Brickbats

Brickbat: No Rights, Only Privileges

|

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says gun ownership is a privilege not a right, and apparently she has control over the terms of such privileges. She has proposed a raft of new restrictions on gun ownership, including a requirement that owners register all guns and an alert system that would allow police to search gun owners' social media for evidence of extremist views.

NEXT: Democrats Debate To Determine Who Will Spend Us Into Oblivion

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. This is why NZ can do this and we can’t- we have rights. And every time someone is like, why can’t we just outlaw guns? I think, because we have a constitution that lists it as a right. Now, if they didn’t want to be so stupid, they would look into why we can’t just outlaw guns and start working on amending the Constitution. Let’s hope they never figure that out though and just stay ignorant.

    1. Even with constitutional protections it’s a constant battle for Americans to maintain that right.

      1. Indeed; I often hear criticism of the NRA [yeah, right] that they used to focus on training and safety [they still do] instead of lobbying.

        For all their faults, if they did not engage in legislative action there would be no guns to require safety and education.

      2. ^

        The overwhelming majority of the current gun-control regime is unconstitutional.

  2. “…allow police to search gun owners’ social media for evidence of extremist views.”

    I think she has some extremist views herself, like believing she’s in charge of dispensing “privileges”.

    1. i think hawaii already did this. If you have a gun there you go on a watch list. don’t know if it passed or not

  3. they have to provide the peace over all on all the nations , it is best one i think to start development on nations. watch a news like this on https://www.cyberflix.fun/

  4. At the time, Ms. Ardern dismissed those concerns. “You either believe that in New Zealand these weapons have a place or you do not,” she said. “And if you do not, you should be able to agree that we can move swiftly.”

    “You’re either with us or with the terrorists. Now, watch silently as your government enacts ill-considered, knee-jerk legislation that will be enforced under threat of state gun violence.”

  5. The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms any more than the First gives you the right to free speech. The Bill of Rights simply acknowledge that you have these rights and that the government cannot infringe them. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed by their Creator with “certain inalienable rights”, and that governments are created to secure these rights and, further, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice it doesn’t say this applies only to Americans – it’s a universal declaration of human rights. No part of the Bill of Rights can legitimately be repealed – those rights were not granted by human agency, they cannot be taken away by human agency.

    According to basic American political philosophy, the prime minister is wrong – gun ownership is not a privilege, it’s a human right.

    1. It seems you have confused the US Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. The US Declaration of Independence has no impact on our constitutional rights, it was just a guideline for the legislature up until the democrats decided it was not. The only document other than the actual Constitution that controls what powers over us the federal government can use is a letter from T. Jefferson.

      1. “It seems you have confused the US Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution.”

        No you’re just bad at reading

        “The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms any more than the First gives you the right to free speech. The Bill of Rights simply acknowledge that you have these rights and that the government cannot infringe them”

        He listed the Declaration as auxiliary support for the idea of inalienable rights. You misread or misunderstood his post.

        1. Yes, the Declaration lays out some of the political philosophy the Bill of Rights codifies.

    2. Jerryskids is right. The 9th Amendment states that not all individual rights are listed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that powers not listed in the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the People. The text of the 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law… infringing” and the 2nd Amendment states “…shall not be infringed.” US founding documents state that we are born with inalienable rights and the government is given powers by the People. Government is subservient to the People.

      1. “Government is subservient to the People.”

        If you’re going by what the Constitution says, well- yeah. Are we still using that thing? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it sometimes.

        1. We haven’t been following the Constitution since Woodrow Wilson was President.

  6. As an old proverb says, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is “extremism.”
    I am sure that, sooner or later, Democrats will try to introduce something similar here. And, if there’re enough (dishonest) liberal justices on the Supreme Court, they’ll let them, Second Amendment notwithstanding.

    1. Make that: “…First and Second Amendments notwithstanding.”

      1. There are a great many progs (probably most of them) who believe our Constitution is no longer relevant because, among other reasons, it was written by white slave-owning men, and did too much to protect individual rights versus the common good. They can’t really do anything to amend it since it requires 2/3 of states to ratify any new amendments, but eventually they will get their SCOTUS majority who will do what they can to limit it.

    2. That essentially the Democrats’ “living breathing document” interpretation of the constitution. Your rights only extend as far as the next SCOTUS case where they can be reinterpreted to whatever the prevailing attitude is at the time

      1. *except abortion

        1. +1 superprecedent

          1. But that’s exactly the point, notice how they are in no hurry to codify the right with a constitutional amendment (same for marriage equality) despite all the fear mongering that a conservative SCOTUS will overturn them. Those rights are only as secure as the next case, which, they claim, is why you must vote Democrat for president (so they can appoint progressive justices who will decide to let you keep your rights)

            Also note they have submitted amendment bills to eliminate the Electoral College and overturn the Citizens United decision, because directly impact their ability to gain and wield political power, so they must be codified

            1. bills to eliminate the Electoral College

              I think you’d need an amendment for that.

              because directly impact their ability to gain and wield political power

              Power is the end, not the means.

              1. Yes, the bill (H.J.Res.7) is an amendment, if it passes Congress then it gets sent to the states to ratify

                And also yes, power is the end, constitutional amendments are (part of) the means

            2. Well, my point is the inconsistency. They claim BOTH:

              1. Roe v Wade is “super-precedent” and is inviolable, even though there isn’t ANYTHING in the Constitution that even HINTS at the right to an abortion. And somehow there can be MORE limitations on enumerated rights, like RTKBA, than on a right that NEVER existed until 1973, and has NO text to back it up. (They even argue that Texas laws requiring abortion centers to meet the same standards that ALREADY apply to other types of medical treatment facilities are “onerous,” and therefore unConstitutional). Basically, abortion is universally available, cannot be regulated, and must be paid for by tax payers, AND cannot (due to precedent) be overturned.

              2. You HAVE to keep voting Team Blue or you’ll IMMEDIATELY lose your right to off your baby.

    3. Citizens United and Heller were both 5-4 decisions. That’s way too close for comfort.

  7. New Zealand: We have Kiwi for brains.
    Democrats: We want that too!

  8. New Zealand Prime Minister: “Gun ownership is a privilege not a right”

    Maori Tribal Leaders: “Get ready to take our island back…”

    1. The legal relationship of Maoris is somewhat special, isn’t it? I wonder if some Maoris could push the claim that gun restrictions don’t apply to them, and if people wold suddenly find one drop of Maori blood in their ancestry.

      1. I was implying that without guns, the Maori could take it back with stone age weapons.

        But yes, I’m sure you’d find a lot of New Zealanders would suddenly be 1/1024th Maori.

        1. Dang. Missed that. Whoosh!

          It is one of my pet peeves too, that all the hoplophobes imagine life was just peachy keen before Sam Colt made all men equal.

  9. Wait, someone in the ruling class doesn’t think their subjects have rights? I’m surprised.

  10. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started………..
    ➴➴➴➴ OPEN THIS WEBSITE ➴➴➴➴www.self.cash61.com

  11. As disturbing as the gun restrictions in NZ are, the speech restrictions are worse. It’s now a crime in NZ (punishable by 10 years in prison) to possess a copy of the Christchurch shooter’s manifesto (unless you’re a government-approved academic or journalist with permission). Also, there’s a long-standing government office in NZ with the title of ‘Chief Censor’:

    https://qz.com/1579660/new-zealands-manifesto-ban-explained-by-its-chief-censor/

  12. I see that New Zealand’s descent into totalitarianism continues apace.

  13. Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia…all cautionary tales.
    And I almost forgot, New Jersey. What life would be like here had we not rebelled against GB, or had lost the Cold War.

    1. What’s the point of winning the Cold War if we end up electing Barack Obama? Twice!

  14. I’ve sometimes heard true-believing statists (including one very prominent conservative in the early Seventies) say that rights don’t really exist–and then turn around (as this conservative did) and say–I kid you not–“The State has the right to do anything.” I guess you have to be part of the State to have rights.

  15. In every picture she has that same look on her face.

    1. Resting Kiwi Face

  16. Every society defines its own rights. Can you have a lion or atomic bomb in your living room even in the US? No – society has worked out that your benefit to own them is countered by the adverse effect to the rest of society.

    In NZ we do not need guns on the whole, so just like lions we say they are a priviledge not a right

    1. It’s nice that you think that you get to define what we do and do not need. You have that in common with the Chief Censor and the morons that put them there.

    2. I have the right to a lion or atomic bomb. I don’t have the right to nuke anyone or let the lion roam free.

      Rights imply responsibilities.

      I have the one right to do anything other than initiate force. As long as I don’t initiate force, I have the right to do [blank].

  17. We need to prohibit the government from initiating force. I suggest a 28th amendment, “Government shall not initiate force.” That should do it.

Please to post comments