6 ms·

(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun laws: ht

(New Zealander here) I was surprised that these weren't already banned. How many bullets do you really need to hunt? Some clarification on NZ's new gun laws: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-... The rest of the world sees that the US constantly ties itself in knots over the gun issue, and the horrific loss of lives. Hopefully NZ's swift response shows that things CAN change.

cabaalis 8y ago
> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.
- blahblahthrow 8y ago
  Look at it this way: if you're going to lead an illegal insurrection to overthrow what you think is a tyranical government, why do you care what the gun laws are?
  - modest_sarcasm 8y ago
    Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. That tyrant won't stand a chance!
    - krapp 8y ago
      >Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. I probably shouldn't reply to an obvious troll account but... yes. That is exactly how revolutions happen throughout the world - with weapons procured through the black market or otherwise illegal means. It's only the US which insists that a right to revolution be legally defined and protected by the very government its people theoretically intends to revolt against... and yet even with the Second Amendment, domestic terrorism and revolt against the government is still illegal in the US.
      - modest_sarcasm 8y ago
        Of course, I forgot that stricter gun control will create a thriving market for illegal firearms. I guess everything's fine then!
        krapp 8y ago
        I mean, snark all you want modest_sarcasm, but facts are facts. The right of revolution doesn't depend on legal access to firearms, and the evidence of that is... literally every revolution since the advent of firearms. And Americans have started enough such revolutions around the world that they should have figured this out by now.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    You need to have guns to begin with to start the insurrection. In 1971, Pakistan started to massacre Bangladeshis as a result of an election in what was then east Pakistan. Civilians started an insurrection, using among other things stolen guns. This is where an already-armed populace would have come in handy.
  - nicolashahn 8y ago
    A necessary precondition for a tyrannical government is a power imbalance between the people and the government. Allowing citizens to own arms that are in the same league as what the government uses prevents this.
    - pariahHN 8y ago
      So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons? We don't live in a world where the people and the government can reasonably expect to have symmetrical physical warfare capabilities. This argument is irrelevant today. The only area where the exists any form of symmetry would be cyber weapons, not physical. Defending against other individuals is still a viable argument, and is the only reason I think we need to be careful about how far we go with regards to gun control, but that has some tight limits and I think we can find more effective solutions than guns if we put some effort into it and take it seriously.
      - nicolashahn 8y ago
        > So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons? We don't need any of that stuff to keep the balance. Iraq, Afganistan, and Vietnam are proof of this. Insurgencies are extremely effective against our military. The only real requirement for them to exist is a sufficient quantity of small arms, and maybe some improvised explosives. The argument is still very much relevant. What's happening in Venezuela right now would not be possible without having first disarmed the populace.
- OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
  2nd amendment rights are in direct conflict with the right to be alive.
  - um_ya 8y ago
    There's a reason why the second amendment comes right after freedom of speech. If the government doesn't uphold your rights as citizens, the citizens have the authority to hold their ground. Imagine Venezuela, but the citizens having guns. The government couldn't do what they're doing over there if the citizens had guns.
    - OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
      Reductio ad absurdum: Place 1 gun per square meter of the planet. Are we safer now?
      - modest_sarcasm 8y ago
        Less safe from the average kind of psychopath, but more safe from the magnificent supreme leader kind of psychopath.
        samfriedman 8y ago
        In that dichotomy I guess the question is: which type of psychopath is a more frequent & significant threat to the people? Frequent/significant is probably a trade-off in this case.
        benjohnson 8y ago
        My government has made complex weaponry to instantly kill half of the world's population with one push of a button. For me, that's a huge part of the equation.
      - um_ya 8y ago
        Guns placed like fire alarms (Break glass for gun)? While it may sound absurd, it does follow the principle that there are more good people than bad. If one bad apple arises, finding the next gun to neutralize said apple would be pretty easy.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  As successfully reframed by the NRA in the 1970s. Prior to that your argument was not used. Thus it wasn't the intent of the amendment in the first place "within a well regulated militia".
  - MrMember 8y ago
    As interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008, and affirmed in 2010.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    This isn't objectively true, as evidenced by the decision in US v. Miller. I (and many others) believe that decision to be flawed, but here it is: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. In other words, they held that the weapon in question was not covered specifically because they did not believe it to be military equipment. It logically follows that "ordinary military equipment" is what is protected by the Second Amendment.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Yet pre-1970 the NRA itself was one of the staunchest advocates of licensing, gun control, and restriction of general ownership, whilst sticking to their original purpose - to improve marksmanship. The NRA president testified to congress in 1939: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” It was only much later they started lobbying against any and all control.
identity-haver 8y ago
Most discussion here is about how gun rights in the US aren't primarily viewed as being about hunting. That being said, there are legitimate reasons to use a semi-automatic weapon with a >10 magazine capacity for hunting. For example, feral hogs and coyotes frequently travel in packs. If a dozen hogs are causing havoc on your land, you might need more than a bolt action, especially once they start running.

cabaalis 8y ago

> How many bullets do you really need to hunt? In the US, this is the question used to neuter the second amendment. It isn't there to protect us from deer. The 2nd is meant to be used against people. The right that exists is the ability to protect your rights, life, and property, through force if necessary.

blahblahthrow 8y ago
Look at it this way: if you're going to lead an illegal insurrection to overthrow what you think is a tyranical government, why do you care what the gun laws are?
- modest_sarcasm 8y ago
  Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. That tyrant won't stand a chance!
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Exactly, one can always rely on the general population to illegally stockpile guns and ammunition, just in case. I probably shouldn't reply to an obvious troll account but... yes. That is exactly how revolutions happen throughout the world - with weapons procured through the black market or otherwise illegal means. It's only the US which insists that a right to revolution be legally defined and protected by the very government its people theoretically intends to revolt against... and yet even with the Second Amendment, domestic terrorism and revolt against the government is still illegal in the US.
    - modest_sarcasm 8y ago
      Of course, I forgot that stricter gun control will create a thriving market for illegal firearms. I guess everything's fine then!
      - krapp 8y ago
        I mean, snark all you want modest_sarcasm, but facts are facts. The right of revolution doesn't depend on legal access to firearms, and the evidence of that is... literally every revolution since the advent of firearms. And Americans have started enough such revolutions around the world that they should have figured this out by now.
- rayiner 8y ago
  You need to have guns to begin with to start the insurrection. In 1971, Pakistan started to massacre Bangladeshis as a result of an election in what was then east Pakistan. Civilians started an insurrection, using among other things stolen guns. This is where an already-armed populace would have come in handy.
- nicolashahn 8y ago
  A necessary precondition for a tyrannical government is a power imbalance between the people and the government. Allowing citizens to own arms that are in the same league as what the government uses prevents this.
  - pariahHN 8y ago
    So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons? We don't live in a world where the people and the government can reasonably expect to have symmetrical physical warfare capabilities. This argument is irrelevant today. The only area where the exists any form of symmetry would be cyber weapons, not physical. Defending against other individuals is still a viable argument, and is the only reason I think we need to be careful about how far we go with regards to gun control, but that has some tight limits and I think we can find more effective solutions than guns if we put some effort into it and take it seriously.
    - nicolashahn 8y ago
      > So, civilians owning tanks? Predator drones? Attack helicopters? Cruise missiles? Fighter jets? Biological or chemical weapons? We don't need any of that stuff to keep the balance. Iraq, Afganistan, and Vietnam are proof of this. Insurgencies are extremely effective against our military. The only real requirement for them to exist is a sufficient quantity of small arms, and maybe some improvised explosives. The argument is still very much relevant. What's happening in Venezuela right now would not be possible without having first disarmed the populace.
OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
2nd amendment rights are in direct conflict with the right to be alive.
- um_ya 8y ago
  There's a reason why the second amendment comes right after freedom of speech. If the government doesn't uphold your rights as citizens, the citizens have the authority to hold their ground. Imagine Venezuela, but the citizens having guns. The government couldn't do what they're doing over there if the citizens had guns.
  - OscarTheGrinch 8y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum: Place 1 gun per square meter of the planet. Are we safer now?
    - modest_sarcasm 8y ago
      Less safe from the average kind of psychopath, but more safe from the magnificent supreme leader kind of psychopath.
      - samfriedman 8y ago
        In that dichotomy I guess the question is: which type of psychopath is a more frequent & significant threat to the people? Frequent/significant is probably a trade-off in this case.
        benjohnson 8y ago
        My government has made complex weaponry to instantly kill half of the world's population with one push of a button. For me, that's a huge part of the equation.
    - um_ya 8y ago
      Guns placed like fire alarms (Break glass for gun)? While it may sound absurd, it does follow the principle that there are more good people than bad. If one bad apple arises, finding the next gun to neutralize said apple would be pretty easy.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
As successfully reframed by the NRA in the 1970s. Prior to that your argument was not used. Thus it wasn't the intent of the amendment in the first place "within a well regulated militia".
- MrMember 8y ago
  As interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008, and affirmed in 2010.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  This isn't objectively true, as evidenced by the decision in US v. Miller. I (and many others) believe that decision to be flawed, but here it is: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. In other words, they held that the weapon in question was not covered specifically because they did not believe it to be military equipment. It logically follows that "ordinary military equipment" is what is protected by the Second Amendment.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Yet pre-1970 the NRA itself was one of the staunchest advocates of licensing, gun control, and restriction of general ownership, whilst sticking to their original purpose - to improve marksmanship. The NRA president testified to congress in 1939: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” It was only much later they started lobbying against any and all control.

identity-haver 8y ago

Most discussion here is about how gun rights in the US aren't primarily viewed as being about hunting. That being said, there are legitimate reasons to use a semi-automatic weapon with a >10 magazine capacity for hunting. For example, feral hogs and coyotes frequently travel in packs. If a dozen hogs are causing havoc on your land, you might need more than a bolt action, especially once they start running.