New Zealand's semi-automatic rifle ban

[USFREEDOM911]

You're resorting to acting rude because you can't address the points. How typical.

And I find your suggestions to be rude also and why did you ignore my other posts, to focus on this one?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And this clown ^ actually asked if anyone wanted to be removed from his ban list

And none of the banned clowns were able to post a reason why the clown(s) shouldn't be banned, including your sorry self.

 

[StoneByStone]

And I find your suggestions to be rude also and why did you ignore my other posts, to focus on this one?

Because I lose interest in discussion when the other person is sperging out. Maybe if you work on your manners, I'll reply to your other posts.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because I lose interest in discussion when the other person is sperging out. Maybe if you work on your manners, I'll reply to your other posts.

And that's exactly what you are doing, by trying to equate the actions of a law abiding citizen with those of a child.

Maybe you should work on your own manners and abilities, before you bitch about anyone else's; because trying to use what a child does, as a reason to do what you want done, is also rude and not applicable to a "discussion".

 

[Into the Night]

They're a mostly free country like America.

WRONG. They are an oligarchy. The United States is a federated republic. We have constitutions. New Zealand has no effective constitution. Their government can change their 'constitution' at any time on it's own volition.

How about when you take a knife away from a child because you don't want to take the chance that the child might misuse it? Is that punishing the child?

Argument by repetition fallacy. This has already been answered. Argument of the stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

That's how you choose to see it. What I'm saying is that it's not about punishment, it's about safety.

Did you forget the example with the cook already? Gawd, you just want to chant, don't you?

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, it is for a large part exactly those "law abiding citizens" who shoot up malls, theaters, or schools, they are "law abiding citizens" till they pull the trigger, Stephen Paddock was a "law biding citizen" until he set record numbers for shooting and killing Americans

Murder is already illegal. Did you forget that?

Do not punish me because of what he did. I don't shoot up rock concerts in Las Vegas. I don't shoot up schools. I don't shoot up theaters. Why are you so interested in taking away my guns?

 

[Into the Night]

Why so angry?

Maybe it's because you are treating him like a murderer, when he hasn't harmed anybody.

 

[Into the Night]

I think you're just a snowflake who can't handle being challenged.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Did you forget the example with the cook already? Gawd, you just want to chant, don't you?

It's apparent that Stone cares nothing about this supposed "safety" issue of his; because he's obviously OK with people having cars, even though people drive drunk, and he doesn't care about the safety of children, seeing as how some people abuse them and the idea of refusing to allow law abiding citizens to have them, doesn't fit his agenda.

But he says he wants to have a discussion.

 

[Flash]

Of course not, but nothing meaningful is going happen on the Federal level, if four and five year old kids getting massacred by semi-automatic weapons didn't get Washington to act nothing will, half are owned by the gun manufacturers, and the majority of the rest don't have the courage

Reform will, and is beginning, on the State and local level, look at the States today that have stricter gun laws and the majority also have less gun violence, and the opposite is also true, which is fine, let them slaughter each other with their toys

We had a ban on assault weapons (semi-automatic) and several states have those bans today (CT) that have not reduced any crime.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Murder is already illegal. Did you forget that?

Do not punish me because of what he did. I don't shoot up rock concerts in Las Vegas. I don't shoot up schools. I don't shoot up theaters. Why are you so interested in taking away my guns?

Maybe Stone would feel safer if everyone was forced to live in a facility, guarded by the Government, and only allowed to work at Government guarded jobs; seeing as how SOME people commit crimes.

 

[Into the Night]

Great comparison. I love these imbecile comparisons.
The population of the United States is 327.2 million and the population of New Zealand is 4.7 million.

In the states with the most stringent standards 65% of gun crime are committed by people who are illegally possessing a firearm.
There are 250 to 280 million firearms.
Do the math.

Next time compare Costa Rica with the US.

If you look at the various rates of homicide from all causes vs gun control laws, you will find there really is correlation at all. Gun control laws do not reduce homicide rates, and availability of guns do not increase them.

In Lousiana, for example, they have few gun control laws there, and the homicide rate is pretty high. In Alaska, the homicide rate is quite low, and they have even few gun control laws there as well.
In California, where gun control laws are quite strong, homicide rates there are not as high as Louisiana, but they are quite a bit higher than Alaska.

The same thing happens internationally.

If people want to kill each other, they will do so, whether they have access to guns or not.

The United States enjoys a fairly low homicide rate, yet has millions of guns available. Canada has strict gun control laws, and also enjoys a low homicide rate.
Switzerland actually requires private gun ownership, yet they enjoy a very low homicide rate. Honduras also has easy access to guns, and they suffer a very high homicide rate.


The idea that gun control laws reduce homicide is falsified. The idea that easy access to guns reduces or increases homicide rates is also falsified.

 

[countryboy]

Do you get this angry and rude when you talk to people you disagree with face to face?

Sure, if they're leftist loons like you.

 

[Into the Night]

What "liberty?" And what the hell does "liberty" even mean, and don't say "freedom"

Nobody is losing any "liberty," no Constitutional right is absolute, they can be legally regulated, and are everywhere in our society. Saying you are pissed about losing a "liberty" is an inapplicable generalization

The liberty to carry a weapon to defend yourself of your own choosing.

The Constitution of the United States IS absolute. The federal government has NO power to ignore it or change it. The 2nd amendment applies to all States as well. No State has the authority to ignore the 2nd amendment without essentially leaving the Union and ceasing to be a State at all.
Guns can NOT be legally regulated by the federal government, any State, any county, or any city. The 2nd amendment is absolute and clear. It describes two rights, both of which are natural rights, and specifically prohibits any government from interfering with it.

The ban on machine guns is illegal. The 2nd amendment does NOT list arms by type of action on them. The bans on the AR-15 are illegal. The 2nd amendment does NOT list arms by type. The ban on magazine size is illegal. The 2nd amendment does NOT list magazine size.

Unless a constitution specifically gives a government the power to regulate something, it does NOT have that power!

To answer your question, liberty IS about freedom.

Definition of liberty (Merriam Webster)

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see despot sense 1) control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

While dictionaries do not define words, they do document how people define and use them to a certain degree. Dictionaries are useful in this way, but they are not authoritative over any word.


You are making the argument yet again that the Constitution is a 'living document'. That it's meaning changes with the times. This is FALSE. A constitution that 'changes' in this way doesn't effectively exist. A constitution can ONLY be changed by the owners of the constitution (for the federal constitution, that would be the States), and ONLY in the manner described in the Constitution itself.

 

[countryboy]

What "liberty?" And what the hell does "liberty" even mean, and don't say "freedom"

Nobody is losing any "liberty," no Constitutional right is absolute, they can be legally regulated, and are everywhere in our society. Saying you are pissed about losing a "liberty" is an inapplicable generalization

Oh, shut the fuck up. "....shall not be infringed", is pretty unambiguous. It doesn't say, ".....can be infringed under certain circumstances", you dumb fuck.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you get this angry and rude when you talk to people you disagree with face to face?

You might ask yourself that question. You are projecting again. Some do. Wars have started that way.

 

[Into the Night]

What does that have to do with gun control and the supposed loss of freedom gun nuts claim will come?

New Zealand isn't free, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

You're missing the point. Not being allowed to do something doesn't mean you're being punished.
We're not allowed to smoke in public schools. Is that a good law? In my opinion, yes. I don't see that as being punished, I see that as having a common sense law.

You are STILL forgetting the example I made with the cook with the knife. Get yer head out of the sand.

 

[Into the Night]

Well no country is 100% free.
But America and New Zealand are both mostly free first world countries.



The point is that limiting a person's rights is not always a punishment.

WRONG. The United States is a federated republic. It has constitutions. New Zealand is a "constitutional monarchy". It has no effective constitution. It is an oligarchy. That oligarchy can change it's "constitution" on a whim at any time.