by ThomasCovenant 84 Replies latest jw friends
In response to the recent terrorist attack in New Zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.
Do you agree with this idea?
Would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?
Would it be better to perhaps allow more of the Muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?
Will banning these weapons make New Zealand any safer in the long run?
No one needs these weapons except police and military, they serve only one purpose, to kill many people quickly.
Banning high powered firearms will not stop the next muslim from seeking revenge, it only leaves the infidels unprotected.
RB
Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns? - No, although it's an understandable reaction.
New Zealand's gun laws seemed ok before the massacre, IMO.
The government can ban certain guns but a future terrorist can acquire a decent gun that isn't banned, e.g. a high-powered pistol, or they could get guns on the black market.
New Zealand, together with other Western countries, need to have honest and open debates about the circumstances around terrorism (both Islamic and white supremacist).
That conversation would be quite painful and take in a number of related topics, including immigration policies.
I hope these conversations happen but I won't hold my breath.
In response to the recent terrorist attack in New Zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.
Do you agree with this idea?
Well it's not for me to tell another country what to ban. However after a mass shooting in Australia these weapons were banned. With good results.
Would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?
No......... weapons designed to kill a fair number of people quickly and indiscriminately, be they young children or seniors should not be readily available. Because every one of these indiscriminate shooters turn out to be mental cases on some serious level.
Is this a political forum now? I thought this was about ex-JW's?
I've seen the live-feed video.
I've read the guy's manifesto, IN FULL, in context.
The Government of NZ should read it. They are playing and caving right into what he said would happen. (Duh!)
Unarmed citizens are no longer citizens, they are Subjects and Sheeple.
Glad I'm not under the Queen's umbrella of slavery.
Any such attempt here in the Colonies (USA) will result in another Civil War, and our own military will be on the People's side. The unarmed side? I thought they were moving to Canada already? They can GTFO and stay out. Take the entitlement minded mooching illegal immigrants with you.
The purpose of the right to bear arms is so people can defend themselves against criminals, and this includes those who offensively attack innocent people like this, along with tyrants. Now, suppose someone opens fire on a crowd, and one person in that crowd happens to have a gun. The attacker now gets shot, and that is the end. The original attacker had enough ammunition to kill a few hundred innocent people, but only managed one injury (or even a property damage shot) before being shot. Maybe a few incidents like that would make anyone stupid enough to shoot at a crowd think twice.
And, if the government would not ban guns in the aftermath, that would stop the incentive of false flag attacks intended to get guns out of the hands of law abiding people. Criminals and tyrants do not obey laws, and they are going to get guns anyways. If they know that, all they are going to succeed in doing is to get the original shooter killed, they are also going to think twice before pulling false flag attacks as would some idiot that thinks they are going to destroy a church or mosque with a shooting if all they succeed in doing is getting shot.
The idea that armed civilians could resist real military is ridiculous. Even if you ignore dropping mortars or an airstrike on the house of someone resisting, or just lighting it up with a 50 calibre will solve the military issue, just shooting everyone in the first town that resists handing in firearms works. People will then report anyone not handing in firearms. It's happened before.
^ That right there? Pure bullshit. Sure, it's happened, in Nazi Germany perhaps. For damn sure, AMERICANS would not up and "roll over" like this, or like they are currently in Australia and New Zealand. Would NEVER happen. One, most of the military back the Constitution, not some new bullshit laws enacted during a period of fear. They'd refuse to do this to their own country. Two, any open attack like this on an American town would be immediately reported on, and everyone else would immediately rise up and arm themselves for an all-out assault and Civil War. This nation was built upon Revolution and rising up against oppression. The rest of the world seems to see as barbarians. American's see the rest of the (non-Democratic, non-free) world as an enslaved, pacifist, pussified, SUBJECTS of their Hierarchy governments who tax them nearly to death and "allow them" to have very basic "privileges" instead of rights. Keep that shit in your own safe-spaces. You like living like that? Be my guest.
The idea that armed civilians could resist real military is ridiculous.
It's not, really though. The likelihood that the US would have a dictator who would turn the full power of the military on its own people is far-fetched to the extreme so much that it's laughable.
But rogue local police? Yes, that can happen. What is more likely is deteriorating conditions created by a socialist government enacting ill-conceived policies that means it's every man for himself.
This is what happens first and is happening now in the socialist poster-child of Venezuela. Even there, it's not the military that is the big threat to most people, it's other people.
US citizens would be mad to hand over their weapons and their right to posses them are protected by their 2nd amendment so give it up, it's not going to happen in the US especially when a major political party is openly advocating for illegal immigrants and making criminals untouchable by law enforcement.
What the NZ prime-minister is doing is petty token gimmicks to look good. Wearing a headscalf and playing the muslim call to prayer is a fucking insult to those enslaved by that religion and must be chilling to ex-members of it who fear reprisals for leaving. It seems like an overly emotional response rather than a well considered one and banning guns is a knee-kerk, simplistic reaction that we won't know the full ramifications of for many years to come.
