Jump to content

Self defense and guns


Recommended Posts

The Kenosha trial got me thinking (again). Here in the forum, many people rail against Jeddah as a possible AC venue and Saudi - beheadings, women couldn’t drive until recently, etc.

But in reality, to an European mind the US, with the hallucinating corruption of the Second Amendment, assault guns, manifestly racist cops and stand your ground are just about as distant

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xlot said:

The Kenosha trial got me thinking (again). Here in the forum, many people rail against Jeddah as a possible AC venue and Saudi - beheadings, women couldn’t drive until recently, etc.

But in reality, to an European mind the US, with the hallucinating corruption of the Second Amendment, assault guns, manifestly racist cops and stand your ground are just about as distant

 

Guns are out of control in the US but, for several reasons, that horse left the barn so long ago it can't be fixed. A few friends own guns but they stay firmly and securely in their homes, for on the very-remote chance some nut who is armed breaks in and it threatens the lives of their loved ones. I figure my odds of getting shot are far higher if I am holding one ... and so simply don't own one. You want the booze? The wallet? Here ya go, man!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

I disagree that it's too late. It can be done with enough will. It will take time of course. But if you withdraw all licenses. Issue only a limited number new ones and then put very strong controls on ammunition then you can get it under control

That and buy-backs may help, some. It's good to see the corrupt NRA finally getting nailed, maybe that will help a little too, including politically/legislatively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, one effect of the Trump presidency has been to rehabilitate GWB into a sort of benevolent, doting uncle. One should not forget that, in addition to the Iraq tragedy, he’s also responsible for letting expire the ban on assault (I know, I know) rifles

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kiwing said:

I hope that New Zealand goes another step to removing guns from our community.

you do realize that poison and traps only go so far to clearing out our introduced pests and guns are required to mop up whats left

and that's only the pests that can be poisoned and or trapped

 

and just for interest wtf has that got to do with am cup .. dont they use a horn to start it now

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

you do realize that poison and traps only go so far to clearing out our introduced pests and guns are required to mop up whats left

 

An argument which is weakened by some "sports" hunters deliberately transferring these "pests" to other parts of the country to ensure they keep on having targets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't weaken the argument at all ( mostly because it's not an argument .. it's just fact )

assholes be assholes .. and just for interest a lot of the movement nowadays is pigs and the ' sportsmen' ? mostly use dogs and knives with no guns carried at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phill_nz said:

you do realize that poison and traps only go so far to clearing out our introduced pests and guns are required to mop up whats left and that's only the pests that can be poisoned and or trapped and just for interest wtf has that got to do with am cup .. dont they use a horn to start it now

@phill_nz We have successfully removed every possum from 5 sqmiles without guns, and continue to increase the boundaries. I don't envisage using guns to remove the last rat, feral cat, weasel or stoat either.  But goats and pigs will need guns.
But you don't need machine guns, modern assault rifles for those.  I doubt whether guns firing blanks will ever become illegal in NZ either.
So there are still quite a few guns that can be taken out of the community and the community will be a safer place for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

I disagree that it's too late. It can be done with enough will. It will take time of course. But if you withdraw all licenses. Issue only a limited number new ones and then put very strong controls on ammunition then you can get it under control

Much of what you propose is prohibited by our Constitution, which provides an individual with a right to own a common firearm for self defense.  We would need to amend the Constitution to change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Amending the Constitution on non-controversial issues is damn near impossible, and would be entirely impossible to get right of gun rights (which are sacrosanct to many). 

Even if we got past that, we'd need to figure out what to do with the 300 million guns already in this country.

I'm afraid there isn't a easy solution -- or perhaps any solution -- to the gun violence problem on the gun side.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xlot said:

As an aside, one effect of the Trump presidency has been to rehabilitate GWB into a sort of benevolent, doting uncle. One should not forget that, in addition to the Iraq tragedy, he’s also responsible for letting expire the ban on assault (I know, I know) rifles

GWB was in no way responsible for letting the federal assault weapons ban expire. That sunset provision was in the law itself, which Congress drafted and sent to him. As the executive, GWB had no authority to ignore that provision or rewrite it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, porthos said:

Much of what you propose is prohibited by our Constitution, which provides an individual with a right to own a common firearm for self defense.  We would need to amend the Constitution to change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Amending the Constitution on non-controversial issues is damn near impossible, and would be entirely impossible to get right of gun rights (which are sacrosanct to many). 

Even if we got past that, we'd need to figure out what to do with the 300 million guns already in this country.

I'm afraid there isn't a easy solution -- or perhaps any solution -- to the gun violence problem on the gun side.  

But therein is the crux of the matter. The aspect of the constitution that would prevent such laws (and even that is debatable*) is the 2nd amendment. The very name shows it can be changed. 

What is missing is the will.

* I don't see why a law prohibiting the sale and possession of ammunition would contravene that amendment either. They could still bear arms. Just not loaded ones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kiwing said:

"a common firearm" means the latest machine gun or assault rifle?  Next a swarm of deadly killer drones will be a common firearm soon - where will it stop?

A "common firearm" is a commonly-available firearm. It certainly means a handgun.  It almost certainly also means a shotgun.  It would not mean a "machine gun," which have been largely outlawed in the US since 1934. The United States Supreme Court will have to determine whether an "assault rifle" (which has a variety of definitions) is a "common firearm". Several courts of appeals (four of them last time I checked) have ruled that "assault rifles" are not "common firearms" and are therefore not protected under the Second Amendment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, porthos said:

A "common firearm" is a commonly-available firearm. It certainly means a handgun.  It almost certainly also means a shotgun.  It would not mean a "machine gun," which have been largely outlawed in the US since 1934. The United States Supreme Court will have to determine whether an "assault rifle" (which has a variety of definitions) is a "common firearm". Several courts of appeals (four of them last time I checked) have ruled that "assault rifles" are not "common firearms" and are therefore not protected under the Second Amendment.  

There must be some people with brains there then?  Actually I know some very intelligent and nice people from America.
Intelligent - the moved to New Zealand and stayed....
Nice - we let them in permanently?!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

But therein is the crux of the matter. The aspect of the constitution that would prevent such laws (and even that is debatable*) is the 2nd amendment. The very name shows it can be changed. 

What is missing is the will.

* I don't see why a law prohibiting the sale and possession of ammunition would contravene that amendment either. They could still bear arms. Just not loaded ones. 

Of course the Constitution can be amended. I was addressing the likelihood that it would be. It's always possible that our country will change enough that we can neuter the Second Amendment. Perhaps we will some day, but it sure as shit won't be in my lifetime.

The Second Amendment (as interpreted) gives an individual the right to own a common firearm for self-defense. That means that the federal and state governments cannot interfere with that right unless they have a damn good reason and the restriction is narrowly-tailored to address that important interest. Banning bullets is a cute end-around, but it clearly interferes with the right to use a firearm for self-defense and any court would deem it unconstitutional.  Such a bullet ban wouldn't last..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kiwing said:

There must be some people with brains there then?  Actually I know some very intelligent and nice people from America.
Intelligent - the moved to New Zealand and stayed....
Nice - we let them in permanently?!!!

We're not all stupid. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite honestly, the OP is committing serious thread drift, right from his first post.

Of course the RNZYS and Etnz have the right of self defense against the populist Home Defense. Just the name alone should be Home Traitors for starters. Anyway, the Commodore will hold a gun to the heads of the voters, and some heads will fall, no doubt. And Dalts will lay in wait for Dunfuck and Farm Boy, with his foiling hydrogen bike, black book in hand to book them. And Porthos, only the Law of the Dog applies here, not some crazy Green Bay Packers or Harley Davidson interpretation.

For fuck sake, you guys certainly know how to mix things up, IMHO, thread drift it is, end of story.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, porthos said:

The Second Amendment (as interpreted) gives an individual the right to own a common firearm for self-defense.

My reading of it (given the historical context in which it was written) is that it was intended for armed militias' ability to defend the population against a dictatorship takeover of the democracy that the framers of the Constitution had sought to achieve.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stingray~ said:

My reading of it (given the historical context in which it was written) is that it was intended for armed militia's ability to defend the population against against a dictatorship. 

You are about 13 years behind the times. The United States Supreme Court in 2008 (in the Heller case) ruled that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to organized militias for anti-tyrannical purposes, but rather bestows a right upon individuals to bear arms for self-defense as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, porthos said:

You are about 13 years behind the times. The United States Supreme Court in 2008 (in the Heller case) ruled that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to organized militias for anti-tyrannical purposes, but rather bestows a right upon individuals to bear arms for self-defense as well.  

I would argue that the subsequent Citizens United case was equally disastrous, and tangentially related.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stingray~ said:

I would argue that the subsequent Citizens United case was equally disastrous, and tangentially related.

You can argue that if you wish. Many see Citizens United as a horrible decision.  That said, Citizen's United was a First Amendment case not a Second Amendment case. The only relationship between Citizens United and Heller is that the decisions get a lot of attention.  Legally, they have very little in common. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kiwing said:

you don't need machine guns, modern assault rifles for those.  I doubt whether guns firing blanks will ever become illegal in NZ either

all of the first 2 categories cited are illegal ( machine guns always and assault rifles for many years before the current regs )

some of the blank firing ( starters guns ) are also now illegal

as are all handguns and pistols ( unless draconian requirements are met for every second of their life )

as are any type ( shotgun and .22 rimfire included ) of semi automatic

as are any rifle with a pistol grip

as a lot of Olympic categories use some of these types we can no longer train or compete in those classes

 

silly sindy went way to far in this bit of dumbfuckery

 

 

we have a lot more pests than the ' common' ones everyone knows about

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, porthos said:

You can argue that if you wish. Many see Citizens United as a horrible decision.  That said, Citizen's United was a First Amendment case not a Second Amendment case. The only relationship between Citizens United and Heller is that the decisions get a lot of attention.  Legally, they have very little in common. 

What the two cases have in common, to my simple take on it, is that CU cemented the ability of the NRA (and yes, a wide variety of other interests) to participate in what I see as for-profit legalized bribery of politicians. Sadly, while I see some need to regulate big tech companies the likes of 'Meta' I think the real end-game among politicians threatening to strongarm them is to extract a huge amount of lobbying-money out of them. The campaign finance system here is severely money-corrupted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

What the two cases have in common, to my simple take on it, is that CU cemented the ability of the NRA (and yes, a wide variety of other interests) to participate in what I see as for-profit legalized bribery of politicians. Sadly, while I see some need to regulate big tech companies the likes of 'Meta' I think the real end-game among politicians threatening to strongarm them is to extract a huge amount of lobbying-money out of them. The campaign finance system here is severely money-corrupted.

I guess I'm not sure how, in the absence of a time machine, a 2010 First Amendment case could have influenced a 2008 Second Amendment case. There is nothing politicians can do to unwind the Heller decision -- nor would the NRA want to -- short of amending the Constitution, which is never going to happen. 

I have largely given up on national politics. Had my fill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, porthos said:

I have largely given up on national politics. Had my fill.

While I do follow a wide variety of subjects my favorite attention in paying to national politics, is to some of the late-night comics - who are actually very sharp at times and bring needed comic relief. :)

edit: just for fun, I did actually shake hands one afternoon at a Boeing event with Barack. I remember arriving early, going through security, standing for forever in a massive flight hangar, etc, etc, and: No, he wouldn't remember! Was a rock-star look had going on though, am happy to have experienced that.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Liquid said:

You AC kooks know there is an entire section of this site dedicated to political masturbation, right?

 

Exactly. I tried very hard to give the thread some legitimately. But to no avail, they continue their knitting circle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

I like this commentary on the 2nd amendment. One of the more sensible. Even though it is from an Aussie ;)

https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4

 

 

The rest of the world (and surely a majority of US residents) can laugh at how out of control the situation is.

If you have a dangerous addiction, it's worth it to kick the habit, no matter the short term pain.

I wonder if the US will ever get a politician with the balls to sort this out?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shebeen said:

The rest of the world (and surely a majority of US residents) can laugh at how out of control the situation is.

If you have a dangerous addiction, it's worth it to kick the habit, no matter the short term pain.

I wonder if the US will ever get a politician with the balls to sort this out?

Prolly wouldn't be a two-term politician though, eh? ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Exactly. I tried very hard to give the thread some legitimately. But to no avail, they continue their knitting circle.

Ha. Maybe because - Anarchy, we're all determined to ignore your sage advice, FB. ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, porthos said:

 

The Second Amendment (as interpreted) gives an individual the right to own a common firearm for self-defense. 

Must be some mental contortions on the 'common' but. The only reason that rifles and pistols are common in civil america is because of what the interpretation of the law allows, which is a circular argument. In the civilised world outside the US none are 'common', and if the military are included then fully automatic rifles are more common than semi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shebeen said:

If you have a dangerous addiction, it's worth it to kick the habit, no matter the short term pain.

I see that you are well studied and deeply experienced in the ways of addiction and rehab......

"Just stop doing it" - yup, that'll work!

 

Incredibly insightful!

 

Let's try:

Please stop posting in the AC forum until a venue is announced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Ha. Maybe because - Anarchy, we're all determined to ignore your sage advice, FB. ;-)

Very disappointed that my pedagogical skills don't work on obnoxious anarchist.

I failed, and will now get the belt out, you've all been warned!

PS. I see, you already got the idee, good one.

 

Edited by Fiji Bitter
PS.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

You mean you had to look up what it meant?

Yes, I did have to look it up. Is that a thing for you? That I gotta know all the words you know?

Do you have to know all the words I also know?

 

What's your next cool guy word:

????????

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Liquid said:

I see that you are well studied and deeply experienced in the ways of addiction and rehab......nope, feel free to share if you think the analogy has legs

"Just stop doing it" - yup, that'll work!not what i said

 

Incredibly insightful! the sarcasm makes you look silly

 

Let's try:

Please stop posting in the AC forum until a venue is announced.ok that makes even more sense.

 

If you're the type of guy who buys his semi-automatic defense equipment from the cornershop then I apologise for my unthinkable suggestions/lazy stereotyping (or both)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just stop doing it" - yup, that'll work! not what i said

4 hours ago, shebeen said:

If you have a dangerous addiction, it's worth it to kick the habit, no matter the short term pain.

Weird... I guess I read that differently than you.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shebeen said:

If you're the type of guy who buys his semi-automatic defense equipment from the cornershop then I apologise for my unthinkable suggestions/lazy stereotyping (or both)

Hey Dipshit: I'm challenging that your 'lazy stereotyping' is the ability to talk one's way out of an addiction!

 

How, why and where I buy my guns in 'Murica has fuck all nothing to do with addiction or the AC!


So, fuck off!

 

 

 

 

 

Now, back to pretending everybody knows exactly what's going to happened with the AC in 3 years whilst being stewarded by a cash strapped, desperate campaign...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Liquid said:

Hey Dipshit: I'm challenging that your 'lazy stereotyping' is the ability to talk one's way out of an addiction!

 

How, why and where I buy my guns in 'Murica has fuck all nothing to do with addiction or the AC!


So, fuck off!

 

 

 

 

 

Now, back to pretending everybody knows exactly what's going to happened with the AC in 3 years whilst being stewarded by a cash strapped, desperate campaign...

 

Sorry to have touched a nerve. I'm not going to even guess why this is such a big deal for you that it can't be mentioned.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kiwing said:

There must be some people with brains there then?  Actually I know some very intelligent and nice people from America.
Intelligent - the moved to New Zealand and stayed....
Nice - we let them in permanently?!!!

And yet we have a ever increasing level of gun violence in NZ.

Maybe they brought the idea with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shebeen said:

Sorry to have touched a nerve. I'm not going to even guess why this is such a big deal for you that it can't be mentioned.

WTF? Guns and the AC, the next big thing!


 

It's hard enough to come around here...

Just stop talking guns in the Americas Cup forum!!!

 

If you want to get dirty, head down to PA!!!!

 

Is that so fucking hard??????

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Liquid said:

WTF? Guns and the AC, the next big thing!


 

It's hard enough to come around here...

Just stop talking guns in the Americas Cup forum!!!

 

If you want to get dirty, head down to PA!!!!

 

Is that so fucking hard??????

 

Perhaps this is all started by Dalts who has a gun manufacturer or dealer as a new sponsor.

Even Emirates might step aside for the dealer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gissie said:

And yet we have a ever increasing level of gun violence in NZ.

Maybe they brought the idea with them.

501's  mixed with our police who are now scared rabbits with cannons

be patient silly sindy will be working it out some decade soon

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phill_nz said:

501's  mixed with our police who are now scared rabbits with cannons

be patient silly sindy will be working it out some decade soon

Know any of these front line scared rabbits? I don't, but I do know some front line guys. Note, another three 'scared rabbits' shot yesterday.

As for Jacinda, she needs to have the media float ideas and see how the polling goes first. Then check with how the treaty impacts any possible decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NeedAClew said:

Are you guys locked up and locking out again for Omicron? 

Yep, I made sure they are all locked up in a mental hospital, how do I know?

NZ is full of Japies, there will be no escaping.

Anyway, Kate says it's only like a simple herpes, and dissolving a aciclovir in your whiskey will cure it. He is in a straightjacket now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeedAClew said:

Are you guys locked up and locking out again for Omicron? 

No idea any more, too hard to keep up. We now have some new traffic light system that may, or may not, change some time in the future, due to indicators that they are still thinking about. 

Just keep doing whatever and wait to be told off if it is now wrong. Off for my booster shot in an hour, so all good.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gissie said:

You can thank goodness as much as you want, but it doesn't change how incompetent and devisive she has been.

Not very on either count, but don't let facts get in the way of a good grumble eh... ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh3000 said:

Not very on either count, but don't let facts get in the way of a good grumble eh... ;-)

Housing, health (both physical and mental), child poverty (Jacinda’s own portfolio), homelessness etc., all get a big F for failed. 

Dividing New Zealand on racial lines, this she certainly gets an A+ for. Although this is perhaps not a good thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kiwing said:

You for Bridges Luxton ?

Luxton, no way.

Bridges, not really my type. On the other hand he had National set up to make Ardern to be the first single term Labour PM since the 1930's. Then covid arrived and sainthood was bestowed.

Perhaps Bridges should be given a second chance. My choice would be for him to agree to a 12 month trial, if it looks good, keep him on. If it looks like he is not going to succeed, he volunteers to walk away. From not only the job, but polices completely. This would also shut down his supporters who will just make life shit for Luxton.

There also needs to be a clear out of idiots like Brownlee. National has a lot of old deadwood, including the party chairman, that needs running through the chipper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gissie said:

Know any of these front line scared rabbits? I don't, but I do know some front line guys. Note, another three 'scared rabbits' shot yesterday.

you dress up and go in like rambo shock troops

seriously what fukin answer do you think your going to get

 

when you parade around with black masks and bushmasters and act like the ss

you advertise you are no longer the trusted protectors

you become the enemy to all but the few that will always agree with figureheads and those in power

 

it didn't take a genius to work out where this would head from the moment they started arming up

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Luxton, no way.

Bridges, not really my type. On the other hand he had National set up to make Ardern to be the first single term Labour PM since the 1930's. Then covid arrived and sainthood was bestowed.

Perhaps Bridges should be given a second chance. My choice would be for him to agree to a 12 month trial, if it looks good, keep him on. If it looks like he is not going to succeed, he volunteers to walk away. From not only the job, but polices completely. This would also shut down his supporters who will just make life shit for Luxton.

There also needs to be a clear out of idiots like Brownlee. National has a lot of old deadwood, including the party chairman, that needs running through the chipper.

Agree it's time for the Party chairman, Goodfellow to bugger off. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

you dress up and go in like rambo shock troops

seriously what fukin answer do you think your going to get

 

when you parade around with black masks and bushmasters and act like the ss

you advertise you are no longer the trusted protectors

you become the enemy to all but the few that will always agree with figureheads and those in power

 

it didn't take a genius to work out where this would head from the moment they started arming up

 

 

Actually, now have to agree with Kiwing, you would be a plonker trying to run anything.

Sure as hell make Jacinda look like a bit of an Einstein, which is no easy task.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...