11–20 of 75 posts
That is, we talk about assault rifles as if they were easily defined but they can be functionally the same as sport rifles but with different grips, and the larger default magazines.
Also posted earlier today: ‘New Zealand PM announces ban on all assault rifles after Christchurch massacre’ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449256
Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something. Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.
(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun laws: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-... The rest of the world sees that the US constantly ties itself in knots over the gun issue, and the horrific loss of lives. Hopefully NZ's swift response shows that things CAN change.
> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.
(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun laws: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-... The rest of the world sees that the US constantly ties itself in knots over the gun issue, and the horrific loss of lives. Hopefully NZ's swift response shows that things CAN change.
> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.
Thank God for the Second Amendment.
Its only modern purpose is to enable mass shootings and support gun owners pride.
Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? They're playing right into his hands. They skipped the step where you negotiate with the terrorists and went straight to accepting his demands. I guess that doesn't matter when you need to be seen doing something. Edit: I mean that the shooter wanted NZ gun control as a means to the end he seeks. Not that it is the end he seeks.
Judge: "Your wish shall be denied. Release this man!"
That's all going to be very, very controversial. Personally, I don't want it, any of it, but as a responsible owner of high capacity, semi automatic rifles, I'm willing to at least meet the other side halfway. I love going out to the range and blasting away at old cars and crap, but I don't think an outright ban is the answer. We have to find a middle ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.
Look at it this way: if you're going to lead an illegal insurrection to overthrow what you think is a tyranical government, why do you care what the gun laws are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.
2nd amendment rights are in direct conflict with the right to be alive.