http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/3740938/posts

New Zealand’s parliament on Wednesday voted almost unanimously to ban “military-style” semi-automatic weapons less than a month after 50 people were killed in mass shootings at a pair of mosques in the city of Christchurch. The ban, which applies to semi-automatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five rounds, was made permanent Wednesday after being unilaterally implemented by prime minister Jacinda Ardern just six days after the mosque shootings to prevent stockpiling.

what the new law also picks up is any .22 rifle with a mag capacity of more than ten rounds - so thats any pump , or tube mag type rifle , plus any centrefire rifle of more than five round capacity , plus bans outright any semi auto hunting rifle.
So essentially this is not a ban on the so-called military style semi auto , this is a wide spread disarming of the lawful firearms owners.
Very few of the supporters of this ban are even aware of whats in it .And unfortunately very few of the people who will be affected are aware either - yet .

Public were told this would cost two hundred mil. Now its law, politicians are conceding it might cost a billion. Firearms community said that from start.

All centrefire semi autos are now banned not just MSSA

One can never trust an anti to tell the truth.

One can trust them to always grab more then they say they well if given the chance.

Sorry to hear this. I'd heard she was just going to ban assault rifles (the 'gamer's' weapon of choice in most of these massacres and the object of contention in this one). Taken further, the banning logic can't stop this side of the garage and cutlery drawer.

But we did have the benefit of advice from members of the NSW Police Force to assist our politicians to fine tune their legislative baby.

The basis for this law change has existed for a while . Some minion would have gone into a store room , got a box off the top shelf , blown the dust off and said " yep , thats the firearms law box ". Had to be that way because our current government would struggle to find enough collective brain cells to create a spark , let alone well-considered legislation....

F***sticks!

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
what the new law also picks up is any .22 rifle with a mag capacity of more than ten rounds - so thats any pump , or tube mag type rifle , plus any centrefire rifle of more than five round capacity , plus bans outright any semi auto hunting rifle.
So essentially this is not a ban on the so-called military style semi auto , this is a wide spread disarming of the lawful firearms owners.
Very few of the supporters of this ban are even aware of whats in it .And unfortunately very few of the people who will be affected are aware either - yet .

Read the law changes before talking rubbish. The focus is semi automatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns. Read and distinguish between include and exclude and between semi-auto and other.

Changing firearms laws amend the Arms Act by:

Banning most semi-automatic firearms and some pump action shotguns; and also certain large capacity magazines. There are limited exemptions
Placing controls around who may possess parts of prohibited firearms.

Prohibited firearms are:

All semi-automatic firearms (including semi-automatic shotguns), but excluding rimfire rifles .22 calibre or less as long as they have a magazine (whether detachable or not ) that holds 10 rounds or less; and excluding semi-automatic shotguns that have a non-detachable, tubular magazine that holds five rounds or less.
Pump action shotguns that are capable of being used with a detachable magazine; or have a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges.

Prohibited magazines are:

Shotgun magazines (whether detachable or not) capable of holding more than five rounds.
Magazines for other firearms (excluding pistols) that are: Detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and that are capable of holding 0.22 calibre or lower rimfire cartridges; Detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and that are capable of being used with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm; Other magazines, detachable or not, that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Prohibited parts are:

Parts of prohibited firearms; and components that can be used to make a firearm fire with (or near to) semi-automatic or automatic action.
Only a person who meets one of the exemption categories and who has applied for and obtained a new endorsement and permit to possess may lawfully possess a prohibited firearm, magazine or part.

All centre fire semi autos MSSA or not are banned.

And then we can’t export to US
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home...RCaQqJiOuNF55IsRLgvw

Sorry for your loss gents. This is just the first step in total disarmament.

One thing we have learned it is not about stopping crime.

It is about disarming the population of effective means of defending oneself.

Mainly against government tyranny.

Socialist's, Communist's, fascist's can not take over unless the population is disarmed.

Millions more have been killed by government action then there were ever killed by a armed population.

Our prime minister is being controlled by a former prime minister ,who was until recently 2 IC at the UN.

Does that give you some idea of why this is happening ?

it sounds like it's time to show up and turn some projectiles in to the parliament there.

Sir , that statement is about as helpfull as some of the dumb shit that idiots are spouting on our local hunting forums. Would you do that to your White House , in reality ?

We dont have a "right" to own firearms in NZ, its a priviledge accorded to those who apply and meet the criteria. So it a priviledge that can easily be taken away if the Police deem us to no longer be a fit and proper person. Thats why we will all roll over and comply to some extent.

quote:

Originally posted by TOP_PREDATOR:
And then we can’t export to US
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home...RCaQqJiOuNF55IsRLgvw

Ironically, when autos were banned here you were allowed to sell O/S.

One shooter I heard of apparently had a Midas-grade BAR or shotgun and the authorities tried to persuade him to export it. But no, the story went, he insisted they buy it and pay him the new-condition price. IIRC he also insisted on seeing them destroy it.

^^ exactly^^
take e'm all in and drop them all off.
all of it,, everything.
you've lost.
get over it.
they are just pieces of wood, steel, and plastic.
take up gardening and watching the waves roll in on the beach.
why bother?

As an Australian let me give you the stages

Stage 1, pre arranged response, fine tuned in other countries, UN, global media pressure, professional contractors and left wing billionairers lined up all the way across the Atlantic ready to go.

Stage 2. Massacre occurs, generally less than 1% normal homicide statistics, but there you go.

Stage 3. The groups in stage 1 launch full strength. Your defence depends on the A.number of shooters,B.their representation, C, the constitution and patriotic politcians, and most importantly your D. financial backing. Historically only the US has had the muscle in all four areas to provide effective resistance to the parties in stage 1. Second tier size economies like Aus/NZ have to tow the UN line to keep their trade deals and standards of living.

4. Legislation formed. A second stage of this stage is including shooting parties and experts to help develope it. This is mostly missed by the shooting public but a great deal of the fleshing out and damage is actually done by turncoats and warring factions between shooter groups themselves. EG in Australia it was the prominent deer hunters and gunwriters selling semi-autos down the tube. Also a third substage of this will be individual groups advancing their own policies afterwards to appear favorable to the powers that be. For example pistol ranges and crossbow clubs here, also the blackpowder cannon mob were instrumental in drafting extra procedures relating to applications at club level.... which then become formwork for legislative moves later.

5. Laws enacted and peaceful response. Even America wouldn't physically resist these days- their strength is beating laws before they cross the table. Once enacted they fall into line like the rest of us. What the yanks don't like to mention is they have had countless bans and law changes since the 1934 federal changes. None of their 50 states and 3000 counties have identical freedoms, and there were no shootouts with police, militarised resistance or other such 'tough-talk' to overturn any of them. The reason being is people in 1st world countries consider guns as a hobby these days and no one goes to war and risks their families lives over hobbies. Most shooters mentality will eventually switch to defending the laws in some part. You will find Nzers in later years saying , well maybe we didn't need all those bans, but at least we had some of the bans The next generation of shooters will be openly confident the bans were nothing but a great idea and prepared the way for the society they enjoy. As the current young idiots in Australia feel

6. Gun ownership will actually generally increase for those types still allowed. There are a few dynamics for this. One funnily enough is if the substage in no.4 forces enough people into clubs for whatever reason, as reasons to own, or required safety courses/accreditations etc, it creates a culture of involvement, all the clubs, societies and training groups will spring up and provide shooters with some representation, and encourage numbers. It also stimulates gun dealers to go all out in selling their wares while they can. Which is why despite the anti's destroying several types of firearm types in Australia they ultimately got several times the gunsales occurring as previously. Not saying it was any sort of good thing for gunowners, since the next bans will be even easier to enact, but just showing that these billion dollar farces, do not achieve their aim of reducing guns anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
Sir , that statement is about as helpfull as some of the dumb shit that idiots are spouting on our local hunting forums. Would you do that to your White House , in reality ?

We dont have a "right" to own firearms in NZ, its a priviledge accorded to those who apply and meet the criteria. So it a priviledge that can easily be taken away if the Police deem us to no longer be a fit and proper person. Thats why we will all roll over and comply to some extent.

Ignore the tough talk muzza. The fact is the US's strength is in defeating proposals before they come into place, howeever once they have law changes they fall into place like the rest of us. No major shootouts with police, taking politicians hostage, or occupying city hall by force to oveturn gun law changes in their recent history either, and that includes hundreds of gun law changes.

its what the yanks don't like to admit(and keeping in mind most of my friends on the site are good american friends, but just telling it like it is here, having lived in the US) is that none of their 50 states and 3000 countries enjoy identical freedoms- a lot of different laws have crossed the table, and as mentioned very few 'shots were fired' to prevent any of them


Where the US is highly effective is defeating proposals before this occurs. Generally their shooting numbers, constitution and economic strength make them the only country that can resist UN/US left wing mandated crusades, which is what gun grabs are. There are probably a dozen countries and 50 left wing billionaires all with the NZ media and politicians in pocket working against NZ shooters now. You aren't fighting just your politicians- if you were, you might have a chance. Its almost impossible for a country with only a few million people to resist-that is if you want to keep your trade deals and standards of living, US owned currency etc.


The simple reason is despite talk of patriotism, harvesting and survival, most well fed 1st world suburbanites in western countries including the US, consider guns only a hobby, and no one goes to war over hobbies.

I think you are wrong Karl. I will not turn my firearms in and will protect them with my life. A lot of folks over here in the US feel the same way. That would be the start of the revolution. America will not be disarmed. I feel sorry for the bloke knocking on my door to come and get my guns.

Twilli:

That might be true IF they attacked US
all at once.
The way they operate is contacting one
person at a time and not much that can
be done in such a situation.

Good luck mates,
George

quote:

Originally posted by twilli:
I think you are wrong Karl. I will not turn my firearms in and will protect them with my life. A lot of folks over here in the US feel the same way. That would be the start of the revolution. America will not be disarmed. I feel sorry for the bloke knocking on my door to come and get my guns.

Twilli, I would say I am right based on two things.

1. The limited basis of shootouts with authorities during any law change in the US. Did the laws in 1934 cause revolutions?

2. Secondly that if you believe Americans could provide armed resistance to enforce gun freedoms, they would do be doing it right now, to reverse all the previous legal restrictions.

Doesn't happen obviously.

Let me clarify though, along with what George says, the people making these law changes are smart enough to gauge what level of action they can get away with.

Even in Australia they did not attempt anything like "outright house to house bans".

They do however know the right pace at which to chip away because the chief tactic is not to engage in force it is reliant on Psychology.

Its when you are told you have to lose your semi-autos... but are presented instead with your perfectly functioning bolt action( and your immediate freedom, your life and your childrens lives in the bargain) you begin to understand the insidious power of compromises

Karl,

Your location is "various". I take that to mean various other planets. You obviously are not in America. You are also arguing something which will never happen. The 2nd Amendment will not be over-turned.
Roe v Wade will be the start of the next Civil War in America.


Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
Karl,
Your location is "various". I take that to mean various other planets. You obviously are not in America.

I'm from Australia but work across the 3rd world. I can understand with some of your guys grasp of world geography, other countries may seem like outer space.

I have lived in the US as mentioned above, but even without that its not hard to google the different restrictions in gun freedoms between different states and counties. Its no secret guys your 100% gun freedoms are far from that these days.

quote:

You are also arguing something which will never happen. The 2nd Amendment will not be over-turned.

Never said anything like that. The powers that be wont attempt overturning something so difficult while its easier to change laws peicemeal.

They are happy to let you keep the right to bear arms , they just want to eventually control which arms they are, where they are kept, the amount, and times you can carry them

The discussion was not was not about whether the amendment will fall completely anyway, it was whether Americans in number are capable of armed resistance to a gun law, as they advise other countries to be.

The evidence suggests no. Your battles like ours need to be won at the political or legal stage. The guys attacking know the safe rate to chip away to keep the gun argument from getting physical.

Thanks. You confirmed my suspicion. You are a "subject". I am a "citizen".
How bout you take care of Australia and I take care of America?

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Mate - until you find yourself in this situation you can make all the bluff and bravado yo want . The reality is you will be on your own if you try to resist the law change , and any government wont care about how tough you are as they prosecute you and jail you - up to 7 years here - for failing to comply.

You dont live here - you dont understand how it is here

"Not a single magazine has been surrendered".

https://reason.com/2018/12/20/...s-do-not-seem-eager/

Hmmmmmm. Even New Jersey won't comply with an unreasonable law.

The point is I'm sorry for you. It won't happen here. Our system of government is different than the British on purpose. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were British colonies. We left the Empire and have our own laws.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Fortunately the USA has the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in their constitution.

We, the subjects of Australia and New Zealand, do not.

Basically, we are screwed.

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
Thanks. You confirmed my suspicion.

You confirmed mine way back.

Your ignorant, you have problems reading posts and attribute comments to others they don't make. As such you are either a liar or deranged, maybe both.

quote:

You are a "subject". I am a "citizen".

Actually I am both for the record
Care to try again?

quote:

How bout you take care of Australia and I take care of America?

Thanks I have 'taken care' of both countries over about 25 years military and contracting. About to fly into another shithole shortly.

Tell us what your contribution is in 'taking care' of the US anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
"Not a single magazine has been surrendered".
Hmmmmmm. Even New Jersey won't comply with an unreasonable law. The point is I'm sorry for you. It won't happen here.

Nice random example there

What would you call these?

210 law changes since Sandy hook
National Firearms Act (1934)
Federal Firearms Act (1938)
Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act (1968)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Gun Free School Zones Act (1990).
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act (1993)
Law changes since the Parkland shooting:
Banning of bump stocks.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act, Initiative 1639, Vermont enacted new laws limiting gun sales to people under 21, capping gun magazine sizes, and restricting person-to-person gun transfers without background checks, New Jersey banned armor-piercing ammunition, limiting magazine sizes to 10 rounds, background checks for private gun sales, Louisiana increased gun sizesure laws, NY increased a bunch of laws, 11 states changed laws relating to competent ownership and background checks, the list goes on.

Don't look very amendment friendly to me
I can add the state law changes for Montana in the last 100 years too.

The US resists much better sure, but anyone who says gun control isn't still happening there, is even stupider than they sound.

But if you really want to start telling Aus/Nzers to murder and resist, lets here personal examples where you did the same.

Time to put up or shut up.

"Telling Aus/Nzers to murder and resist". Are you high? I have never suggested anything remotely similar to those comments. On any site or to any person. Not even understanding where you would gather that. You may have me confused with someone else.

Please re-read my posts and when you celebrate the Queen's birthday remember you are a "subject". No Bill of Rights for subjects.

Cheers Mate,

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Still avoiding questions I see.

quote:

How bout you take care of Australia and I take care of America?

quote:

Thanks I have 'taken care' of both countries over about 25 years military and contracting. About to fly into another shithole shortly.
Tell us what your contribution is in 'taking care' of the US anyway?

Still waiting, hit us with it. Everyone is interested to know what it is you do for your country, son.

quote:

Even New Jersey won't comply with an unreasonable law.

What, all of these? And Montana too I take it?

quote:

210 law changes since Sandy hook
National Firearms Act (1934)
Federal Firearms Act (1938)
Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act (1968)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Gun Free School Zones Act (1990).
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act (1993)
Law changes since the Parkland shooting:
Banning of bump stocks.

Great examples you present to Nzers. Ignore magazine handbacks... but obey several thousand other pieces of legislation. Is this part of the 2nd amendment? Refresh my memory please.