Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 143
  1. #101
    Apple free in Appleby KarameaDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Near Drummond, Southland
    Posts
    5,014

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by WalOne View Post
    Dave, you never miss a chance to slag him do you? Even if it's totally irrelevant to the topic
    Picked up on that then.
    FTW

  2. #102
    88 Valley Nelson Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    633

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by baabits View Post
    Sure, but regardless if they were legal or not he would have been able to find a way to get access to them. At least, I believe so.

    I think I would have rather seen instant action be more to restricting sales until we had a concluded an investigation as to exactly how this all went down.

    Though to be fair, I don't think anyone in the country who isn't an NZ Citizen should be issued a gun license or permit at all unless there are extremely special circumstances.
    Don't forget he also had IED's in his car as well. Could have used those.

  3. #103
    Rocket Dog WalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ellerslie
    Posts
    5,277

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by KarameaDave View Post
    Picked up on that then.
    I have very high hopes that seriousness is a reversible condition.

    Dr Lester Levy


    I've studied deeply in the philosophies and religions, but cheerfulness kept breaking through.

    Leonard Cohen

  4. #104
    Soaring like an Eagle gary67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a field in Hanmer
    Posts
    14,786

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    They were actually incenderies packed with flour, set to create a fireball and they failed to go off. Don't trust everything the media tell you

  5. #105
    Smiling Down On Youse SurferJoe46's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Montana, USA
    Posts
    14,317

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by tweak'e View Post
    <snippity, snip>

    innocent people will die for their failure to get it right.
    i have mentioned ways to modify the rifles into a sporting config which would reduce the cost to the govt and still remove the issue of big mags.
    So --- let me understand this...... does anyone actually BELIEVE that your own (NZ) subjects will kill each other when there's no huge murderous record of mayhem and mass gun deaths in NZ before this shooting act. Do I understand that correctly?

    I wonder how anyone can come to such a conclusion that your legally-owned weapons --- now more than ever before --- have become somehow more dangerous than they were before the Mosque Shooting?

    Here's what I don't understand.......

    1) ... an Australian, (MISTER "X") who is not allowed to buy or own the weaponry he had, somehow got past your security people..............
    2) ... MISTER "X" posted warnings in his manifesto on the internet and nobody of any importance, nor any police authorities read it..................
    3) ... since this happened, your gun owners in NZ are more treacherous than they were a couple of weeks ago because they (still) own weapons they've had before, during and now, after the mosque shooting ?
    4) ... that more laws are somehow gonna be good when the existing laws didn't work...................
    5) ... weapons that hold larger magazines of ammo are somehow more dangerous than ones that hold less even though they have been in NZ all the time anyway...............
    6) ... that NZ residents cannot be trusted any longer to maintain composure and they might go berserk and shoot their neighbors if the gvt doesn't take their guns away from them ............
    7) ... that Kiwi owners of firearms will actually turn them in and not put them where the sun doesn't shine for whatever political swell that happens in the future..................
    8) ... now all NZ firearms owners need to be psychologically tested to see if they didn't somehow just this week go gun-crazy ..............
    9) ... how - oh-how --- with his militant, psychotic anti-establishment manifesto and promises of mass murders, that somehow MISTER "X" wasn't considered to be a threat and taken seriously?

    Like California, this will be like throwing the baby out with the bath water if one is not careful here and does the wrong thing..........

    InCaseYouDidn'tReadIt - Youse guys wanna read crazy?

    Well ---> California has mandated that every new weapon being brought into the state for the first time, must imprint a sequential serial number on the case and the bullet every time the pistol/rifle is fired.

    Then these sequencer-numbers must be sent to Sacramento and copies to the local police agency in charge of the place where the weapon is quartered. So far -- no weapon manufacturer has been able to comply with this law and they can only sell firearm-types that were previously approved and legal before the new sequencer law.

    This is why Glock has the ability to ONLY sell Generation 3 pistols, as they were certified some years before the Millenial wackiness set in.

    California has a lot more laws recently enacted that totally disobey the 2A, and this will go to court. I could go on for hours about my ex-state, but you have your own troubles. This is the kind of stuff that happens when politicians have a vendetta for one thing or another and an agenda of bite-by-bite disarming their constituents gets their full attention and goes into effect.

    You know how you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

    The US is a very different situation from NZ - the owning and carrying of firearms was intended as a protection of the government getting too powerful and taking away the rights of the citizenry in nibbles and pieces like The Third Reich, the Polish Occupation and Hitler's flooding into Meso-Europe by first taking their guns away. (The US) had just come off a bad situation from the Brit king who wanted to use the states as his source of income through taxes and odious fees.


    Thomas Jefferson in The Federalist Papers was warning that if weapons were taken away or in any way abridged, then the ability of the new government to enslave the citizens could re-happen.

    The Federalist Letters (particularly #46) warned that the govt could get too powerful, and this was a bad idea as far as what had happened and was now being thrown off. That the people were armed to the teeth, worried King George and he backed off to avoid any more Revolutions and wars with the colonies.

    Interesting factoid! ----> The actual idea of letting the common populous own firearms was originally a British Law, ca 1689 CE.

    I don't want to bore or incense you with US Constitutional arguments. I only post this as a show of what happens when ideas go bad..... that's all .... and I cite the US laws and how they actually came down from Britain first. It's an extremely slippery slope. Right now I don't know who's friendly and who wants me to drop dead, dry up and fly away. Well, that's not totally correct - I know ONE who wishes me dead....... there may be others ......

    Here's an excerpt from Wiki:

    "The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

    While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison.

    In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

    He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition"."


    This (^^^) is what it's all about.

    That's it --- and now I'm going to hover here a bit and watch what happens.

    ref: Federalist Paper #29:
    ref: Federalist Paper #46:


    Warum werden wir so früh alt und klug so spät?

  6. #106
    Wrinkly Member! B.M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Mount Maunganui
    Posts
    7,820

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by WalOne View Post
    Yes, their's (the government's) was a knee jerk reaction, without consultation with any of the parties directly involved or affected by that action.

    Whatever happened to democracy?
    The democracy you speak of can be seen in action in Christchurch where eight years after the Earthquake they are still procrastinating and wringing their hands.

    Meantime, Japan has had a massive tsunami along with earthquakes, Australia has had massive floods and bushfire’s and they have gone right ahead and fixed the destruction.

    We’ve gone from a nation of “Yes We Can” doers, to “Yes But: Procrastinators”.

    I’ve never voted Labour in my life, but applaud Jacinda at the age if 38 for leading, instead of procrastinating.
    Global Warming is Mann made.
    .
    The problems we face today are because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

    I take no responsibility for the accuracy of any media links I quote.

  7. #107
    tweakedgeek tweak'e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    winterlessnorth (well almost)
    Posts
    4,943

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    well the last major incident was 30 years ago which was really the first major one. but semi's and a lot looser gun laws where around for ~50 years before that event.
    the tighter gun laws after the 1st incident was actually fairly good. they really focused on domestic abuse and removing guns from people when they might do stupid things.
    something i think the usa could learn from.

    what i don't want to see is rash decisions being made by people with their own personal agenda under the guise of "making it safer", and end up with unintended consequences that make things extremely bad for everyone.

    there has been calls from politicians to "push it through with no investigation and no debate".
    police investigation is a long way from being finished.
    we have politicians grand standing on this issue and for anyone to challenge it is political suicide.
    they are trying to rush new law in before the emotions die down and joe public engages their brains again, and realizes that the odds of being shot by gunman with any gun is so low its not worth worrying about.
    Tweak it till it breaks

  8. #108
    amateur expert dugimodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    8,070

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by tweak'e View Post
    what i don't want to see is rash decisions being made by people with their own personal agenda under the guise of "making it safer", and end up with unintended consequences that make things extremely bad for everyone.
    You've said this a couple times I think. I'm curious, what are the unintended consequences you envisage making everything so bad as a result of banning these weapons?
    Are we going to be overrun by excess pumpkins? are ex owners of these guns all going to commit mass suicide in a fit of depression? Seriously, I fail to see what you are on about. Please enlighten me, you seem certain something bad will happen.

    I personally applaud the speedy action and unless you can elaborate on your fears with some specifics I see no downside here.
    Would you rather they did a repeat of the flag referendum and spend 27 million or whatever it was and spend months to do nothing?

    And one final point before I leave this dead horse alone, if you and others like you truly feel this law is a bad Idea you do have the ability to try and get it changed or vote someone in who will. I don't like your chances though.
    Ryzen 2700X, 16Gb DDR4RAM, 512GB M.2 NVME SSD, MSI GTX1070

  9. #109
    tweakedgeek tweak'e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    winterlessnorth (well almost)
    Posts
    4,943

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    Quote Originally Posted by dugimodo View Post
    You've said this a couple times I think. I'm curious, what are the unintended consequences you envisage making everything so bad as a result of banning these weapons?
    Are we going to be overrun by excess pumpkins? are ex owners of these guns all going to commit mass suicide in a fit of depression? Seriously, I fail to see what you are on about. Please enlighten me, you seem certain something bad will happen.
    i've said it before but its worth repeating.
    one simple problem is if firearms are hidden and wind up on the black market many years from now or simply sold to the black market.
    its bad enough that they could get into the hands of anyone. eg hidden guns found by kids.
    but the one group thats keen on firearms and has large amounts of money, is the P (meth) industry. its bad enough police have been doing more and more shoot outs with meth heads, think of what can go wrong when they are suddenly well armed.

    i'm all for keeping them in the hands of law abiding people. no problem with improving safety at all. thats also a whole lot cheaper for govt. so maybe they can fund the police some more so they actually have the resources to keep nutcases from buying guns. if they buy back guns they need to have no limit on funds and make sure they get them all. its one or the other.
    Tweak it till it breaks

  10. #110
    amateur expert dugimodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    8,070

    Default Re: Changes to the Firearms Act

    So by reducing the number of these guns those who already have them illegally will somehow have more and be more dangerous than they are now? how does that work pray tell?
    There may be some of what you say that happens, but I think you are overestimating it.

    Sometimes all you can do is cut the supply of something off at the source and then let time and attrition do what it can about the rest. I also said this once before, the less of them in circulation the less chance the wrong person ends up with one.
    It's not a 100% fix, some will end up where they shouldn't be. But to my mind it's still an improvement.
    Ryzen 2700X, 16Gb DDR4RAM, 512GB M.2 NVME SSD, MSI GTX1070

Similar Threads

  1. Americans & Firearms
    By SurferJoe46 in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 29-03-2018, 12:30 PM
  2. Jan Molenaar had no firearms licence.
    By Trev in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-04-2010, 05:44 PM
  3. Getting a Firearms licence
    By ubergeek85 in forum PC World Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 09:11 PM
  4. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 08:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •