Mass Shootings

New Zealand's Sweeping New Gun Ban Would Be Unconstitutional in the U.S.

The government is prohibiting "military-style semi-automatics" and redefining them to include most guns with detachable magazines.

|

Kyodo / Newscom

American gun control supporters are citing the firearm restrictions that New Zealand's government plans to impose in response to last week's mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch as an example that should be emulated by American politicians. But the broad gun and magazine bans that legislators expect to enact by April 11 would never pass constitutional muster in the United States. If we can learn anything from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's reaction to the attacks, it has less to do with the merits of her policies than with the slippery language she used in announcing them.

"The guns used in these terrorist attacks had important distinguishing features," Ardern said at a press conference in Wellington today. "First, big capacity, and also their delivery. They had the power to shoot continuously, but they also had large capacity magazines."

Contrary to that description, the guns used by the perpetrator of the mosque attacks, which killed 50 people, did not "shoot continuously." They were semi-automatic rifles, meaning they fired once per trigger pull. And while Ardern referred to "important distinguishing features," the only one she mentioned (twice) was "big capacity," which is a characteristic of the magazine rather than the gun itself.

Ardern does plan to ban "high-capacity magazines," meaning those holding more than five rounds. There will be an exception for magazines holding up to 10 rounds of .22-caliber or smaller rimfire ammunition.

Ardern also intends to "ban all military-style semi-automatic weapons" (MSSAs), which under current law include semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, folding or telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, internal magazines holding more than seven rounds, or detachable magazines that have "the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges" (15 for .22-caliber rimfire ammunition). MSSAs already require a special license. Ardern wants to make them entirely illegal, and that includes firearms currently owned by license holders, who will be required to surrender them. They are supposed to receive compensation, but this "buyback" won't be optional.

In addition to banning the guns already classified as MSSAs, New Zealand is expanding that category to include all semi-automatic firearms capable of accepting magazines that hold more than five rounds (or 10 in the case of .22-caliber or smaller rimfire ammunition). That's a big deal, because the prohibited guns will include many models of handguns and rifles that accept detachable magazines but were not heretofore considered MSSAs. The Christchurch shooter reportedly bought two semi-automatic rifles with a standard gun license, then "modified" them to fire more than seven rounds, meaning he switched to bigger magazines. Now Ardern wants to ban not only larger magazines but also the guns capable of accepting them.

"We will also ban all assault rifles," Ardern said. If that category is supposed to be distinct from MSSAs, it's not clear what Ardern means. Traditionally, "assault rifles" were military guns capable of automatic fire, but those are already deemed "restricted weapons" in New Zealand, meaning they can be legally owned only by special license holders such as collectors or movie producers, who are not allowed to fire them.

In the United States, politicians, journalists, and gun control activists who talk about "assault rifles" often treat the term as interchangeable with "assault weapons," an arbitrary category defined by law. While the criteria vary from one jurisdiction to another, "assault weapons" in the United States are similar to New Zealand's original definition of MSSAs in the sense that the category includes guns with "military-style" features, such as folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors, that do not make the weapons any more deadly in the hands of a mass shooter.

By contrast, New Zealand's new definition of military-style semi-automatics, which will now be not just restricted but banned, hinges on a functionally significant distinction: the ability to accept detachable magazines. At the same time, that criterion is so broad that it renders the term military-style meaningless and sweeps in a wide range of firearms used for lawful purposes. In the United States—which, unlike New Zealand, has a constitution that guarantees the right to armed self-defense—such a sweeping ban would be inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings rejecting bans on semi-automatic handguns. Yet it is more logical than American-style "assault weapon" bans, which focus on looks rather than lethality.

The "military-style semi-automatic weapons" New Zealand plans to ban (which may or may not be synonymous with the "assault rifles" Ardern "also" wants to ban) include many guns that never fell into that category before and do not necessarily have anything to do with the military. It is therefore more than a little confusing to continue using the same term for them, especially for Americans who imagine that the category is equivalent to what U.S. politicians have in mind when they refer to "assault weapons."

Since the rationale for such laws is that they make it harder to obtain guns that are especially suitable for mass murder, the details matter. "Assault weapon" bans tend to draw distinctions that make no sense in light of that goal. New Zealand's government is implicitly acknowledging that problem by focusing on function instead of appearance. But that also means imposing a much bigger burden on law-abiding gun owners, who now will be required to give up detachable magazines and the guns that accept them, which are surely more widely useful than bayonet lugs or flash suppressors. In that tradeoff, there is a lesson that American gun controllers should take to heart.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Will Sign Executive Order Requiring Colleges To Promote 'Free Inquiry' If They Want Federal Research Funds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. New Zealand’s Sweeping New Gun Ban Would Be Unconstitutional in the U.S.

    Hihn the Beatific hardest hit.

    1. Darn, I was just going to mention my favorite libertarian elder. You beat me to it.

      But he really did make a compelling case that the Constitution permits far more comprehensive gun safety measures than are currently in effect. Maybe we’ll find out when the Democrats expand the Supreme Court to 11 members in a couple years.

      1. Why “only” eleven? Don’t you want to wait and see how many more “Drumpf” gets to appoint, especially after “Notorious” kicks the proverbial bucket, before you settle on a number to insure a progressive majority?

        [I can play this game too, OBLT…]

        1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

          So I started….>>>>>>> http://www.Pay-Buzz.com

        1. To Beto’s (sortof) credit he also wants to lock in a ideological split by having 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 5 selected by the other 10

          While I get (and respect) what he’s trying to do, it raises a whole host of other problems that could easily be worse than the ones we already have

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here ======?? http://www.Jobs89.com

    3. I just gave him a thorough kicking in another thread.

    4. New Zealand’s Sweeping New Gun Ban Would Be Unconstitutional in the U.S.

      Not for long.

  2. semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, folding or telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, internal magazines holding more than seven rounds, or detachable magazines that have “the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges”

    If looks could kill

    If looks could kill

  3. This is why I don’t trust the left with power, because they don’t care about your freedoms. They would take away all of your guns if they could, they just can’t.

    Same with your right to speech. The youtube CEO said just last week that she was pissed her 13yo was watching Ben Shapiro, and would ban him if she could.

    These people don’t care about freedom or your rights. As soon as they have the ability to they will use the state to force you into their will.

    1. They hate freedom. They hate the rights of people not like them.

      I’m starting to agree with the idea that we should stop calling them socialist and call them what they really are, freedom hating authoritarians.

      1. They are slavers, pure and simple, so our original “fuck off, slaver” is accurate. Socialism is Slavery

        1. Totalitarians gonna totalitarian

    2. I’d love to have heard that conversation – “why can’t you watch pornography like a normal 13 year old instead of that garbage?!??!”

    3. The youtube CEO said just last week that she was pissed her 13yo was watching Ben Shapiro,

      She should be pissed! That kid should be enjoying teen life, not listening to some dork prattle on about politics.

      1. A dork that wrote a whole book decrying the evils of porn.

        1. “I lift, bro. My yarmulke is made of heavy wool.”

    4. I was curious and Googled whether or not the youtube CEO said she wanted to ban Ben Shapiro, and of course she didn’t. That being said I bet she secretly wishes she could, being the lefty libtard she is, so I shall still bitch about this, just in case.

      1. ‘I’m going to kill Susan Wojcicki first.'”

        The founder of Recode is threatening to kill the CEO of Youtube?

        This whole “women in STEM” thing is looking like a bad idea.

      2. How else would you interpret this. She literally says she would remove him if she had the power.

        Scratch a Progressive enough and you get a Tyrant, every damn time.

        SUSAN: No, we can work on your son here, I have a son too and I get some of these discussions also at the dinner table. I think what you’re describing is ? and the way we think about it, too ? look, there’s a set of content that has to meet the community guidelines. Ben Shapiro is going to meet the community guidelines. I don’t think you’re suggesting that we remove him from the platform. Are you?

        KARA: I would, but I can’t. No, no.

        1. Kara is the interviewer, Susan is the youtube CEO. Holy fuck you’re retarded. GTFO.

    5. > As soon as they have the ability to they will use the state to force you into their will.

      Something people have been doing for thousands of years. Libertarians have been, and always will be, a miniscule minority.

    6. I have known this for twenty years, since participating in Usenet discussions.

    7. Jesus Christ, people. That wasn’t Susan Wojcicki (“The youtube CEO”), it was the rather despicable Kara Swisher who interviewed her. If youtube wanted to “ban” Ben Shapiro they would, because the 1A doesn’t apply to youtube.

      Get your shit together before you deign to have opinions. You aren’t automatically relevant.

    8. Many Americans espouse the virtues of Freedom and Liberty; so long as it is they who get to decide to whom, and to what measure those Freedoms and Liberties apply.

  4. This is something.

    It is punishing law abiding people for the crimes of someone else, but it is something.

  5. I’ll wait until the Flight of the Chonchords weigh-in with an amusing song before I comment on this tragedy.

    1. “I’ll wait until the Flight of the Chonchords weigh-in with an amusing song”

      That would be a first.

  6. To be on the safe side they should also ban knives, trucks, pressure cookers and Australians. Do the men get sheared in New Zealand along with the sheep?

    1. You’re giving them ideas, you know.

    2. If this doesn’t result in insurrection, they get gelded along with the sheep.

      1. An outright ban and confiscation is line that shall be crossed in the USA.

        I feel bad for New Zealanders but freedom isnt free.

        You gotta fight or be a slave.

    3. You know how Canadian men are always going around apologizing? (Or mentioning a famous Canadian band). Well New Zealand men are always going around asking for permission. (Or mentioning those movies made in NZ).

    4. Tasmanian Devils migrating now…

    5. The only reason that New Zealand men marry women is because none of them have figured out how to teach a sheep to cook. (Old joke originally about Australians but if the sheep fits, wear it).

  7. One might, if allowing themselves to be cynical, think they had these regulations all cued up, but just waiting for the right moment…

    1. It wouldn’t be a surprise, but it’s a harder trick to pull off in a country that’s now had 2 mass shootings in 20 years.

      The hilarious part will be that gun control pimps will point to these new laws and say, “SEE? SEE? NO MORE MASS SHOOTINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE!”

      “But there hadn’t been one in the previous 20 years with the existing laws.”

      “WHY ARE YOU SUCH AN AMMOSEXUAL?”

      Anyway, it’s a lot easier to pull off gun bans in Britbong countries because their citizens have privileges, not rights. Even if a Democrat President declared a national emergency to ban all semi-automatic weapons, most of the deplorables and their community LEOs would tell the President to fuck off.

      1. “their citizens”

        Subjects

        1. It’s hard to kick the peasant habit.

      2. With so few mass shootings, seems to me that their existing gun laws are working pretty damn well. Why not just determine what went wrong to allow the recent shooter to be able to buy those guns? With their extensive background check, including interviews, either the guy was a very good actor and fooled everyone, or someone dropped the ball. I would bet on the latter. So I guess for 20 years they won’t know if any new laws made mass shootings less likely.

    2. It is amazing how fast a legislature can move when waving the bloody shirt to strip people of their civil liberties, is it not?

      1. Some retard was on here a few weeks ago arguing how awesome the TSA was because we hadn’t had another 9/11 incident since it was put in place.

        1. That is pretty retarded: 9/11 type attacks stopped being feasible as soon as people knew about them, which is why flight 93 went down in a corn field instead of DC. And the first one made us mad enough that even bin Laden was able to figure out that repeating it would probably result in us nuking Mecca as a warmup exercise before getting down to the real extermination campaign.

        2. There has not been even one prosecution of a terrorist caught with prohibited items in the searches at the airport. Some attacks may have been foiled before the terrorists headed out to an airport, but that’s the FBI’s job and nothing to do with the security theater that is the TSA’s main public face. The attackers that reached an airport passed through security and were stopped by other passengers.

          I’ve always contended that 9/11 was enabled in the first place by government policies that disarmed law-abiding passengers and told them to cooperate with hijackers. The minute that hijack victims learned that the terrorists were likely to kill them anyhow, taking over an airliner in flight became nearly impossible. The flight 93 passengers died in spite of swarming and defeating the hijackers because they had first let the hijackers kill the aircrew and take over the controls.

  8. I’ve read several articles, most recently from NPR today, about this; however, absolutely nothing that specifically identifies just what the guy used? So when NZ bans guns “like he used” it is hard to know exactly what they mean [beyond what they want it to mean].

      1. Something already illegal I see.

          1. What?? What porcelain? The gun? Are you insane? A glock has a polymer reviever aka lower frame and a steel slide and barrel. The Glock 7 is a fictional gun it does not actually exist because it is impossible. The internal pressure created by firing a gun would shatter porcelain in an instant and kille the shooter.

            1. The “porcelain glock” is from a movie, Die Hard 2 I believe. Typical hollywood mistake.

    1. He used an AR and one of those daft mag-fed semi-auto shotguns (I’m not a shotgun guy and have no f***ing idea about models etc.).

      1. He used an AR and one of those daft mag-fed semi-auto shotguns (I’m not a shotgun guy and have no f***ing idea about models etc.).

        I don’t think this is entirely clear on either count. He had photos of several different guns on Twitter and the media seems to have pulled any given photo at random as an example of the one he used.

        I’ve seen one that is distinctly an AR with the Hallmark forward assist clearly visible and ‘Welcome to Hell” written on the front handguard and another that is less clearly an AR (the stock doesn’t line up by my eye and there’s no forward assist), most certainly not the same gun, and has different messaging written on the ‘essential’ parts. The optics used in his video stream are swapped between the two guns (He had a vertical foregrip and a red dot sight configuration and a ‘standard’ foregrip and a scope configuration on Twitter, but in the video he’s got a vertical foregrip and a scope.

        I think, at this point, Crusty’s got the right idea. He used and/or was carrying a Glock, at least one longer rifle and a shotgun. I’m not terrible at IDing shotguns, but I haven’t seen a photo even close to providing the resolution needed to make anything besides an “It’s a shotgun.” ID.

        1. It was difficult for me to guess what he was using with all the insulation he had wrapped around them. I don’t believe they were straight semi auto. I think they were altered, he pumped out alot of lead. But slower than full auto. He threw away one after the mosque attack, because it jammed several times. Which also reinforces my belief that they had been tinkered with. The magazines or feed ramps were altered possibly, which might account for the jamming as well. The video is not very clear but I though I saw ribs on the magazines.

          1. It was difficult for me to guess what he was using with all the insulation he had wrapped around them.

            Part of my point was that because of the reporting and facts as presented, even if you could see the manufacturer’s logos and read the serial numbers you couldn’t identify which gun(s) he did or did not use.

        2. I’m not terrible at IDing shotguns, but I haven’t seen a photo even close to providing the resolution needed to make anything besides an “It’s a shotgun.” ID.

          I should be more clear even if the photos aren’t. I can’t distinguish pump action from semi-auto from the blurry screencap I’ve seen. I does appear to have a full-length or extended magazine tube, but IDK how well that fits with every conception of ‘mag-fed’. Technically, it’s still magazine fed but I would just call it a semi-automatic shotgun. I would call a Saiga-12 style of gun a magazine-fed shotgun and say that he definitely isn’t using a mag-fed shotgun by that example.

  9. MSSAs already require a special license.

    Yeah, and when that requirement was put in place I’ll bet the people pushing it said, “It’s a reasonable restriction. You have to have a license to drive a car, don’t you? Saying that confiscation will be next is just scaremongering.” or words to that effect.

    1. You need a license for all rifles; there are 3 or 4 classifications, with semi-autos in one of the higher ones. On the other hand, they also had a fairly low compliance rate when it was imposed. But none of that matters anymore, out with all of them!

  10. The US is the last stand for liberalism. The rest of the West is neither liberal, nor worth preserving.

    1. Pretty much.

      What’s left of liberalism anywhere. Classical liberalism was defeated a loooong time ago.

        1. Then go get tested and get some Truvada.

            1. Yeah that’s what I said you should do doy.

      1. I hope you canadians can hang on because its gonna be a bumpy ride based on what American patriots do to right the ship.

        1. Too bad you aren’t one of us.

  11. I can’t find the quote now, but I recall that Arden justified these and other drastic changes with the common tripe “we must do everything possible to prevent another massacre”.

    Clearly, a partial or even complete gun ban is not enough. I suggest:

    A ban on all vehicles that weigh more than 100 lbs.
    A ban of all combustible and explosive materials, and also all matches and lighters.
    A ban of all toxic substances (including common household and workshop materials).
    Speaking of workshops, a ban of all power tools. Heck, just ban all sharp, pointy, or heavy objects.
    No gathering of more than 7 people in any public or private space.
    No unescorted or unmonitored travel.

    Did I forget anything?

    1. Yes, but you’re not allowed to say.

    2. A ban on vehicles would save lives.

      1. Not having an ambulance would be a pain. You may be right, but I’m not a Utilitarian, and therefore don’t have to calculate that.

    3. Ban anything that could be used to make a knife. So, no more plate steel, anywhere in the country.

      A ban on all object that could be used for blunt force trauma. So, burn all the trees, because branches can be made into clubs, and get rid of all the rocks, because they can be used to harm someone.

      1. No soap, no socks – – – –

  12. New Zealand goes full retard in real time.

  13. New Zealand pretty much has always been a government-good/individual-bad kind of place. But due to very pastoral and rural nature, it wasn’t that big of a deal. Some monetary problems out of it, but for the most part someone was essentially free to go about their business of raising sheep (with permission).

    But New Zealand is becoming urban. It’s not that big of a step for it to become 1970s era socialist Sweden. Centralized control over everyone’s lives is now on the table for them.

    1. They also just banned non-citizens from buying property. Seems pretty xenophobic if you ask me. Everybody just ignores how free and immigrant-friendly America is compared to the rest of the developed world.

      1. That’s left-wing Xenophobia and thus it doesn’t count because ? intentions.

    1. At least it’s a real country, unlike Georgia.

      1. You think he’s joking but he isn’t.

  14. snoozealand … “hey next guy, now nobody can stop you.”

    1. It’s already illegal for a good Kiwi with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Armed self defense is against their laws.

      1. likely i’d still defend myself v. alternative … they stomp on defense of others too?

      2. No it isn’t. It has to be the last resort, but if that is the case then there have been many cases where people have fired (and killed) in self defence and not been prosecuted.

        Same story as in the US – don’t go shooting in the back the guy running away with your TV. Do shoot the guy charging towards you with a kitchen knife in his hand.

        1. …and hope he charges you at your pistol club range.

          1. Or I shoot him with my .22WM, or my .22LR 10/22 or shotgun… etc. et. Al.

            1. CAREFUL! Saying things like that will get you thrown off Twitter!

        2. (1) if you shoot an intruder in your home and they are running away, drag the body back into your house.

          (2) put a weapon in the intruders hand to clear up any loose ends.

        3. At least they are even handed; V.I.P. types are forbidden to use armed guards. They say if you need armed guards, apply to the police.

        4. The police decide who is allowed to purchase and own guns and only those with a good reason are permitted. Self defense is not considered a valid reason in NZ

  15. At the moment it’s just an Order in Council – i.e. an Executive order. And it makes AR’s (in particular) E-Cat which means that they can only be held by E-Cat license holders.

    I have considered having a 5 round mag welded into the magwell of mine which would make it not covered by the order as it’d no longer be detachable.

    But, they’re also doing a full review of the law that covers firearms and so I’m not bothering to do anything of the sort until I see the fine details.

    I’m also not handing anything over (or even telling them that I own one) until they say what they’re going to pay up for in the buy-back. I’m not going to accept anything less than NZ$2500 for mine.

    1. ^”More sheep than people”^

      1. If they offer a reasonable amount of money then I’ll use it to buy something like a nice 6.5mm Precision Rifle and a big feck-off scope and supressor. And get a t-shirt printed that says “I spent my buy-back $$$ on something far more deadly. Ha ha.”

        1. Yes, because “precision rifles” are the most effective and widely used combat implement. Have fun with your 6.5 plinker range toy.

  16. There will be an exception for magazines holding up to 10 rounds of .22-caliber or smaller rimfire ammunition.

    It’s because you can’t kill someone with those. They just bounce right off the skin. ,

    1. This is why morons should not comment, or make laws, about firearms. In the US the most common weapon used in firearm deaths is a .22; they are quite a deadly weapon. On the other hand of the ~50,000 deaths resulting from fire arms according to FBI statistics 714 were from long guns; the rest from pistols. Blacks and Hispanics are way over represented in terms of causing (and dying) fire arm deaths. If you remove all the firearm deaths from sever large cities (Detroit, Chicago, LA, and New Orleans) the rate of firearm deaths in the US is on the level of that in Europe. If you eliminate specific areas in those cities (where minorities live) again the death rate is on the European level.

      1. It’s poverty, not “minorities” you racist shitheel. Poor whites are more murderous, too. There simply happen to be proportionally fewer of those.

        https://tinyurl.com/ybjyx6cg

        1. It’s not even poverty, it’s culture.

  17. New Zealand’s Sweeping New Gun Ban Would Be Unconstitutional in the U.S.

    For now, sure.

    But when the Millennial generation is running the country and the last living NRA members are confined to wheelchairs in nursing homes, the Second Amendment will be as dead and forgotten as the Code of Hammurabi.

    1. There’s still hope: Founder of Black Guns Matter Speaks Out: ‘Gun Control Is About People Control’ https://tinyurl.com/yylnqhst

    2. There are plenty of young patriots that want to protect gun rights.

    3. The NRA has only themselves to thank. I haven’t been a member for over a decade because there are insufficiently pro-gun and they engage in way too fucking much police apologia and general worship.

      1. ^A perfect example of perfection being the enemy of good enough. The NRA isn’t perfect, so I won’t join. While the NRA might not be perfect, they are quite frequently engaged in the activity of defending the Second Amendment. That’s good enough to get my membership dues. You may be surprised to find you can actually talk to the NRA and try to move them in a direction more in tune with your views. Maybe not. Either way, at least their doing something besides bitching in a comments section…

        1. To be fair to both of you, the NRA is FAR from being “good”, they obviously surrendered to the bump stock ban before it came into being, and then immediately let Trump go to their convention and cheered him for being so pro-gun!

          That being said, they used to be MUCH worse, they were NOT happy with open carry when people started with that, but now they’re all about “Constitutional carry” (which includes open carry). GOA and the 2nd Amendment foundation have held their feet to the fire by out competing them when they stray too far off the path of liberty.

    4. Lmao you are dreaming I know lots of millenals
      who are avid shooters and gun rights supporters. You will not be able to abolish the 2nd amendment without amending thr Constituton and that is not going to happen without 3/4 of alm the state legislatures. What people like you never grasp is your world is not the only world and the center of the nation has a totally different view of guns. We are not terrified of inanimate objects.

  18. NZ doesn’t have a written constitution.

    NZ has a Bill of Rights but it is regular law and can be overridden easily, and it is.

    It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

    However, by way of example, the the Chief Censor (yes, that position is real) made the possession and the viewing of the mosque shootings video a criminal act, deeming the video to be “objectionable” and “injurious to the public good”.

    With the mere stroke of his pen. So there goes the freedom of expression. Bill of Rights is useless if nobody stands up for it. There will be no challenge to that ban in the court. New Zealanders don’t do that kind of thing. No sense of purpose. That country is ripe for abuse.

    And it won’t stop there. All manner of speech laws will be next.

  19. Thank goodness neither one of my semiautomatic rifles is classified as an assault rifle. I sleep better at night knowing that my rifles can never be used to assault someone.

  20. NZ doesn’t have a written constitution. American leftists wish the U.S. didn’t have a constitution, or a Bill of Rights, so when they are in power they could do as they please.

    1. +1

  21. LEO’s are only human and capable of losing an assault weapon, or having one stolen, or perhaps someday going on a sudden or planned rampage…Any common sense ban needs to apply to everyone incl. LEO’s. Ms. Ardern’s security detail should be the first to comply. For the safety of everyone they need to immediately limit their magazines to 5rds (or 10 if they choose to sport a .22 rim-fire) . If they don’t they should be the first to go to jail. If she wants to take guns out of closets she shouldn’t have friends with them on the street.

  22. New Zealand should be banning all swimming and aquatic activities before any gun bans. It causes far more death. https://youtu.be/kQ_gZmaw6cU

    1. That’s an idea: NZ should ban sharks!

  23. A gun buyback in the US of AR15s would cost over a billion dollars to save a literal handful of lives (best case).

    If a Pharma company charged the same amount to save the same lives…

  24. This is one of the more pointless articles I’ve ever seen on here.

  25. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  26. I was listening to some knob on the radio who repeatedly insisted that the only things preventing new Zealand type gun control in the US was the power of the gun lobby and the political will. The 2nd amendment was relegated to a minor cultural factor. He seriously made the case that the constitution set cultural expectations rather then being the foundational law of our government.

    1. Truly, the anti-gun cult is invincibly ignorant.

    2. They claim the 2nd amendment is an obstacle, not a right.

  27. So most Kiwis are slaves now.

    Shame.

    As Socialists tighten their nooses around the enslaved of the World, it looks like America is one of the last bastions of freedom fighters.

    1. Slaves? They already have laws preventing immigrants from buying property. This sounds like exactly your sort of collectivist utopia. You should move there, since you clearly don’t like America.

      1. Yup. slaves.

  28. authoritarians always love it when the plebes have no effective means to resist

  29. So someone is doing something?!?!! Oh good! I feel safe now, if only for a moment!

  30. Unconstitutional in the U.S.?

    Heck, it’d ban nearly every firearm I own except for the kids’ .22 single-shot rifles, and make half the stuff in my garage illegal because it could be used to make newly banned firearms.

    I think it would even ban my Kroil penetrating oil, because I use it on my banned firearms from time to time.

    Good thing New Zealand is on the planet’s bottom. Where it rightfully belongs. Or, at least where its leaders belong, if this is the best they can do in times of duress.

    A devils’ advocate perspective — if India used this same mentality of banning anything that can be used to cause massive loss of life, then they’d ban buses, trains, and cyclones.

  31. I’m a little surprised that New Zealanders are taking this lying down. It’s not every day your government just openly revokes a major civil and human right; at least if you live in the 1st world.

    1. Yeah, it’s because the leftists have cucked basically everybody in the western world with their brainwashing. Americans are the least cucked, but we’re still a bunch of bitches for putting up with half the stuff we do.

  32. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started ========>>>>>>>> http://WWW.THEPROCOIN.COM

  33. Well that was quick. Just like that facts and reason are sacrificed for the sake of the knee jerk feel good progressive agenda.

  34. I don’t see anything that gun owners in the USA should worry about. The left in America is using this as a rallying cry about banning these guns, but it won’t happen. The NRA is also using it as a fundraising opportunity. An ammendment repealing parts of the 2nd ammendment is not going to pass anytime soon. That would require 3/4 of the states approving such an ammendment. So, I just need to list 13 that will never approve such an ammendment. New Hampsire, West Virginia, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska. That is 19 states! I am guessing there are many other states that I am leaving out that would also prove my point. Even a liberal Supreme Court would support only a minor amount of gun control because of the 2nd ammendment, which is what the whole article is about anyhow.

    1. You apparently don’t realize the lengths courts do to get the result they want.

  35. The Washington Times reports today that New Zealand is banning possession of the shooter’s manifesto.

    Well, they don’t have a 2nd, so they don’t have a 1st, that is obvious.

    1. Hey, if their photogenic P.M. wins a Nobel Peace Prize for bashing speech, that says something about our age.

  36. And this folks, is the inevitable conclusion of allowing female suffrage. Women will ALWAYS vote for safety (or often PERCEIVED safety) over freedom. The second we allowed women the vote we were guaranteed a massive welfare state with no individual liberty. Men are prone enough to that sort of shit, once you throw women into the mix there is ZERO chance of having limited government or freedom.

    You might not LIKE IT, but it is a fact. One need do nothing more than read up on female psychological studies to see this is inevitable.

  37. I always love these definitions of “assault weapons” since most of them are meaningless and have nothing to do with operation of rifle. Pistol grip? Flash supressor? Bayonet lug? I have never seen an AR with a bayonet lug and the flass suppresor and pistol grip do not impact the operation or rate of fire. Contrary to popular claims, a flash suppressor does not hide the flash it only manages it. It makes a huge burst of fire into a smaller burst of fire but it is still easily seen. The bottom line is anyone who thinks more regulations or even a ban on AR style rifles in the US will make them suddenly vanish is dreaming. In addition demanding registration is also pointless which has been proven by the lack of compliance in states where these laws already exist. The reason the current laws are not enforced it police consider violations of registration and other gun laws to be low priority when contrasted against murder, and other violent or major crime. Even when they charge felons with gun crimes the charges are often reduced as part of a plea deal. Gun control has never and will never work and in this country thinking you will someday ban guns is just delusional.

  38. It hasbeen a good Purim. The Golan heights was recognized by our President; the entitled, antisemitic/antiamerican Muslims were cut down by a fellow racist and antiemite in what is best described as a lover’s quarrel, and Pres Trump is cleared in the stupid Russia collusion hoax.

    Life is good. To paraphrase fake injun, Elizabeth Warren, I think I’ll have a manischewitz.

    There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.

  39. as Douglas responded I am stunned that a person able to earn $7781 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this webpage

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.