason for owning in NZ and I've never had any intention of using for Self-Defence...

The point was - you are gloating about how I'm such a bad person and how it's good I'm getting my personal property removed by force based on Ideas I hold.

I'm presenting you with a very clear cut case of the Qu'ran and Islam being used to do something Terrible - which creates a dilemma based on the standards you have judged others.

Either you agree with stoning innocent people to death or you are an Islamophobe. Your refusal to answer is because you know that you cannot hold both views simultaneously and you can't bring yourself to admit to one or the other - so all your gloating and name-calling and character judgements can fuck off.

[husaberg]

You've explained nothing, because you know nothing. You cannot admit that the Legislation as worded is deeply flawed, nor can you produce evidence that shows it's not. I've given you two instances where you could provide an example to show the legislation is well written. But you can't produce these examples because they don't exist. The reason they don't exist is because the Legislation is written badly.

This is not just my view, it's the view of COLFO, the NZ Law Society, NZDA etc.



I know - you call me Islamophobic for being Critical of Islam and the Qu'ran.

If you say that Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are as Islamophobic as I am.
If you don't say Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are a Terrible human Being.

Pick one.

(but we both know you won't)



Considering Self-defence is not a valid reason for owning in NZ and I've never had any intention of using for Self-Defence...

The point was - you are gloating about how I'm such a bad person and how it's good I'm getting my personal property removed by force based on Ideas I hold.

I'm presenting you with a very clear cut case of the Qu'ran and Islam being used to do something Terrible - which creates a dilemma based on the standards you have judged others.

Either you agree with stoning innocent people to death or you are an Islamophobe. Your refusal to answer is because you know that you cannot hold both views simultaneously and you can't bring yourself to admit to one or the other - so all your gloating and name-calling and character judgements can fuck off.

There we go again can you understand why you keep getting put on ignore.
For at leas the last 4 pages it has been detailed to you why, yet you choose to ignore this and instead you just keep going back to the same illogical conclusion you refused to be shifted from.
Now you are trying to change the subject. Which somehow in your muddled state is now about islam.
You ignore statements made, then rant on about stuff that has not been said that somehow you concoct odd scenarios of in your muddled brain.
Then you go on ranting about statements ,i have not made and somehow you can decide what my opinion is based on what you say rather than what i say.
the only clear case you are presenting me with is why you shouldn't have access to the public let alone a semi auto?

[RDJ]

C'mon husaberg, just admit you're Chris Cahill. It'll make it easier to remember your ranting points.

[TheDemonLord]

There we go again can you understand why you keep getting put on ignore.
For at leas tthelast 4 pages it has been detailed to you why you just keep going back to the same illogical conclusion you refused to be shifted from.
Now you are trying to change the subject. Wy somehow in your muddled state is now about islam.
You ignore statements made, then rant on about stuff that has been said that somehow you concoct scenarios of in your muddled brain.
Then you go on ranting about statements i have not made and somehow you can decide what my opinion is or may be based on what you say rather than what i say.
the only clear case you are presenting me with is why you shouldn't have access to the public let alone a semi auto?

It's not an Illogical conclusion, It's the same conclusion that Lawyers AND Firearms experts have come to.

Because the Legislation is terribly worded.

I predicted you wouldn't declare a position and I was right - you just deflect with insults and demands for censure. The most interesting part was the fact you missed the point.

[jasonu]

How about on a SKS how many serial and makers numbers do they have?
Tey used all parts and there has been a fully functioning submarine gun made here and used to murder someone using multiple parts both manufactured and homemade.
I also believed there is restricted parts in the usa also or are you allowed to purchase large capacity mags still in some states and there was also a federal ban in place in 1994
Which might explain why the NRA hates the clintons and spent 130 million on Trumps election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

As I said in the USA the only part that is considered to be a firearm is the lower receiver. That is where the serial number is found. Without the lower receiver you don’t have a gun.

[husaberg]

It's not an Illogical conclusion, It's the same conclusion that Lawyers AND Firearms experts have come to.
Your conclusion is not logical, Nor is it the exact same conclusion as all lawyer and firearms experts had arrived at.

Because the Legislation is terribly worded.
Thats your opinion. is based on your years draft and interpreting laws or your years in legislature? or the same faulty reasoning skills that lead to to post how you knew more about US law than a US superme court judge?

I predicted you wouldn't declare a position and I was right - you just deflect with insults and demands for censure. The most interesting part was the fact you missed the point.
No you originally said i was clearly supportive as i had said nothing. You are constantly trying to introduce subjects that have nothing to do with the firearms laws i NZ, i are not interested in indulging your fantasy.

[husaberg]

As I said in the USA the only part that is considered to be a firearm is the lower receiver. That is where the serial number is found. Without the lower receiver you don’t have a gun.

Its not the only serial number though is it nor is the serial number/s registered or recorded in every state of the USA either.


C'mon husaberg, just admit you're Chris Cahill. It'll make it easier to remember your ranting points.

I had to google who he was , So i guess i am not him.
I did know only in passing his predecessor Greg O'Connor. I knew his father and some of his brothers though, if that helps.

[jasonu]

Its not the only serial number though is it nor is the serial number/s registered or recorded in every state of the USA either.


.

Are you trying to start another one of your ridiculous arguments or are you just being stupid on purpose?

[Laava]

I was just trying to imagine how much butthurt there must be on firearms forums based on how much there is in this thread on a motorbike forum. Personally, having owned firearms in this newly outlawed category, I am 100% behind the government on this one. I do have some empathy for people who may end up financially worse off, but that is just going to have to be collateral damage...

[husaberg]

Are you trying to start another one of your ridiculous arguments or are you just being stupid on purpose?
https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/

Most states in the U.S. do not require registration of guns and there is no Federal program to register guns. In fact under Federal law a national gun registry is illegal and eight states also have bans on any gun registry. There are at least four states and one district that have setup a registry for guns, the states are;

California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia.

Other states as listed below do not have an official gun registry but collect data on sales.


States With Official Gun Registries

California - The registry is maintained by the California Department of Justice and keeps information on buyers and sellers plus any firearms imported into the state. Information maintained is serial numbers, fingerprints, names, and addresses. The information is collected on handguns and long guns however if a gun was owned before 1991 there is no requirement to register it.
District of Columbia - All handguns and long guns are required to be registered with the Metropolitan Police.
Hawaii - All firearms must be registered within a 5 day period from when they are brought into the state or purchased with the county police chief.
Maryland - Only applies to handguns and automatic weapons which are required to be registered with the state police.
New York - Only applies to handguns which must be registered. There is a fee of $3 for registration and it is an offense to possess an unregistered handgun.
States That Collect Data on Gun Sales

Michigan - All sales of handguns must be registered with local law enforcement.
New Jersey - A copy of all purchase permits are sent to the New Jersey state police who maintain a record of all handgun transfers.
Washington -Licensed dealers are required to report all sales of handguns to the Department of Licensing and local law enforcement.

[jasonu]

https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/

I never said anything about registration.

[RDJ]

Are you trying to start another one of your ridiculous arguments or are you just being stupid on purpose?

Might I suggest - embrace the preposition 'and' :-)

[TheDemonLord]

Your conclusion is not logical, Nor is it the exact same conclusion as all lawyer and firearms experts had arrived at.

Did I say all?

No I did not.

If my conclusion is illogical - then you should be able to provide an example of a Suppressor that turns a rifle into a Semi or Fully automatic rifle. You cannot. Because no such Suppressor exists. This proves that my conclusion is not illogical.


Thats your opinion. is based on your years draft and interpreting laws or your years in legislature? or the same faulty reasoning skills that lead to to post how you knew more about US law than a US superme court judge?

Also that of all NZDA, COLFO etc. who have had years of experience reading and interpreting Firearm legislation - and as history proves, doing a better job at it than the NZ Police (remember the high court case?)

However, even then - to prove me wrong, you simply have to produce a Sight or a Suppressor that can turn a rifle into a Semi or fully automatic rifle.


No you originally said i was clearly supportive as i had said nothing. You are constantly trying to introduce subjects that have nothing to do with the firearms laws i NZ, i are not interested in indulging your fantasy.

Of course you aren't interested in proving your hypocrisy.

I'll make it simple - you keep introducing your opinion of me as 'a bad person' for being critical of Islam and as such keep trying to declare me as not fit and proper to hold a Licence.

The new law in Brunei is based on the Qu'ran and a strict implementation of Islam. If you disagree with the rule, you are as Islamophobic as you claim that I am. If you don't disagree with the rule, you are a terrible human being.

You cannot and will not state one way or the other - because it's a contradiction that you can't resolve. And that contradiction is why all your attempts to portray me as not being fit and proper to hold a licence (which IS relevant to the discussion) is complete BS.

[husaberg]

I never said anything about registration.

Correct but whats the use of saying it the minimum parts that make up a firearm in the states was a lower receiver when no one records the serial numbers in the states anyway.


Might I suggest - embrace the preposition 'and' :-)
Exactly what have you offered thus far.?
Seem to be its you embracing a position.
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170331-AmRiflemanApril2017-415x600.png

[husaberg]

Did I say all?

No I did not.

If my conclusion is illogical - then you should be able to provide an example of a Suppressor that turns a rifle into a Semi or Fully automatic rifle. You cannot. Because no such Suppressor exists. This proves that my conclusion is not illogical.



Also that of all NZDA, COLFO etc. who have had years of experience reading and interpreting Firearm legislation - and as history proves, doing a better job at it than the NZ Police (remember the high court case?)

However, even then - to prove me wrong, you simply have to produce a Sight or a Suppressor that can turn a rifle into a Semi or fully automatic rifle.



No i didnt as i have pointed out to you on five separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some slly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 5 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.
As for the laywers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
WHich is rather ironic. Considering you current situation, with your previous statements on how those in the religious minority should do not not do.
If you want to discuss Islam do it in another thread.

[pritch]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm. That's OK of course, although they may not be particularly well informed.

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not to be an exception.

[jafagsx250]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm. That's OK of course, although they may not be particularly well informed.

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not be an exception.

Everyone is now a gun expert. Anyone who actually owns them needs stay out. (sarcasm)

[TheDemonLord]

No i didnt as i have pointed out to you on five separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..

Except the wording inherently does not make sense when the 2 parts are read together.

Can a Suppressor or a Sight turn a Rifle into a Semi or Fully Automatic Rifle? Y/N?

If Yes - then post up an example.
If No - then legislation is badly written.


You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some slly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 5 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.

I've looked at multiple clauses, So have the NZDA, so has COLFO - they have raised the same concern - that the wording of it (not the intent) is vague enough to potentially encompass all Suppressors and all Sights.


As for the laywers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.

Those few however happen to know a thing or two about both Firearms and Law, they've also successfully challenged the Police on the interpretation of the Law, therefore based on their track record, they can be considered a reliable source.

But I simply re-state, if you think the law is well written and correct - then post an example.


WHich is rather ironic. Considering you current situation, with your previous statements on how those in the religious minority should do not not do.
If you want to discuss Islam do it in another thread.

And you still cannot say it. You still cannot say that stoning someone to death (a Horrible, Torturous, Cruel and deliberately drawn-out form of Capital punishment) for the 'crime' of being Gay is wrong.
You can't bring yourself to admit that maybe the part of the Qu'ran that says this is wrong, because you know if you do, you are just as Islamophobic (by your own standards) as me.

[TheDemonLord]

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not be an exception.

^^^

This.

[husaberg]

Except .


Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (six now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 6 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.
As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
which is rather ironic. Considering you current situation, with your previous statements on how those in the religious minority should do not not do.
If you want to discuss Islam do it in another thread.

[TheDemonLord]

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post

That's cause you are wrong and refuse to admit it - for a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong (From COLFO's written submission):


Part 1 Clause 4(3)(b) pg 6 – parts relating to a prohibited firearm are defined as now
including a butt, stock, silencer or sight. At Part 1 Clause 2C pg 7 a “prohibited part
means – (a) a part of a prohibited firearm” – we believe there are three possible
interpretations to the effect of clause 2C on clause 4(3)(b)
o The first is what we believe is the intent of the draft to prohibit parts “born as”
an MSSA part. An example would be a gas block or operating rod. However, it
would also include an extractor spring and possession of it would carry a more
serious penalty than assault.
o Then there are the parts that would fit both restricted firearms and standard
firearms. Such as a scope or other sight, a silencer or a stock. We query what
would happen if a person had possession of a prohibited part fitted to a standard
firearm?
o The most concerning interpretation being that any one of the now prohibited
firearm parts can be a prohibited part in its own right. The unintended
consequence is that every firearm has a stock and a sight so this could mean that
a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm may be classed prohibited because it
uses a prohibited part effectively making every firearm in the country a
prohibited firearm held without permit. We do not believe this is the intent of
the bill and request clarity on this aspect.

[husaberg]

Tha):

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (7 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 7 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future.
As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
Also note the word used you say does they say they are concerned "could" and "possible"


yet you said this

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0125/latest/whole.html
Suppressors - Gone.
Calibres/Ammunition - Gone.
Sport Shooting - Gone.
Optics/Sights - Gone.
To all those who laughed and said 'Oh, this won't affect me', May I suggest you work on your submissions?
They want to Ban 'Military Calibres' - so .308, .223, 7.62, 5.56, .338, .303, .30-06, .30-30 - Gone.
What will the law abiding Kiwi Firearm owners be left with?

None of what you originally said is correct even as deemed by what you are now trying to crow somehow proves you correct.

[jasonu]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm. That's OK of course, although they may not be particularly well informed.

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not be an exception.

Fuck it I have to agree with that.

Shame the silly old git has me on ignore.....or does he?

[TheDemonLord]

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (7 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 7 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.
As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.

You're not playing cause you know you've lost.

The issue is very clearly laid out, with references to the legislation. Minority/Majority has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Law.

[husaberg]

You're not playing

.

Yip Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (8 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 8 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future.
You said this its clearly wrong might and could are not must and does.



yet you said this

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0125/latest/whole.html
Suppressors - Gone.
Calibres/Ammunition - Gone.
Sport Shooting - Gone.
Optics/Sights - Gone.
To all those who laughed and said 'Oh, this won't affect me', May I suggest you work on your submissions?
They want to Ban 'Military Calibres' - so .308, .223, 7.62, 5.56, .338, .303, .30-06, .30-30 - Gone.
What will the law abiding Kiwi Firearm owners be left with?

None of what you originally said is correct even as deemed by what you are now trying to crow somehow proves you correct.



As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
Not only that lets see what your now refer to as being gun law experts said 3 years ago.
What you are confusing is people telling you what you want to hear what what is going to actually happen.

COLFO New Zealand already has world leading requirements for the legal use of firearms and largely all that can be done is done to prevent criminal misuse: COLFO is of the view that New Zealands’ legislation is world leading. For its cost, effectiveness and results the New Zealand framework is simply as good as it can be and remains comfortably fit for purpose. COLFO considers that its members and the public can and should take pride in the system


COLFO most emphatically rejects the contention that registration would be an effective tool to prevent criminal misuse of firearms which would be a pointless and costly waste of police effort and money.

COLFO rejects the contention that there are 100,000 firearms in illegal circulation in New Zealand
COLFO notes that one Black firearm in the wrong hands has much more potential for harm than a million firearms in the right hands.
Police estimate that firearms are involved in 1.3% of violent crimes in New Zealand, and less than .5% of total crime in the past five years. In other words, over 99% of crime does not involve a firearm. It also means that less than .0001% of firearms in this country will be used for a crime48. Police Commissioner Mike Bush observed49 in late 2015:



COLFO is not able to do anything more but make a “best/educated guess” as to the numbers involved. COLFO considers there to be as low as 10-20,000 Grey guns in New Zealand.




It is not altogether clear just how many firearms are stolen in New Zealand. Figures are sketchy and vague and COLFO cannot definitively say if this is the main source of illegal supply. Australian research concluded that in 2011 .047% of firearms were stolen from those legally held in New South Wales which is miniscule



COLFO knows that restrictions on one type of firearm will only prompt criminals to move to the use of another firearms type. Even Australia’s most vocal gun control advocate accepts that the banning of semi-automatic rifles in Australia has simply led to a spike in the criminal use of handguns


The manufacture of firearms: A crude firearm is not difficult to manufacture, and with higher degrees of skill much more sophisticated firearms can be produced73. Plans are readily available online with various degrees of sophistication74. As discussed below 3D printing may make the illegal manufacture of firearms simply a matter of downloading a file and pressing “print”. COLFO found plans to manufacture a firearm in three mouse clicks using google. In addition, legally held firearms, with some skill can be converted to a more sinister state. This is usually cutting them down, but very rarely much more. For example, Anthony Dixon murdered James Te Aute in Highland Park with a burst from a homemade .22 submachine gun75 . This is highly unusual and is the only case COLFO is aware of where a firearm has been illegally converted to fully automatic and used in a crime



Minority/Majority has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Law
.
really a judgement is made by accepting what a majorly of other similar decisions has been, This is based previous based on what the majority of people consider to be just and fair. Also juries are a majority decision
Crikey in some countries the DA and judges are even voted in or out.
In most countries the laws and acts as written are based on what the majority of people want based on the majority of the government that holds the majority that decides what laws and act are enacted.
Not only that the interpretation of the law in regards to what you were trying to say would need to have people being prosecuted for having a scope, and we all know that was never going to happen.

[TheDemonLord]

Yip Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (8 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.

Merely repeating yourself and never proving your point shows just how wrong and insecure you are.


As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.

They are still right.... You've still yet to provide an example showing that the wording is correct, again, this is because you cannot, which proves the wording is terrible.


Not only that lets see what your now refer to as being gun law experts said 3 years ago.
What you are confusing is people telling you what you want to hear what what is going to actually happen.

Oh look! A bunch of out-of-context quotes, that will definitely prove what you are saying is true. Not to mention it's just classic misdirection, to avoid admitting you've got no clue.


really a judgement is made by accepting what a majorly of other similar decisions has been, This is based previous based on what the majority of people consider to be just and fair. Also juries are a majority decision

Actually, no. A Judgement is made against what is written in the Law. Do you remember when the Police got shutdown by the Highcourt for attempting to re-interpret the law? That was a Minority decision (since most people aren't a High Court judge)


Crikey in some countries the DA and judges are even voted in or out.

And? Are any of those countries New Zealand? No? More Misdirection...


In most countries the laws and acts as written are based on what the majority of people want based on the majority of the government that holds the majority that decides what laws and act are enacted.
Not only that the interpretation of the law in regards to what you were trying to say would need to have people being prosecuted for having a scope, and we all know that was never going to happen.

You are confusing the Legislature, Judiciary and the Executive. Three distinct and separate areas. Not surprising given how clueless you are.

The Legislature writes the Law.
The Executive Enforces the Law.
The Judiciary Interprets the Law.

Do I think the NZ Police will ban every single scope? No.
The problem is, could they ban any scope that fits onto a prohibited Firearm if they wanted to? Yes.

And that encompasses every single scope in the Country.

[Berries]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm.
Laurel and Hardy come to mind.

[husaberg]

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0125/latest/whole.html

Suppressors - Gone.
Calibres/Ammunition - Gone.
Sport Shooting - Gone.
Optics/Sights - Gone.

To all those who laughed and said 'Oh, this won't affect me', May I suggest you work on your submissions?

They want to Ban 'Military Calibres' - so .308, .223, 7.62, 5.56, .338, .303, .30-06, .30-30 - Gone.

What will the law abiding Kiwi Firearm owners be left with?
yet

That's cause you are wrong and refuse to admit it - for a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong (From COLFO's written submission):
art 1 Clause 4(3)(b) pg 6 – parts relating to a prohibited firearm are defined as now
including a butt, stock, silencer or sight. At Part 1 Clause 2C pg 7 a “prohibited part
means – (a) a part of a prohibited firearm” – we believe there are three possible
interpretations to the effect of clause 2C on clause 4(3)(b)
o The first is what we believe is the intent of the draft to prohibit parts “born as”
an MSSA part. An example would be a gas block or operating rod. However, it
would also include an extractor spring and possession of it would carry a more
serious penalty than assault.
o Then there are the parts that would fit both restricted firearms and standard
firearms. Such as a scope or other sight, a silencer or a stock. We query what
would happen if a person had possession of a prohibited part fitted to a standard
firearm?
o The most concerning interpretation being that any one of the now prohibited
firearm parts can be a prohibited part in its own right. The unintended
consequence is that every firearm has a stock and a sight so this could mean that
a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm may be classed prohibited because it
uses a prohibited part effectively making every firearm in the country a
prohibited firearm held without permit. We do not believe this is the intent of
the bill and request clarity on this aspect.


Funny isnt it all your own statement is wrong as stated by your own defined experts.
Yet you are claimig to be right all a long

Not only that you wish to pick and chose what colfo says
so exactly how in your warped mind can a submission for the Select Committee on the Illegal
Possession of Firearms in New Zealand not be relevent to the current of future firearms laws
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d
Adds back to ignore again

[TheDemonLord]

yet

Funny isnt it all your own statement is wrong as stated by your own defined experts.
Yet you are claimig to be right all a long

Indeed - remember when I said the Law was so vague as to potentially cover all Sights? Remember how I said it was badly worded? The last part is key, that the definition can be interpreted to include all Sights, there is nothing within the Legislation to limit that scope (Pun fully intended).

As COLFO says - they don't believe this to be the Intent, but as per the Law Society - when you are rushing legislation through and not taking the due diligence as demanded by something as complex and specialised as Firearm law, mistakes (such as the current wording) are inevitable.

Anyone with a basic understanding of Firearm operation can tell that the Legislation as written goes well beyond merely banning semi-autos.


Not only that you wish to pick and chose what colfo says
so exactly how in your warped mind can a submission for the Select Committee on the Illegal
Possession of Firearms in New Zealand not be relevent to the current of future firearms laws
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d
Adds back to ignore again

It's not relevant to the current Topic, nor can I be bothered going into the context around each statement to show how you are talking out of your Arse.

You decided if you are pro-stoning innocent people or an Islamophobe yet?

[RDJ]

There just ain't enough popcorn to be had.

[Voltaire]

Laurel and Hardy come to mind.

I disagree, they were at least entertaining.

Suggest they sort it out in a manner appropriate to the discussion...

https://steemitimages.com/DQmQ6xnYv3gdRmd1XF8H1zKZvEQaNRsYg3Mr9HE37JiVy2W/pistol-duel.jpg

or the far more probable one.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/sport-rugby-fight-foul-handbags_at_dawn-handbags-mwln68_low.jpg

No putting rocks in handbags, only one handbag allowed, must not be a knock off handbag.

[Swoop]

Govt Immigration ossifers let the evil lunatic in from Oz.

Govt Police ossifers vetted him and gave him a FAL.

Then - he broke the law, actually, many laws, on his murderous outing.

And this is the fault of law-abiding citizens how exactly?
He also committed several (firearms) crimes prior to the shooting.
But yes, punishing the law-abiding firearms owners is the logical thing to do by a sensible gubbinment...



You will be lucky to see a grand for your mint condition DPMS AR10 you paid $3k for.
This is why so many shooters are waiting to see what the buy-back prices will be.
Australia had to have several attempts at it because nobody surrendered their firearms the first time around since the price offered was so ridiculous.



... and there has been a fully functioning submarine gun made here...
Well that will be very useful for shooting submarines.
Was James Bond involved?

[Swoop]

It's not surprising to see that the commision of enquiry has been hamstrung by the current government, by not being able to delve into the lawchange regarding online licence applications & vetting. Guess who signed off on this stupid proposal (obviously to save money...) and is current leader of the labour party?

[husaberg]

The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".

A further 19% of people said the law does not actually go far enough
14%f those surveyed thought the legislation went too far.
5 per cent of people said they did not know. 2 refused to answer.

So unlike the claims of wide spread support only 14 percent of Kiwis think the gun laws went too far.
80% of kiwis either agree with the changes or actually want to see them go even further.

[jasonu]

The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".

A further 19% of people said the law does not actually go far enough
14%f those surveyed thought the legislation went too far.
5 per cent of people said they did not know. 2 refused to answer.

So unlike the claims of wide spread support only 14 percent of Kiwis think the gun laws went too far.
80% of kiwis either agree with the changes or actually want to see them go even further.

How many people were polled and were they city or rural folk, National or Labour supporters, young or old or was it a fair mix of all???

[pritch]

The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".



While watching that item on the news last night the depressing thought occurred that very few of those polled would have known what the firearms laws were, and even less would know what they are now. OK though, they've got an opinion.

On another note, I recently opened a gun magazine I have here and was surprised to see some of the AR15 derivatives being advertised as A class firearms. I obviously hadn't been paying attention and was unaware of these developments. To a large extent shooters and the gun retail trade have themselves to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves.

[TheDemonLord]

The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".

A further 19% of people said the law does not actually go far enough
14%f those surveyed thought the legislation went too far.
5 per cent of people said they did not know. 2 refused to answer.

So unlike the claims of wide spread support only 14 percent of Kiwis think the gun laws went too far.
80% of kiwis either agree with the changes or actually want to see them go even further.

What would be interesting would be to poll that 80% and to see if they can tell the difference between an Assault Rifle and a Sporting Rifle, an M1 Garand (previously an E-Cat rifle) and an A-Cat AR Rifle.

I'm betting 90% wouldn't.

Also, someone has been doing some digging on the submissions, there are a lot of submissions with the same first name and identical Text. There's the Teacher that got all of her Classes to make a submission against it - possibly up to 1,000 submissions out of 15,000 just due to that one individual.

Considering the submissions were said to be 60% for and 40% against with Duplicates included, although we don't have a full analysis yet, it seems that the Fors and Against may be either closer to 50-50 or slightly against the bill, once duplicate and spurious entries are removed.

[TheDemonLord]

While watching that item on the news last night the depressing thought occurred that very few of those polled would have known what the firearms laws were, and even less would know what they are now. OK though, they've got an opinion.

On another note, I recently opened a gun magazine I have here and was surprised to see some of the AR15 derivatives being advertised as A class firearms. I obviously hadn't been paying attention and was unaware of these developments. To a large extent shooters and the gun retail trade have themselves to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves.

Possibly the M&P15-22, which since it's not a subcalibre conversion kit, and so can't be converted back to centre-fire, appears to be Legal under the new laws.

[husaberg]

While watching that item on the news last night the depressing thought occurred that very few of those polled would have known what the firearms laws were, and even less would know what they are now. OK though, they've got an opinion.

On another note, I recently opened a gun magazine I have here and was surprised to see some of the AR15 derivatives being advertised as A class firearms. I obviously hadn't been paying attention and was unaware of these developments. To a large extent shooters and the gun retail trade have themselves to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves.

Well they were all voters. As well as an opinion they have a vote go againt the voters wishes at your own peril, i dont think we can decide as a country that there is a certain degree of expected experience or knowledge before one can either vote of express an opinion or vote.
The numbers that agree is quite telling. As is the across party support.
as only 6% of the population that has a gun licence anyway.
I agree on the last sentence, the work around mods pushing in the AR15 to A class and at the same time freely selling large mags and fighting tooth and nail to allow it to continue to get around the spirit of the rules is one of the reasons for the draconian laws that are now being implemented.

[husaberg]

How many people were polled and were they city or rural folk, National or Labour supporters, young or old or was it a fair mix of all???

Between April 6 and 10, 1009 eligible voters were polled via landline and mobile phone. The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
I did see one poll where they asked the voting preference as well. it was like 50% labour supporterss or something agreed

Seeing as its a random poll the majority would of course be labour voters anyway now.:clap:
341548
Or if you want to look at it another way most were former National voters?

[pritch]

Received an email originating from the Deputy Commissioner today. Unfortunately the formatting doesn't transfer to KB.

Briefly: A, C and D licence holders need to fill in the form on the Police web site.

B Category licences are not effected.

Holders of E Cat firearms will be contacted apparently, all such firearms are now illegal and may not be fired.


https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms

There are still the grey areas that you'd expect when a law is drafted with minimal technical expertise. Sometimes though it may be better not to ask the question 'cause then they can't say no?

[TheDemonLord]

I agree on the last sentence, the work around mods pushing in the AR15 to A class and at the same time freely selling large mags and fighting tooth and nail to allow it to continue to get around the spirit of the rules is one of the reasons for the draconian laws that are now being implemented.

Or...

That Certain individuals found they had a cause célèbre in which they could utilize to push through legislation and to get revenge on those who had repeatedly stopped their previous attempts.

Given how the Legislation goes so much further than merely banning semi-autos, Given statements by those same certain individuals, Given the farcical abuse of Democratic process used to push thish through - we're allowed to attribute bad faith to those involved.

[husaberg]

Here we are a month later still we have people moaning like little bitch's about losing access to owning a gun they never even needed in the first place.
Its well past the time you should have figured out why its a stand NZ as a whole is taking.
The change in NZ law is about lives, not money or some pathetic weapon you want to have for pose value or fun.
NZ doesn't have a right to bear arms in its constitution. Nor do you need a semi auto large calibre rifle, you simply want one.
People in NZ can still continue own a firearm as a privilege, to hunt with, as a hobby or sport or collecting.
But simply as a result of 50 innocent people getting killed recently in the mater of minutes by a total loser, you longer have that privilege anymore to own a large calibre semi Automatic anymore.
For those that continue on moaning. Man up and face facts. The laws been changed ITS OVER.


http://politicalpunchline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/trump-guns-mental-health-1000x538.pnghttps://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/SfUN_v_HxuEOzEaE5B36386CwnI=/500x500/filters:fill(auto,1)/425567_532186313459018_580797789_n-56a754cc5f9b58b7d0e94022.jpg
https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/QcoFdfqVQlNKSbPN7vbPtpXiU4=/550x396/filters:fill(auto,1)/olivershoebombs58b8f76b5f9b58af5cb79e69.jpghttps://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/qlsdg1h7ztiQ1rwL_7pXBztY4pI=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/guns-marriage-vaginas-58b8cdc43df78c353c216c72.jpghttps://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/K0qi7qgwHEYQHiXoCL8MSrR7HN4=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc() :format(webp)/grenadeattacks58b8f8095f9b58af5cb9628e.jpghttps://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/LSLjS0ek4GH_UCbgXAQH9IxRMS4=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc() :format(webp)/deer-shooting-back-58b8f7e45f9b58af5cb8ef95.jpg

[jasonu]

Or if you want to look at it another way most were former National voters?

and a lot of former National voters voted for NZ1st as a protest against national, a protest that back fired on them. Looking at NZ21st's current level of support I doubt that will happen next time.

[husaberg]

and a lot of former National voters voted for NZ1st as a protest against national, a protest that back fired on them. Looking at NZ21st's current level of support I doubt that will happen next time.

NZ first and Labours vote is apparently increasing daily, while Nationals decrease. You do the maths.:niceone:

[Swoop]

While watching that item on the news last night the depressing thought occurred that very few of those polled would have known what the firearms laws were, and even less would know what they are now. OK though, they've got an opinion.
It's easy to "poll" people who have absolutely no knowledge of a specific field yet who are able to be influenced by mass hysteria generated by the media. A bit like polling people on a machine that goes "bing" in a hospital surgery... leave the decisions to people who actually know about the things.





Possibly the M&P15-22, which since it's not a subcalibre conversion kit, and so can't be converted back to centre-fire, appears to be Legal under the new laws.
I'm perplexed to the 10/22 which is "OK" under the new rules... yet can be converted easily.
A poor set of rules has been drawn up. Anyone watch Mike Loader's submission? He spoke well and certainly made valid points contradicting a lot of utter bullshit put forward by politicians and the police association.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm perplexed to the 10/22 which is "OK" under the new rules... yet can be converted easily.
A poor set of rules has been drawn up. Anyone watch Mike Loader's submission? He spoke well and certainly made valid points contradicting a lot of utter bullshit put forward by politicians and the police association.

Perplexed is an Understatement - They've deliberately made it vague enough to potentially cover anything - this quote from Mr Nash sums it up really:


"I admit that does not look like the sort of stock-standard pistol you'd imagine. It looks like a very scary weapon."

He said he doesn't "particularly" like the idea of such weapons being sold in this country.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

COLFO is getting a legal opinion on the legislation, about 3 weeks way. It’s written in such a broad way, that the devil will be in how it’s interpreted.
Total FUBAR, after the mass shooting in Norway, their legislatures did nothing for a year, to let emotion subside, and to look at the situation logically.
But the Govt had to be seen to done something, I guess.
On a side note, how do you like all the armchair experts, who a month ago wouldn’t have known an ‘assault rifle’, if it bit them, suddenly offering opinions in the media ?

[husaberg]

On a side note, how do you like all the armchair experts, who a month ago wouldn’t have known an ‘assault rifle’, if it bit them, suddenly offering opinions in the media ?

Unlike of course the armchair legal opinions on forums?
COLFO submission a few years ago on Gun laws in NZ was cut copied and pasted from the NRA.
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d
I would suggest you read it and see how wrong it actually was

The amount of ammunition held is speculative at best. A deer hunter may only hold 40-80
rounds at any one time. A varmint shooter, carrying pest destruction may hold thousands of
rounds at a time as it is cheaper to buy in bulk. A target shooter, firing hundreds of rounds a
week may hold tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.

I would say the reason it was done so fast was to make sure the gun lobby didnt have enough time to be able to buy a reprieve
The NRA is spending 100's of millions of dollars each US election, why do you think that is?

By the way where there is any ambiguity in the law it always favours the defendant

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Unlike of course the armchair legal opinions on forums?
COLFO submission a few years ago on Gun laws in NZ was cut copied and pasted from the NRA.
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d
I would suggest you read it and see how wrong it actually was


I would say the reason it was done so fast was to make sure the gun lobby didnt have enough time to be able to buy a reprieve
The NRA is spending 100's of millions of dollars each US election, why do you think that is?

By the way where there is any ambiguity in the law it always favours the defendant

The NRA is bankrupt ?
Looks like they’re going to lose their tax exempt status also.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A.
The organization’s leadership is focussed on external threats, but the real crisis may be internal.

This winter, members of the National Rifle Association—elk hunters in Montana, skeet shooters in upstate New York, concealed-carry enthusiasts in Jacksonville—might have noticed a desperate tone in the organization’s fund-raising efforts. In a letter from early March, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s top executive, warned that liberal regulators were threatening to destroy the organization. “We’re facing an attack that’s unprecedented not just in the history of the N.R.A. but in the entire history of our country,” he wrote. “The Second Amendment cannot survive without the N.R.A., and the N.R.A. cannot survive without your help right now.”

LaPierre is right that the N.R.A. is troubled; in recent years, it has run annual deficits of as much as forty million dollars. It is not unusual for nonprofits to ask prospective donors to help forestall disaster. What is unusual is the extent to which such warnings have become the central activity of the N.R.A. Even as the association has reduced spending on its avowed core mission—gun education, safety, and training—to less than ten per cent of its total budget, it has substantially increased its spending on messaging. The N.R.A. is now mainly a media company, promoting a life style built around loving guns and hating anyone who might take them away.
Marc Owens, who served for ten years as the head of the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees tax-exempt enterprises, recently reviewed these records. “The litany of red flags is just extraordinary,” he said. “The materials reflect one of the broadest arrays of likely transgressions that I’ve ever seen. There is a tremendous range of what appears to be the misuse of assets for the benefit of certain venders and people in control.” Owens added, “Those facts, if confirmed, could lead to the revocation of the N.R.A.’s tax-exempt status”—without which the organization could likely not survive.

[husaberg]

The NRA is bankrupt ?
Looks like they’re going to lose their tax exempt status also.

If they are bankrupt it as a result of spending 100's of millions of dollars to support pro gun lobby candidates.
I am pretty sure no one has held a gun to their heads to do this.
341558341559341560341561

[TheDemonLord]

On a side note, how do you like all the armchair experts, who a month ago wouldn’t have known an ‘assault rifle’, if it bit them, suddenly offering opinions in the media ?

You mean like the PM?

[RDJ]

She doesn't know an Armalite from an 'assault' rifle, but she surely knows how to virtue-signal globally.

[Laava]

She doesn't know an Armalite from an 'assault' rifle, but she surely knows how to virtue-signal globally.
But surely that is also a far better virtue than some Rambo-wannabee who can just go and buy an AR15 and then lose his shit. Might have been a bit different if it had happened at your kids kindergarten eh? Personally have no sympathy for these gun owners other than they do stand to lose out a bit financially. But it is only on their toys, it is not like the government is ripping the shirts off their backs or the food out of their kids mouths. Some of these people I am close friends with and it is interesting to see how angry they are.
But it is a good start IMO.

[Swoop]

Isn't it nice to know that the blue gang is securely storing the confiscated firearms in an appropriate manner?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12225566

It is also good to see the knowledge of the district plod who stated "one of the fireams was illegal". Stupid bint. She doesn't appreciate that the gubbinment made them ALL illegal and turned law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.




Couple that with the gang shooting at the Auckland Harley Fergusson stealership today and the nation has its headlines for the evening news.:facepalm:

[pritch]

Isn't it nice to know that the blue gang is securely storing the confiscated firearms in an appropriate manner?


I suspect that the Police are relying heavily on the idea that nobody will break into a Police station. Unfortunately it's not at all uncommon for criminals to be inside Police stations.

[onearmedbandit]

Isn't it nice to know that the blue gang is securely storing the confiscated firearms in an appropriate manner?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12225566

It is also good to see the knowledge of the district plod who stated "one of the fireams was illegal". Stupid bint. She doesn't appreciate that the gubbinment made them ALL illegal and turned law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.




Couple that with the gang shooting at the Auckland Harley Fergusson stealership today and the nation has its headlines for the evening news.:facepalm:

Quite possibly only one of them was illegal though? The other ten could’ve been legal firearms seized from unlicensed owners?

[jasonu]

Isn't it nice to know that the blue gang is securely storing the confiscated firearms in an appropriate manner?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12225566

It is also good to see the knowledge of the district plod who stated "one of the fireams was illegal". Stupid bint. She doesn't appreciate that the gubbinment made them ALL illegal and turned law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.




Couple that with the gang shooting at the Auckland Harley Fergusson stealership today and the nation has its headlines for the evening news.:facepalm:

Haha I saw that and here is the reaction from the head Fuzz.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12225566
What a joke.

[husaberg]

https://i.redd.it/phqtq2agf1vy.jpghttp://allusional.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/confirmation.jpg

[jasonu]

https://i.redd.it/phqtq2agf1vy.jpghttp://allusional.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/confirmation.jpg

Fits you to a T.

and that silly old cunt Prick too.

[husaberg]

Fits you to a T.

and that silly old cunt Prick too.

Funny that's what you would make out of someone posting something about confirmation bias.


Haha I saw that and here is the reaction from the head Fuzz.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12225566
What a joke.
So if it suits you and its in the NZ herald ,its great, its the almighty Bible FFS.
but if it doesn't suit your opinion the herald is full of shit....interesting.............Some might say thats pretty hypocritical of you.


https://i0.wp.com/reasononfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Reasoned-vs-Religious-Approaches-1.jpg



Did you see that in the Herald?
Dopey old cunt.

Fuckwit. You know nothing more than the NZ Herald feeds you.

It is if you get all your dirt from the Herald.

and others get all their dirt from the Herald

What do you base these conclusions on? Been there? Lived there? Actually know or have even spoken to anyone from there? Or do you get all of your info from the crack reporting teams of the NZ Herald and/or TVNZ?

Coming from Mr. and Mrs. been nowhere and done nothing I read it in the Herald...

Stop reading the Herald.

I let pritch, the Herald and CNN do that.

Put the Herald down mate.

[jasonu]

Funny that's what you would make out of someone posting something about confirmation bias.


So if it suits you and its in the NZ herald ,its great, its the almighty Bible FFS.
but if it doesn't suit your opinion the herald is full of shit....interesting.............Some might say thats pretty hypocritical of you.


https://i0.wp.com/reasononfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Reasoned-vs-Religious-Approaches-1.jpg

God how long have you been sitting on that one?

[husaberg]

God how long have you been sitting on that one?

Odd that you dont reply to the full text?
So how is it both gospel and heresy that the NZ Herald prints, depending on if it suits your opinion or not.
As for sitting on your quotes about the Herald its a 10 second search.
https://i.imgflip.com/12924q.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbAUHxPCYAAwmHi.jpghttps://pics.me.me/if-jesus-had-been-carrying-his-gun-hed-still-be-29631942.png

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6160/production/_100782942_gun_comparison_640_v2-nc.pnghttps://i.imgflip.com/19cfku.jpg

[jasonu]

Odd that you dont reply to the full text?
So how is it both gospel and heresy that the NZ Herald prints, depending on if it suits your opinion or not.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12224882
The NZ Fuzz really do suck. Giving out other peoples guns and not following solid leads on 'petty' crimes.

[husaberg]

Odd that you dont reply to the full text?
So how is it both gospel and heresy that the NZ Herald prints, depending on if it suits your opinion or not.
As for sitting on your quotes about the Herald its a 10 second search.



https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12224882
The NZ Fuzz really do suck. Giving out other peoples guns and not following solid leads on 'petty' crimes.

Case in point


Did you see that in the Herald?
Dopey old cunt.

Fuckwit. You know nothing more than the NZ Herald feeds you.

It is if you get all your dirt from the Herald.

and others get all their dirt from the Herald

What do you base these conclusions on? Been there? Lived there? Actually know or have even spoken to anyone from there? Or do you get all of your info from the crack reporting teams of the NZ Herald and/or TVNZ?

Coming from Mr. and Mrs. been nowhere and done nothing I read it in the Herald...

Stop reading the Herald.

I let pritch, the Herald and CNN do that.

Put the Herald down mate.

[pritch]

There is a lot of talk about the psychological term "projection" these days. Jason is an example of someone who projects, it's very obvious that he reads the Harold a whole lot more than I do. Not hard, I rarely ever look at it.

I did buy and read Bob Woodward's book, James Comey's book, and Andrew McCabe's book though. I've also now read most of the Mueller report, still working my way through Volume 1. Many people read Volume 2 first it seems.

There is some astounding crap on social media from people who are barely literate, and sadly that includes the current resident of the White House. The guy who takes the cake though is the genius who wrote recently that Jesus is the greatest American ever. Is that imbecile ever going to be pissed off if he finds out that Jesus was a brown dude from Palestine?

[jasonu]

Case in point

Monkey see monkey do. Stupid coconuts.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12225846

[husaberg]

Trying to emulate US street gangs is stupid in America let alone in NZ
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZZzC7AU8AE1_uZ.jpghttps://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Bump-stock-cartoon-NRA-courtesy-dailykos.com_-600x431.pnghttps://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/America-Gun-Control-Rob-Rogers.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

Trying to emulate US street gangs is stupid in America let alone in NZ

So how does Switzerland factor into that Narrative?

Afterall - the Swiss are allowed to keep their Service Rifle after leaving the Military (that would be a fully Automatic Assault Rifle), most active service members store their Rifle at home, They have a higher rate of ownership (per capita) than NZ and yet, according to the memes you've posted, they have less Gun Violence than NZ.

If it's the Gun, why does this not happen in Switzerland?

[avgas]

I just found this under my house. Appears old - Internets say somewhere between 1913-1918 (because Savage bough Stevens in 1918) and this one is marked Stevens.
341657
Stevens 22 single (crack) shot "boys" rifle. But with a hammer unlike my bolt action single shot.
Gonna clean it up and take it to a range. Movement it really good considering the condition.
Under my house, because 'merica

[avgas]

https://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/America-Gun-Control-Rob-Rogers.jpg
The forgot Opioids.... I think they are into the millions on that......

[husaberg]

So how does Switzerland factor into that Narrative?
Rather well. Maybe before you post stuff you might want to look further then the NRA website.
There are more domestic homicides and suicides with a firearm in Switzerland than pretty much anywhere else in Europe except Finland.


- the Swiss are allowed to keep their Service Rifle after leaving the Military (that would be a fully Automatic Assault Rifle),
Incorrect they are able to purchase the rifle but only if they are deemed to be competent and sane.


Heavy machine guns and automatic weapons are banned, as are silencers without a special licience
Firearms legislation in Switzerland allows the free purchase of semi-automatic, but not fully automatic firearms by Swiss citizens and foreigners with permanent residence.[note 1][1] Permits for concealed carrying in public are issued sparingly.The acquisition of fully automatic weapons, suppressors and target lasers likewise requires special permits issued by the cantonal firearms office.
In most cases the buyer needs a weapon acquisition permit, issued by the cantonal police
This will be refused if the applicant has a criminal record, an addiction or a psychiatric problem
A special permit is needed to carry a gun in public - and is usually issued only to people who work in security, once they have passed theoretical and practical exams
In 2006, the champion Swiss skier Corrinne Rey-Bellet and her brother were murdered by Corinne's estranged husband, who shot them with his old militia rifle before killing himself.
Since that incident, gun laws concerning army weapons have tightened. Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912


most active service members store their Rifle at home,
incorrect Less than 12% do. They also dont store ethe ammunition there..........
2011 referendum initiative to keep all militia firearms in a central arsenal - because, he says, of the evidence provided by recent statistics.
"Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.
"And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.
Mathias carefully puts away his pistol and shakes his head firmly when I ask him if he feels safer having a gun at home, explaining that even if he had ammunition, he would not be allowed to use it against an intruder.
"The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people."
In order to purchase ammunition, the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply when buying guns. The buyer must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm):[2][1]
a passport or other valid official identification (the holder must be over 18 years of age and not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems. Further, they must not be a citizen of the following countries (art. 12 WV/OArm): Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania).
a copy of their criminal record not older than 3 months, or a weapons acquistion permit which isn't older than 2 years, if asked by the seller (art. 24 § 3 WV/OArm)

They have a higher rate of ownership (per capita) than NZ
slightly less. but with far stricter laws.

according to the memes you've posted, they have less Gun Violence than NZ.
Yet they clearly dont, they have three times the homicide death rate as NZ does.

If it's the Gun, why does this not happen in Switzerland?
Really , So what do the stats suggest to you then?
But dont let any of that get in the way of your latest incorrect ravings
341663341664341665341666

But if we are to follow swiss laws lets do all of them
Motorsport road racing circuits and events were banned in Switzerland in 1955.

Animals may not be kept by themselves but only with a companion.
The 2008 addendum to the Swiss animal rights code specifies for each animal how many others of their kind are required by law. In other words, a guinea pig requires at least one companion, and so does a mouse or a ferret!

It is unlawful to slam a car door after 10 PM

It is considered an offense to mow your lawn on a Sunday because it causes too much noise.

It is required that every car with snow tires has to have a sticker on its dashboard which tells that the driver should not drive faster than 160 km/h with these tires.

Clothes may not be hung to dry on Sunday.

You may not wash your car in your driveway on a Sunday.

[jafagsx250]

It's not surprising to see that the commision of enquiry has been hamstrung by the current government, by not being able to delve into the lawchange regarding online licence applications & vetting. Guess who signed off on this stupid proposal (obviously to save money...) and is current leader of the labour party?

It'll be a broom stick to sweep government failings under the carpet.


The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".

A further 19% of people said the law does not actually go far enough
14%f those surveyed thought the legislation went too far.
5 per cent of people said they did not know. 2 refused to answer.

So unlike the claims of wide spread support only 14 percent of Kiwis think the gun laws went too far.
80% of kiwis either agree with the changes or actually want to see them go even further.

I doubt any of them have actually read the law.


Well they were all voters. As well as an opinion they have a vote go againt the voters wishes at your own peril, i dont think we can decide as a country that there is a certain degree of expected experience or knowledge before one can either vote of express an opinion or vote.
The numbers that agree is quite telling. As is the across party support.
as only 6% of the population that has a gun licence anyway.
I agree on the last sentence, the work around mods pushing in the AR15 to A class and at the same time freely selling large mags and fighting tooth and nail to allow it to continue to get around the spirit of the rules is one of the reasons for the draconian laws that are now being implemented.

That's not gun owners fault. That's the cops and stupid politicians making rushed laws and not focusing on the standard capacity magazine. Anyone could have bought a 30 round mag. It should have been restricted to the E cat holders.

At least you've admitted that they're draconian.

[husaberg]

That's not gun owners fault. That's the cops and stupid politicians making rushed laws and not focusing on the standard capacity magazine. Anyone could have bought a 30 round mag. It should have been restricted to the E cat holders.

At least you've admitted that they're draconian.

No you clearly cant read. You just wish to attempt to change the context.
I replied to this.


On another note, I recently opened a gun magazine I have here and was surprised to see some of the AR15 derivatives being advertised as A class firearms. I obviously hadn't been paying attention and was unaware of these developments. To a large extent shooters and the gun retail trade have themselves to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves.
The gun lobby was 100% opposed to any changes to licencing in NZ prior to the shooting. That is what cost them any credibility. Gun city also initiated legal action against the police.
Guess what happened? those same rules they opposed were shown to be necessary.

COLFO opposes:
 Any amendment to the Arms Act (except as regards tariffs for offending) as this
will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal misuse of forearms;
 Any re-classification of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to an “E”
endorsement as this will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal use of
firearms and will be counterproductive;
 Any restrictions on the lawful use of the firearms as this will make no difference
to the criminal misuse of firearms and will be counterproductive.

You can prance around on KB puffing your chest out, going on that you are right and a expert on gun laws and preventing incidents like this as much as you like, it will not get you anything but sympathy.
The attitude you display now is what cost you the semi autos.
Ask yourself this, did you really need a A class AR15,AR10 and legal sale of large cap mags.

[jafagsx250]

No you clearly cant read. You just wish to attempt to change the context.
I replied to this.


The gun lobby was 100% opposed to any changes to licencing in NZ prior to the shooting. That is what cost them any credibility. Gun city also initiated legal action against the police.
Guess what happened? those same rules they opposed were shown to be necessary.

COLFO opposes:
 Any amendment to the Arms Act (except as regards tariffs for offending) as this
will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal misuse of forearms;
 Any re-classification of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to an “E”
endorsement as this will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal use of
firearms and will be counterproductive;
 Any restrictions on the lawful use of the firearms as this will make no difference
to the criminal misuse of firearms and will be counterproductive.

You can prance around on KB puffing your chest out, going on that you are right and a expert on gun laws and preventing incidents like this as much as you like, it will not get you anything but sympathy.
The attitude you display now is what cost you the semi autos.
Ask yourself this, did you really need a A class AR15,AR10 and legal sale of large cap mags.

You can't read either. I supported 30 round mags being E cat license to buy. That was the only thing that we needed to change.

The issue with any amendments is that gun grabbers always add other stuff in.

We give an inch and they take a mile. Much like the new laws.

I have a perfectly reasonable attitude.

Yes I do.

[husaberg]

You can't read either. I supported 30 round mags being E cat license to buy. That was the only thing that we needed to change.

The issue with any amendments is that gun grabbers always add other stuff in.

We give an inch and they take a mile. Much like the new laws.

I have a perfectly reasonable attitude.

Yes I do.
really You want some sort of kudos because you supported it afterwards, when it was too late as 50 innocent people were already dead, how about before hand, did you support changes then? I ask as there wasn't a single post prior to the 50 people getting killed from you about changing the mag laws.
The NZ firearms lobby group was flat out opposed to any rules or cat change.
The firearms owners had a mile taken as they refused to budge an inch.


The issue with any amendments is that gun grabbers always add other stuff in.
Owning a firearm in NZ is a privilege rather than a right ,you have had some of those privileges revoked, deal with it.

[jafagsx250]

really You want some sort of kudos because you supported it afterwards, when it was too late as 50 innocent people were already dead, how about before hand, did you support changes then? I ask as there wasn't a single post prior to the 50 people getting killed from you about changing the mag laws.
The NZ firearms lobby group was flat out opposed to any rules or cat change.
The firearms owners had a mile taken as they refused to budge an inch.


Owning a firearm in NZ is a privilege rather than a right ,you have had some of those privileges revoked, deal with it.

I have always supported E cat mags with E cat license

Well the gun grabbers just proved our point. Lots of times they said meet us halfway. And they only had proposals that affected the law abiding and nothing about criminals.

[husaberg]

I have always supported E cat mags with E cat license

Well the gun grabbers just proved our point. Lots of times they said meet us halfway. And they only had proposals that affected the law abiding and nothing about criminals.

Really show me a post that says this prior to the incident.
I posted the lobby groups position it wasn't we will meet you half way, it was over our dead bodies will we agree to any changes to the cat rules.

OLFO opposes:
 Any amendment to the Arms Act (except as regards tariffs for offending) as this
will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal misuse of forearms;
 Any re-classification of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to an “E”
endorsement as this will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal use of
firearms and will be counterproductive;
 Any restrictions on the lawful use of the firearms as this will make no difference
to the criminal misuse of firearms and will be counterproductive.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105577890/firearm-importers-prepare-for-court-battle-with-police-over-over-semiautomatic-rifles
It turns out the magic number was 50 in a few minutes was the required number pof dead bodies to get them to admit their position was incorrect.
But simply by then, it was too little far to late.
The fact it had cross party support and is supported by the vast majority of Kiwis should give you a clue that your position is in the minority.

The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".

A further 19% of people said the law does not actually go far enough
14% of those surveyed thought the legislation went too far.
5 per cent of people said they did not know. 2% refused to answer.

So unlike the claims of wide spread support only 14 percent of Kiwis think the gun laws went too far.
80% of kiwis either agree with the changes or actually want to see them go even further.

[jafagsx250]

Really show me a post that says this prior to the incident.
I posted the lobby groups position it wasn't we will meet you half way, it was over our dead bodies will we agree to any changes to the cat rules.
It turns out the magic number was 50 in a few minutes was the required number pof dead bodies to get them to admit their position was incorrect.
After that, it was too little to late.
The fact it had cross party support and is supported by the vast majority of Kiwis should give you a clue that your position is in the minority.

???? The lack of law about mag purchasing has never popped up in the thread before. You're acting like I can't have an opinion because I never posted it on the Internet.

No. We never agreed. It was rushed undemocratic law and we were told to stay out of something that will affect us.

Cross party support was a matter of political survival. Too many people with no idea about guns wanted everything banned.

Just because we're a minority doesn't mean we can't be right. This law will back fire spectacularly. Just you watch.

[husaberg]

???? The lack of law about mag purchasing has never popped up in the thread before. You're acting like I can't have an opinion because I never posted it on the Internet.

No. We never agreed. It was rushed undemocratic law and we were told to stay out of something that will affect us.

Cross party support was a matter of political survival. Too many people with no idea about guns wanted everything banned.

Just because we're a minority doesn't mean we can't be right. This law will back fire spectacularly. Just you watch.

Undemocratic that really funny did you think you would get to vote on each and every law change.
The only party that didnt support the law being changed consisted of 13,075 votes or .0.5% of the NZ vote.
AS for saying you held an opinion prior ,as you cant prove this, nor did you make any submissions, who cares, its just you talking and making more unsubstantiated claims.
The only thing that's currently backfiring is the neurons in your skull cavity.

[jafagsx250]

Undemocratic that really funny did you think you would get to vote on each and every law change.
The only party that didnt support the law being changed consisted of 13,075 votes or .0.5% of the NZ vote.
AS for saying you held an opinion prior ,as you cant prove this, nor did you make any submissions, who cares, its just you talking and making more unsubstantiated claims.
The only thing that's currently backfiring is the neurons in your skull cavity.Ah yes. Resorting to insults because you can by the disprove facts.

[husaberg]

Ah yes. Resorting to insults because you can by the disprove facts.
Funny considering You haven't produced a single fact, only your opinion.



I doubt any of them have actually read the law.
That's not gun owners fault.
That's the cops and stupid politicians making rushed laws and not focusing on the standard capacity magazine. Anyone could have bought a 30 round mag. It should have been restricted to the E cat holders.



That was the only thing that we needed to change.
The issue with any amendments is that gun grabbers always add other stuff in.
We give an inch and they take a mile. Much like the new laws.




It was rushed undemocratic law and we were told to stay out of something that will affect us.
Cross party support was a matter of political survival. Too many people with no idea about guns wanted everything banned.
Just because we're a minority doesn't mean we can't be right. This law will back fire spectacularly. Just you watch.

[jasonu]

Funny that's what you would make out of someone posting something about confirmation bias.


So if it suits you and its in the NZ herald ,its great, its the almighty Bible FFS.
but if it doesn't suit your opinion the herald is full of shit....interesting.............Some might say thats pretty hypocritical of you.


https://i0.wp.com/reasononfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Reasoned-vs-Religious-Approaches-1.jpg

Looks like Prick is going to have to pay for his fake news tidbits now. On the bright side he still has Vanity Fair for free one eyed liberal bullshit.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12226437

[TheDemonLord]

Rather well. Maybe before you post stuff you might want to look further then the NRA website.
There are more domestic homicides and suicides with a firearm in Switzerland than pretty much anywhere else in Europe except Finland.

Why are you including Suicides? Unless you want to artificially inflate the stats...

Switzerland in 2018 0.15 Homocides per 100,000 people by Firearm.

Beating out Sweden, France, Italy, Spain etc. (Ya'know - European countries)


Incorrect they are able to purchase the rifle but only if they are deemed to be competent and sane.

So, they can (if they want and if they meet the criteria) able to keep a FULLY AUTOMATIC, ACTUAL Assault Rifle. Glad you confirmed my point.

Also your source that you block quoted started out by saying Full autos are banned, then goes on to say they can be acquired by Permit - so which is it?

Also stats they allow the free purchase of Semi-Autos, so...


incorrect Less than 12% do. They also dont store ethe ammunition there..........

That's still a lot of people, with fully Auto Assault rifles at home.


2011 referendum initiative to keep all militia firearms in a central arsenal - because, he says, of the evidence provided by recent statistics.
"Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.
"And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.
Mathias carefully puts away his pistol and shakes his head firmly when I ask him if he feels safer having a gun at home, explaining that even if he had ammunition, he would not be allowed to use it against an intruder.
"The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people."
In order to purchase ammunition, the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply when buying guns. The buyer must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm):[2][1]
a passport or other valid official identification (the holder must be over 18 years of age and not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems. Further, they must not be a citizen of the following countries (art. 12 WV/OArm): Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania).
a copy of their criminal record not older than 3 months, or a weapons acquistion permit which isn't older than 2 years, if asked by the seller (art. 24 § 3 WV/OArm)

They don't allow ownership of people from countries with historic problems with Islam.... Interesting...

As for the Aquisition permit - apparently people just buy one every 2 years and keep it on them for when they go to a rifle shop.


slightly less. but with far stricter laws.

On what planet do they have stricter laws? Also the figure you are going off is only for registered rifles, hunting rifles are completely unregistered - a reasonable estimate is that they ownership rate may be as high as 50%

You've confirmed they can own full autos and no restriction on semi-autos, so they had more permissive laws than us prior the the AAB.


Yet they clearly dont, they have three times the homicide death rate as NZ does.


0.11 vs 0.15 - yeah, that's really 3 times bigger...

Unless you are deliberately including Suicide to artificially increase the stats..




But if we are to follow swiss laws lets do all of them
Motorsport road racing circuits and events were banned in Switzerland in 1955.

Animals may not be kept by themselves but only with a companion.
The 2008 addendum to the Swiss animal rights code specifies for each animal how many others of their kind are required by law. In other words, a guinea pig requires at least one companion, and so does a mouse or a ferret!

It is unlawful to slam a car door after 10 PM

It is considered an offense to mow your lawn on a Sunday because it causes too much noise.

It is required that every car with snow tires has to have a sticker on its dashboard which tells that the driver should not drive faster than 160 km/h with these tires.

Clothes may not be hung to dry on Sunday.

You may not wash your car in your driveway on a Sunday.

Smells like misdirection.

The point is:

Switzerland: Full Autos and Semi-Autos a plenty, all stored at home. (which in some respects is more permissive than the US, since they can own Full Autos produced after 1986)

If the gist of your Memes is correct, then that should make Switzerland the world leader in Gun crime and yet, it clearly doesn't.

Thus the problem is not the Gun, but the people who get access to them.

[husaberg]

Why are you including Suicides? Unless you want to artificially inflate the stats...

Switzerland in 2018 0.15 Homocides per 100,000 people by Firearm.

Beating out Sweden, France, Italy, Spain etc. (Ya'know - European countries)



So, they can (if they want and if they meet the criteria) able to keep a FULLY AUTOMATIC, ACTUAL Assault Rifle. Glad you confirmed my point.

Also your source that you block quoted started out by saying Full autos are banned, then goes on to say they can be acquired by Permit - so which is it?

Also stats they allow the free purchase of Semi-Autos, so...



That's still a lot of people, with fully Auto Assault rifles at home.



They don't allow ownership of people from countries with historic problems with Islam.... Interesting...

As for the Aquisition permit - apparently people just buy one every 2 years and keep it on them for when they go to a rifle shop.



On what planet do they have stricter laws? Also the figure you are going off is only for registered rifles, hunting rifles are completely unregistered - a reasonable estimate is that they ownership rate may be as high as 50%

You've confirmed they can own full autos and no restriction on semi-autos, so they had more permissive laws than us prior the the AAB.




0.11 vs 0.15 - yeah, that's really 3 times bigger...

Unless you are deliberately including Suicide to artificially increase the stats..





Smells like misdirection.

The point is:

Switzerland: Full Autos and Semi-Autos a plenty, all stored at home. (which in some respects is more permissive than the US, since they can own Full Autos produced after 1986)

If the gist of your Memes is correct, then that should make Switzerland the world leader in Gun crime and yet, it clearly doesn't.

Thus the problem is not the Gun, but the people who get access to them.
Is it any wonder i often totally ignore you.
You got caught in a fresh series of lies and now you are attempting to weasel out of it.
Firearms deaths are firearms deaths you cant say look at the Swiss then say but ignore the ones that used a firearm on themselves.
The Swiss have a 3 times higher rate of death by firearms you are just attempting your normal misdirection that caused you to single out the swiss in the first place.
341723341724341725341726
Here is a hint if you logic was correct there wouldn't be the strong corrections in the figures that there is.
the more guns and the laxer the rules the more thet get killed by firearms on average.
Every single time you get caught in a lie you claim its misdirection while you at the same time try and cling to a series of far fetched and non related examples.
Guess what, you can bitch and moan as much as you want (and we all know you will bitch on endlessly,) but the new law is the law. you can either follow it or be a criminal and go to jail.

[TheDemonLord]

Is it any wonder i often totally ignore you.
You got caught in a fresh series of lies and now you are attempting to weasel out of it.
Firearms deaths are firearms deaths you cant say look at the Swiss then say but ignore the ones that used a firearm on themselves.

Actually, I can, because it's well documented that reducing the access to Firearms does NOT reduce the Suicide rate. People simply use other means.

And exactly what did I lie about? You've confirmed that the Swiss have free reign on Semi-Autos and lawful access to Full Autos in large numbers. You've confirmed they can keep their Service Rifle.
I've pointed out that there is a discrepancy in the rate of reported ownership of rifles in Switzerland, due to the rules around bolt actions not being tracked and that the rate of ownership is higher than the rate of ownership of tracked rifles (which is a little bit less than NZ, therefore the rate of ownership of ALL firearms is going to be higher than NZ)

The point is - If your fundamental point of Bad Gun Kill People Hurr Durr is correct, then Switzerland should be a world leader in Firearm Homocides.

It isn't.

Therefore, your fundamental point is wrong.

[husaberg]

The point is - If your fundamental point of Bad Gun Kill People Hurr Durr is correct, then Switzerland should be a world leader in Firearm Homocides.

It isn't.

Therefore, your fundamental point is wrong.

The fundamental point in my posts is you are to belligerent to realise your points are self centered and wrong. The reason so few care about you losing your AR10 is the attitude you are currently displaying.
Maybe your mind is just too small to be able to comprehend the big picture.
All you can see is what you have lost, rather than what the rest of the country has gained from the law change.

[jafagsx250]

The fundamental point in my posts is you are to belligerent to realise your points are self centered and wrong. The reason so few care about you losing your AR10 is the attitude you are currently displaying.
Maybe your mind is just too small to be able to comprehend the big picture.
All you can see is what you have lost, rather than what the rest of the country has gained from the law change.

They've gained nothing but a false sense of safety. There'll be far more gun crime now that they are banned. I'll be here happy to say that I told you so.

[onearmedbandit]

They've gained nothing but a false sense of safety. There'll be far more gun crime now that they are banned. I'll be here happy to say that I told you so.

With no prejudice I'm interested in the reasoning behind this. I'm not looking to poke holes etc, just educating myself.

[jafagsx250]

With no prejudice I'm interested in the reasoning behind this. I'm not looking to poke holes etc, just educating myself.If you consider the Australian experience.

They were very generous with their buy back. Cost plus 25 percent of the rrp.

But the numbers from the state of Victoria, with the best records shows that 2 percent of the amount of Semis handed in were centre fire. As in Ar15 sort of thing.

Half were rimfire.
Only 10 percent of the 300,000 sks were handed in.
Illegal guns are very common. Everyone I know over there who owns guns legally knows someone who offered them an Ar15 and is likely to be bona fide. So they can still be accessed.

So if you look at the gang shooting last week that left 8 people dead. And how we currently don't have that sort of violence here. Then the inference being that there's only one way to go and that's down hill.

They banned them 23 years ago.

But like here they either don't act on their intelligence or don't jail hardened criminal for a decent time. Recently even after Christchurch a guy with an illegal gun got home d. It's insane.

With no decent likelihood of getting caught. Low penalties when you are. And a lot of firepower and money floating around then I'd expect the criminals to move from cut down 12 gauge and 22 and move to ar15's.

[husaberg]

If you consider the Australian experience.

They were very generous with their buy back. Cost plus 25 percent of the rrp.

But the numbers from the state of Victoria, with the best records shows that 2 percent of the amount of Semis handed in were centre fire. As in Ar15 sort of thing.

Half were rimfire.
Only 10 percent of the 300,000 sks were handed in.
Illegal guns are very common. Everyone I know over there who owns guns legally knows someone who offered them an Ar15 and is likely to be bona fide. So they can still be accessed.

So if you look at the gang shooting last week that left 8 people dead. And how we currently don't have that sort of violence here. Then the inference being that there's only one way to go and that's down hill.

They banned them 23 years ago.

But like here they either don't act on their intelligence or don't jail hardened criminal for a decent time. Recently even after Christchurch a guy with an illegal gun got home d. It's insane.

With no decent likelihood of getting caught. Low penalties when you are. And a lot of firepower and money floating around then I'd expect the criminals to move from cut down 12 gauge and 22 and move to ar15's.
So what you are saying is these people you constantly refer to as law abiding gun owners being treated unfairly as if they were criminals are actually just criminals anyway, as they somehow feel they have the right to break laws.
Not only that everyone of these people you refer to as law abiding gun owners in Victoria you know are criminals as well. You knowing they have illegal guns makes you a criminal.
Lastly when you say look at what happened here last week and then say we currently dont have that sort of violence here in NZ it makes your point redundant. As we clearly do.
The gangs still use shotguns and 22's here in spite of them easily being able to get other weapons legally, what makes you think now other weapons are illegal they will suddenly change to illegal weapons.
ESP considering your gun lobby group says this
COLFO knows that restrictions on one type of firearm will only prompt criminals to move to the use of another firearms type Even Australia’s most vocal gun control advocate accepts
that the banning of semi-automatic rifles in Australia has simply led to a spike in the criminal use of handguns as criminals moved from one type of firearm to another.
And this

Police estimate that firearms are involved in 1.3% of violent crimes in New Zealand, and lessthan .5% of total crime in the past five years. In other words, over 99% of crime does not involve a firearm
But best of all prior to the shooting we have this gem

COLFO is of the view that New Zealands’ legislation is world leading. For its cost,effectiveness and results the New Zealand framework is simply as good as it can be and remains comfortably fit for purpose. COLFO considers that its members and the public can and shouldtake pride in the system.

COLFO emphatically, implacably and unreservedly opposes the registration of firearms as it will not in any way, shape or form prevent the criminal acquisition or use of firearms a

But this one is the best

The Re-Categorisation of Semiautomatic Long Arms to Restricted Category:
COLFO understands Police may wish to get all semiautomatic long arms re-categorised as restricted and to be held on an “E” Endorsement. This is opposed as pointless, and far beyond the terms of reference of this enquiry. COLFO believes that it is inappropriate to consider this.If it is raised now it should be countered with some evidence based facts.


The person who killed 50 people in a matter of minutes was a licenced gun owner.

[TheDemonLord]

The fundamental point in my posts is you are to belligerent to realise your points are self centered and wrong. The reason so few care about you losing your AR10 is the attitude you are currently displaying.

You mean I'm pissed that something that I earned and payed for is being taken away and that the process by which it was done was akin to a Show Trial?

Yes, I am annoyed at that.

Just as you would be annoyed if something you earned and payed for was being taken away under dubious pretenses and without a fair process.


Maybe your mind is just too small to be able to comprehend the big picture.
All you can see is what you have lost, rather than what the rest of the country has gained from the law change.

And prey tell, what have they gained?

Have they made changes to the process by which a FAL is issued?
Have they removed the ability for someone to use a referree who only knows the person from a Forum?
Have they introduced checks to vet a persons online presence/persona to see if they associated with any groups that would render them not a fit and proper person?
Have they enacted the trans-tasman information sharing to allow proper vetting of those from our closest neighbour?

No?

Then they have gained NOTHING.

Proper application of the previous law and a clarification of restricting magazines holding more than 7 rounds of centrefire ammo patterened for a Semi-Auto reciever to E-Cat licence holders would have achieved all that was needed.

[Delerium]

I was just trying to imagine how much butthurt there must be on firearms forums based on how much there is in this thread on a motorbike forum. Personally, having owned firearms in this newly outlawed category, I am 100% behind the government on this one. I do have some empathy for people who may end up financially worse off, but that is just going to have to be collateral damage...

Guess you're a fascist then.

[Delerium]

The poll of voters regarding the new gun laws showed that 61% of Kiwis thought the new law was "about right".

A further 19% of people said the law does not actually go far enough
14%f those surveyed thought the legislation went too far.
5 per cent of people said they did not know. 2 refused to answer.

So unlike the claims of wide spread support only 14 percent of Kiwis think the gun laws went too far.
80% of kiwis either agree with the changes or actually want to see them go even further.


Selection bias, and from the general public that knows fuck all about firearms or what the law was. So not really relevant.

If your figures are base on the submissions then you need to take into account how a north shore councillor manipulated the result by a Facebook campaign getting people to make submissions of I support the change, with nothing more. 6000 of them including from people that aren't in nz or citizens of nz.

Given that when a template was used for license holders to submit at the last review several years ago and they were counted as s single submission, this is democratically repugnant.

You dont know what you're talking about, just spreading your sanctimonious drivel. You're a fascist.

[Delerium]

Well they were all voters. As well as an opinion they have a vote go againt the voters wishes at your own peril, i dont think we can decide as a country that there is a certain degree of expected experience or knowledge before one can either vote of express an opinion or vote.
The numbers that agree is quite telling. As is the across party support.
as only 6% of the population that has a gun licence anyway.
I agree on the last sentence, the work around mods pushing in the AR15 to A class and at the same time freely selling large mags and fighting tooth and nail to allow it to continue to get around the spirit of the rules is one of the reasons for the draconian laws that are now being implemented.


And? So what, fuck minority groups is your position?
Yes wonder why some mps are back peddling now? 6%of general population, a much bigger percentage of voting population. With our family and friends

[RDJ]

The person who killed 50 people in a matter of minutes was a licenced gun owner.

Who let him in the country? Guvvermin flunkies.

Who gave him a FAL? Guvvermin flunkies.

Who was in charge of sacking Police vetters and moving gun vetting online? Mother Terardern.

Who is being held responsible and punished as a group? All the people who did not do any of the above.

But keep fulminating, something to read in the departure lounge :corn:

[buggerit]

You mean I'm pissed that something that I earned and payed for is being taken away and that the process by which it was done was akin to a Show Trial?

Yes, I am annoyed at that.

Just as you would be annoyed if something you earned and payed for was being taken away under dubious pretenses and without a fair process.



And prey tell, what have they gained?

Have they made changes to the process by which a FAL is issued?
Have they removed the ability for someone to use a referree who only knows the person from a Forum?
Have they introduced checks to vet a persons online presence/persona to see if they associated with any groups that would render them not a fit and proper person?
Have they enacted the trans-tasman information sharing to allow proper vetting of those from our closest neighbour?

No?

Then they have gained NOTHING.

Proper application of the previous law and a clarification of restricting magazines holding more than 7 rounds of centrefire ammo patterened for a Semi-Auto reciever to E-Cat licence holders would have achieved all that was needed.

Totally agree, just renewed my licence 12 months ago and the process was much more rigorous than this offender experienced,
obviously differences region to region.
Why would you give a firearms licience to someone from a penal colony anyway:shifty:,but on a serious
note, why let foriegners hold gun licences if we dont have full access to there files from country of origin?

[husaberg]

You mean I'm pissed that something that I earned and payed for is being taken away and that the process by which it was done was akin to a Show Trial?

Yes, I am annoyed at that.

Just as you would be annoyed if something you earned and payed for was being taken away under dubious pretenses and without a fair process.

A normal adult get over such disappointments they do not say they will break the law and generally bahave like a spoilt brat whose have his favorite toy confiscated.



And prey tell, what have they gained?

Have they made changes to the process by which a FAL is issued?
Have they removed the ability for someone to use a referree who only knows the person from a Forum?
Have they introduced checks to vet a persons online presence/persona to see if they associated with any groups that would render them not a fit and proper person?
Have they enacted the trans-tasman information sharing to allow proper vetting of those from our closest neighbour?

No?

Then they have gained NOTHING.

Proper application of the previous law and a clarification of restricting magazines holding more than 7 rounds of centrefire ammo patterened for a Semi-Auto reciever to E-Cat licence holders would have achieved all that was needed.

Really nothing Gained in case you missed it such a person has no ready or legal access to a firearm and magazines such as were used to kill the 50 people in a mater of minutes.
If one innocent persons life will be saved by this change and is placed against your ability to play bang bang, you lose any day of the week.


Who let him in the country? Guvvermin flunkies.

Who gave him a FAL? Guvvermin flunkies.

Who was in charge of sacking Police vetters and moving gun vetting online? Mother Terardern.

Who is being held responsible and punished as a group? All the people who did not do any of the above.

But keep fulminating, something to read in the departure lounge :corn:

Time will tell with the the result of a full inquiry we are only speculating, but one thing at a time.
It should be noted that the NZ gun lobby group refereed to the process he obtained the AR15s and large mags as being the best in the world :lol:
How could such a system fail if it really was the best in the world clearly it wasnt fit for purpose, So if this was the case why was NZs bigest gun lobby group saying it was.
Could it be they had another agenda themselves.


COLFO is of the view that New Zealands’ legislation is world leading. For its cost, effectiveness and results the New Zealand framework is simply as good as it can be and remainscomfortably fit for purpose.


OLFO opposes:
 Any amendment to the Arms Act (except as regards tariffs for offending) as this
will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal misuse of forearms;
 Any re-classification of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to an “E”
endorsement as this will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal use of
firearms and will be counterproductive;
 Any restrictions on the lawful use of the firearms as this will make no difference
to the criminal misuse of firearms and will be counterproductive
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d

[Laava]

Guess you're a fascist then.

You just keep guessing then princess.

[sidecar bob]

"Thomas, who describes himself as an unemployed politician" I probably should have posted this in the stupid world thread to be honest.
He is also "breathtakingly sad" well that's a new one.
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/207406-nzta-to-replace-gun-number-plates-free.html
You don't have to google very hard to find that he's a serial complainer & affronted by some fairly minor grievances.

[jasonu]

"Thomas, who describes himself as an unemployed politician" I probably should have posted this in the stupid world thread to be honest.
He is also "breathtakingly sad" well that's a new one.
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/207406-nzta-to-replace-gun-number-plates-free.html
You don't have to google very hard to find that he's a serial complainer & affronted by some fairly minor grievances.

What a bunch of queers.

[Delerium]

You just keep guessing then princess.

Hahaha, sure thing. Fascist

[TheDemonLord]

A normal adult get over such disappointments they do not say they will break the law and generally bahave like a spoilt brat whose have his favorite toy confiscated.

Easy to say when it's not you that's affected isn't it....

But more importantly - if the entire process was Fair and unbiased, it would be easier to stomach. However, it was clear from the outset that certain interest groups were using the Tragedy to further their Agenda and doing so at my expense.

And on that basis - Fuck 'em.


Really nothing Gained in case you missed it such a person has no ready or legal access to a firearm and magazines such as were used to kill the 50 people in a mater of minutes.
If one innocent persons life will be saved by this change and is placed against your ability to play bang bang, you lose any day of the week.

Criminals will still have access. See Australia.

The people that commit the Most Firearm related Crime and Firearm related murders (around 90% in this country) will still have access.

In case you missed it, tomorrow, someone could come from Aus, be a member of numerous hate groups online, use a Referree from who only knows them from an online Forum, get issued a FAL, purchase a Rifle and go shoot innocent people.

As everyone keeps pointing out to you, clarifying the rules around E-Cat Magazines would have resolved the problem. Everyone Happy. New Zealanders Safe, Firearm Owners not being Screwed. Everyone Wins.

Then, having a long review into the pitfalls of the current FAL Vetting and FA Management process - perhaps looking into ways of including a persons Online activities as part of the Vetting process, Implementing the trans-tasman Info sharing that has STILL not been implemented, Reinforcing the rules around what constitutes a Valid referee (which would also mean that someone who wanted a FAL would have a cool-down period if they were a Migrant here), Perhaps even introduced a surcharge of 10% on all Firearm related purchases (Firearms, Ammunition, accessories etc.) to adequately fund a dedicated branch of the Police whose sole Remit would be the managing of all Firearm related matters - Similar to the ATF (just without the A and T). Introducing a streamlined process by which a Member of the Public can question an individuals status as 'Fit and Proper', potentially including a mandatory cool-off period when a complaint is made and setting the guidelines as to how such matters are to be investigated. Add in a process for when a Firearms licence lapses, so that Safes are inspected and any Firearms no longer legally held are collected with no prejudice, held for a period of time in case the individual wishes to re-apply. Periodic Mental Health checks as a mandatory condition of holding a FAL. Granting the Police additional powers of Search and Seizure for Gangs and other Criminal Elements so as to remove illegally held Firearms from those who should not have them.

THAT would benefit NZ.

And none of it was looked at. The only thing that was looked at was 'Hurr Durr Ban Scary Black Gun'.

[Voltaire]

Dear Mr Morgan,

Thanks for your letter on offensive words that should be removed from everyday use.
However our Govt Partner has reserved the right to retain the last three for Shane Jones.

Bite the Bullet
Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight
Smoking Gun
Dead Eye
Dodge a Bullet
In the Crosshairs (Cross Hairs)
Jump the Gun
Keep Your Powder Dry
Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel
Long Shot
Loose Cannon
Pack Heat
Powder Keg
Shoot from the Hip
Silver Bullet
Son of a Gun
Shoot Off One’s Mouth
Shoot Oneself In The Foot
Go Off Half-Cocked


Sincerely

Chris Hipkins
Education Minister

[husaberg]

Easy to say when it's not you that's affected isn't it....

But more importantly - if the entire process was Fair and unbiased, it would be easier to stomach. However, it was clear from the outset that certain interest groups were using the Tragedy to further their Agenda and doing so at my expense.

And on that basis - Fuck 'em.

And none of it was looked at. The only thing that was looked at was 'Hurr Durr Ban Scary Black Gun'.
Listen sony the world doesn't revolve around you or your feelings or your wants.
Put on your big boy pants and grow up.

[TheDemonLord]

Listen sony the world doesn't revolve around you or your feelings or your wants.
Put on your big boy pants and grow up.

Again, Easy to say when it's not you being affected.

And interesting that you didn't address any of the points that would likely have had a far greater positive effect to Firearm safety in this Country.

It's almost like you don't care about Firearm safety, you only care about conforming to your ideological Tenants, just like your political Masters.

But don't worry, when it's something you like and care about up against the wall - I'll be right there, treating you with the same contempt you've shown.

[husaberg]

Again, Easy to say when it's not you being affected.

And interesting that you didn't address any of the points that would likely have had a far greater positive effect to Firearm safety in this Country.

It's almost like you don't care about Firearm safety, you only care about conforming to your ideological Tenants, just like your political Masters.

But don't worry, when it's something you like and care about up against the wall - I'll be right there, treating you with the same contempt you've shown.

I am showing you the contempt you deserve, everyone in NZ is affected by the law change not just you, The difference is 80% plus agree its the right thing to do or say it still doesn't go far enough.
Is it correct to say, You are a pom that immigrated to NZ?
Either way if you don't like NZ's or the UK laws, move to the USA. You already claim to know more than their supreme court Judges and the FBI do about law and security, Why not try and prove it in person.
Here in the real world rather than your online gamming 50 people died, if you want to front up to their relatives and tell them you value their lives lower than your want to have a rifle you never needed or even used for anything other than a hobby go for it.
PS none of the points you made are safer options than what has already occurred. Quite the opposite.

As for saying similar law changes in Aussie never worked, you are 100% mistaken
According to a Sydney University analysis, before the law change mass shootings took place at a rate of one every three years, with 13 massacres since 1979.
After Australia's Port Arthur massacre, ONLY Twelve days after the mass shooting in which 35 people were killed, prime minister John Howard took drastic measures. With the introduction of the National Firearms Agreement, gun control was massively tightened.
Funny enough since then There have been ZERO mass shootings in the two decades since 1996. ZERO Zilch NADA.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111394340/australia-took-action-against-gun-laws-why-didnt-new-zealand

[TheDemonLord]

I am showing you the contempt you deserve,

Thus Spake every Totalitarian Genocidal Dictator.

That, right there, is the same Justification that Stalin used, the same justification that Pol Pot used.

You've self-appointed yourself Judge, Jury and most importantly, Executioner.

The fact you don't see it, is truly terrifying. And here's the real kicker: That's exactly the same thinking the Terrorist had each and every time he pulled the trigger.

[husaberg]

Thus Spake every Totalitarian Genocidal Dictator.

That, right there, is the same Justification that Stalin used, the same justification that Pol Pot used.

You've self-appointed yourself Judge, Jury and most importantly, Executioner.

The fact you don't see it, is truly terrifying. And here's the real kicker: That's exactly the same thinking the Terrorist had each and every time he pulled the trigger.

A law change that over 80% of NZ agree with voted in by 99% of Our MP's and you have the audacity to claim its a akin to a dictatorship.
Nice one.:weird:

[jasonu]

A law change that over 80% of NZ agree with voted in by 99% of Our MP's and you have the audacity to claim its a akin to a dictatorship.
Nice one.:weird:

80% from a poll taken from people that likely have never heard of an AR15 before Brenton Tarrent did his thing. 99% of MP's that knew a vote against the new rules would be political suicide.

[Laava]

80% from a poll taken from people that likely have never heard of an AR15 before Brenton Tarrent did his thing. 99% of MP's that knew a vote against the new rules would be political suicide.
So, just while you are being the expert on statitics, oh and all guns obviously, are you inferring that pretty much everyone knows nothing about what an AR15 is or any military style semi? Or just 80%?

[jasonu]

So, just while you are being the expert on statitics, oh and all guns obviously, are you inferring that pretty much everyone knows nothing about what an AR15 is or any military style semi? Or just 80%?

Just the 80% of the few hundred people polled

[husaberg]

80% from a poll taken from people that likely have never heard of an AR15 before the idiot did his thing. 99% of MP's that knew a vote against the new rules would be political suicide.
Democracy is the will of the majority of the people no mater what their race education or religion
All those polled knew the CHCH terrorist used firearms inc AR15 to kill 50 people in the mater of minutes.
You just don't like the result of the poll. As it clearly shows how tiny the minority support for NZ's Gun lobby is.


but if you are going to suggest a certain level of intelligence or knowledge is required to vote Have a look closer to home.

55% of Americans believe that Christianity was written into the Constitution
Only 51% knew where New York was.
25% of Americans were unable to identify the country from which America gained its independence.
Only 20%, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth
In 2011 29% of Americans were unable to correctly identify the current Vice President, Joe Biden
73% had no idea why the US fought the Cold War.
46.1% of Americans voted for Donald trump

[jasonu]

but if you are going to suggest a certain level of intelligence or knowledge is required to vote Have a look closer to home.

55% of Americans believe that Christianity was written into the Constitution
Only 51% knew where New York was.
25% of Americans were unable to identify the country from which America gained its independence.
Only 20%, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth
In 2011 29% of Americans were unable to correctly identify the current Vice President, Joe Biden
73% had no idea why the US fought the Cold War.
46.1% of Americans voted for Donald trump

Have you been watching David Letterman?

[TheDemonLord]

A law change that over 80% of NZ agree with voted in by 99% of Our MP's and you have the audacity to claim its a akin to a dictatorship.
Nice one.:weird:

You keep using that 80% figure, when the submissions were a lot closer - 60-40. That's without filtering out the duplicate and 'form' submissions from those for the Law change.

However, there was a time when nearly 100% of people were in favor of Slavery - did it make it right then? Or are you just committing the populist Fallacy - that something is right because most people say it is.

[husaberg]

You keep using that 80% figure, when the submissions were a lot closer - 60-40. That's without filtering out the duplicate and 'form' submissions from those for the Law change.

However, there was a time when nearly 100% of people were in favor of Slavery - did it make it right then? Or are you just committing the populist Fallacy - that something is right because most people say it is.

Red hearing alert.... So what if the submissions were. 50/50 it would not change anything, Unless the submission said something useful.
We live in a democracy you claimed it was unfair as your views were not followed, tough.

Between April 6 and 10, 1009 eligible voters were polled via landline and mobile phone.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
This is the will of the majority of the people, Deal with it.
Out of all the Mps that represent the voters all bar one supported the bill.
You are a lunatic if you think you have being able to have a AR10 on a A class licence is comparable to slavery

[unstuck]

I refuse to answer. 🤘

[husaberg]

I refuse to answer. ��

Welcome back hippie
3 years

[TheDemonLord]

Red hearing alert.... So what if the submissions were. 50?50 it would not change anything, Unless the submission said something useful.

So, it's all "Democracy Democracy Democracy" - right up until the point where the Democratic process doesn't give you what you want, then it's "It would not change anything, nothing useful" - that shows everyone what your (lack of) principals are....

If the submissions were 51 -49 opposing the Bill - would it be Democracy if it was rejected? what about 60-40 against? 70-30? We both know that even if there was 100% opposition submissions this bill would have gone through and we both know that you would still claim that this is 'Democracy'.


We live in a democracy you claimed it was unfair as your views were not followed, tough.

That's not Democracy, that's Tyranny by the Majority. And I'll come back to this in a moment...


Between April 6 and 10, 1009 eligible voters were polled via landline and mobile phone.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
This is the will of the majority of the people, Deal with it.
Out of all the Mps that represent the voters all bar one supported the bill.

Where were they polled from? What was their level of Knowledge on the Subject? You only have to look at the Media talking heads as a case in point - one saying that she had no idea what the current Gun laws are, Another saying he was shocked to find out you can own Assault Rifles in NZ (You can't).


You are a lunatic if you think you have being able to have a AR10 on a A class licence is comparable to slavery

I never said that.

You've been saying that if the Majority say it's so, then it must be right.
I'm pointing out that all of Mankinds greatest egalitarian advances (Abolition of Slavery, Suffrage for Women, Gay Rights etc. etc.) have been done despite Majority opposition.

So which is it? Either it's Majority rules 100% of the time and therefore those advances should never have happened

OR

Sometimes a Minority should get special consideration on an issue that uniquely affects them which the Majority (in their ignorance) should not hold sway over them.

Just like Firearm laws.

[husaberg]

So, it's all "Democracy Democracy Democracy" - right up until the point where the Democratic process doesn't give you what you want, then it's "It would not change anything, nothing useful" - that shows everyone what your (lack of) principals are....

If the submissions were 51 -49 opposing the Bill - would it be Democracy if it was rejected? what about 60-40 against? 70-30? We both know that even if there was 100% opposition submissions this bill would have gone through and we both know that you would still claim that this is 'Democracy'.



That's not Democracy, that's Tyranny by the Majority. And I'll come back to this in a moment...



Where were they polled from? What was their level of Knowledge on the Subject? You only have to look at the Media talking heads as a case in point - one saying that she had no idea what the current Gun laws are, Another saying he was shocked to find out you can own Assault Rifles in NZ (You can't).



I never said that.

You've been saying that if the Majority say it's so, then it must be right.
I'm pointing out that all of Mankinds greatest egalitarian advances (Abolition of Slavery, Suffrage for Women, Gay Rights etc. etc.) have been done despite Majority opposition.

So which is it? Either it's Majority rules 100% of the time and therefore those advances should never have happened

OR

Sometimes a Minority should get special consideration on an issue that uniquely affects them which the Majority (in their ignorance) should not hold sway over them.

Just like Firearm laws.
You are a joke.
What is beautifully ironic about the democratic process in which you lost you access to beloved AR10 is that the reason, by which you lost it is an immigrant, the same as you, spouting the exact same hate against a group of people, as you so often have on this very forums, actions that caused it all to occur.

[TheDemonLord]

You are a joke.
What is beautifully ironic about the democratic process in which you lost you access to beloved AR10 is that the reason, by which you lost it is an immigrant, the same as you, spouting the exact same hate against a group of people, as you so often have on this very forums, actions that caused it all to occur.

What is a joke, is the contempt (your own words) you have shown for those you don't like, is the same contempt that the Terrorist had.

[unstuck]

Welcome back hippie
3 years

Yeah, been living like a hippie in Nelson for 3 years, only came back on here to see if you were still flapping your gums. 😂👍

[Delerium]

Red hearing alert.... So what if the submissions were. 50?50 it would not change anything, Unless the submission said something useful.
We live in a democracy you claimed it was unfair as your views were not followed, tough.

Between April 6 and 10, 1009 eligible voters were polled via landline and mobile phone.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
This is the will of the majority of the people, Deal with it.
Out of all the Mps that represent the voters all bar one supported the bill.
You are a lunatic if you think you have being able to have a AR10 on a A class licence is comparable to slavery


Hey wanker if you want to keep red repping me how about you do it on an applicable post instead of working your way down my post list?

[Delerium]

Red hearing alert.... So what if the submissions were. 50?50 it would not change anything, Unless the submission said something useful.
We live in a democracy you claimed it was unfair as your views were not followed, tough.

Between April 6 and 10, 1009 eligible voters were polled via landline and mobile phone.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
This is the will of the majority of the people, Deal with it.
Out of all the Mps that represent the voters all bar one supported the bill.
You are a lunatic if you think you have being able to have a AR10 on a A class licence is comparable to slavery


No, you're either too stupid or deliberately ignorant to miss the concept that is being compared

[Delerium]

You are a joke.
What is beautifully ironic about the democratic process in which you lost you access to beloved AR10 is that the reason, by which you lost it is an immigrant, the same as you, spouting the exact same hate against a group of people, as you so often have on this very forums, actions that caused it all to occur.



Nah you're just a fascist that approves of democracy when it agrees with you.

Fascist.

[husaberg]

What is a joke, is the contempt (your own words) you have shown for those you don't like, is the same contempt that the Terrorist had.
You and your rants are treated with the contempt they deserve, You losing your AR10 is not an attack on democracy, quite the opposite, it shows it works.
Myself and 80% of all other kiwis believe in the law change, as do 99% of the other MP's, So thus, the law changes, this is democracy. If you don't like the laws in NZ, or intend not to follow them, its time past time you left NZ.
You follow and espouse on the net the exact same theories the killer had, you visit the same sites, You post the same material. Yet now you are moaning you don't have access to an AR and larg cap mags same as he did.............:weird:

[Graystone]

So, it's all "Democracy Democracy Democracy" - right up until the point where the Democratic process doesn't give you what you want, then it's "It would not change anything, nothing useful" - that shows everyone what your (lack of) principals are....

If the submissions were 51 -49 opposing the Bill - would it be Democracy if it was rejected? what about 60-40 against? 70-30? We both know that even if there was 100% opposition submissions this bill would have gone through and we both know that you would still claim that this is 'Democracy'.



That's not Democracy, that's Tyranny by the Majority. And I'll come back to this in a moment...



Where were they polled from? What was their level of Knowledge on the Subject? You only have to look at the Media talking heads as a case in point - one saying that she had no idea what the current Gun laws are, Another saying he was shocked to find out you can own Assault Rifles in NZ (You can't).



I never said that.

You've been saying that if the Majority say it's so, then it must be right.
I'm pointing out that all of Mankinds greatest egalitarian advances (Abolition of Slavery, Suffrage for Women, Gay Rights etc. etc.) have been done despite Majority opposition.

So which is it? Either it's Majority rules 100% of the time and therefore those advances should never have happened

OR

Sometimes a Minority should get special consideration on an issue that uniquely affects them which the Majority (in their ignorance) should not hold sway over them.

Just like Firearm laws.

There was so much stupid in that post it resurrected a dead meme.

https://i.warosu.org/data/ck/img/0062/59/1424727382641.jpg

And it's actually a relevant one, without a cogent argument, you fall back on all this false equivalency and whinging. Of course a representative democracy can go against majority opinion, but that's based on the merits of the point at hand, not the piss weak drivel you spout.

[TheDemonLord]

You and your rants are treated with the contempt they deserve, You losing your AR10 is not an attack on democracy, quite the opposite, it shows it works.
Myself and 80% of all other kiwis believe in the law change, as do 99% of the other MP's, So thus, the law changes, this is democracy. If you don't like the laws in NZ, or intend not to follow them, its time past time you left NZ.

Okay - lets go through this.

Something bad happened, people were killed by a Terrorist, The masses - ignorant of the minutia, not directly affected by the Ban themselves, vote to ban the thing that caused it.

So you'd be happy if say someone banned Immigration from Islamic countries then?

Oh wait....

So tell me - how is that any different?


You follow and espouse on the net the exact same theories the killer had, you visit the same sites, You post the same material.

If you think that, then you are clearly deluded. I know of the sites he posted his manifesto to and streamed his terrorist act to - I'm not on any of them.

Keep lying, it shows how full of shit you are.


Yet now you are moaning you don't have access to an AR and larg cap mags same as he did.............:weird:

I never had access to Large Capacity Magazines, because that would be a breach of my Licence. I've bought several 5 round Magazines.

And I've said, umpteen times - the same as every other Firearm owner in this thread, that we would ALL have been okay with a clarification of the existing law to restrict large capacity magazines that were patterned for semi-auto recievers to only Cat-E licence holders.

So anything else you'd like to lie (blatantly) about?

[TheDemonLord]

Of course a representative democracy can go against majority opinion, but that's based on the merits of the point at hand

Fine.

Care to define exactly what the Merits are?

But keep in mind, I will hold you to those merits, and I don't think you can articulate them without being prejudicial or without having unintended consequences for things you support.

[husaberg]

Okay - lets go through this.



Lets not, As you are not able to have an adult conversation, You used to, but it appears you suffering from something that prevents any logical thought processes occurring.
Maybe you just don't understand how democracy works. Or maybe you should just move. I don't care either way.
I am not going to waste further time on your futile nonsensical points that somehow place you in no particular order over the last 12 months
More about security than the FBI and the US state department.
More about the US Laws than a US Supreme Court Judge.
More about the law than any lawyer.
Let me put it in a way you might understand.
You don't get to decide yourself what the NZ laws will be, I don't care if you agree with this or not.
80% of Kiwis wanted these new gun laws get over it. 99% of the MP voted for it to change. Start a political party if you want, see how you get on.

[TheDemonLord]

Lets not,

What's the matter? I've given you an example of what your chain of reasoning leads to - and suddenly we get avoidance?

This is the text book example of "The rules only apply when they are in my favor". You've asserted that Democracy is when the Majority want something - I've given you multiple instances where major Human Rights advances (and things you presumably support) were made in direct opposition to what the majority wanted.

At least Graystone is honest enough to acknowledge this fact.

As for the rest of your drivel, that's simply your imagination at play.

And you keep harping on about 80% this - for a sample size of 1004, but ignoring the Submissions (with a sample size of around 15,000) which was closer to 60-40 (a Figure that includes duplicate entries and form submissions which, in accordance to prior standards set by the submissions process, should be counted as a single submission), if these duplicate and form submissions are removed, it is likely to be a lot closer to 50-50.

And since phone polls aren't part of the Democratic process and Submissions are, and you care oh so much about Democracy - let's use those figures eh - but then, that takes all the wind out of your blow-hard sails.

[jasonu]

I am not going to waste further time.

I'll bet you do. You can't help yourself.

[husaberg]

I'll bet you do. You can't help yourself.
Nah hes back on ignore i really dont know why i keep taking him off.
Anyone who cant figure out how basic democracy works is a waste of time.

[Graystone]

Fine.

Care to define exactly what the Merits are?

But keep in mind, I will hold you to those merits, and I don't think you can articulate them without being prejudicial or without having unintended consequences for things you support.

Of what? I'm not trying to overturn a majority opinion...

[TheDemonLord]

Of what? I'm not trying to overturn a majority opinion...

So that's a no then.

At least it's (somewhat) honest of you to decline...

[avgas]

I just think this is amazing and sexy.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6npd2WbJTw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
https://www.magpul.com/firearms-accessories/stocks/ruger-10-22/firearms-accessories/stocks/ruger-10-22-stocks/x-22-backpacker-stock-ruger-10-22-takedown

[jasonu]

I just think this is amazing and sexy.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6npd2WbJTw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
https://www.magpul.com/firearms-accessories/stocks/ruger-10-22/firearms-accessories/stocks/ruger-10-22-stocks/x-22-backpacker-stock-ruger-10-22-takedown

Good price too.

[pritch]

I just think this is amazing and sexy.


Which is proof, as if any was necessary, that beauty is in indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Previously the police didn't like those, or the Charter Arms AR-7 survival rifle where the barel was stored in the stock, it was the lack of length that bothered them. Never mind that they couldn't be used in that state.

In the US small aircraft carry those, but deploying that against a grizzly would prove unfortunate.

In WW2 the Luftwaffe in Africa carried something like this: 12g over 9.3 X 74R which, with the variety of ammunition, would be a whole nutha matter. A serious survival tool.

[avgas]

Previously the police didn't like those, or the Charter Arms AR-7 survival rifle where the barel was stored in the stock, it was the lack of length that bothered them. Never mind that they couldn't be used in that state.
Really? I know of prior cases - but they all had pistol grips. Not the 10/22 or the AR-7? Or was it all take down rifles?

I personally would prefer a bolt with this stock. But yet to find a take-down with a bolt that isn't something crazy like 338 Lapua.

[pritch]

Or was it all take down rifles?



Yep. It's the length they didn't like. Not that anyone could use it in that state...

[avgas]

Yep. It's the length they didn't like. Not that anyone could use it in that state...

Well i eagerly await the 2030 firearms policy review where the only thing left is loading a shell into a bit of pipe and hitting it really hard with a hammer.
Because "safety".

[pritch]

Well i eagerly await the 2030 firearms policy review where the only thing left is loading a shell into a bit of pipe and hitting it really hard with a hammer.
Because "safety".

You might not have to wait until 2030. I hear that there are people in the corridors of power that are so impressed with how easy it was to outlaw semi automatic rifles that they are now considering banning other classes of firearms. One check on their enthusiasm might be the millions this buy back will cost.

[Swoop]

You might not have to wait until 2030. I hear that there are people in the corridors of power that are so impressed with how easy it was to outlaw semi automatic rifles that they are now considering banning other classes of firearms. One check on their enthusiasm might be the millions this buy back will cost.

There is already strong talk about the pistols being next in line. "large magazines" ... like those the police use in service pistols, will be confiscated. Any double stack mags, in fact.

[scumdog]

Publicly there's a deafening silence re firearms and the 'buy back' (WTF? How can you buy back something you've never owned???):facepalm:

[scumdog]

You and your rants are treated with the contempt they deserve, You losing your AR10 is not an attack on democracy, quite the opposite, it shows it works.
Myself and 80% of all other kiwis believe in the law change, as do 99% of the other MP's, So thus, the law changes, this is democracy. If you don't like the laws in NZ, or intend not to follow them, its time past time you left NZ.
You follow and espouse on the net the exact same theories the killer had, you visit the same sites, You post the same material. Yet now you are moaning you don't have access to an AR and larg cap mags same as he did.............:weird:


You don't speak for me:oi-grr:

(Wait until the only bikes allowed on the road are LAMS bike...)

[husaberg]

You don't speak for me:oi-grr:

(Wait until the only bikes allowed on the road are LAMS bike...)

I never realised you were 80% of New Zealand, that s lot of Donuts, scummy.
Nor have i claimed to speak for you.
Maybe you can explain to me why an average joe Smo really needs a AR10 or 15 then?
Give me the 16% view how losing a AR10 or 15 is an attack on democracy when its what the majority of people in NZ want. 16% exactly co-incides with the number of gun licences and their spouses BTW.

Well after someone goes apeshit on a hayabusa or H2R and kills 50 People in a few minutes you might find the same level of support for banning some motorbikes.
When the Lams rules was introduced in the first place people coped, prior to that any learner could ride a KR1S or a RGV250 or NSR250, Likely when you got your licence there was no learner laws at all.

[pritch]

There is already strong talk about the pistols being next in line. "large magazines" ... like those the police use in service pistols, will be confiscated. Any double stack mags, in fact.

If the mags are confiscated the guns are useless. The rules as applied to tube magazines wouldn't work for pistol magazines. If they want to buy the pistols OK I guess.

The gun dealers are in for a sales boom.

[TheDemonLord]

Well after someone goes apeshit on a hayabusa or H2R and kills 50 People in a few minutes you might find the same level of support for banning some motorbikes.

And here we have the blatant Double Standard.

Do you remember the Nice Truck attack? 83 people killed in a few Minutes, the event that radicalized the Terrorist, Do you remember the calls for Banning of Trucks?

No?

Well, that's where your entire argument falls down.

[TheDemonLord]

You might not have to wait until 2030. I hear that there are people in the corridors of power that are so impressed with how easy it was to outlaw semi automatic rifles that they are now considering banning other classes of firearms. One check on their enthusiasm might be the millions this buy back will cost.

The ideological Zealots in Labour have already declared they don't care how much it costs.

The only shame is that the Teachers and Junior Doctors who are crying about Wages refuse to come out and publicly advocate against the waste of Money that will be the Buy-Back/New Laws.

[Pound]

And here we have the blatant Double Standard.

Do you remember the Nice Truck attack? 83 people killed in a few Minutes, the event that radicalized the Terrorist, Do you remember the calls for Banning of Trucks?

No?

Well, that's where your entire argument falls down.


To be fair to the trucks and bikes though, they weren't designed for destructive purposes, where as the AR 15s and semi autos were designed for that very purpose.....

[TheDemonLord]

To be fair to the trucks and bikes though, they weren't designed for destructive purposes, where as the AR 15s and semi autos were designed for that very purpose.....

Do you include Sport Shooting and Pest control as Destructive purposes?

Because like a Truck - if used incorrectly, it can inflict mass casualties and deaths, but if used for it's lawful purpose, it's completely safe - in fact in NZ, there's less Heavy trucks (over 3.5 Tonne) than there are Semi-Autos, yet the fatality rate for Trucks is nearly 9 times that of Firearms (2016 data - 75 Deaths for Trucks vs 9 Murders for Firearms).

[onearmedbandit]

Can't wait until you guys all reach a general consensus and happily agree with each other.

[Pound]

Do you include Sport Shooting and Pest control as Destructive purposes?

Because like a Truck - if used incorrectly, it can inflict mass casualties and deaths, but if used for it's lawful purpose, it's completely safe - in fact in NZ, there's less Heavy trucks (over 3.5 Tonne) than there are Semi-Autos, yet the fatality rate for Trucks is nearly 9 times that of Firearms (2016 data - 75 Deaths for Trucks vs 9 Murders for Firearms).


Yes, I don't disagree that some people would most certainly use them for sport shooting and pest control, but I still stand by the fact that were primarily designed for destructive purposes, I.e taking/ending life. I would say that most (but not all, I'll admit) buyers would be purchasing them for self defense reasons, and of course, law enforcement/private contractors, again, to take the life of others.

Again, trucks, bikes, cars etc, were designed for peaceful, useful purposes......

If we are going to argue that way, you could say that chocolate, if used incorrectly can kill you......:laugh:

[Pound]

Do you include Sport Shooting and Pest control as Destructive purposes?

Because like a Truck - if used incorrectly, it can inflict mass casualties and deaths, but if used for it's lawful purpose, it's completely safe - in fact in NZ, there's less Heavy trucks (over 3.5 Tonne) than there are Semi-Autos, yet the fatality rate for Trucks is nearly 9 times that of Firearms (2016 data - 75 Deaths for Trucks vs 9 Murders for Firearms).

By the way, I am not anti gun by any means, in fact I would personally quite like to own and fire a military style semi auto....:cool:

[jasonu]

I would say that most (but not all, I'll admit) buyers would be purchasing them for self defense reasons, and of course, law enforcement/private contractors, again, to take the life of others.
:

Most people I know that own guns (pretty much everyone I know here) have multiple styles of firearms for recreational purposes.

[Pound]

Most people I know that own guns (pretty much everyone I know here) have multiple styles of firearms for recreational purposes.


I was primarily referring to the American buyers, where the vast majority of said semi Autos/AR 15s are sold...

Here in NZ, I would absolutely say that it would probably be more like 90%+ for recreational purposes, as you are not allowed to use them as "self defense weapons" here in NZ, where as in Americaland, you are legally allowed to use them for such purposes...

[jasonu]

I was primarily referring to the American buyers, where the vast majority of said semi Autos/AR 15s are sold...

Here in NZ, I would absolutely say that it would probably be more like 90%+ for recreational purposes, as you are not allowed to use them as "self defense weapons" here in NZ, where as in Americaland, you are legally allowed to use them for such purposes...

Just to clarify I live in America (20+ years) and am referring to my friends here, none of which are even remotely likely to go and shoot up a school or mosque. Just regular people who happen to like guns.

[husaberg]

Can't wait until you guys all reach a general consensus and happily agree with each other.

Pretty sure the publc and the 99% politicians have reached a consensus, Its just that 14% are not so happy about it.
Funny enough more people in NZ believe it never went far enough than it went to far.
IN a poll of registered voters Sixty-one per cent thought the changes were about right, 19% thought it did not go far enough and 14% thought it went too far.
Five per cent didn't know, and 2% refused to answer.
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95 per cent confidence level.
the 14% who disagree collates strongly with doubling the number of Firearms licences in NZ ie 6.25% x2 ie plus the partner which eguals 13%

[buggerit]

Just to clarify I live in America (20+ years) and am referring to my friends here, none of which are even remotely likely to go and shoot up a school or mosque. Just regular people who happen to like guns.

if your mates want to shoot in nz all they need to do is prove they own a gun legally and prove they have done a
firearms safety course and pay $25, good for 12 months, this is the same for any country like the USA that doesn't
actually have a licencing system.
Check out nz police websight if you think this could not possibly be true.

[Pound]

Just to clarify I live in America (20+ years) and am referring to my friends here, none of which are even remotely likely to go and shoot up a school or mosque. Just regular people who happen to like guns.


Ah, I was not aware of that. :niceone:

I would iamgine that the vast majority of gun owners in America (and here in NZ) are up standing, law abiding citizens, but it's always that 1% that ruin for the rest of us (Like the idiots who ride around in T shirts and Jandals on their crotch rockets pulling sick wheelies).

There is a lot about Americaland that I love, but they clearly do have a big problem with their gun culture, as they have a disproportionately high gun crime rate vs their population.

Wow, and here I really didn't want to get into a giant debate about guns/gun laws, but it seems like it's impossible to talk about it without having many clashing opinions for vs against.....

[husaberg]

Ah, I was not aware of that. :niceone:

I would iamgine that the vast majority of gun owners in America (and here in NZ) are up standing, law abiding citizens, but it's always that 1% that ruin for the rest of us (Like the idiots who ride around in T shirts and Jandals on their crotch rockets pulling sick wheelies).
....

I totally agree but tunfortunately that's how the cookie crumbles its the lowest common denominator,
But you need to also realise the pass rate for a NZ gun licence was 99.6%.
contrast that with the NZ driver licence pass rate which is only 57% i think its not just Apollo 13 that had the problem.

I read somewhere the Cat gun laws introduced after Aromoana were actually the result of what the gun lobby drafted and we all know how full of loop holes they were.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0095/latest/DLM278351.html

Not only that in the 2016 submissions
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/51SCLO_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_68642_1_A516760/dbafb19a51f53256a9bdbceb42e9bc22727ef15d
COLFO is of the view that New Zealands’ legislation is world leading For its cost,effectiveness and results the New Zealand framework is simply as good as it can be and remains comfortably fit for purpose.
COLFO emphatically, implacably and unreservedly opposes the registration of firearms.
COLFO says Changing the ammunition supply mechanism in New Zealand, COLFO contends, will make no difference.
COLFO understands Police may wish to get all semiautomatic long arms re-categorised as restricted and to be held on an “E” Endorsement. This is opposed as pointless.........
COFLO Semi-Automatic firearms are not more or less dangerous compared to any other firearms type.........
COLFO considers that semi-automatic rifles are unlikely to be particularly favoured for nefarious activities.
COLFO opposes: Any amendment to the Arms Act (except as regards tariffs for offending) as this will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal misuse of forearms.
COLFO opposes: Any re-classification of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to an “E”endorsement as this will make no difference whatsoever to the criminal use of firearms and will be counterproductive.
COLFO opposes: Any restrictions on the lawful use of the firearms as this will make no difference to the criminal misuse of firearms and will be counterproductive


But even Colfo admits the public wants the rules changed and the vast majority supports the bans

Since shooters represent only 5% of the population the chances of swaying public opinion in our favour are negligible, so our effort must be in influencing politicians and the new laws they propose. To this end COLFO has campaigned for more time to be given to allow for any new legislation to be digested and commented on by those most affected. We have encouraged all shooters to make submissions to parliament at the appropriate time and provided advice on how to do this. We have also asked to be consulted in drafting legislation in the hope of averting any stupid errors.
With all major political parties supporting a ban of semi autos our only hope, as responsible firearm owners, is to see that the resulting legislation is effective and fair and does not result in unintended consequences. We must insist that fair compensation is provided for those whose personal property is confiscated.

Not only that in 2019 they suddenly realised they had been talking shit in all their previous submissions. A 180 degree change.

COLFO’s recent survey indicates that 91% percent of the 5,500 submitters would support a higher level of vetting and 84% support a higher security requirement in order to retain a portion of their firearms.

Not only that the largest representative of NZ hunters interests supports the law changes

Pro-gun lobby group Fish & Game, which represents 150,000 anglers and game bird hunters, supports gun reform and said military-style weapons should never have been allowed to be sold here. CEO Martin Taylor said there is no legitimate recreational hunting use for such weapons.
Fish & Game said it would support a gun magazine limit of 2-3 shots.

Colfo only has 10000 members or .2% of the NZ population

[Swoop]

Most people I know that own guns (pretty much everyone I know here) have multiple styles of firearms for recreational purposes.
The same thing applies to a set of golf clubs. You can get by playing a game of golf with only one bat.
Shooting is similar, where you have a certain firearm for certain reasons (competitive shooting events, hunting large game, hunting small game, etc, etc.)

[TheDemonLord]

Yes, I don't disagree that some people would most certainly use them for sport shooting and pest control, but I still stand by the fact that were primarily designed for destructive purposes, I.e taking/ending life. I would say that most (but not all, I'll admit) buyers would be purchasing them for self defense reasons, and of course, law enforcement/private contractors, again, to take the life of others.

Again, trucks, bikes, cars etc, were designed for peaceful, useful purposes......

If we are going to argue that way, you could say that chocolate, if used incorrectly can kill you......:laugh:

The question then becomes one of perspectives.

One could argue the case of Richard Gatling, that weapons are designed to save lives (Peace through superior Firepower, or specifically in his case - one man being able to do the work of 20).

In NZ, the only lawful purposes for an individual to have a Firearm are sporting purposes (Hunting, Target shooting etc.) So the only purpose from an NZ perspective is also peaceful, useful purposes.

The point I'm making is we have less Trucks than Firearms, more Deaths due to Trucks vs Firearms, Both Firearms and Trucks provide beneficial roles (Pest Control is a big thing in NZ), both can be abused by Terrorists to cause a large amount of deaths in a short amount of time.

Husa then went on to make the direct comparison - that if mass death at the hands of a madman was done by something else, we'd also be advocating for the banning of that thing - The clear reality is, that we don't. We have a different Standard for Firearms - and I'd say a part of that is the social stigma attached to them.

[TheDemonLord]

I totally agree but tunfortunately that's how the cookie crumbles its the lowest common denominator,
But you need to also realise the pass rate for a NZ gun licence was 99.6%.
contrast that with the NZ driver licence pass rate which is only 57% i think its not just Apollo 13 that had the problem.

I read somewhere the Cat gun laws introduced after Aromoana were actually the result of what the gun lobby drafted and we all know how full of loop holes they were.

And who is responsible for the 99.6% pass rate?

As for what you read - you might want to read about the 1994 AWB, then you might realise exactly which lobby group had a hand in drafting it....

[leeroy996]

Most people I know that own guns (pretty much everyone I know here) have multiple styles of firearms for recreational purposes.

Some my friends have firearms for recreation but all say they have them for self defense. Some will carry a knife if they don't have a concealed weapons permit. Some have a hand gun strapped under the steering wheel. The Castle Doctrine also applies to vehicles, so you can use deadly force on an angry driver that opens your door.

[jasonu]

if your mates want to shoot in nz all they need to do is prove they own a gun legally and prove they have done a
firearms safety course and pay $25, good for 12 months, this is the same for any country like the USA that doesn't
actually have a licencing system.
Check out nz police websight if you think this could not possibly be true.

In America if you want to buy a gun from a licensed dealer (Federal Firearms License holder) you must pass a background check performed by the FBI. You pay the dealer a fee (about $10) they make the phone call and you get an OK, no, or wait for a certain amount of time (for further checking). It generally takes about 15 minutes to get the answer. Most private citizens (me included) selling firearms will insist on meeting the buyer at a dealers so they can perform the background check.
If a non USC tries to buy a gun he will almost certainly not get an immediate OK from the FBI. That happened to me the first time I bought a gun from a dealer. I had to wait for a couple of days for the OK from the FBI. Now they know me the check takes a matter of minutes.

[Graystone]

The point I'm making is we have less Trucks than Firearms, more Deaths due to Trucks vs Firearms, Both Firearms and Trucks provide beneficial roles (Pest Control is a big thing in NZ), both can be abused by Terrorists to cause a large amount of deaths in a short amount of time.

What are the comparative murder rates? Which one actually is being used by terrorists to cause a large amount of deaths? I know you live in fairyland where you get to chose the probability of anything even remotely possible, but lets pay a little bit of attention to reality eh!

[Pound]

The question then becomes one of perspectives.

Indeed.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. :msn-wink:




The thing that I have learnt after reading almost every comment on this thread is that no matter what side you are on (Pro or Anti gun) facts and statistics will be manipulated and twisted to try and justify the argument for both for vs against.

The argumentation is circular, and never ending, which is sadly what happens when you throw personal bias into the equation (as opposed to using only pure facts, logic, and objectivity).

I am actually in quite a good position to argue (if I wanted a never ending argument that is), since I have no agendas to push, nor am I a gun owner, nor have i ever even held a gun in my life.
I am also definitely not anti gun either, and if somebody ever gave me the opportunity to hold/fire a semi auto/hand gun, I would jump at the chance, because what red blooded man doesn't like military grade weapons technology?

With all that being said, I respect a man who stands by what he believes in (even if he is wrong) :msn-wink:

[Pound]

In fact this sort of thing particularly annoys me.......

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112634121/police-seize-gun-collectors-firearms-in-over-the-top-raid

[jasonu]

In fact this sort of thing particularly annoys me.......

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112634121/police-seize-gun-collectors-firearms-in-over-the-top-raid

Talk about low hanging fruit. How often will you hear about the pigs doing the same to known gang hangouts? The same gangs that publicly stated they will not be handing in their weapons.

[Pound]

This is exactly the sort of "liberal leftest" knee jerk reaction that does nothing but create negative attitudes toward legitimate gun ownership and use.

[husaberg]

This is exactly the sort of "liberal leftest" knee jerk reaction that does nothing but create negative attitudes toward legitimate gun ownership and use.

So does a radical right winger running around killing 50 people promote legitimate gun ownership and use.
Especially considering he was vetted the same as the other gun licence holders, Under a system that the gun lobby group described as the best in the world and in no need of any changes whatsoever further describing having a different class sof licence for Semi autos as being pointless?

Anyone who cant understand why police would send multiple armed police to a house where they know the suspect has firearms is a blithering idiot who should never have access to an air rifle let alone a AR15


"I can't understand why they needed that many armed police to come in here to ask me my views on this and then seize my gun."

You have to wonder the things he never said for instance did he also happen to purchase a number of large magizines as well

[Pound]

So does a radical right winger running around killing 50 people promote legitimate gun ownership and use.
Especially considering he was vetted the same as the other gun licence holders, Under a system that the gun lobby group described as the best in the world and in no need of any changes whatsoever further describing having a different class sof licence for Semi autos as being pointless?

Anyone who cant understand why police would send multiple armed police to a house where they know the suspect has firearms is a blithering idiot who should never have access to an air rifle let alone a AR15



You have to wonder the things he never said for instance did he also happen to purchase a number of large magizines as well

Absolutey agree with you regarding the right wing extremists too.

Despite all of that though, it was rather over the top of the police allt he same...... They really could have handled that better.....

Why can't everybody just have a balanced, unbiased viewpoint like you and I? :sweatdrop

[husaberg]

Absolutey agree with you regarding the right wing extremists too.

Despite all of that though, it was rather over the top of the police allt he same...... They really could have handled that better.....

Why can't everybody just have a balanced, unbiased viewpoint like you and I? :sweatdrop

Only issue is you are responding only to one side of the story the police hasnt made a statement in regards to what he both have said Both can say whatever they like unchecked, the police can not.
What you can say is based on what the article says assuming it true the police may have reacted over the top based on what is said to have occured. Knowing what they now know.
The police have been killed not using the appropriate precautions dating back to Stan Graham they tend to err on the side of caution sometimes for good reason.

[Pound]

Only issue is you are responding only to one side of the story the police hasnt made a statement in regards to what he both have said Both can say whatever they like unchecked, the police can not.
What you can say is based on what the article says assuming it true the police may have reacted over the top based on what is said to have occured. Knowing what they now know.
The police have been killed not using the appropriate precautions dating back to Stan Graham they tend to err on the side of caution sometimes for good reason.

I understand that, but with the facts provided in said article, I still agree that it was over the top, especially here in NZ, but maybe not so in Americland, where mass shootings are far more common than they ever will be here....

[TheDemonLord]

What are the comparative murder rates? Which one actually is being used by terrorists to cause a large amount of deaths?

Let's See:

Nice, London Bridge, Barcelona, New York

vs

Christchurc

So, you tell me - which one is actually being used by Terrorists?


I know you live in fairyland where you get to chose the probability of anything even remotely possible, but lets pay a little bit of attention to reality eh!

Well, let's pick Nice - 87 dead vs 51 dead - so which is more deadly?

Also - have you decided on a set of principals when the Government can vote in opposition to what the Majority want yet? Or are you just going to hide and red-rep because you know you can't?

[TheDemonLord]

Indeed.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. :msn-wink:

The thing that I have learnt after reading almost every comment on this thread is that no matter what side you are on (Pro or Anti gun) facts and statistics will be manipulated and twisted to try and justify the argument for both for vs against.

The argumentation is circular, and never ending, which is sadly what happens when you throw personal bias into the equation (as opposed to using only pure facts, logic, and objectivity).

I am actually in quite a good position to argue (if I wanted a never ending argument that is), since I have no agendas to push, nor am I a gun owner, nor have i ever even held a gun in my life.
I am also definitely not anti gun either, and if somebody ever gave me the opportunity to hold/fire a semi auto/hand gun, I would jump at the chance, because what red blooded man doesn't like military grade weapons technology?

With all that being said, I respect a man who stands by what he believes in (even if he is wrong) :msn-wink:

Fair enough - The ultimate issue for me - is that it's fine if someone doesn't like Guns. The part I get annoyed with is when they use the tyranny of the State to push through their viewpoint. And I do use the word Tyranny for a reason - the Article you posted is it.

There's some ancillary things - such as no other alternatives were considered, the hearing process wasn't objective, the submissions process only allowing 1 day for public submissions, the legislation itself having multiple items that don't make technical sense or are reliant on the police to interpret the legislation (they don't, that's why there are Courts an Judges)

There's a secondary issue - which is that there are numerous instances throughout history of a certain chains of Events:

Far-Left governments use a tragedy to enact stringent Firearm control to disarm the Population > Firearms are confiscated > Law Abiding Citizens are targeted by heavy-handed Police or specialist units > Government cracks down on speech and actions that it deems 'dangerous' > People resist the restrictions on their freedoms > The government grants itself further powers under the guise of protections > The government suspends normal judiciary processes due to 'national emergency' > Genocide and Mass Torture.

Some people see us at step 4 out of an 8 step path.

[Katman]

There's a secondary issue - which is that there are numerous instances throughout history of a certain chains of Events:

Far-Left governments use a tragedy to enact stringent Firearm control to disarm the Population > Firearms are confiscated > Law Abiding Citizens are targeted by heavy-handed Police or specialist units > Government cracks down on speech and actions that it deems 'dangerous' > People resist the restrictions on their freedoms > The government grants itself further powers under the guise of protections > The government suspends normal judiciary processes due to 'national emergency' > Genocide and Mass Torture.

Some people see us at step 4 out of an 8 step path.

Now if I'd said that, I'd be called a conspiracy theorist.

(By the way, the first step should read 'use or engineer a tragedy').

[husaberg]

I understand that, but with the facts provided in said article, I still agree that it was over the top, especially here in NZ, but maybe not so in Americland, where mass shootings are far more common than they ever will be here....

But how can you say they are facts they are a persons opinion.One who might have a real good reason not to tell the truth, You might find the police consider it different, I also note one of the people were not even named.
WHy is that how is it he gets to accuse from a position of anonymity. Ask any prison guard if you ask a inmate almost to a person not a single one ever admits hes guilty of the crime.
I know the official police protocol is to raid at dawn or similar unexpected time with no warning with a large armed force they as far as i know also do this when a protection order is taken out against a person who has a firearm.
Do you really expect for the police to say hey look were are coming over with one unarmed officer at 5pm on friday to confiscate your firearm?

[Pound]

Fair enough - The ultimate issue for me - is that it's fine if someone doesn't like Guns. The part I get annoyed with is when they use the tyranny of the State to push through their viewpoint. And I do use the word Tyranny for a reason - the Article you posted is it.

There's some ancillary things - such as no other alternatives were considered, the hearing process wasn't objective, the submissions process only allowing 1 day for public submissions, the legislation itself having multiple items that don't make technical sense or are reliant on the police to interpret the legislation (they don't, that's why there are Courts an Judges)

There's a secondary issue - which is that there are numerous instances throughout history of a certain chains of Events:

Far-Left governments use a tragedy to enact stringent Firearm control to disarm the Population > Firearms are confiscated > Law Abiding Citizens are targeted by heavy-handed Police or specialist units > Government cracks down on speech and actions that it deems 'dangerous' > People resist the restrictions on their freedoms > The government grants itself further powers under the guise of protections > The government suspends normal judiciary processes due to 'national emergency' > Genocide and Mass Torture.

Some people see us at step 4 out of an 8 step path.

I like the way you argue fine sir, you raise some interesting points. :niceone:

Now if only the average Joe public put a bit more thought into their decision making instead of just using knee jerk emotional ones, then this world would be much less of a mess.... :msn-wink:

[husaberg]

Well things like, the number of officers, the amount of fire arms, and that they pointed a rifle at his 12-year-old daughter.......

I'm pretty sure they are facts, and not somebody's opinion...

But anything else he claimed in the article, as you say, could very well just be his opinion, without hearing both sides of the story.

Really was how do you figure that one out? He also refiused to be named doesnt that strike you as being odd.
Just because he said it happened doesn't make it a fact?
As for the amount of people, how many people do the families and colleagues of Senior Constable Len Snee Senior Constables Bruce Miller and Grant Diver think should be used to do a raid for someone they know is armed and they consider dangerous?
Or to preform surveillance Sgt Don Wilkinson's family and friends might have a different opinion as would Detective Constable Duncan Taylors family or Constable Glenn McKibbins or Sergeant Stewart Graeme Guthrie he fired a warning shot before he was shot in the head, Or Constable Peter William Murphy's, Constable James Thomas Richardson, and Constable Bryan Leslie Schultz, Detective Sergeant Neville Wilson Power,, and Detective Inspector Wallace Chalmers, Traffic Officer John Kehoe, Sergeant William Cooper, Constable Frederick William Jordan, Constable Percy Campbell Tulloch, and Constable Edward Mark Best, or Constable Thomas Heep Constable James Dorgan, Constable Vivian Duddings plus other i have liely missed.
As for knee jerk reactions so exactly how many large scale massacres does it take before we can decide gun laws should be changed? before it is not considered a knee jerk 10,2030?
Practically All the changes implemented are ones that were recommended from a law and order select committee carried out years ago.

[Pound]

Really was how do you figure that one out? He also refiused to be named doesnt that strike you as being odd.
Just because he said it happened doesn't make it a fact?
The amount of people how many people do the families of Senior Constable Len Snee Senior Constables Bruce Miller and Grant Diver think should be used to do a raid?
As for knee jerk reactions so exactly how many large scale masacres does it take before we can decide gun laws should be changed?
Practically All the changes implemented are ones that were recommended from a law and order select committee carried out years ago.


Well if you are going that far, you could just go around denying anything anybody says as just being "opinion".

Changing the gun laws does not get to the core of the problem....

That is an entirely different discussion all together, and in MY opinion, a far more important one.

[husaberg]

Well if you are going that far, you could just go around denying anything anybody says as just being "opinion".

Changing the gun laws does not get to the core of the problem....

That is an entirely different discussion all together, and in MY opinion, a far more important one.
You stated it was a fact it was not how much more is there to say?
As for the changing of the gun laws, Yeah but your opinion is in the minority.
The reason it was able to be so easily accomplished was he had free and easy access to the weapons used. Weapons and magazines that should never have been available to purchase on a A cat.
I am surprised you cant see and understand that.
You never answered my question exactly how many massacres does it take to see the gun laws need to be changed and fr you not to call it a Knee jerk reaction?

[Graystone]

Let's See:

Nice, London Bridge, Barcelona, New York

vs

Christchurc

So, you tell me - which one is actually being used by Terrorists?



Well, let's pick Nice - 87 dead vs 51 dead - so which is more deadly?

Also - have you decided on a set of principals when the Government can vote in opposition to what the Majority want yet? Or are you just going to hide and red-rep because you know you can't?

How divorced from reality do you need to be to list Christchurch as the only terrorist attack using guns? Such stupidity renders the rest of your post not even worth reading...

[TheDemonLord]

Now if I'd said that, I'd be called a conspiracy theorist.

(By the way, the first step should read 'use or engineer a tragedy').

There are 2 key differences.

The first is the use of the word 'Engineer' in regards to a Tragedy, and if I was to put on a tinfoil hat, I might well question the reduction in Manpower for the Arms Officers and I would seriously question how anyone, let alone an officer, would think that someone that knew a guy from an internet forum would or even should qualify as a Character reference.

The second difference is that you would ascribe a grand directing influence, carefully planning each element in the aims of some higher goal. I don't. The chain of events can easily be explained by people believing that what they are doing is for a greater good.

[TheDemonLord]

How divorced from reality do you need to be to list Christchurch as the only terrorist attack using guns? Such stupidity renders the rest of your post not even worth reading...

It's not the only one, however - the point (which you so wonderfully missed) was that relatively few Terrorist attacks use Firearms - Home-Made Bombs tend to be the weapon of choice, Trucks also being popular for a time.

And we know why you refuse to read further - we can't have the truth denting that precious narrative of yours.

[TheDemonLord]

I like the way you argue fine sir, you raise some interesting points. :niceone:

Now if only the average Joe public put a bit more thought into their decision making instead of just using knee jerk emotional ones, then this world would be much less of a mess.... :msn-wink:


Can't wait until you guys all reach a general consensus and happily agree with each other.

I'd say that's close enough.

[Pound]

You stated it was a fact it was not how much more is there to say?
As for the changing of the gun laws, Yeah but your opinion is in the minority.
The reason it was able to be so easily accomplished was he had free and easy access to the weapons used. Weapons and magazines that should never have been available to purchase on a A cat.
I am surprised you cant see and understand that.
You never answered my question exactly how many massacres does it take to see the gun laws need to be changed and fr you not to call it a Knee jerk reaction?


You misunderstand, I agree with changing the gun laws, but I don't agree that it will solve the root of the problem (much the same way a massive sugar tax would reduce diabetic related illness and deaths, or banning even alcohol).


Well, hopefully only 1 knee jerk reaction........ Is that what you wanted to hear?

I am like you, for the greater good, go ahead ban them, but as I said, it will not solve the issue.

Ask yourself the question, why did this only just happen now?

Why not last year? Why not 5 years ago? Why not 10 years ago?

Why did he do it?

1 word...... Religion.

ALL RELIGIONS MUST GO...

As I said, a completely different discussion all together....

[Pound]

I'd say that's close enough.

I tip my hat to you good sir :msn-wink:

To successfully argue without personal attacks is a rare feat these days, and that level of self restraint is to be commended. :niceone:

[jasonu]

You misunderstand, ..

Haven't you figured it out yet? That twat argues for the sake of arguing.

[Katman]

The second difference is that you would ascribe a grand directing influence, carefully planning each element in the aims of some higher goal. I don't. The chain of events can easily be explained by people believing that what they are doing is for a greater good.

Really? I thought your steps were describing the process of a government trying to achieve complete control and dominance over it's citizens.

(And many governments aren't opposed to engineering tragedies to manipulate that process).

[jasonu]

(And many governments aren't opposed to engineering tragedies to manipulate that process).

The tooth monster has done quite nicely out of the Chch shootings...

[Pound]

Haven't you figured it out yet? That twat argues for the sake of arguing.



Indeed, I am finally starting to realize that he simply argues to suit his agenda.....

Sure, I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but I swear, some people just seem to want to be contentious.....

[Graystone]

It's not the only one, however - the point (which you so wonderfully missed) was that relatively few Terrorist attacks use Firearms - Home-Made Bombs tend to be the weapon of choice, Trucks also being popular for a time.

And we know why you refuse to read further - we can't have the truth denting that precious narrative of yours.

Right, so I missed the point about home made bombs, considering you did not mention them, perhaps you missed making it? :laugh:

The time period your examples spanned is 2016 through 2018, which were the more and less popular methods of terrorist attack over that time? I mean, with such a keen interest in reality, surely this should be important to you...

My questions were to give context to your comparison re trucks/guns for terrorist use. Your evasion and misleading answer suggest you know the answer will not support your agenda, and shows you still cannot cope with an honest and open discussion. It is that which renders the rest of your post not worth replying to.

[husaberg]

You misunderstand, I agree with changing the gun laws, but I don't agree that it will solve the root of the problem (much the same way a massive sugar tax would reduce diabetic related illness and deaths, or banning even alcohol).
Well, hopefully only 1 knee jerk reaction........ Is that what you wanted to hear?
I am like you, for the greater good, go ahead ban them, but as I said, it will not solve the issue.
Ask yourself the question, why did this only just happen now?
Why not last year? Why not 5 years ago? Why not 10 years ago?
Why did he do it?
1 word...... Religion.
ALL RELIGIONS MUST GO...
As I said, a completely different discussion all together....


Well i dont, As limiting further access to high powered firearms cant do anything but lessen chances of the resultant carnage caused occurring again, when a idiot has free and easy access to and uses a AR15 for its intended use, ie killing and maiming others.
I asked how many massacres does it take for you to say changing the law is not a knee jerk reaction, you never answered. You changed the subject.
You claim to support the ban, but seek to have a dollar both ways by calling it a Knee-jerk reaction that will not help. If you believe it will not help why support it?
He didn't do it because religion exists, No he did it because he was f-ed in the head. He could have just as easily been radicalized on race or financial status or gender as religious grounds.
THE ISSUE HERE IS ,HE WAS NOT BORN WITH THIS HATE, HE WAS TAUGHT IT.
He was radicalized by an agenda of spreading hate messages. Something a few on here do, very often right up until this event occurred. I predict that They will be back doing it again within a few months from now again.
I personally dislike all religions but i don't treat any member of those religions or race as anything but individuals. The ones spreading hates treat and blame all member of a certain religion or races for the deeds of a few, mostly while overlooking their own religions or races misdeeds.
He carried it out in NZ as it was far easier to do it here than in Aussie as we had the lax gun laws that allowed him to easily and legally obtain AR15's big mags and semi auto shotguns. With Little or no background checks.


Indeed, I am finally starting to realize that he simply argues to suit his agenda.....

Sure, I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but I swear, some people just seem to want to be contentious.....
Really why not go back and read this thread and see what this same open minded group of individuals were saying about islam.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/185625-Tommy-Robinson/page5

Haven't you figured it out yet? That twat argues for the sake of arguing.
You make a whole series of statement then fail to back them up with any evidence at all when asked, whilst all the while calling all the obvious contrary evidence fake. Are you Donald Trump?

Arguing for the sake of arguing would be for a guy that lives in the USA arguing a NZ law change that has already occurred was wrong,when it was what the vast majority of people who actually live in NZ wanted.
Arguing for the sake of arguing would also be suggesting only people that agree with your view should be able to vote or express an opinion that differs from yours.

[Kickaha]

as we had the lax gun laws that allowed him to easily and legally obtain AR15's big mags and semi auto shotguns. With Little or no background checks.

Nothing wrong with the gun laws, it was the lax police vetting that wasn't carried out properly that lead to him obtaining them

[husaberg]

Nothing wrong with the gun laws, it was the lax police vetting that wasn't carried out properly that lead to him obtaining them

So there was nothing wrong with a gun laws that allowed a dude with a A class legally buying all the parts to convert a What was incorrectly deemed as A class by greedy firearms dealers to a MSSA. But he was not breaking any rules until he pushed the larger mag into the rifle, Nice one..............
Nothing wrong with a set of rules that was created in the 1990's to prevent A cass licence holders buying AR15's and similar weapons, that due to a tiny modification failed to stop the gun dealers selling AR15's to A class licence holders.......
The Gun lobby previously called the firearms laws prior the best in the world and fought tooth and nail to prevent any changes at all...........

[Kickaha]

So there was nothing wrong with a gun laws that allowed a dude with a A class legally buying all the parts to convert a What was incorrectly deemed as A class by greedy firearms dealers to a MSSA. But he was not breaking any rules until he pushed the larger mag into the rifle, Nice one..............
Nothing wrong with a set of rules that was created in the 1990's to prevent A cass licence holders buying AR15's and similar weapons, that due to a tiny modification failed to stop the gun dealers selling AR15's to A class licence holders.......
The Gun lobby previously called the firearms laws prior the best in the world and fought tooth and nail to prevent any changes at all...........

Omigod yes I see your point because if there had a been a law in place he obviously would have obeyed it

[husaberg]

Omigod yes I see your point because if there had a been a law in place he obviously would have obeyed it

Funny why then did he not do it in Aussie or was it just far harder to obtain the weapons there.
From what has been written that could be where he got his licence also we dont know for sure so its just conjecture.
Not that it maters as 99.6 percent of applicants obtain an A class licence here.
Maybe you should read up on the Norwegian guys attempts to buy weapons before making off the cuff remarks
If gun-laws play no place Why is it the UK has so few gun massacres and the US so many?
Why is it on average the lazier the laws the more people that are killed by guns, is it just a massive co-incidence.........
341827341828341826341825