08-05-2019, 05:51 PM
(08-05-2019, 05:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why would a New Zealand shooter be talking about an American constitutional right in that way?
He is Australian. Based n what I read, and I did not read the whole thing, he is tying the future of the "white race" to armed resistance to migration. Again, I am surmising based on what he wrote, but his hope is that mass shooting leads to more gun restrictions which leads to more polarization which leads to civil war. He specifically mentions the US and the 2A and "the lefts" attempts to restrict it as a flashpoint to get this envisioned war started.
(08-05-2019, 05:29 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: No worries. I get it. Just wanted to be clear.
It is appreciated.
Quote:Totally understandable. I would think that starting with all new purchases is a starting point, albeit somewhat neutered and initially ineffective, that has gained legitimacy given the increase in these occurances. Any new purchases should be documented going forward. Strengthen that law down the road, but start somewhere for ***** sakes. I mean, think about if that was done 10 years ago? I just think that if you believe you should own a high powered "assault style platform" (i know you're wreathing with that term, lol) you should be able to prove you are of sound mind.
I think plenty of gun owners would be comfortable with this sort of thing if they didn't worry about the "slippery slope" or future confiscation. Trust me, no law abiding gun owner wants to again have to defend their right to own a firearm because some sick POS just shot a lot of people.
Quote:Again, a completely reasonable response and I did not know that was part of the NZ manifesto. As an outsider looking in, I just don't see confiscation as a plausible task given the sheer number of firearms out there; registry or not. I'm sure that statement can easily sound naive. I'm just providing my perspective on a registry itself.
It wasn't really part, it was the core thrust. It was amazing how the NZ government basically fulfilled the shooter's "wish list". Confiscation wouldn't work that way anyways. It would start with mandatory buy backs and after a certain date you're now a criminal if you own a prohibited firearm. Called the cops because someone broke into your house? What's this illegal firearm, please place your hands behind your back. You're out shooting? Cops show up and what's this illegal firearm? Significant other and you have a bad break up? Cops who up, do you have illegal firearms? You get the point.
Quote:EDIT: I think I was quick and vague with my initial "what I would want" comment. It would be hard to clarify here, but I do not believe we would need a complete and total registry for ALL weapons. For example, I don't believe we would need a registry for every handgun in circulation today.
Glad to hear it. There are plenty of, increasingly vocal people who want exactly that though.
Quote:I could not agree with you more here. But I still think that there is common ground we could come to. As Isomeone here has alluded to previously, forcing those with guns to hold insurance as a condition of their possession would solve some of this and would be analogous to auto insurance. I know that those who would use weapons for illicit acts would not carry said insurance, but again, its a first step.
Wouldn't fly as your putting a cost on a constitutional right. This would also unfairly punish poor gun owners. Additionally, this information could be sued to deny a rental or home purchase. Of course they wouldn't say that was the reason.
Quote:I agree to an extent. I also believe much of that is in response to the current political climate that has been pushing the degradation of american society on people that just arent the source. We only need to look at that Ohio Rep's FB comments to see where their heads are at.
Extreme attitudes are wrong regardless of the end of the spectrum they come from. On this we completely agree.
Quote:I'm going to agree with Bels here that the first step is to allow and fund research in the area. That is the poised first step I would like to see the most.
While not opposed to the idea I don't see what likely benefits will come from it. As I said, I think you'd have way more success putting this research funding in analyzing what made these guys do what they did. What mentally lead them down this road.
[/quote]
[/quote]
