Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


GUNS/RLTD Kiwis 'Just Say No' To Gun Ban
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1

    Kiwis 'Just Say No' To Gun Ban

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...say-no-gun-ban


    New Zealand politicians who rushed to enact nationwide gun confiscation following the Christchurch mosque massacres are befuddled by the lack of enthusiasm from citizens who have yet to comply with the new law. The so-called “gun reform” was expected to rid the vast New Zealand countryside of most semi-automatic firearms, magazines over a specified limit, and shotguns.

    Two months ago, Reuters breathlessly reported, “New Zealand police expect tens of thousands of firearms to be surrendered by a guns buy-back scheme.” Law enforcement authorities averred that “it could be more.” Pregnant with the expectation that gun owners would trade their firearms for cash, the political class is nonplussed by the results.

    Only 530 guns have thus far been turned in to the authorities.

    Out Of My Cold, Dead Hands

    Figures released by the New Zealand police had politicians and law enforcement officials scrambling to comprehend what just happened. Michael Clement, the police deputy commissioner, assessed the situation by telling the media that the number of guns expected to be handed over is “a great unknown question,” primarily because the firearms the government is confiscating have never been registered with authorities.

    Could it be that the brain trust in Wellington needs to up the ante and offer more money? Is this a statement of personal liberty? Could it be considered “ostriching,” Brit-speak for a friendly ability to ignore unpleasantness? Or in psychological parlance, could it merely constitute passive-aggressive behavior? All of these socioeconomic factors may have played a part in the first wave of the buy-back fizzle.

    In reality, New Zealand is quite heavily armed per capita, with an estimated 1.2-1.5 million guns in a country of approximately 4.7 million people. To put it another way, the land of the Kiwi is about as big as Colorado with the population of Louisiana. New York City, for example, is home to about 8.6 million (2017 estimate), almost double the size of the New Zealand population.

    Mountainous terrain with very few inhabitants largely adds up to a rural people. And what do these folks out in the middle of nowhere do with themselves all the live-long day? Agriculture, forestry, mining, and fishing represent the lion’s share of industry. And then there are all those sheep. Mathematically, there are about seven times more sheep than people in New Zealand. By and large, those who raise sheep and live off the land in what is often referred to as “homesteading” find that firearms can be quite useful when you attempt to live off the grid.

    The Deplorable Factor

    These people are likely the NZ version of “deplorables,” who strike quite a contrast to left-leaning urban dwellers. New Zealand’s political chatelaine, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, had an almost unanimous parliamentary vote to institute the gun buy-back, though as Liberty Nation Legal Affairs Editor Scott Cosenza asserts, “Buy-back is really a misnomer because the government never owned those guns in the first place.”

    The liberty-minded among us would like to believe that the people of New Zealand are, in the words of William F. Buckley, “Standing athwart history and yelling stop,” but this runs counter to the anodyne Kiwi character. It’s more likely they are quietly demonstrating their “live and let live” sociocultural predilection.

    There is, of course, that sticky and ever-present issue of money.

    Not only will Aotearoa citizens suffer the indignity of being stripped of their guns, but they will also be taxed for the privilege. Some estimates bantered about by New Zealand lawmakers went as high as $500 million to $1 billion to pay for the confiscation scheme. But the truth is, authorities have no idea what it will ultimately cost. Should citizens keep up their non-compliance, then not very much. This would make for a Kiwi win which would allow them to keep their guns and money. But the penalties are stiff for such roguery: Those who refuse to surrender their prohibited firearms could be sentenced to a five-year stay in the slammer.

    Much like the United States, New Zealand’s gun-grabbing toffs entrenched in the government can’t stop themselves from trammeling the privileges of those who own guns. As there is no specific right to bear arms per se in the Land of the Long White Cloud, gun-owning citizens face an arduous battle to withhold their firearms from the grasp of the leftist political class.

    Perhaps simply ignoring the new regulations may be effective, and law enforcement will find it impractical to round up the firearms of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Whether it becomes an exercise in futility for the government, a quest for a bigger bang for their buck by the people, or merely a quiet sidestep of hastily approved laws, Second Amendment supporters in America would be wise to take note.

    It could just be that these laid-back Kiwis are poised to teach us a lesson in how to resist the oppressive and ham-handed fist of a tyrannical government.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,812
    Figures released by the New Zealand police had politicians and law enforcement officials scrambling to comprehend what just happened.


    I'll tell you "what just happened."

    BFYTW just happened.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    37,798
    Sounds like New Zealanders best put their hat in the ring for the highest offices in the land.
    Ether that or very quietly form an army and go in grab and the detain these officials and they had beter move fast.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SE Okieland
    Posts
    6,949
    The New Zelanders have spoken and will not allow their firearms to be taken....

    Texican....

  5. #5
    Ok thanks Dennis, I don't know how I missed it.

    Wonder what the lefties would do, if we had this here?
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,812
    California has already realized what happens when people ignore their Communist laws. They passed “assault rifle” registration laws a couple years ago, and they’re being completely ignored. New York State too.

  7. #7
    Turn in or not, over time the results are the same. People hide them at home instead of using at shooting and recreational events, they don’t have an opportunity for teaching their kids, fellowship between gun owners ceases.

    It’s a forced change of culture that over time creates a nation of gunless wimps. I’ve said for years this will be the eventual result of gun control and media spin here in the US

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,812
    I disagree, to a point. There are myriad places to shoot "out in the back country". One doesn't need a shooting range. Matter of fact, it's MORE fun to shoot out in the woods.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern Born
    Posts
    4,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    I disagree, to a point. There are myriad places to shoot "out in the back country". One doesn't need a shooting range. Matter of fact, it's MORE fun to shoot out in the woods.
    Neighbors and just nosy people will turn you in to the cops...….
    [COLOR="red"]I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
    — Robert Heinlein
    [/COLOR]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,812
    There are no "nosy neighbors" out in the woods. And any folks out there won't say anything, because they're not "city snowflakes."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jefferson
    Posts
    8,422
    When the SHIT finally does hit the FAN there will be soooooo many banned "TOYS" that suddenly "POP" out of the woodwork it will have liberal heads spinning off into orbit! That's a good thing!!
    We have done so much, with so little, for so long....We can now do anything, with nothing, forever.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eastern Shore, MD
    Posts
    3,867
    Much like the United States, New Zealand’s gun-grabbing toffs entrenched in the government can’t stop themselves from trammeling the privileges of those who own guns.
    by Tyler Durden

    How about FU to your "creative" use of phrasing.
    III

    Keep ignoring my rights and I'll keep ignoring your laws.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    69,362
    NZ has no Second Amendment equivalent …
    ==================

    https://www.conservativereview.com/n...ond-amendment/

    New Zealand’s knee-jerk gun ban is EXACTLY why we have the Second Amendment
    Nate Madden · March 21, 2019

    Thank goodness we have the Second Amendment. I say that a lot, but I’m especially grateful after seeing the latest news out of New Zealand.

    Less than a week after the mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand has moved to ban and confiscate semi-automatic long guns.

    The bill bans so-called “military style semi-automatic firearms,” which according to the bill are any rifle or shotgun that accepts a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. But .22 and smaller-caliber arms are exempt, so everybody’s varmint guns are safe.

    And, according to reports, the legal owners of now-illegal hardware will be entitled to “fair and reasonable” compensation through a buyback program that’s expected to cost a couple hundred million dollars.

    How generous.

    Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., says that we “must follow New Zealand’s lead.”

    This is exactly why we have the Second Amendment. Whatever government currently in power in the U.S. cannot push through a ban like this or anything close to it because of our constitutional protection of the right to bear arms.

    Gun bans like this frequently follow on the heels of a heinous violent crime, when people are thinking least clearly about the issue. We don’t think clearly when we’re dealing with grief and trauma. That’s just a fact. And just as it’s common for individuals to make sweeping, ill-advised life changes in the wake of personal tragedies, it’s possible for large groups of people to do ill-advised things in the wake of public tragedies, like give up their ability to defend themselves.

    That’s what happened with Britain’s big gun ban in the 1990s, the same with Australia, and the same now with New Zealand. And it’s the exact tactic the anti-gunners in this country employ when they immediately try to use human suffering to push for more gun control. It took New Zealand less than a week to enact this gun-grab.

    In response, you have folks like the New York Time’s token alleged conservative Bret Stephens, who piggybacks on tragedy to call to repeal the Second Amendment so that we can pass more gun control. Without 2A, a Democrat-controlled Congress could probably beat New Zealand’s time at passing a gun ban in the future.

    That’s just one thing that’s so great about having a Constitution that’s hard to change by design and has language specifically protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Every human being is born with the intrinsic right to defend themselves. Period. Our Founders knew this and wisely put a backstop in place that keeps reactionary impulses from trampling over that right.

    Knee-jerk gun ban proposals in reaction to horrible events don’t get to use an express lane. Activists typically have to spend a lot of time convincing a lot of people of their position if they really want to change the document. That’s a feature, not a bug.

    Because, for the record, once again: Gun bans only affect the law-abiding; the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is the ability to fire back; and the warm and fuzzy feeling people might get from passing new gun control laws won’t stop a bullet when a wicked person breaks them.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    6,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    There are no "nosy neighbors" out in the woods. And any folks out there won't say anything, because they're not "city snowflakes."
    The owners might have something to say about trespassers shooting on their land.

    Related story: A co-worker grew up in the Michigan and U.P. Michigan area. He grew up just going into the woods to shoot wherever he wanted. Then he went to college/work in TX and later OK. It was a huge change for him that everything was private property and most wouldn't let him shoot when he asked permission. He belongs to a nice shooting range now.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,812
    Perhaps it’s because I’m from the west, where there is plenty of public land.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    6,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    Perhaps it’s because I’m from the west, where there is plenty of public land.
    I'm sure TX has some public areas, but investigate first. National forests are a good place to start, but I don't know the details.

    I think the deal in Michigan was forest companies owned a lot of land and (at the time) didn't care if people used the land for camping/hunting/fishing.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,176
    I had a customer in the store Monday who went into the whole gun ban confiscation direction. He asked, "if it time to hide them?" My answer, "if it is, then it is time to use them." "OH...."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.