@
Budwick Yes, really.
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.
I'm not familiar with New Zealand laws. They can settle that for themselves
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.
Cuz nuts like you
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.
