Christchurch (New Zealand) Mosque Shooting

FlightMode · Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:30 am

Like the majority of Australians, I am appalled by the murderous act of terrorism carried out by an Australian citizen in New Zealand. However he sought to justify his cowardly attack, his killing people simply because they followers of a different faith can not be excused.

While the gunman may have acted as part of a small group, there are many people who share his views. We have seen the outrageous comments by Senator Anning, a man who in his maiden speech to Parliament called for a "final solution" to Muslim immigration. It has been pointed out that he received just 19 primary votes. Yet he stood on a One Nation ticket and that party polled 13.7% of the votes in the most recent State election in Queensland. Anning split from One Nation and clearly most supporters don't advocate violence, yet many share the view expressed by Pauline Hanson that all immigration from Africa and the Middle East be halted. Such views extend beyond One Nation and Queensland. Members of Coalition have also expressed concerns over immigration where the source is from "non-traditional" areas - i.e. countries other than Europe and North America.

Parts of the media have been complicit in creating a sense of crisis, giving space to divisive views, allegedly in the name of "balance." Now they all express surprise when a terrorist act occurs and run to distance themselves from views they have previously championed.

Jouhou · Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:29 am

FlightMode wrote:
Like the majority of Australians, I am appalled by the murderous act of terrorism carried out by an Australian citizen in New Zealand. However he sought to justify his cowardly attack, his killing people simply because they followers of a different faith can not be excused.

While the gunman may have acted as part of a small group, there are many people who share his views. We have seen the outrageous comments by Senator Anning, a man who in his maiden speech to Parliament called for a "final solution" to Muslim immigration. It has been pointed out that he received just 19 primary votes. Yet he stood on a One Nation ticket and that party polled 13.7% of the votes in the most recent State election in Queensland. Anning split from One Nation and clearly most supporters don't advocate violence, yet many share the view expressed by Pauline Hanson that all immigration from Africa and the Middle East be halted. Such views extend beyond One Nation and Queensland. Members of Coalition have also expressed concerns over immigration where the source is from "non-traditional" areas - i.e. countries other than Europe and North America.

Parts of the media have been complicit in creating a sense of crisis, giving space to divisive views, allegedly in the name of "balance." Now they all express surprise when a terrorist act occurs and run to distance themselves from views they have previously championed.

Anning, is that the guy I just saw a Twitter video of responding to a kid throwing an egg at him by punching him in the face twice and a pile of his supporters proceeded to violently mob the kid as if he had just pulled a gun?

Yeah. That guy and his supporters piss me off as much as what's happening in my own country.

melpax · Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:04 pm

Jouhou wrote:

Anning, is that the guy I just saw a Twitter video of responding to a kid throwing an egg at him by punching him in the face twice and a pile of his supporters proceeded to violently mob the kid as if he had just pulled a gun?

Yeah. That guy and his supporters piss me off as much as what's happening in my own country.

Sure is, he was here in Melbourne for a right-wing rally unfortunately. An unintended result of the 'dual citizen crisis'. He only received 19 'below the line' votes in the 2016 election.

Says something when he is even too extreme for One Nation & the Katter party.....

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 514ss.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Anning

DIRECTFLT · Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:06 am

Super80Fan wrote:
If you are able to find a copy (they are out there, just not on the propaganda social media sites) read his manifesto and watch the video. At this point there should be no sugarcoating these far right lunatics, everyone should read it and watch it to finally know what twisted, inhuman monsters these terrorists are. It was sick, almost reminded me of a video game at first before I realized it was real life.

The media & biased social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube just hide it from you so you don't really care/grasp the seriousness of the problem.

I don't want to watch the video, or see any pictures of this hideous crime. I have never watched the videos of ISIS beheading Christians. Why are videos and pictures necessary when the description of what happened is graphic enough??

Kiwirob · Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:35 am

The death toll has now risen to 50.

JJJ · Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:11 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
The death toll has now risen to 50.

And NZ to ban semi auto long guns.

DENTK · Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:47 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Why are videos and pictures necessary when the description of what happened is graphic enough?

Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

Kiwirob · Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:03 pm

JJJ wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
The death toll has now risen to 50.

And NZ to ban semi auto long guns.

That’s what the PM has said, there are very few of these weapons in NZ so its not going to make a lot of difference, I’ve never seen one in a gun shop. My cousin has an AR-15 but he has a reason for it, he’s a contracted pest controller, the Department of Conservation pays him to cull invasive species, quite often from a helicopter.

DIRECTFLT · Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:35 am

DENTK wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Why are videos and pictures necessary when the description of what happened is graphic enough?

Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

If prayers aren't effective generally, then explain why billions of Muslims pray 5 times a day..

Aaron747 · Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:32 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
If prayers aren't effective generally, then explain why billions of Muslims pray 5 times a day..

Cultural indoctrination and suppression of critical thinking. No different than what has happened to simpleton Americana.

mad99 · Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:30 am

Kiwirob wrote:
The death toll has now risen to 50.

That puts him just above the gay Muslim disco killer.
Is it just the one man who did all the shootings?

Kiwirob · Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:15 am

Yes it was just one guy, three other people were taken into custody, one has been released and the other two may have been released, finding info about them is pretty difficult.

Harry765 · Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:24 am

50 people have died in this incident. very sad news

45272455674 · Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:21 am

Qantas is reportedly going to strip Fraser Anning of his Chairman's Lounge membership:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/le ... 02396da85c

However, one right wing former MP of One Nation has described it as infringing his freedom of speech. I don't see how no longer flying in the ultimate luxury is a reduction of one's freedom of speech.

Maybe it might even make this guy a bit more accountable by having to slum it with the everyday Australian traveling public. I somehow hope I should never end up seated beside him.

ltbewr · Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:22 am

cpd wrote:
Qantas is reportedly going to strip Fraser Anning of his Chairman's Lounge membership:

As a (for now) a government official, unless he pays for the privilege or as part of personally paid for tickets, to me it is unethical to offer him or any of them free membership or access to the Lounge.

Meanwhile the after affects of this terrorist act continue.
YouTube, Facebook and other social media sites are still trying, even with methods that infringe on general access and uploading, to remove or keep off the live video this person did during his terrorist acts.
I think finally the last bodies have been removed from the Mosques, a serious issue as their faith requires usually a prompt burial.
Loopholes as to NZ's gun laws were found and will be closed.
Persons from age 3 to into their 70's were mass murdered. Families or parts of them murdered. Couples who lost a spouse.
There has been an outpouring around the world of mourning the victims and outcries against the attacker.
The attacker-terrorist has no remorse and indeed is proud of his act, even flashing signs supporting extremist anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant views at a court appearance.
It is a not a matter of if, but when we will again see someplace in the world a similar right wing terrorist act against Muslims.

45272455674 · Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:17 am

ltbewr wrote:
cpd wrote:
Qantas is reportedly going to strip Fraser Anning of his Chairman's Lounge membership:

As a (for now) a government official, unless he pays for the privilege or as part of personally paid for tickets, to me it is unethical to offer him or any of them free membership or access to the Lounge.

Meanwhile the after affects of this terrorist act continue.
YouTube, Facebook and other social media sites are still trying, even with methods that infringe on general access and uploading, to remove or keep off the live video this person did during his terrorist acts.
I think finally the last bodies have been removed from the Mosques, a serious issue as their faith requires usually a prompt burial.
Loopholes as to NZ's gun laws were found and will be closed.
Persons from age 3 to into their 70's were mass murdered. Families or parts of them murdered. Couples who lost a spouse.
There has been an outpouring around the world of mourning the victims and outcries against the attacker.
The attacker-terrorist has no remorse and indeed is proud of his act, even flashing signs supporting extremist anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant views at a court appearance.
It is a not a matter of if, but when we will again see someplace in the world a similar right wing terrorist act against Muslims.

That lounge isn't one that you or I get into, it's invitation only, probably with a few exceptions for influential people.

alfa164 · Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:11 pm

DENTK wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Why are videos and pictures necessary when the description of what happened is graphic enough?

Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

"New Zealand skipped thoughts and prayers and moved to BAN semi-automatic weapons in less than 24 hours after the mosque massacres. America, look what can happen when your politicians aren't bought and paid for by the NRA."

Sent to me today - from a long-time Republican, and a former JAG, colleague.

melpax · Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:48 am

cpd wrote:
That lounge isn't one that you or I get into, it's invitation only, probably with a few exceptions for influential people.

Even the PM (including past ones as well) would be given a membership, but I doubt he would get much use out of it as any official travel is done on the RAAF VIP fleet. Probably the only time he would travel commercially would be for private holiday travel, etc.

TTailedTiger · Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:45 am

ltbewr wrote:
cpd wrote:
Qantas is reportedly going to strip Fraser Anning of his Chairman's Lounge membership:

As a (for now) a government official, unless he pays for the privilege or as part of personally paid for tickets, to me it is unethical to offer him or any of them free membership or access to the Lounge.

Meanwhile the after affects of this terrorist act continue.
YouTube, Facebook and other social media sites are still trying, even with methods that infringe on general access and uploading, to remove or keep off the live video this person did during his terrorist acts.
I think finally the last bodies have been removed from the Mosques, a serious issue as their faith requires usually a prompt burial.
Loopholes as to NZ's gun laws were found and will be closed.
Persons from age 3 to into their 70's were mass murdered. Families or parts of them murdered. Couples who lost a spouse.
There has been an outpouring around the world of mourning the victims and outcries against the attacker.
The attacker-terrorist has no remorse and indeed is proud of his act, even flashing signs supporting extremist anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant views at a court appearance.
It is a not a matter of if, but when we will again see someplace in the world a similar right wing terrorist act against Muslims.

Do you feel the same disdain for Muslims who kill in Mass numbers?

SOBHI51 · Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:04 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
cpd wrote:
Qantas is reportedly going to strip Fraser Anning of his Chairman's Lounge membership:

As a (for now) a government official, unless he pays for the privilege or as part of personally paid for tickets, to me it is unethical to offer him or any of them free membership or access to the Lounge.

Meanwhile the after affects of this terrorist act continue.
YouTube, Facebook and other social media sites are still trying, even with methods that infringe on general access and uploading, to remove or keep off the live video this person did during his terrorist acts.
I think finally the last bodies have been removed from the Mosques, a serious issue as their faith requires usually a prompt burial.
Loopholes as to NZ's gun laws were found and will be closed.
Persons from age 3 to into their 70's were mass murdered. Families or parts of them murdered. Couples who lost a spouse.
There has been an outpouring around the world of mourning the victims and outcries against the attacker.
The attacker-terrorist has no remorse and indeed is proud of his act, even flashing signs supporting extremist anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant views at a court appearance.
It is a not a matter of if, but when we will again see someplace in the world a similar right wing terrorist act against Muslims.

Do you feel the same disdain for Muslims who kill in Mass numbers?

As a Muslim I feel more disdain for any so called Muslims who commit any kind of terrorist act

TheFlyingDisk · Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:43 am

SOBHI51 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Do you feel the same disdain for Muslims who kill in Mass numbers?

As a Muslim I feel more disdain for any so called Muslims who commit any kind of terrorist act

Ditto for me.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:30 pm

alfa164 wrote:
DENTK wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Why are videos and pictures necessary when the description of what happened is graphic enough?

Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

"New Zealand skipped thoughts and prayers and moved to BAN semi-automatic weapons in less than 24 hours after the mosque massacres. America, look what can happen when your politicians aren't bought and paid for by the NRA."

Sent to me today - from a long-time Republican, and a former JAG, colleague.

Not quite. The proposed changes haven't been released yet. There's a serious chance semi auto centrefire rifles for Category A license holders will be banned. But we won't know that until the government announcement.So any changes will probably only be that. Not a wholesale firearms ban.

Otherwise yeah, our government has jumped straight to acknowledging the current gun laws are clearly not working as intended so need changing.

alfa164 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:22 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
DENTK wrote:
Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

"New Zealand skipped thoughts and prayers and moved to BAN semi-automatic weapons in less than 24 hours after the mosque massacres. America, look what can happen when your politicians aren't bought and paid for by the NRA."

Sent to me today - from a long-time Republican, and a former JAG, colleague.

Not quite. The proposed changes haven't been released yet. There's a serious chance semi auto centrefire rifles for Category A license holders will be banned. But we won't know that until the government announcement.So any changes will probably only be that. Not a wholesale firearms ban. Otherwise yeah, our government has jumped straight to acknowledging the current gun laws are clearly not working as intended so need changing.

Updated; ban on semi-automatic weapons is immediate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ne ... a86c2bf470

NIKV69 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:35 am

alfa164 wrote:
DENTK wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Why are videos and pictures necessary when the description of what happened is graphic enough?

Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

"New Zealand skipped thoughts and prayers and moved to BAN semi-automatic weapons in less than 24 hours after the mosque massacres. America, look what can happen when your politicians aren't bought and paid for by the NRA."

Sent to me today - from a long-time Republican, and a former JAG, colleague.

So she makes a knee jerk reaction which won't work for the next shooter since he will get it through other means and now law abiding citizens can't get them. all because of media pressure and disdain for the US.

Brilliant.

alfa164 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:15 am

NIKV69 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
DENTK wrote:
Maybe it's because the "thoughts and prayers" approach has been proven ineffective?

"New Zealand skipped thoughts and prayers and moved to BAN semi-automatic weapons in less than 24 hours after the mosque massacres. America, look what can happen when your politicians aren't bought and paid for by the NRA."
Sent to me today - from a long-time Republican, and a former JAG, colleague.

So she makes a knee jerk reaction which won't work for the next shooter since he will get it through other means and now law abiding citizens can't get them. all because of media pressure and disdain for the US. Brilliant.

The "knee-jerk reaction" comes from the NRA extremists who know automatic and semi-automatic weapons are made for only one purpose: to kill people, as many and as rapidly as possible, but still insist that any reasonable restrictions on them infringe on "their rights" (presumably, to kill people, as many and as rapidly as possible). It is ridiculous to argue that our Founding Fathers could have foreseen the extremes to which their desire for "a well-regulated militia" has been twisted.

Indeed, what New Zealand seems to be doing is precisely that: regulating. Perhaps you missed the fact that 50 people were killed in the attack; she is making these moves in response to that senseless killing, not because of "disdain for the U.S." Not everything is about the U.S., you know. She is one leader with the (gonads) to do what is necessary to make these attacks more difficult.

It is a lesson more of our spineless (read: subservient to the NRA) legislators should consider.

coolian2 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:30 am

Annoying it took a tragedy but glad it's done

ZaphodHarkonnen · Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:40 am

alfa164 wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

"New Zealand skipped thoughts and prayers and moved to BAN semi-automatic weapons in less than 24 hours after the mosque massacres. America, look what can happen when your politicians aren't bought and paid for by the NRA."

Sent to me today - from a long-time Republican, and a former JAG, colleague.

Not quite. The proposed changes haven't been released yet. There's a serious chance semi auto centrefire rifles for Category A license holders will be banned. But we won't know that until the government announcement.So any changes will probably only be that. Not a wholesale firearms ban. Otherwise yeah, our government has jumped straight to acknowledging the current gun laws are clearly not working as intended so need changing.

Updated; ban on semi-automatic weapons is immediate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ne ... a86c2bf470

It's a bit more nuanced than a flat ban.

Semi auto rifles and shotguns with an integral magazine 7 rounds or less are still ok right now and likely will be following legislation. .22LR semi auto rifles with removable magazines of 10 rounds or less are still ok. Same for semi auto shotguns with removable magazines of 5 rounds or less.

Manually operated guns like pump action and bolt action in the larger calibres are still fine.

The action today was to use a process in NZ called an Order in Council (think and Excutive Order for the Americans) to classify a subset of semi automatic rifles and shotguns with removable magazines as Military Style Semi Automatics. This change instantly made it so the only people who could own one had to have a Category E endorsement on their firearms license. Everyone with one of these guns that has only a Category A endorsement now has it illegally. The government of NZ will be setting up an amnesty and buyback program for these firearms.

Following this legislation will be introduced that will further tweak and tighten down gun legislation in NZ. Banning things such as 'large' magazines as well as any other attachments that have no purpose beyond hunting and gun club shooting. There will be narrow exemptions for such things as professional pest controllers and probably recreational sport shooters that participate in stuff like 2 and 3 gun.

Overall the changes are focused on removing the general ease of availability of firearms that can carry a large number of rounds and can be reloaded quickly. While trying to minimise the effect on existing law abiding firearm owners. Personally I think it's a good balance.

alfa164 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:21 pm

It is interesting to see what a government can do when its strings are not being pulled by the NRA and its ilk:

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Thursday announced a ban of "military-style" semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines like those used in the shootings at Christchurch mosques last week. Ardern said a sales ban was effective immediately to prevent stockpiling and would be followed by a complete ban on the weapons after new laws were rushed through.

It is even more rewarding to hear what the people of that nation say when confronted with the obvious disconnect between "sport" and "weapons of war":

After Ardern's announcement, one of New Zealand's largest gun retailers, Hunting & Fishing New Zealand, reiterated its support of "any government measure to permanently ban such weapons. "While we have sold them in the past to a small number of customers, last week's events have forced a reconsideration that has led us to believe such weapons of war have no place in our business — or our country," chief executive Darren Jacobs said in a statement.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-new-zealand-assault-weapons-ban-20190321-story.html

Thank you, good people, for using logic and sanity - rather than dogmatic rhetoric - in such an important issue.

seb146 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:23 pm

The United States has the Second Amendment. Written into the laws are protections for the right to keep and bear arms are not to be messed with. Some people have demanded this include death machines like the ones now banned in New Zealand. I would guess that the same people demand all guns all the time would not know how to properly handle and care for automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

It is also noteworthy that these nationalist hate groups are still allowed to gather and scream their rage over people having different skin colors or practice different religions.

45272455674 · Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:59 pm

And while the hard right will scream about its freedom of speech being infringed upon after this attack, we can now see exactly what their freedom of speech actually looks like:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 516cu.html

Influential contacts in the media who can apply direct pressure within the halls of government. I sure wish I had such limited freedom of speech like that...

LittleFokker · Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:31 pm

I was genuinely surprised that NZ had not already banned assault rifles. Between Australia's response to Port Arthur and NZ's response to this tragedy, America has a lot to learn on how properly react to vicious crime.

scbriml · Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:13 am

Having spent four weeks in New Zealand very recently, including a couple of days in Christchurch, my wife and I are deeply shocked by this incident. We send our love to our Kiwi friends and are thinking of them.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:50 am

LittleFokker wrote:
I was genuinely surprised that NZ had not already banned assault rifles. Between Australia's response to Port Arthur and NZ's response to this tragedy, America has a lot to learn on how properly react to vicious crime.

Anything designated an MSSA is already banned from those holding a basic firearms license. To get the Category E endorsement you have to go through a tougher background check and inspection of where you'll be storing the firearm. Out of the many hundreds of thousands of basic firearms license only several single digit thousands of Category E endorsements exist. There was/is a loophole where you could purchase a firearm that met the Category A requirements but you could fit a large removable magazine into which was illegal to do.

In this sad case the shooter exploited that very loophole by having a Category A firearm on a Category A license endorsement but used a magazine that anyone could purchase but only Category E license holders could use legally.

The interim step that was implemented yesterday was to classify all semi autos with with any removable magazine larger than a .22LR as an MSSA which instantly made it illegal for those on a Category A license to own them. They're putting together an amnesty and buyback program to get them out of civilian circulation so nobody is going to be charged for now having an illegal firearm where is was legal. Right now anyways.

DIRECTFLT · Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:24 am

seb146 wrote:
The United States has the Second Amendment. Written into the laws are protections for the right to keep and bear arms are not to be messed with. Some people have demanded this include death machines like the ones now banned in New Zealand. I would guess that the same people demand all guns all the time would not know how to properly handle and care for automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

It is also noteworthy that these nationalist hate groups are still allowed to gather and scream their rage over people having different skin colors or practice different religions.

At the time the Bill of Rights were voted on and approved, the 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press included printing. But that same freedom, according to the logic of "muskets were around then, but not magazined rifles and pistols," in referring to the 2nd Amendment, then we should say that the MSM television (including Fox) and the internet should not be covered under the 1st Amendment. But is that really the way you want it??

alfa164 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:12 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The United States has the Second Amendment. Written into the laws are protections for the right to keep and bear arms are not to be messed with. Some people have demanded this include death machines like the ones now banned in New Zealand. I would guess that the same people demand all guns all the time would not know how to properly handle and care for automatic or semi-automatic weapons. It is also noteworthy that these nationalist hate groups are still allowed to gather and scream their rage over people having different skin colors or practice different religions.

At the time the Bill of Rights were voted on and approved, the 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press included printing. But that same freedom, according to the logic of "muskets were around then, but not magazined rifles and pistols," in referring to the 2nd Amendment, then we should say that the MSM television (including Fox) and the internet should not be covered under the 1st Amendment. But is that really the way you want it??

non sequitur extraordinaire! You are really stretching to find an analogy that justifies unregulated freedom to keep and use automatic and semi-automatic weapons. These weapons of war are built solely to kill, but I have yet to see any TV show or website that literally fills innocent civilians with lead. And if speech become so dangerous as to inflame others to violence, it is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

seb146 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:21 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The United States has the Second Amendment. Written into the laws are protections for the right to keep and bear arms are not to be messed with. Some people have demanded this include death machines like the ones now banned in New Zealand. I would guess that the same people demand all guns all the time would not know how to properly handle and care for automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

It is also noteworthy that these nationalist hate groups are still allowed to gather and scream their rage over people having different skin colors or practice different religions.

At the time the Bill of Rights were voted on and approved, the 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press included printing. But that same freedom, according to the logic of "muskets were around then, but not magazined rifles and pistols," in referring to the 2nd Amendment, then we should say that the MSM television (including Fox) and the internet should not be covered under the 1st Amendment. But is that really the way you want it??

wow.....

Maybe this is why the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment first and the Second Amendment second and separately. They probably understood that muskets and AR-15s and Barettas are useful for food and also for ending human life.

MSPNWA · Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:58 am

seb146 wrote:
The United States has the Second Amendment. Written into the laws are protections for the right to keep and bear arms are not to be messed with. Some people have demanded this include death machines like the ones now banned in New Zealand. I would guess that the same people demand all guns all the time would not know how to properly handle and care for automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

It is also noteworthy that these nationalist hate groups are still allowed to gather and scream their rage over people having different skin colors or practice different religions.

Why do you hate freedom?

DIRECTFLT wrote:
At the time the Bill of Rights were voted on and approved, the 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press included printing. But that same freedom, according to the logic of "muskets were around then, but not magazined rifles and pistols," in referring to the 2nd Amendment, then we should say that the MSM television (including Fox) and the internet should not be covered under the 1st Amendment. But is that really the way you want it??

Boxed them up. Logic is their enemy.

TheFlyingDisk · Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:04 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Why do you hate freedom?

Amazing that you lot think having a high chance of getting killed in a gun attack is 'FREEDOM'.

You can still have freedom without a semi-automatic.

seb146 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:45 am

MSPNWA wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The United States has the Second Amendment. Written into the laws are protections for the right to keep and bear arms are not to be messed with. Some people have demanded this include death machines like the ones now banned in New Zealand. I would guess that the same people demand all guns all the time would not know how to properly handle and care for automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

It is also noteworthy that these nationalist hate groups are still allowed to gather and scream their rage over people having different skin colors or practice different religions.

Why do you hate freedom?

Amazing how fewer people were victims of terror attacks when there was an assault weapons ban in the United States. And lawful citizens were still able to own guns. Imagine that. I could ask a very specific attack question like you did but that would be rude.........

Barny123 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:13 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Do you feel the same disdain for Muslims who kill in Mass numbers?

How's the whole 'how dare the world ground them Boeing jets' going, and suing the rest of the world for grounding them??? You seam to have more empathy for a company than humanity! I'll just say what many a poster on social media have said, 'two wrongs do not make a right!!!".

NIKV69 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:48 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Amazing that you lot think having a high chance of getting killed in a gun attack is 'FREEDOM'.

You can still have freedom without a semi-automatic.

A gun grab is a gun grab. If NZ had a massacre with a pump action shotgun they would be banned too. This smoke screen is what hard liners on the left use to make you think they don't want all your guns.

ltbewr · Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:55 am

The people and government of NZ have chosen to deal with this act of terrorism far better than most places, especially the USA. They have actually taken prompt changes in their gun laws to reduce loopholes as to owning certain military class weapons and large capacity magazines. They have respected those that were killed because of their faith and ethnicity in ways we don't in the USA, for example the nation joining in on Friday prayer services of Muslims and non-Muslim women wearing head coverings. The government leadership and local media are not giving the terrorist involved the attention they wanted.

We have had too many mass gun murders in the USA and criminal gun deaths in general and I wish we had leadership that would really take on guns involved and change the culture that encourages it.

Barny123 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:32 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
A gun grab is a gun grab. If NZ had a massacre with a pump action shotgun they would be banned too. This smoke screen is what hard liners on the left use to make you think they don't want all your guns.

50 People shot dead and the NZ government's reaction is a 'gun grab' / 'smoke screen'!!! There is no hope for society!!! Social media will be the end of humanity.

Barny123 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:41 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
So she makes a knee jerk reaction which won't work for the next shooter since he will get it through other means and now law abiding citizens can't get them. all because of media pressure and disdain for the US.

Brilliant.

Just maybe the shooter chose New Zealand as their gun laws were more lax than Australia's (after Australia implemented their own knee jerk gun laws). And where were the law abiding citizens with guns to stop the massacre???

I would rather live in a society where guns are made as difficult as possible to acquire rather than having to carry a gun for defence in case a mentally unstable person goes on a shooting spree with an easily acquired gun!!

JJJ · Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:45 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Amazing that you lot think having a high chance of getting killed in a gun attack is 'FREEDOM'.

You can still have freedom without a semi-automatic.

A gun grab is a gun grab. If NZ had a massacre with a pump action shotgun they would be banned too. This smoke screen is what hard liners on the left use to make you think they don't want all your guns.

If the man was armed with a pump action shotgun capacity-limited to 5 rounds (that's the limit under Australian law) the casualties list would have probably been shorter.

alfa164 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:41 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Amazing that you lot think having a high chance of getting killed in a gun attack is 'FREEDOM'. You can still have freedom without a semi-automatic.

NIKV69 wrote:
A gun grab is a gun grab. If NZ had a massacre with a pump action shotgun they would be banned too. This smoke screen is what hard liners on the left use to make you think they don't want all your guns.

That is a catch-phrase of the gun extremists who want you to believe any reasonable form of weapons regulation is a "gun grab". Yet we already have some forms of regulations; private citizens aren't allowed to hold Gatling guns, for instance, nor howttzers nor even machine guns, these automatic and semi-automatic's closest relatives.

Were those laws "gun grabs", too? Are you all distraught because you can't own a Gatling gun? Do you cry at night because there are no machine guns in your household? Have rallys demanding some nefarious government agency give you back your rights to shoot howitzers? Banning a firearm because of its excessive killing power is not a "gun grab"; it is the right thing to do - to protect all Americans.

You worry about your right to have a war weapon in your household. I worry about my right - and my family's right, my friend's rights, and my fellow citizens' rights - to live. I think that should trump (no pun intended) your firearms obsession.

seb146 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:02 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Amazing that you lot think having a high chance of getting killed in a gun attack is 'FREEDOM'.

You can still have freedom without a semi-automatic.

A gun grab is a gun grab. If NZ had a massacre with a pump action shotgun they would be banned too. This smoke screen is what hard liners on the left use to make you think they don't want all your guns.

The United States had a "gun grab" called Assault Weapons Ban. And, guess what? Mass shootings went down. Not only that, but we Americans still had access to guns!

https://www.statista.com/chart/12943/is ... apons-ban/

When the NRA backed Republicans allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire, guess what? Mass shootings WENT UP!

NIKV69 · Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:44 pm

JJJ wrote:

If the man was armed with a pump action shotgun capacity-limited to 5 rounds (that's the limit under Australian law) the casualties list would have probably been shorter.

The reaction would have been the same. Ban the gun that did it. If you are telling me otherwise sorry but you are wrong. If a bolt action rifle is used it will be long guns etc. The end game is to get rid of all guns. I am glad we have a 2nd amendment and don't have a leader that knee jerks rights away from people.

alfa164 · Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:17 am

NIKV69 wrote:
[The reaction would have been the same. Ban the gun that did it. If you are telling me otherwise sorry but you are wrong. If a bolt action rifle is used it will be long guns etc. The end game is to get rid of all guns. I am glad we have a 2nd amendment and don't have a leader that knee jerks rights away from people.

That's a great conspiracy theory... but not supported by the facts. When the USA had a ban on assault weapons, was there any attempt to "grab all guns"?

I hear crickets...

NIKV69 · Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:51 am

alfa164 wrote:

That's a great conspiracy theory... but not supported by the facts. When the USA had a ban on assault weapons, was there any attempt to "grab all guns"?

I hear crickets...

Then Sen Feinstein sounds a lot like a cricket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38

Remember the USA has three branches of government and needs the votes to pass law and a president to sign it. Feinstein said it if she had the votes she would have done it. The Dems want to do it. Yet know the fight they would have if they dare go over that line.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net