NZ bans all semi-autos

[32-40win]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Sorry all. I’m a hunter, trapper, and sportsman....also an owner of a semi auto (.22 mind you). I’ve hunted big game, small game, and many in between. I’ve always questioned why the general public has access to high powered semi-autos. Especially those often used in mass shootings.
Taking away our rights you say? Roll the clock back to the days of “flint lock - make it good” days. That was a big advancement from the bow and arrow. It’s a new world.
Got to be honest. I like a world of “non assault rifles”, bump stock, and all that other stuff non hunting. Keep it to good old lever action, bolt action, and single shot rounds.
I fear the concept of give an inch and take a mile amongst the anti-gun folks, but these kind of things didn’t occur back when I took hunter training.
Ouch....bring on the nay sayers

Camdec, if you don't think what they want to do won't affect you, take a look at the logic they don't use in Australia;

http://www.firearmownersunited.com/2...s-full-potato/

[WhiteTailAB]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Sorry all. I’m a hunter, trapper, and sportsman....also an owner of a semi auto (.22 mind you). I’ve hunted big game, small game, and many in between. I’ve always questioned why the general public has access to high powered semi-autos. Especially those often used in mass shootings.
Taking away our rights you say? Roll the clock back to the days of “flint lock - make it good” days. That was a big advancement from the bow and arrow. It’s a new world.
Got to be honest. I like a world of “non assault rifles”, bump stock, and all that other stuff non hunting. Keep it to good old lever action, bolt action, and single shot rounds.
I fear the concept of give an inch and take a mile amongst the anti-gun folks, but these kind of things didn’t occur back when I took hunter training.
Ouch....bring on the nay sayers

A new world? Like Brave New World? Or Animal Farm? Or plain old 1984?

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Sorry all. I’m a hunter, trapper, and sportsman....also an owner of a semi auto (.22 mind you). I’ve hunted big game, small game, and many in between. I’ve always questioned why the general public has access to high powered semi-autos. Especially those often used in mass shootings.
Taking away our rights you say? Roll the clock back to the days of “flint lock - make it good” days. That was a big advancement from the bow and arrow. It’s a new world.
Got to be honest. I like a world of “non assault rifles”, bump stock, and all that other stuff non hunting. Keep it to good old lever action, bolt action, and single shot rounds.
I fear the concept of give an inch and take a mile amongst the anti-gun folks, but these kind of things didn’t occur back when I took hunter training.
Ouch....bring on the nay sayers

But is it not you who is the nay sayer? Giving an inch does not remotely satiate those whose compulsion is to render everyone completely disarmed.


First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by southernman

I am down in NZ right now, and also a NZ firearms owner,

This is pretty much, What I had expected, and better than I had hoped,

All sensible viable hunting long arms, have been left alone, as has pistol class,
we can still have our 10/22, BAR, Rem 740, and semi shotguns,

The big problem has been that an A class, M16 or slr or similar (non restricted) could be bought and was supposed to be limited to a 7 shot Mag (I think),
but E class (restricted long arms) magazine's, 20-30 round, could be bought with no controls.
E class users, (Mssa) also had far greater vetting, storage, and inspection, and compliance costs. plus registration .
The general mood, is there is no tolerance, for MSSA rifles period, or high capacity shotguns, I have heard this repeated many times, in the last week, While getting a haircut at the barbers, couple days ago, the conversation between about 17 people flowed this way,
Neither am I surprised by the rapid movement, on banning them, this is a different society, with less levels of government, and there was full support across all parties'

I not happy that one foreign *****, was allowed in, (police failure)No vetting and no calls to references, murdered more, than this country usual Annual murder number, in one day,
We were allowed cool toys, because we were responsible, and lost sum of them, because one was not.

Any how the sun is shining, I just had fresh snapper and salad for lunch, there's a fallow deer hanging, in the shed I shot yesterday, to go butcher, A chopper booked for Saturday morning, for a few days in the scrub, hunting Red deer and trout, life goes on.
SM

Not sure why you think your BAR and Rem 740 are exempt. They are both capable of accepting higher capacity magazines. The OIC would seem to includethem too.

[fps plus]

Coming soon to a country near you ! !!!


Need to stand up for each other . A gun is a gun . The may look different and work differently but the all do the same thing .

Death by a thousand slashes .

[Norwest Alta]

The greatest common denominator in all this cases ( bombings,shootings, plane hijackings, running people over with vehicles) is religion.

[Camdec]

Originally Posted by fps plus

Coming soon to a country near you ! !!!


Need to stand up for each other . A gun is a gun . The may look different and work differently but the all do the same thing .

Death by a thousand slashes .

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.

The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.

I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.

The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.

I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

So how many people do you think he could kill with a bolt action Lee Enfield with a half dozen 10 round magazines?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.

The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.

I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

I cannot disagree with that logic. Not willing to give up Firearms that have nothing to do with hunting/target shooting and are potentially very dangerous to society as a whole is just being plain stupid. Lots of Stupid around these days.

[Saskfly16]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.



The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.



I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

Well said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So how many people do you think he could kill with a bolt action Lee Enfield with a half dozen 10 round magazines?

Great Question ! Not nearly as many per minute as with a semi with 60 round capacity mag would be my guess.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.

The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.

I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

What about when the attackers don't have a firearm whatsoever? :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

Or this:

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

And I've not even started whatsoever on rental vans like Timothy McVeigh, Alek Minassian, a 2017 truck attack that killed 8 in New York. Hey, here's a link that covers a whole list of vehicle attacks, sorry that its CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/world...cts/index.html

I'm not so inclined and never will be, but I could imagine some pretty destructive scenarios that would not require any firearms whatsoever. Some are probably from movies where I thought "that's not accurate, but it could be done like this" because its sure not something I sit around contemplating. What we do need though, is to try to quell how many peoples mushy brains are becoming weaponized. Keeping in mind how many people are completely off the rails, I'd really rather not give up anything.

[West O'5]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.

The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.

I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

But but but.....that’s why we have 3 cent rivets in AR mags,to stop criminals and mass shooters,because criminals don’t own power drills.
Too many hunters/fudds that are willing to throw sport shooters under the bus in this country so long as they aren’t coming for your O/U pheasant gun.
Guess what.....the antis will NEVER be satisfied,divide and conquer IS there ONLY hope and strategy.
A full quarter and more of Canadas 2M+ licenced gunowners are RPAL holders now.A good many of them are sport shooters only,have no interest in hunting,and could give a hoot about your pheasant gun.
By and large they are also the most vocal and supportive segment of the pro-gun lobby.Unlike the majority of hunters,they are all range members,and likely make up the vast majority of gun advocacy group membership....CCFR,CSSA,NFA etc.
But yea,go ahead and throw them under the bus....and when they lose their pistols and ARs,we are all hooped,because THEY ARE THE VOICE of Canadian gunowners and the backbone of the pro-gun lobby.
Who is gonna stand up to Ottawa for you when they are gone?
Joe Hunter the weekend warrior??
The guy that hunts deer 2 weekends of the year with the same box of cartridges that he bought in 2014?
The AO forum member that asks every week which is the best all around/do-all caliber.....30-06 or .308?
..........then he goes ahead and hunts with his SKS anyhow and hopefully expanding bullets because his life priorities are wing night at the pub and the latest iPhone,not buying and shooting quality rifles.
Divide and conquer....if we lose the handgun/modern sporting rifle/semi-auto crowd in this country,we are ALL Fd in short order soon afterwards....GAURANTEED!!
So many naive Fudds in this country that think it will not and cannot ever happen here....newsflash for ya...they thought that in UK and Australia also,and Australia is a younger/more of a “frontier” country then Canada.
Despite what you and I would like to believe,gun ownership is NOT a God given birthright in this country according to those in charge.Sadly our founding fathers didn’t have the good sense and foresight that the ‘Muricans did when they liberated themselves from government tyranny almost 250 years ago.
Gun ownership is not a Constitutional Right in this country,it’s a privelage that can be revoked with the stroke of a pen by a motivated political party.

[vcmm]

Interesting video about one myth about firearms.

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/sheri...ity-magazines/

[SnipeHunter]

Originally Posted by West O'5

Gun ownership is not a Constitutional Right in this country

Don't be so sure.

But I advocate for finding a truce when it comes to this fight.

[dgrimard]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Great Question ! Not nearly as many per minute as with a semi with 60 round capacity mag would be my guess.

A quick search would show those "old WW2" rifles can fire just as fast as you work the bolt which can be pretty darn quick.

This is not about the tool, but control. Giving in means that they see weakness it is like chickens in a coop just pecking at the wound.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by dgrimard

A quick search would show those "old WW2" rifles can fire just as fast as you work the bolt which can be pretty darn quick.

This is not about the tool, but control. Giving in means that they see weakness it is like chickens in a coop just pecking at the wound.

I disagree.
I don't think it's a matter of giving up anything up. It's a matter of realizing the facts and showing OTHERS that responsible gun owners are capable of reason and are willing to accept a reasonable compromise. Some think otherwise. So be it. If you want to win anything by fighting, make sure that you have what it takes to win. I don't see that as being the real life situation right now. Continue peeing off and recruiting more Antis and watch the action accelerate. Reality indicates we are vastly outnumbered and outgunned. That's not likely to change much any time soon and we have the most to lose. It's too bad we're stuck with a "privilege" and not a Right.

[fps plus]

Originally Posted by Camdec

Well now I know what it feels like to be a narc at a bike rally. Ouch.

The problem I see with the anti-gun lobby is that if they successfully ban high capacity rifles then single shots are their next target. The problem with the pro gun lobby is being unwilling to give up high capacity firearms for the same reason.

I do not believe a gun is a gun. A person with bad intentions with a single shot will still kill somebody. But not likely for it to be 50 people at one location.

So by this logic it’s ok to kill on person with a single shot but one or more by a semi auto is bad. That’s where the antis feed as all firearms are capable of killing so better ban them all .

[fps plus]

Nearly 2000 vehicle fatalities in Canada a year , 10000 serious injuries and we are dealing with what ?

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I disagree.
I don't think it's a matter of giving up anything up. It's a matter of realizing the facts and showing OTHERS that responsible gun owners are capable of reason and are willing to accept a reasonable compromise. Some think otherwise. So be it. If you want to win anything by fighting, make sure that you have what it takes to win. I don't see that as being the real life situation right now. Continue peeing off and recruiting more Antis and watch the action accelerate. Reality indicates we are vastly outnumbered and outgunned. That's not likely to change much any time soon and we have the most to lose. It's too bad we're stuck with a "privilege" and not a Right.

What kind of compromise are you talking? The way I figure is if the don't like guns don't go where guns are. Much the same as I don't like brussel sprouts. I don't eat them.

[fps plus]

Was the truck driver distracted with a cell phone as he killed 16 and injured 13 ? don’t see anybody talking of banning cell phones

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

What kind of compromise are you talking? The way I figure is if the don't like guns don't go where guns are. Much the same as I don't like brussel sprouts. I don't eat them.

Pretty close I guess, except the antis don't want guns where they might be.. and that could be anywhere.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Pretty close I guess, except the antis don't want guns where they might be.. and that could be anywhere.

So imo there is no compromising with such people.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by fps plus

Nearly 2000 vehicle fatalities in Canada a year , 10000 serious injuries and we are dealing with what ?

By the same reasoning, how many millions of vehicles are on the road every day travelling bazillions of miles. Sure,they kill a few, but usually not deliberately.

Don't read this the wrong way. 'cause I'm far from an Anti. Just looking from the Dark sides perspective.
.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

So imo there is no compromising with such people.

If that is the case ..who loses ?

[NinjaHunter]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I disagree.
I don't think it's a matter of giving up anything up. It's a matter of realizing the facts and showing OTHERS that responsible gun owners are capable of reason and are willing to accept a reasonable compromise. Some think otherwise. So be it. If you want to win anything by fighting, make sure that you have what it takes to win. I don't see that as being the real life situation right now. Continue peeing off and recruiting more Antis and watch the action accelerate. Reality indicates we are vastly outnumbered and outgunned. That's not likely to change much any time soon and we have the most to lose. It's too bad we're stuck with a "privilege" and not a Right.

The thing with antis is that you give them an inch and they will take the whole mile. They won't stop until they have a complete monopoly on violence via police state.

So, no, reasonable comprise doesn't work if the people you're compromising with wants to have it all, all to just show we're responsible gun owners (when we're already the most watched citizens of this country for the crime of having a gun license). And if you do "comprise" it will set a precedent and from there, they will slowly chip away until they have what they want.

Those antis can go pound sand for all their emotional political rhetoric.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Salavee

If that is the case ..who loses ?

I'm gonna guess we do as firearms owners. Heck some firearms ownes think we shouldnt have pistols. Has there not already compromise. The days of having guns in the back window rack was a compromise. PAL course is a compromise. Has any of this compromise made a difference?

[32-40win]

Looks like the NZ situation is unfolding much the same as Sandy Hook, public declaration by the offender before the incident, even notices sent to the authorities by the offender just before the incident. Failure of the licensing system to do the process as it was supposed to be done, failure of the authorities to pickup on the chatter before the incident. He even states why he chose a firearm over other methods which he had evaluated, to cause maximum effect around the world in countries he didn't like. Basically the whole thing was planned and published beforehand. And as they are saying down there, Jackboot Jacinda is giving the terrorist exactly what he wanted, he won.
However it also appears the gun owners in NZ may be willing to say pound salt to the gov't. Worth keeping an eye on.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I'm gonna guess we do as firearms owners. Heck some firearms ownes think we shouldnt have pistols. Has there not already compromise. The days of having guns in the back window rack was a compromise. PAL course is a compromise. Has any of this compromise made a difference?

While I agree with your sentiments, I don't see the logic. There is no way I would want any guns hanging in a back window rack of my vehicle today ..law or not, so I don't see that as a compromise. It was a necessity. It might have been cool at that time but it would be considered stupid and irresponsible today. Times ,and people, have changed a lot (and faster) over the years. What is considered "cool" today, certainly would not have been very cool back in the day and vice-versa.


As for the PAL being a compromise? What about a Drivers License ? or a Certified Electrician, or a Dentist , Doctor, Crane Operator etc. Same idea...Proof of Competence, or close to it. A good thing.

Whether we like it or not, it's a completely different society,with a completely different set of attitudes and values today than it was 50 or 60 years ago. When we see a certain trend coming, we had best band together and brush up on our user responsibilities and negotiating skills or be prepared for the inevitable outcome. ..as I see it, anyway.

[dgrimard]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I disagree.
I don't think it's a matter of giving up anything up. It's a matter of realizing the facts and showing OTHERS that responsible gun owners are capable of reason and are willing to accept a reasonable compromise. Some think otherwise. So be it. If you want to win anything by fighting, make sure that you have what it takes to win. I don't see that as being the real life situation right now. Continue peeing off and recruiting more Antis and watch the action accelerate. Reality indicates we are vastly outnumbered and outgunned. That's not likely to change much any time soon and we have the most to lose. It's too bad we're stuck with a "privilege" and not a Right.

This says it right here I would hope that all licensed gun owners are responsible, if they aren't there is no reason to have them.

This is the problem that people who are responsible are not the ones doing the crimes, but we are at the for front of them wanting to take private property.

The drunk driving/ distracted driving argument comparing the 2 acts are very relevant in my mind, a way to get all public involved.

Should we take way all the semi trucks cause some one ran a stop sign and killed 16 people?
No, that person is charged and has a trial and is found either guilty or not.
but the talk of banning trucks is not brought up.

Why is it that every time there is a shooting we have to have these discussion?

It is 4am and my mind is a little slow night shift is funn