New Zealand gun owners voluntarily giving up firearms in wake of mosque massacre ....

[LongTermGuy]

IF A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN WAS THERE HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KILL 50 PEOPLE WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN?

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1107698872376311809/Hd-gNQFt?format=jpg&name=600x314
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/new-zealand-gun-attack-911.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=662&strip=all
`Ardern’s government is a coalition between her Labour Party, fellow lefties the Green Party and the conservative New Zealand First party.
New Zealand First has not supported previous gun reform attempts, but its leader, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, said Monday, “Our world changed forever and so will some of our laws,” the Guardian reports`


https://nypost.com/2019/03/18/new-zealand-gun-owners-voluntarily-giving-up-firearms-in-wake-of-mosque-massacre/amp/

[Noir]

Outrageous, clearly the NZ government should instead be issuing a batch weapons to every Mosque in the country so they can defend themselves, right?...

[darin]

Outrageous, clearly the NZ government should instead be issuing a batch weapons to every Mosque in the country so they can defend themselves, right?...

Give people the option to protect themselves. that's what compassion is. removing their ability is hatred and borderline evil.

[jimnyc]

Outrageous, clearly the NZ government should instead be issuing a batch weapons to every Mosque in the country so they can defend themselves, right?...

Absurd and retarded comment.

How about leaving the option open for people to exercise rights and defend themselves when/if necessary? People don't want rights taken away, how hard is that to understand? And more importantly, people want to feel protected, especially in their homes and many i the businesses they own.

[Elessar]

Outrageous, clearly the NZ government should instead be issuing a batch weapons to every Mosque in the country so they can defend themselves, right?...


Absurd and retarded comment.

How about leaving the option open for people to exercise rights and defend themselves when/if necessary? People don't want rights taken away, how hard is that to understand? And more importantly, people want to feel protected, especially in their homes and many i the businesses they own.

Clearly, Noir is off his meds today.

"Gun Control" only applies to sane, law-abiding people. Nut cases and criminals will not follow laws.

Deal with it Noir.

[Noir]

Absurd and retarded comment.

How about leaving the option open for people to exercise rights and defend themselves when/if necessary? People don't want rights taken away, how hard is that to understand? And more importantly, people want to feel protected, especially in their homes and many i the businesses they own.

The title of this thread alone would imply that the people of NZ are more than willing to forgo this right, and support their elected officials to do so.

[jimnyc]

The title of this thread alone would imply that the people of NZ are more than willing to forgo this right, and support their elected officials to do so.

And we already know what the media does with the news.... And the NY Post? Well, just trust me on this one.

where else do you see them all voluntarily giving up rights? or at all? Perhaps the media and folks already against guns, but that's about it. I doubt you're going to post a lot of anything about folks jumping at the chance to relinquish rights over this.

CNN would likely bark the same crap here if it could in any way, and it couldn't be any farther possible from the truth.

[darin]

The title of this thread alone would imply that the people of NZ are more than willing to forgo this right, and support their elected officials to do so.


and the problem is, and this is why those people are foolish, because eventually a govt they hate will take over and they will be powerless to stop the carnage of fascism/leftism.

[LongTermGuy]

Outrageous, clearly the NZ government should instead be issuing a batch weapons to every Mosque in the country so they can defend themselves, right?...

You dont make a bit of sense.....I feel you should convert to Islam to taste your imagined Honey it has to offer....

[Noir]

And we already know what the media does with the news.... And the NY Post? Well, just trust me on this one.

where else do you see them all voluntarily giving up rights? or at all? Perhaps the media and folks already against guns, but that's about it. I doubt you're going to post a lot of anything about folks jumping at the chance to relinquish rights over this.

CNN would likely bark the same crap here if it could in any way, and it couldn't be any farther possible from the truth.

If people people aren’t happy with this, then they can make it known in their next elections, which are next year.

[LongTermGuy]

The title of this thread alone would imply that the people of NZ are more than willing to forgo this right, and support their elected officials to do so.



Lets get it right..when one actually reads the link....and understands the >>Liberal submissive "mind"...


"Some" New Zealand gun owners are voluntarily surrendering their firearms after 50 people were killed in a mass shooting (https://nypost.com/2019/03/15/40-dead-more-than-20-seriously-injured-in-new-zealand-mosque-shootings/) there last week — while the country’s government is plowing forward with gun reform, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Monday.
“You can surrender your gun to the police at any time. In fact, I’ve seen reports that people are already doing this,” Ardern told reporters.
"Several" Kiwis have taken to Twitter to announce they’ve given up their weapons after a gunman opened fire on two mosques in Christchurch on Friday."

**Ardern’s government is a coalition between her Labour Party, fellow lefties the Green Party and the conservative New Zealand First party.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Noir please do try to pay attention. History is taught for a reason.
It has great importance-- to teach of the mistakes made in the past so we can avoid such mistakes
Below is a link with a fine example of that- one that totally refutes the utter stupidity of morons turning in their guns!
I am sharing this with you because today I feel sorry for you and your abject blindness.
Perhaps I do so in the vain hope that you my wake up to admit reality.. --Tyr



https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/


The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.
The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.


In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.


SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released.

The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.

No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.

1
As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[jimnyc]

The title of this thread alone would imply that the people of NZ are more than willing to forgo this right, and support their elected officials to do so.


And we already know what the media does with the news.... And the NY Post? Well, just trust me on this one.

where else do you see them all voluntarily giving up rights? or at all? Perhaps the media and folks already against guns, but that's about it. I doubt you're going to post a lot of anything about folks jumping at the chance to relinquish rights over this.

CNN would likely bark the same crap here if it could in any way, and it couldn't be any farther possible from the truth.


If people people aren’t happy with this, then they can make it known in their next elections, which are next year.

You spoke solely of people willing to forgo their rights. I pointed out that it doesn't add up factually, just a sentence, and that I didn't see them anywhere speaking out of voluntarily giving up their rights.

Then you come back with - they should vote them out next year? Rather odd response in another direction. But I would agree, toss them out then. But may not be that easy with their leaders, I really don't know their laws.

But here? If Trump were to make a claim himself, and turn around and just ban guns? Wouldn't and couldn't happen. But if a president accomplished such, most likely those for, and the prez himself, won't be or can't be voted out simply the next year - it could be longer.

At any rate - I don't see the citizens making such a claim, at least not in masses, let alone anyone I can find. And since I don't know their laws, I can't comment much on what anyone can do about it.