Quantcast

if this happened in new zealand/australia....

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,385
2,633
NZ would probably come out OK since they didn't disarm their population.
Not much fight left in native americans; air drop some bud light into the reservations and the revolution will be quelled. Dilly Dilly.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,670
5,379
Sleazattle
Let the US be the example of how to handle indigenous populations. Kill them all off then repress them sufficiently so they can't take back what was stolen.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,670
5,379
Sleazattle
given the history of the nation, sorry whitey. payback.
I genuinely believe this is what a fair percentage of the right believes is going to happen in the US. Of course their answer is to further repress the people they are afraid of. Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. It would seem easier and more successful to just not be greedy hate filled assholes.
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,385
2,633
I don't subscribe to 'might makes right', which I is why I choose to own firearms.
My dad had a saying: 'you don't need guns.....until you do.'
They're a force multiplier.
Google 'roof koreans' to read how a small group of shop owners kept their shit safe while South Central burned around them and the cops refused to come.


From your link:
Gun laws in New Zealand are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific and focus mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms.[4] Firearms legislation is provided for in the Arms Act and its associated regulations, though stricter unofficial police and government policies also apply.

Gun licenses are issued at the discretion of the police in New Zealand provided the police consider the person to be of good standing and without criminal, psychiatric or drug issues as well as meeting other conditions such as having suitable storage facilities. To be issued, they must be issued for a valid reason, which may not include self defense. Several different categories of licenses are permitted, with the lowest one permitting access to restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, with limited capacity, while the higher levels which permit fully automatic weaponry and pistols are rarely issued to civilians.

The restrictions listed in the quoted text is basically my world in MA. I find it overreaching but acceptable if policy follows the bolded text above.
We also have the tiered licenses here, ranging from low capacity long guns (basic hunting rifle/shotgun + ability to even possess ammo, including spent brass), to 'high-capacity' license that can be either restricted (target, home defense and hunting only) or unrestricted (concealed carry). All are 'may issue' at your local PDs discretion, as in NZ.
Weapons are required registered in MA, which I think is BS.

The one major difference with NZ is the self-defense provision.
That was addressed in the 2008 US Supreme Court Heller decision summarized below:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


Note that this decision was post AWB and the AR was certainly a weapon 'in common use at the time'. (The AWB just banned features; get rid of bayonet lug, flash hider and telescoping stock and an "AWB illegal" AR was then legal, with no change in killy functionality.) The NFA restrictions already in place prevent ownership of full-auto, suppressors, short barrels, grenade launchers and other dedicated military use items, though one may apply for a $200 tax stamp, plus extra ATF vetting, to have access to the first three items I list if you jump through a lot of hoops.

Interestingly, the violent crime stats for NZ are significantly lower than AU.
The exception is gun crime, where NZ is 50% higher but the actual number of incidents is quite low.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
30,308
5,712
Riding the baggage carousel.
I don't subscribe to 'might makes right', which I is why I choose to own firearms.
:think:


Maybe I just read it wrong but this:
NZ would probably come out OK since they didn't disarm their population.
Not much fight left in native americans; air drop some bud light into the reservations and the revolution will be quelled. Dilly Dilly.
seems to suggest that the landed classes in NZ won't have to worry about the uppity natives rabble rousing because they are "armed".
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,385
2,633
The SA situation is the government reclaiming land without compensation, in 'violation of agreements made at the end of apartheid' according to a quote in the article.
I don't know if that's true or not as my interest in SA end with Greg Minnaar, but it sounds like the government is suddenly changing the rules.
That is 'might makes right' and I think armed farmers would make them reconsider, which was the concept alluded to for NZ or AU (or any/every country with colonial history).

Reparations is always an interesting subject? At what point, in time or other metrics, do you just accept the past and the fact things aren't going back to the way they were? SA is perhaps unique in that white are under 10%.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,670
5,379
Sleazattle
The SA situation is the government reclaiming land without compensation, in 'violation of agreements made at the end of apartheid' according to a quote in the article.
I don't know if that's true or not as my interest in SA end with Greg Minnaar, but it sounds like the government is suddenly changing the rules.
That is 'might makes right' and I think armed farmers would make them reconsider, which was the concept alluded to for NZ or AU (or any/every country with colonial history).

Reparations is always an interesting subject? At what point, in time or other metrics, do you just accept the past and the fact things aren't going back to the way they were? SA is perhaps unique in that white are under 10%.

Guns or not, when a small minority owns the vast majority of wealth via ill gotten gains, and the majority of the people want it back, having a few personal arms is only going to make more blood flow. The end result will be the same.

If your average American finally gets sick of a very few people holding the vast majority of wealth in the US, and the government is behind them, owning a few ARs isn't going to help the Kochs and the like. Fortunately for them, they also own the government.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
30,308
5,712
Riding the baggage carousel.
Reparations is always an interesting subject? At what point, in time or other metrics, do you just accept the past and the fact things aren't going back to the way they were? SA is perhaps unique in that white are under 10%.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I think this is a simple subject. The sins of the father are not necessarily the sins of the son, but it's very hard to make an argument that the natives (continent of your choice!) or slaves there of, don't have a case for things being made, I dunno, if not "right", then "more equitable". How one even begins to go about that is WAY above my pay-grade.
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
33,577
4,125
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I think this is a simple subject. The sins of the father are not necessarily the sins of the son, but it's very hard to make an argument that the natives (continent of your choice!) or slaves there of, don't have a case for things being made, I dunno, if not "right", then "more equitable". How one even begins to go about that is WAY above my pay-grade.
how about we give them 50 percent of what the national parks take in....
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
33,577
4,125
And in the United States, we continue to steal from the indigenous people whenever the corporations want it, e.g. Bears Ears...
do canadians ever self flagellate over the indigenous people they have fucked over....never seen it on here...
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
10,594
2,762
AK
Let the US be the example of how to handle indigenous populations. Kill them all off then repress them sufficiently so they can't take back what was stolen.
And give them some shitty land out in the desert, except of course if that shitty desert land contains uranium deposits, then make sure to re-zone that shitty desert land to exclude that uranium.
 

jimBOS

Chimp
Aug 15, 2009
4
4
To an extent this is already happening in Australia. It is however, reasonably well managed (goes to a tribunal hearing where proof of indigenous ownership must be proven).

I highly doubt this will be well managed.