New Zealand to ban military style semi-automatic weapons...

Did anyone try to say there's no such thing as "military" style weapons, or that the definition shouldn't include pistol grips? I'm happy for them. Their government obviously prioritizes safety more than ours does.

 

Blanks did this and will do it again..lmao people are so dumb.

 

Do you mind explaining what's wrong with that?

Should I ask an armed guard at the Forbidden City if it's alright to hate communism, but not Mao?

Is that freedom?

 

No, they tried to say that a rifle styled after a military weapon will also function as a military weapon. They tried to equate style with function. Instead of acknowledging that it's the select-fire capability that distinguishes an assault rifle from a semiautomatic rifle, they arbitrarily decided that it is the damnable pistol grip that makes it an assault rifle.

 

Lololol... ok, mr. sarcasm.
that cracked me up

 

No. Serfs don't have rights. All they said was "Yes master."

Serfdom is an ugly institution. It's nothing to celebrate.

Banning pistol grips on rifles has nothing to do with prioritizing safety. The government of New Zealand simply enjoys degrading their serfs by forcing them to comply with meaningless restrictions.

 

I expected more from you.

 

I’m drunk and don’t want to argue with hf family. Love all of you

 

He's pointing out what's wrong with it because you asked. He's not saying you shouldn't have the freedom to not express those thoughts.
The remark 'I'm proud to be an islamophobe' says enough imo More than the bacon remark

 

Yeah, anyone that wears that shirt is probably a fag anyway.

Whoops, quark broke character

Edit: no, not in the homosexual way, but annoying way. Fucking virgins making fun of other virgins

I know one of those woman hating bastards. Good employee

 

Its indeed better to argue sober on the internet. That way there's more chance one will explain their thoughts in a meaningful way

 

Bastards are always angry. I don’t get it.

I play an asshole on the internet but really don’t hate many things.

 

If one would act consistently different on the internet it doesn't really matter to those you talk with online how different you may be or communicate 'irl'. I often see people comment after being properly criticized 'im not like this irl'. Well, good for you and your surroundings but should not matter anything to us. Show it or be treated as the convo partner you are on here.

Disclaimer: I'm thinking out loud here and do mean 'you' primarily in the general sense, not quark in particular

 

New Zealanders have it at present, but not in the future due to the recent tragic event where over 50 were killed in a mass shooting. This reduces the possibilities for such shootings to occur in the future.

Freedom also carries with it duties and responsibities, as full-fledged individualism sans rules and regulations, will result in anarchy and chaos.

You obviously don't want to get shot at while walking on the street to the nearby barber shop for a haircut, by some person with a perverse ideology or by someone who is unhappy with his life and simply wants to vent out his frustrations.

 

A serf having temporary permission to have a gun is not the same as a free person having an outright right to have a gun.

If New Zealanders had been free, their government would not have been able to do this.

There are other countries where people can get permission to have a gun. But their government is able to deny this permission or revoke it. These people are not free even when they have been given permission to have a gun.

Free people don't have to ask permission. If they choose to have a gun, then no one can do anything about it.

Outlawing pistol grips on rifles does nothing to prevent or minimize shootings.

Even if someone who was bent on a massacre could not get any gun at all, they would just turn to bombs, or to vehicle attacks, or to knives.

Yes. Thus laws against murder.

If someone doesn't care about their own life, there really isn't anything that can be done to prevent them from killing other people if they choose to do so.

 

I don't give a flying fuck about pistol grips or whatever people keep screaming about. I just don't think a civilian should be able to get their hands on an AK47. Before anyone says I'm anti gun, I'm not. I have no problem with people having a pistol or a shotgun to protect their home or hunt. But they need a license to carry it and they don't need to be buying 100s of boxes of ammo at a time.

 

Since most mass killings are committed by men, the most sensible thing to do is to arm every female

 

Do you have any reason for excluding AK-47s from civilian ownership?

Some people use rifles to hunt or protect themselves.

Shall issue?

What does need have to do with anything? And what is wrong with buying ammo in bulk?