What do you think of New Zealand banning assault rifles?

@deadgerbil what the hell are they hunting if they do?

@SW-User who knows. Unless one lives in a war torn country, I don't see the need for fully automatic weapons. Their presence just invites trouble.

@SW-User Didn't you know? Squirrels and rabbits are fast little suckers...and you just have to have a bazooka to take down that trophy buck.🙄

@deadgerbil FYI - Civilians can not purchase fully automatic weapons. I know the media and left does everything they can to misdirect the public on this issue, but you get one shot each time you pull the trigger- just one.

@Budwick still should they be so easily accessible to people?

@Budwick Civilians not being able to get auto weapons is good. Does the ban also concern itself with bump stocks, etc, that allow one to modify semi autos to achieve higher rates of fire?

@SW-User [quote]should they be so easily accessible to people?[/quote]

Yes, they should.

[b][i] ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [/i][/b]

@deadgerbil Bump stocks have been declared illegal.

@Budwick I feel safe without surrounding myself with guns but I get it's a right but it seems to cause only more shootings and a shield to prevent changes to laws which could stop lives being lost

@Budwick "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In the context of New Zealand, idk if people take their firearms as seriously or if they ever felt the need to have access to a variety of guns.

America's situation is different as our country literally was created through a massive war with the UK, and we've had many enemies since then courtesy of our history with global wars, so I can understand the sentiment of wanting to keep guns of all sorts.

"Yes, they should [have access to full autos]"

IMO, having full autos being as accessible as a pistol etc or whatever uninfringed entails is asking for trouble. Given America's history of fighting for independence, I would support the distribution of fully automatic weapons to militias or whatever in the event that America's sovereignty is threatened. But having access to them on a daily basis for no reason is a little much.

In your opinion, what do 'arms' in entail? Weapons have evolved so much since the creation of the constitution.

@SW-User [quote]but it seems to cause only more shootings[/quote]

What seems to cause more shootings?
The 2nd Amendment has been around since America opened.

You wanna save some lives Riza? Ban alcohol. It's contributed to the deaths of 10's of thousands every year. 88,000 last year - more than 240 people a day!

Do you know that most gun related deaths are suicide? Yup, 64%.

There's no clear evidence that strict gun laws help. Chicago has VERY strict laws, and we know how dangerous a place Chicago streets are.

More people are stabbed to death every year than are murdered with rifles.

Guns are not the problem. Crazy people are and societal norms. Have you seen how kids behave on spring break? Corral the crazies, problem solved.

@deadgerbil
You seem to be all over the place on this topic.

[quote]No one needs weapons of that capacity to defend themselves or for hunting.[/quote]

[quote] I would support the distribution of fully automatic weapons to militias or whatever in the event that America's sovereignty is threatened. But having access to them on a daily basis for no reason is a little much. [/quote]

[quote]Given America's history of fighting for independence, [/quote] waiting for the government from whom we may be seeking independence to distribute weapons is not a good battle plan.

What do arms entail? Let's settle what's already on the table first.

@Budwick I'm not really, I'm talking about the situation that the people in New Zealand found themselves in and how it differs from a situation that would require an upgrade in civilian arms. No one needs fully automatic firearms to defend themselves on a daily basis. The people in New Zealand are not fighting a war. The situation people found themselves in could have been rectified with a pistol and does not necessitate that people have access to weapons that are overkill for what most people find themselves.

In the event that a nation's sovereignty is threatened, then I could see people being distributed automatic firearms and, in conjunction with the government, fight the threat together. New Zealand's sovereignty was not under threat.

[quote]waiting for the government from whom we may be seeking independence to distribute weapons is not a good battle plan.[/quote]

So citizens here in the US should demand that we have access to a variety of weapons that are currently deemed illegal? I mean, even if we had fully automatic weapons available to us, the US would still have a massive monopoly on firepower and weapon systems that would make succession impossible. If we don't want the government to infringe upon our ability to bear arms, and the freedoms that come with having them, we should be allowed to have predator drones, tanks, etc...

...The definition of what you consider to be an 'arm' is crucial as I could make the argument that the average citizen should have access to stuff more powerful than an automatic weapon, and that the denial of such is infringement on our right to have it. What a weapon/arm entails today is a lot more expanded than what was around in the 1700's.

@deadgerbil Yes, really.

I'm not familiar with New Zealand laws.
They can settle that for them selves.

I've already responded to 'what should be legal'. I said, let's all agree that everyone accepts that we can keep what we already have. Cuz nuts like you will bitch about some straw man wanting a nuke.

@Budwick

[quote]Yes, really.[/quote]

Negative. I said that no one needs assault rifles to defend themselves. I further refined that statement by saying that in the event a nation is being attacked or something, then having a weapon of that capacity is justified, as there are always exceptions. However, those are exceptions and not the rule.

[quote]I'm not familiar with New Zealand laws. They can settle that for themselves[/quote]

In saying that, you admit that you do not know their situation or their own sentiments on firearms. The fact that it took them like 6 days to get a ban in place goes to show where they stand on the issue of military-style assault weapons. It goes to show that they do not have the same amount of love for their guns as we do, due to different histories and cultural reasons. Relating this back to my original comment, it's fair to say that the average citizen in New Zealand does not need a weapon of that type to defend themselves. In the event that New Zealand is under threat, I'd be behind arming civilians with serious weapons. Like if they faced a threat similar to Japan during WW2, distribution of banned weapons may be a good idea, with them being returned to the gov after the threat is gone.
---
Of course, the above is pertaining to an outside threat to a nation. In a situation where one needs to fight their own government, the dynamics are totally different in that you have to fight an entity that has direct rule over you. As in the case with the Colonists, one will have to rely on outside countries(in their case, the French and Spanish) to assist in overthrowing a powerful government. This does not mean that one has to support legislation that enables them to "cling" to their guns and have unnecessary weapons on the market being sold to unfit people just in case something happens.

[quote]Cuz nuts like you[/quote]

Nuts like me? Great way to sink to the level that so often defines discussion about controversial topics. I have a pretty situational stance when it comes to guns instead of ascribing to various extremes. Maybe I need to hold you in the same regard as Markpaul.

Shifting towards American politics:

The fact that you approach the convo with a false dichotomy in mind, that one is either on your side or a total anti-gun nut says a lot. There is a middle ground, and you don't end up in that middle ground by regarding the second amendment as gospel. Don't talk about fallacies like straw manning when you entertain false dilemmas. I am pro-gun within reason. Having gun owners provide a valid reason for having a firearm instead of it being an automatic right goes a long way in reducing crime. There are so many cases of people here in the US on the terrorist watch list being able to buy a gun, people with mental illness people able to buy a gun, people being able to walk into a store and leave 30 minutes later with a gun-all because it's their 'right'. Germany today does not guarantee firearms as a right; rather you earn the privilege to obtain one after extensive training. The US can learn a thing or two by following other country's footsteps with respect to some things. By saying that guns shouldn't be a right does not make me anti-gun; I'd encourage to go through the process in order to guarantee themselves reasonable level protection. During times of war, that bar may be raised, provided it goes back down after everything settles down. Just like how having a car isn't a right, yet I'd encourage people to get a car as it provides a valuable service when used correctly.

In saying that I can make the argument that denying access to weapons that are over and above automatic weapons(like drones, tanks, or nukes...) is an infringement of one's right to bear arms, all I'm doing is illustrating why you can not take the second amendment as literally as you do and why there should be a revision of it.

Take your argument to its end; what does it mean in today's world?

The second amendment was written in a day and age where the average citizen could obtain weapons that were of the same caliber as the government's, which gave your average citizen a good chance of gaining independence as we saw with the revolutionary war. They were more or less on an equal footing and the founding fathers saw it necessary for civilians to maintain a militia to secure the freedom of the state.

If you are truly serious about exercising your 2nd amendment and wanting to safeguard your ability to seek independence from the US and to preserve freedom, as the founding fathers envisioned, you should be demanding that tanks, bombs, etc be made legal. With your assault rifle, you are never going to replicate the success the Patriots had in gaining independence from the UK when you are up against a predator drone.

"Chicago has VERY strict laws, and we know how dangerous a place Chicago streets are."

There's a massive loophole that allows people to circumvent existing laws and purchase guns through gun shows and online. Simply go to the neighboring state and visit a gun show. You'll see how easy it is to fall through the cracks undetected.

You don't get anywhere by clinging to your guns and believing that everyone has a right to get a gun. An all or nothing situation when it comes to gun ownership just creates problems.

[quote]I said that no one needs assault rifles to defend themselves[/quote]

That's interesting. What did you use the last time you were in a fire fight?

@Budwick You assume everyone is an American here. 😏