Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#61

Post by MrMember »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #49
cabaalis wrote: post #7

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.

As successfully reframed by the NRA in the 1970s. Prior to that your argument was not used. Thus it wasn't the intent of the amendment in the first place "within a well regulated militia".

As interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008, and affirmed in 2010.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#62

Post by jki275 »

Isamu wrote: post #57
jki275 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assault rifle is a defined term, it comes from the German Sturmgewehr, and it has been used since WWII to mean a select fire military issue weapon. As a side note, they’ve been heavily restricted in the US for civilian ownership since 1986, and manufacture for civilian ownership has been banned since 1986. As a result, the supply is very limited and the cost for a civilian legal M16, for instance, hovers around 20 th…

>Assault rifle is a defined term It is not precise enough, that is my point. You can take an assault rifle and manufacture a sport version that removes military convenience features but is still as deadly. Not so with the auto or semi-auto designation. They are right to focus on magazine size in legislation. Also ammo type.

All guns are deadly. That's what they're designed to be. Guns are not a sport toy, their purpose is to kill things. That's what makes them useful.

The problem is not "how deadly" a gun is.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#64

Post by yongjik »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #59
yongjik wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens have guns in the US. It's also the only "democratic" country where police officers shoot innocent citizens every day. Go figure.

Citizens have guns in Canada and police officers there don't shoot innocent citizens every day. Go figure.

Wait, I thought the argument was that all these guns in Canada are immaterial because they have no constitutional rights, so when the evil dictatorship inevitably rises in Canada they will first confiscate all the guns and those poor fellows in Canada will have no recourse but to obey and descend into tyranny?

Edit: What I'm saying is, you can't use Canada as working example of citizens with guns, and then say the second amendment is what protects Americans from tyranny. Either the government can be trusted to regulate firearms, or it can't. Which way is it?

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#65

Post by identity-haver »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #3

(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.

Most discussion here is about how gun rights in the US aren't primarily viewed as being about hunting. That being said, there are legitimate reasons to use a semi-automatic weapon with a >10 magazine capacity for hunting. For example, feral hogs and coyotes frequently travel in packs. If a dozen hogs are causing havoc on your land, you might need more than a bolt action, especially once they start running.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#66

Post by CompanionCuuube »

identity-haver wrote: post #63
madeofpalk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't quote or share this.

So we should just ignore the terrorist's clearly stated strategy, and then go right along with it?

No, what we should do is use the tragedy to push through the regulations that the lobbyists wanted already.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#67

Post by kgunnar »

Isamu wrote: post #57
jki275 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assault rifle is a defined term, it comes from the German Sturmgewehr, and it has been used since WWII to mean a select fire military issue weapon. As a side note, they’ve been heavily restricted in the US for civilian ownership since 1986, and manufacture for civilian ownership has been banned since 1986. As a result, the supply is very limited and the cost for a civilian legal M16, for instance, hovers around 20 th…

>Assault rifle is a defined term It is not precise enough, that is my point. You can take an assault rifle and manufacture a sport version that removes military convenience features but is still as deadly. Not so with the auto or semi-auto designation. They are right to focus on magazine size in legislation. Also ammo type.

"Assault rifle" is a rather precise term that means it is capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, has detachable magazines, and is chambered for an intermediate cartridge. If anything, it is more precise than "full auto" which encompasses other types of firearms as well.

The ambiguity comes in from the more recently coined term "assault weapon" that is rather similar to "assault rifle" but means something different. Some would say this similarity was intended to confuse the matter and provide the connotation of military "machine guns" when using the term to the general populace. And to further cloud the issue, there is no universal definition for "assault weapon" when used to refer to certain firearms. Generally it is used to define cosmetic features rather than any real functional differences.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#68

Post by LyndsySimon »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #49
cabaalis wrote: post #7

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.

As successfully reframed by the NRA in the 1970s. Prior to that your argument was not used. Thus it wasn't the intent of the amendment in the first place "within a well regulated militia".

This isn't objectively true, as evidenced by the decision in US v. Miller. I (and many others) believe that decision to be flawed, but here it is:

> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In other words, they held that the weapon in question was not covered specifically because they did not believe it to be military equipment. It logically follows that "ordinary military equipment" is what is protected by the Second Amendment.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#69

Post by LyndsySimon »

mcphage wrote: post #21
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #8

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.

> Isn't that exactly what the shooter wanted? The shooter left a long manifesto. It contained quite a bit about white nationalism, but you’re the first person to suggest that it was secretly about gun control.

Have you read it? He specifically says that he chose firearms in hopes that it would cause gun control to be passed in the US, which he believes would cause enough internal strife to reduce or eliminate the role of the US in international conflict.

Re: New Zealand banning assault and semi-automatic rifles

#70

Post by LyndsySimon »

madeofpalk wrote: post #50
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about pride, it's about self-determination, a concept deeply rooted in American culture. Part of being responsible for one's self is being responsible for one's own defense. Lord knows the police are not fast enough, or brave enough for that matter, to protect us anyway. Americans look at the kind of thing that happened in France, where people waited to be executed in a theater, and they say to themselves "I…

Citizens of other countries, who don't have such a weird constitutional attachment to gun ownership, don't have the concept of self-determination?

I would argue that this is exactly the case. The governments of other countries are generally based on the concept that they decide what their citizens may do. The US federal government is based on the concept that they decide what citizens may not do, and the Bill of Rights is designed to set limits on even that "negative" power.

The Second Amendment does not apply to citizens. None of the BoR do; they are restrictions on governmental power.

Post reply on HN