The firearm thread

[Kickaha]

The Constitution IS a Social Contract... It exists between the People and the Government.

But furthermore - you are trying to ignore the context in which the document was written, what was meant. In this respect, there was a long legal tradition from England that the Founding Fathers were immersed in, I believe that Magna Carta was cited by one of the first Supreme Court Justices for that reason.

Even though Magna Carta is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

As an example - today we might thing that Execution is a Cruel Punishment, and try to point to the prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Law. The problem is that at the time of writing, Execution was not considered Cruel or Unusual, therefore it is not prohibited by that law, as the founding Fathers intended it.

So when a Felon commits a crime, they forfeit some of their rights in line with English Jurisprudence of the time, and so the intent of that this isn't extended to convicted Felons is correct.



So, you want me to believe that the entire Democrat party, which is seeking these changes in opposition to the likes of the NRA, won't say they want to repeal 2A because the NRA are funding them?

Yeah, because that makes sense... not.

"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement, one which you are trying to ignore by talking a whole lot of bullshit, show me in the constitution, in 2a were it allows exceptions for any reason and if an exception is made to decline gun ownership for any reason then it can be done for anyone

Look up the funding from the NRA for the politicians that oppose any gun control, there's tens of millions of dollars spread around

[TheDemonLord]

"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement, one which you are trying to ignore by talking a whole lot of bullshit, show me in the constitution, in 2a were it allows exceptions for any reason and if an exception is made to decline gun ownership for any reason then it can be done for anyone

Read in the context of the 18th century legal traditions.

That is why, for example, a Well Regulated Militia extends to the Individual (despite Pritch's protestations).

I'm not trying to ignore - I'm pointing to the exact reasoning used by the Supreme Court as to how it should be interpreted - and forfeiture of Rights and Property for breaking the Law is a principle that existed in British Legal tradition (and therefore American Legal tradition) long before the constitution.

So denying a Felon the right is not the exception you are making it out to be.

Look up the funding from the NRA for the politicians that oppose any gun control, there's tens of millions of dollars spread around

And I'm sure I could find tens of millions of dollars spent by various Left-Wing 'institutions' spent on promoting Gun Control.

[TheDemonLord]

Complete bollocks of course. If enough Yanks wise up the government and the SCOTUS will change. Sadly the Republican policy of keeping the citizenry stupid is working better than they could have imagined.

It really isn't. Have you read the Federalist papers, where Jefferson talks about the Arming of the Populace and how being armed is integral to being able to defend yourself.

What you are advocating is the position of RBG had - which is an interpretive view of the Constitution, whereby any position can be advocated for, so long as the words are re-defined in the common parlance, thus rendering the protections the Constitution gives null and void.

But I agree - if enough people vote for someone who says they will repeal 2A, then it will change.

[TheDemonLord]

Even the drunkest driver is unlikely to go out on the road asking "how many people can I kill tonight". Being drunk/drugged does not in any way excuse what they did, but its unlikely there was any malice behind their actions.

I agree there is a difference in intent, however getting behind the wheel of a Car drunk is the same as firing blindly into a crowd of people - sure you may not have intended to kill that specific person, but it's such reckless behavior that you know someone might get killed

How did the dinner conversation go?

Deliciously.

[pritch]

It really isn't. Have you read the Federalist papers, where Jefferson talks about the Arming of the Populace and how being armed is integral to being able to defend yourself.

What you are advocating is the position of RBG had - which is an interpretive view of the Constitution, whereby any position can be advocated for, so long as the words are re-defined in the common parlance, thus rendering the protections the Constitution gives null and void.

But I agree - if enough people vote for someone who says they will repeal 2A, then it will change.

If you read past the obvious sentence there are details about the militia. It is formed, funded and organised by Congress. It's not any morbidly obese fuckwits dressing up and playing soldiers to protect themselves from the evil government. Which seems to be a popular view among the illiterati.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKrFQVuB1iU

[TheDemonLord]

If you read past the obvious sentence there are details about the militia. It is formed, funded and organised by Congress. It's not any morbidly obese fuckwits dressing up and playing soldiers to protect themselves from the evil government. Which seems to be a popular view among the illiterati.

No, it's not.

Again, you are using the modern interpretation of the word. Not the original meaning.

Militia, at the time, referred to Able Bodied Men. Bonus for Kickaha - this is why 18 years olds can buy Guns, but 10 year olds can't.

And Well Regulated means that they are prepared to do their duty - e.g. 'playing soldiers to protect themselves from the evil government'.

You can try and argue this and say I'm wrong, the problem is that the weight of the Constitution, the weight of the surrounding documents, the weight of the Supreme Court opinion is all on my side.

This is why the only honest option is to advocate a repeal of 2A - but no one wants to do that because it would be suicide politically.

[sugilite:Me]

That wasn't her Sole reason, but she couldn't wait to do it. Remember how she changed the submissions process so that there wasn't the proper time to have Public debate on it.

Reminds me of national constantly pushing shit through in the last hour before xmas break. It needed to be done and it was. I at least 70% disapprove of Adern/labors actions, or rather inaction's. But for this issue, I 100% approved.

The other parties voted for it because they are a bunch of feckless cowards. NZ First were drummed out of Parliament for it and National forgot they were in Opposition.

They voted for it because it was the right thing to do, and it followed general public consensus. I have no doubt it caused an uproar in gun circles, but for the vast rest of the population it was welcomed, hence barely a ripple of discontent outside the bang bang circles. And just because a political party is in opposition, it does not mean they must fight every proposal put forward by the other team no matter what. This is your trumpisym coming through.

And for good reason. Firstly because there's a law that prohibits such restrictions, but secondly because it is the Check and Balance against Government overreach. Given how the likes of Aus, NZ, UK, Canada etc. had tyrannical lockdown rules - the US rightly goes 'And this is why we are armed'

Once Trump was dispatched along with his the virus will go away do nothing approach, I must of missed the part where the population formed a militia as per 2e and rose up against the Biden Government and it's mandates. For me, this last paragraph of yours completes your transition to Right Wing Nut Job. (though in truth, you were already 99.9% there with your "words do not matter" statement). From this time forward, my responses to your posts will be greatly diminished as your just to far gone to warrant my time. If I want to interact with a RWNJ, I'll stick to my pithy one line hit jobs in the fox news comments section. They LOVE me there

[TheDemonLord]

Reminds me of national constantly pushing shit through in the last hour before xmas break. It needed to be done and it was. I at least 70% disapprove of Adern/labors actions, or rather inaction's. But for this issue, I 100% approved.

Do I need to roll out my 'Fuck National' Quotes again?

And you're entitled to approve of it.

They voted for it because it was the right thing to do, and it followed general public consensus. I have no doubt it caused an uproar in gun circles, but for the vast rest of the population it was welcomed, hence barely a ripple of discontent outside the bang bang circles. And just because a political party is in opposition, it does not mean they must fight every proposal put forward by the other team no matter what. This is your trumpisym coming through.

Interesting - so the people that a law doesn't affect are overwhelmingly in favor of it, and the people who the law affects are against it.

I can think of a good number of instances where laws that were approved of by the Majority, against a Minority, were overturned on principle because they were Unjust. Gay Rights spring to mind.

In fact, any law that specifically targeted a Minority and not grounded in Natural Rights would apply here, excuse me whilst I pull out my long list of racial minority laws from the 20th Century.

Are you saying that these were just because the Majority approved it?

The reason this law is Immoral is the same reason that those laws were immoral.

Once Trump was dispatched along with his the virus will go away do nothing approach, I must of missed the part where the population formed a militia as per 2e and rose up against the Biden Government and it's mandates. For me, this last paragraph of yours completes your transition to Right Wing Nut Job. (though in truth, you were already 99.9% there with your "words do not matter" statement). From this time forward, my responses to your posts will be greatly diminished as your just to far gone to warrant my time. If I want to interact with a RWNJ, I'll stick to my pithy one line hit jobs in the fox news comments section. They LOVE me there

They didn't need to - they just moved to places like Florida and Texas, where the individual States embraced Freedom.

If they had tried to enforce certain mandates upon the individual states (and IIRC they were rightly defeated by the SC), then you may well have seen an armed response.

However, I'd like to refresh your memory a little: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/85591...ing-home-order

You don't need to fire a bullet to have an Armed response against Government Tyranny. You just need to show up, armed to the Teeth with the threat of implied force, the 'Fuck around and find out' approach.

The Canadians Tried, they tried in NZ too - but without the ability to backup a protest with Force, the State always wins.

You may disagree (No Doubt) but you cannot deny that this is the essence of the 2nd Amendment and it is why America holds it in such high regard. And a look at the restrictive lockdowns in places that also had restrictive Gun rights vs the places that maintained freedom.

As the Yanks are fond of saying "Freedom isn't Free"

[pete376403]

I agree there is a difference in intent, however getting behind the wheel of a Car drunk is the same as firing blindly into a crowd of people - sure you may not have intended to kill that specific person, but it's such reckless behavior that you know someone might get killed



Deliciously.

Did you make the specific statement I wrote?

[sugilite:Me]

The president of the USA praises Adern on Gun laws. He is smart enough to ask a leader that has actually achieved something in this area. Smart. Meanwhile his ousted blow hard predecessor attends an NRA convention.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/06/01/b...nce-extremism/

[TheDemonLord]

Did you make the specific statement I wrote?

Not that specific statement, because it's a mis-characterization of what I believe.

I believe in Freedom, knowing that with freedom there will be people who are killed and people who will die.

Everyday I get behind the wheel, there's a chance I could either die myself or I could cause someone else to die.

Everytime I hire a Power tool, I could either injure myself, others or worse.

If I was possessed of a Malevolent disposition, everything I would need could be purchased at a local RD1, or hired from Hireace, or 'obtained' from the NZ Police or a myriad of other ways that have been used elsewhere to inflict mass casualties.

[TheDemonLord]

The president of the USA praises Adern on Gun laws. He is smart enough to ask a leader that has actually achieved something in this area. Smart. Meanwhile his ousted blow hard predecessor attends an NRA convention.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/06/01/b...nce-extremism/

All she achieved was less than 30% at best handed in.

Oh, and a significant increase in Gun Crime.

Let's not forget that whilst she was queening around on the world stage, there were 7 shootings in South Auckland.

So yeah, really achieved something... (Tui Ad moment there)

[Kickaha]

They voted for it because it was the right thing to do, and it followed general public consensus.

It wasn't the right thing to do, it was kneejerk reaction to an event that was unlikely to be repeated and pushed through while it was still fresh in peoples minds to get the result they wanted

The president of the USA praises Adern on Gun laws. He is smart enough to ask a leader that has actually achieved something in this area.

She achieved fuck all because the people that needed to have firearms taken off them weren't ever going to hand them in, don't you watch or read the news, two more shooting in Auckland overnight, wasn't it seven a few days ago, gun crime has risen

[husaberg]

It wasn't the right thing to do, it was kneejerk reaction

\
So the rest of the world is wrong but the US is right?
We should follow the example of doing nothing like the USA do, while kids get shoot and mass shootings to increase every year?

Also note
But when comparing that to population, the rate of firearms related injuries were the fifth worst on record, with the previous highest being 2016.
So your figures a re a bit doubtful they also don't take into account the effect of the increase in NZ organized crime brought about as a result of the 501 deportees


Also odd as in reality after a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used.
It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting.
It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, with as many as one million firearms melted into slag.
The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.
If we tally mass shootings that have killed four or more people, in the United States there have been well over 100 since the Port Arthur tragedy. But in Australia, there has been just one in the 26 years since their gun laws were passed. Plus, gun homicides have decreased by 60%.

Canada changed gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting.
So did Germany in 2002,
New Zealand in 2019
Norway 2021.

[pete376403]

Not that specific statement, because it's a mis-characterization of what I believe.

I believe in Freedom, knowing that with freedom there will be people who are killed and people who will die.

Everyday I get behind the wheel, there's a chance I could either die myself or I could cause someone else to die.

Everytime I hire a Power tool, I could either injure myself, others or worse.

If I was possessed of a Malevolent disposition, everything I would need could be purchased at a local RD1, or hired from Hireace, or 'obtained' from the NZ Police or a myriad of other ways that have been used elsewhere to inflict mass casualties.

i suppose it is no use noting that of cars, power tools and firearms, only one is expressly designed to kill when used in the manner intended, and of the other two, the manufacturers go to great lengths to prevent injury or death, even when not used expressly as designed or by a suitably qualified person.