New Zealand's Wacky PM bans sale of semi-automatic rifles, institutes mandatory buyback program

[pismoe]

You have to break off your attack, switch out the empty magazine, then re-acquire your target.

LOL! Or, you switch out the magazine and acquire a new target. In the Luby's massacre in Killeen Texas back in 1991, the shooter reloaded at least three times before police arrived. Having to switch magazines didn't save any of the 23 people killed or 27 wounded that day.

A Texas Massacre

Perhaps it meant 23 was not 30?

Less time shooting is better than more time shooting....agreed?

I'm sure it was a great comfort to the 23 that changing magazines slowed him so much.

For the seven who were not killed during the changes; I’m sure it is of great comfort to them.

Had the Luby’s been in most other developed nations, there wouldn’t have been a shooting in the first place….

IF you know anything about the incident, you know that Suzanna Gratia Hupp is convinced that if she had been carrying her pistol (that was out in her car), she could have stopped the shooting. THAT would have been much more comforting to the victims.

Good for Ms. Hupp I suppose.

We were in a MacAllisters Deli the other day and there was a guy carrying his Glock on his hip. On his chest was the shirt from the local AT&T store. Somehow, I didn’t feel much safer with Wyatt Earp there having his ham sandwich. LOL

---------------------------------- not about YOUR safety , who cares about your safety . Types like YOU are disposable . The guy with the GLOCK that you reference is simply carrying so that he is Prepared and for HIS safety Candy .

 

[pismoe]

heck , even 'tony blair' of 'england' has his body guard carry a Glock and its for 'tony's' safety , same thing for the 'queen' of england Candy .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How is it US gun freaks can't understand one, 1, category of firearms has been banned to standard licence holders? Why do they squawk lobbyist provided talking points in unison?

We’ve seen what this leads to in other countries. Germany, Iraq, the USSR, etc... at the worst and England, Australia, etc... more recently. Small steps leading to the disarmament of the people and removal of the most basic right of self defense from enemies, civilian AND Governmental.

Do you honestly think that ANY civilian group could defend itself against the US government? If you do, you’re even dumber than you seem.

Branch Davidians, armed to the teeth, were dead in under 2 hours. Get real.

There are well over 100,000,000 gunners in the United States.

Should the military choose to comply with a government order of civilian disarmament, which they would not, there is a combined total of active and reserve personnel of 2,212,900.

If even half the gunners resisted disarmament - a conservative estimate - well, you do the math.

 

[ph3iron]

This is an infringement on basic New Zealander's 2nd Amendment rights!

New Zealand bans sale of semi-automatic rifles

I don't think NZ goes by a piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists.
Omg my dumb rubes can't carry semi automatic weapons?

 

[pismoe]

heck , even 'tony blair' of 'england' has his body guard carry a Glock and its for 'tony's' safety , same thing for the 'queen' of england Candy .

----------------------- just interesting and this is how i know that 'tony blair' is protected by Eficient and effective weapons in GUN FREE england . --- Tony Blair Bodyguard Leaves Gun in Starbucks Bathroom --- since i mention 'tony blair' and Glocks / Guns in a previous post plus its a funny story .

 

[Flash]

Stupid confused White bitch trying to be a female Trudeau

 

[Flash]

I bet the New Zealand PM decided to ban AR-15s during her monthly PMS.

 

[pismoe]

And yet you are many times safer living in a country that has gun control. You all seem to ignore that basic fact.
Why is that ?

------------------------------------------------ ME , well one reason is that i don't want to be a SUBJECT like you 'brits' Tommy .

 

[pismoe]

They have flash-bang grenades and tear gas...

Those aren't arms.

The police should be no better armed than the populace.

But they still have them….. “if we don’t need them, the police don’t need them” doesn’t apply then….right?

No what applies is that you will never get rid of them 100%, so the police need weapons to counter them. and if the police need them, then the lawful citizenry needs them.

Its amazing how little you trust your fellow citizens and how eager you are to suck the dicks of the government.

Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.

What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?

--------------------------------- the AR is close to perfect in my opinion . Its cheap , lightweight , uses military ammo , all AR types are parts interchangeable , ammo is cheap and most gun people already own at least 1 or a few . ---- .308 is very nice , i like the M1A Walnut stocked but an M1A is heavy , and expensive , ammo is expensive and the M1A is not owned in numbers like the AR in my opinion . And hey , they'll just ban the AR and then ban the M1A and others as the need arises Hun .

 

[pismoe]

Another lesson learned from those Loony Tunes in New Zealand:

We must do everything we can in America to NOT let flaky left wing white women hold political offices.

Well, I don't think our Pres can outlaw guns just like that. I don't know how she did it--I'm guessing the law making body there agreed with her. Pretty sure New Zealand is not a dictatorship.

------------------------------------- sure looks like a dictator ship to me OldLady .

 

[pismoe]

If it works, let’s do it here

Couldn't cost more than a couple hundred trillion dollars.

---------------------------------------- COST doesn't matter as all they do is use Taxpayer money JAxle .

 

[pismoe]

None

They are not whack jobs like we are

Then they deserve to be disarmed and turned into total sheep they are about to become.

Why do the rightard dweebs consider banning a category of weapon to be disarming the population? Only a small portion of gun owners here have AR/AK derivatives. None of my hunting companions, for instance, as they are an absolute shit hunting weapon.

---------------------------------------- because the AR is the NEAR Perfect effective and efficient weapon in fulfilling the Role of the Second Amendment here in the USA CNM .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Another lesson learned from those Loony Tunes in New Zealand:

We must do everything we can in America to NOT let flaky left wing white women hold political offices.

Well, I don't think our Pres can outlaw guns just like that. I don't know how she did it--I'm guessing the law making body there agreed with her. Pretty sure New Zealand is not a dictatorship.

Their Parliament has to approve, but it's guaranteed they will. Kind of like the Reichstag in the 30's.

 

[Pilot1]

I like people who question things.

The United State Marine Corps' job is to DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD by their civilian leadership. Not comment publicly about public policy, nor attempt to make or influence public policy. They are to follow orders. That's it. Just like the rest of the military.

Which points out how RARE it is for a marine COMMANDANT to speak out like this.

We ain't talking about some "lefty politician" here junior

Those aren't arms.

The police should be no better armed than the populace.

But they still have them….. “if we don’t need them, the police don’t need them” doesn’t apply then….right?

No what applies is that you will never get rid of them 100%, so the police need weapons to counter them. and if the police need them, then the lawful citizenry needs them.

Its amazing how little you trust your fellow citizens and how eager you are to suck the dicks of the government.

Well, you don't need an AR-type weapon with 30 bullet cartridges to protect yourself. Not all guns were banned. Read the post that outlines the changes.

What does outlawing an "AR-type weapon" do when you allow more powerful weapons to continue to be available to the general population? Why is an "AR-type weapon" so much more intrinsically bad or dangerous than a .308? And, how is one 30 round magazine worse than four 10 round magazines?

--------------------------------- the AR is close to perfect in my opinion . Its cheap , lightweight , uses military ammo , all AR types are parts interchangeable , ammo is cheap and most gun people already own at least 1 or a few . ---- .308 is very nice , i like the M1A Walnut stocked but an M1A is heavy , and expensive , ammo is expensive and the M1A is not owned in numbers like the AR in my opinion . And hey , they'll just ban the AR and then ban the M1A and others as the need arises Hun .

I agree. If I could only keep one rifle it would be my Colt M4 carbine. It is light, handy, very accurate, easily scoped (or any other optic), modular, and very reliable. It has never failed me, and since I reload, I can maximize the effectiveness of the little 5.56 round for what I am doing.

 

[pismoe]

Only the cops and the thugs can have them in NZ now.

As though a bolt action isn't enough.

Enough for what?
What are you trying to use a gun for?
If it's hunting, bolt actions are fine.
But if the Democraps have totally neutered the police and you have to defend yourself from a home invasion, is a bolt action enough? Personally I think a 12 gauge will do the job, but the Dems want to take those too. They don't want to protect our kids in their indoctrination factories. It's as if they want more dead bodies just so they can cry over them while voting for gun grabbing laws.

------------------------------------------ its very easy to change policies and then to Militarize the Police MudW.

 

[Lesh]

Apparently New Zealand didn't think "thoughts and prayers" was an effective response

 

[hunarcy]

You have to break off your attack, switch out the empty magazine, then re-acquire your target.

LOL! Or, you switch out the magazine and acquire a new target. In the Luby's massacre in Killeen Texas back in 1991, the shooter reloaded at least three times before police arrived. Having to switch magazines didn't save any of the 23 people killed or 27 wounded that day.

A Texas Massacre

Perhaps it meant 23 was not 30?

Less time shooting is better than more time shooting....agreed?

I'm sure it was a great comfort to the 23 that changing magazines slowed him so much.

For the seven who were not killed during the changes; I’m sure it is of great comfort to them.

Had the Luby’s been in most other developed nations, there wouldn’t have been a shooting in the first place….

IF you know anything about the incident, you know that Suzanna Gratia Hupp is convinced that if she had been carrying her pistol (that was out in her car), she could have stopped the shooting. THAT would have been much more comforting to the victims.

Good for Ms. Hupp I suppose.

We were in a MacAllisters Deli the other day and there was a guy carrying his Glock on his hip. On his chest was the shirt from the local AT&T store. Somehow, I didn’t feel much safer with Wyatt Earp there having his ham sandwich. LOL

Your feelings and fears do not justify limiting the freedoms of others.

 

[hunarcy]

You can stay on target when doing a mag change.

Most cannot. Especially if you’re being fired at while doing it.

Anyway, a criminal with a bag full of revolvers can do just was much damage as someone with an AR-15, especially in a gun free zone that Liberals have created. They should just call them designated victim zones. Morons.

Possibly true.

But still, while you’re reloading or reaching into the bag of revolvers…YOU’RE NOT SHOOTING ANYONE!!!!

Let me guess…we’re now going to have a discussion about how the bag of revolvers will mount themselves into the hands of the assailant…

I swear…the mentality of the 9/11 truthers and the gun nuts on this board are almost just alike.

"most cannot."

Not true. Sorry.

Ridiculous

I agree that the idea that most cannot stay on target when changing magazines is ridiculous and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.

Its pretty much common sense. Especially if those trying to change the magazine are being shot at in return.
But continue with the fantasy.

It’s like trying to convince a 9/11 truther there were actually terrorists on board the 4 hijacked aircraft…they just keep on saying “nun-huh”…..

Sad.

It is NOT common sense. It is a thought that comes from what is probably your ignorance of the issue.

 

[pismoe]

i'm thinking that 'new zealanders' are 'subjects' or Peasant like and have No RIGHTS . Same as the English that are herded about by their Rulers . Same as 'medieval times' . The goal is to make sure that we Americans don't end up the same way. To me , i think i see the whole world dividing up between the Ruled , the Rulers and their 'kings or queens' taxpayer paid Enforcers . Sorry , i messed up but the above is in response to the last line in your post - 257 - Hun .

LOL! Or, you switch out the magazine and acquire a new target. In the Luby's massacre in Killeen Texas back in 1991, the shooter reloaded at least three times before police arrived. Having to switch magazines didn't save any of the 23 people killed or 27 wounded that day.

A Texas Massacre

Perhaps it meant 23 was not 30?

Less time shooting is better than more time shooting....agreed?

I'm sure it was a great comfort to the 23 that changing magazines slowed him so much.

For the seven who were not killed during the changes; I’m sure it is of great comfort to them.

Had the Luby’s been in most other developed nations, there wouldn’t have been a shooting in the first place….

IF you know anything about the incident, you know that Suzanna Gratia Hupp is convinced that if she had been carrying her pistol (that was out in her car), she could have stopped the shooting. THAT would have been much more comforting to the victims.

Good for Ms. Hupp I suppose.

We were in a MacAllisters Deli the other day and there was a guy carrying his Glock on his hip. On his chest was the shirt from the local AT&T store. Somehow, I didn’t feel much safer with Wyatt Earp there having his ham sandwich. LOL

Your feelings and fears do not justify limiting the freedoms of others.

 

[candycorn]

LOL! Or, you switch out the magazine and acquire a new target. In the Luby's massacre in Killeen Texas back in 1991, the shooter reloaded at least three times before police arrived. Having to switch magazines didn't save any of the 23 people killed or 27 wounded that day.

A Texas Massacre

Perhaps it meant 23 was not 30?

Less time shooting is better than more time shooting....agreed?

I'm sure it was a great comfort to the 23 that changing magazines slowed him so much.

For the seven who were not killed during the changes; I’m sure it is of great comfort to them.

Had the Luby’s been in most other developed nations, there wouldn’t have been a shooting in the first place….

IF you know anything about the incident, you know that Suzanna Gratia Hupp is convinced that if she had been carrying her pistol (that was out in her car), she could have stopped the shooting. THAT would have been much more comforting to the victims.

Good for Ms. Hupp I suppose.

We were in a MacAllisters Deli the other day and there was a guy carrying his Glock on his hip. On his chest was the shirt from the local AT&T store. Somehow, I didn’t feel much safer with Wyatt Earp there having his ham sandwich. LOL

Your feelings and fears do not justify limiting the freedoms of others.

Nor did I ever say they did.
More worried about his feelings of inadequacy and intimidation (either end of it) causing me to get shot.