If a New Zealander or anyone doest have the right to defend themselves from thugs. rapist ect . They are being denied a basic right to defend oneself there for they are not free . That makes them a victim . Most gun crimes commited in the US are in gun free cities or gun free zones . Chicago had 500 gun murders last year .Originally Posted by MikeC
The right to defend oneself has never been in question, the question is whether there's a right to do that with any weapon of your choosing, whether there's no freedom without that right and whether or not the gov't. has the right to regulate which weapons are or are not available to untrained civilians.
Rather small ? Half a million Americans forces (more then Britain)give their life in a foreign war that should have never started if not for the Liberalism of Chamberlain. I find that offensive . The so called Soviets were on the Axis side until Hitler lost his mind and invaded Russia. Shame on you Mike .
NZers have the right to defend themselves. As has been pointed out to you earlier, many NZers own guns. It's just not a right that's enshrined in any sort of constitutional document.
So its ok they have armed body guards while the masses Get ? Sheeple . Governments role should not be concerned with law abiding citizens only criminals . Where do you live Solrey ? Trained ? Once your practiced with any weapon or semiautomatic weapon . Other then improving your skills and knowing your weapon inside out there really isnt much . Like riding a bike . Safety of course is the most important issue .
Last edited by Joe; January 29th, 2013 at 04:08 PM.
so what gives them the right to bear arms ? what document ? what are the restrictions ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_New_Zealand
Basically, the main bit of legislation is the 1983 Arms Act.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p.../DLM72622.html
You need to have a license (owners are licensed, not guns, I assume the same as in the States?) That's all handled by the Police.
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms
There are restrictions on the types of guns you can own - but most common handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns are allowed.
Joe (January 29th, 2013)
Interesting points. There is definitely a meme that the US eagerly jumped into WWII to defend freedom and whatnot.#5.
America Won the War Single-Handedly
If I'm not mistaken, the United States didn't even want to enter the war, Isolationist sentiment was very high. Also, I believe Roosevelt was bound by a congressional neutrality act which prevented him from entering the war. It was only after Pearl Harbour that things changed.
The states certainly didn't do it alone, I believe over a million Canadians served in WWII.
They do back round checks to purchase a gun . three days waiting for a pistol , yet after the backround check which takes 10 min , You can walk out with a rifle and ammo which includes a AR-15 and other so called assault rifles . I got my conceal carry permit which includes fingerprints training classes and takes a couple of months . Even I wouldnt mind it if their were a few more restrictions but doubt they really stop the mass killings .
Canada lost 45.000 compared to over 450,000 Americans 1.1 million Canadians served in WW2 Never said it was all Americans but other then the Russians or soviets America lost the most troops on the allied side. Thats not counting the military industrial complex in America.
The by-country breakdown of gun ownership rights here is very interesting:
http://www.freeexistence.org/gunindex.html
I seems like the only way the title argument could be true is if you define freedom as the right to have a gun.
Perhaps it might be worth trying to determine what freedom actually is, and how much of it various countries have. There are a few existing freedom indexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_o...m_in_the_World
Index of Freedom in the World (Freedom Index, Worldwide Index of Human Freedom) is an index of civil liberties on the scale 0 ... 10.[1][2]The most free countries in 2008 were New Zealand (8.73), the Netherlands (8.47), and Hong Kong (8.39). Least free were Zimbabwe (3.38), Burma (3.72), and Pakistan (4.47).[2]
The index consists of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual economic choice, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, violence and crimes, freedom of movement, homosexual rights and women's rights.[1]
The components can be grouped into economic freedom and other personal freedoms. Highest ranking in economic freedom were Hongkong (9.02) and Singapore (8.75).[2] Highest ranking in personal freedom were the Netherlands (9.5) and Uruguay (9.4).[2] Other components of the Freedom Index include human trafficking, sexual violence, female genital mutilation, homicide, freedom of movement, and adoption by homosexuals. [2]
The US was 7th in this index. Of course, it all depends on what you are measuring.
No, you said...
But what you really should have said is..."The UK wouldnt exist if not for America"
"If not for America You would all live under tyranny"
"You would be speaking Japanese if not for America"
"The UK wouldnt exist if not for allies"
"If not for the allies You would all live under tyranny"
"You would be speaking Japanese if not for the allies"
See the difference?
err.....not sure what you mean about handguns there - short firearms are SEVERLY restricted - you cannot own a handgun without being a member of a pistol club in good repute with the Police and having a lock box to carry it in, and except on the range it has to be locked up all the time IIRC.
that said I had a friend who was a pistol club member, and as a guest of the club fired pistols (.22 semi and .357 revolver) at their range a few times
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Yeah, sorry, glossed over that -- the point was that if you jumped the hoops, you can own a firearm of some variety. (The details are pretty well outlined on that police page I linked to).
Last edited by hemi; January 29th, 2013 at 05:30 PM.
I stand by that statement but still does not mean it was all America however without the help of America they would be speaking Japanese and living under tyranny in Europe . They could have not done it without America .The number of Americans deaths prove without America their would not be any victory .
Last edited by Joe; January 29th, 2013 at 05:46 PM.
I keep reading this and see nothing but "Without America you would not be free, without America your country would be hopeless." If you travelled outside the U.S. to places besides Mexico and did a little research, you would realize how silly of a assumption this really is.
I have no problem with being proud of America, but to suggest that those countries would have been hopeless without the assistance of the United States is ridiculous.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Indeed. And how is it even relevant? Let's assume that the USA was the key factor in maintaining/restoring democracy in a few nations during WWII.
How is that relevant to the 'no freedom with second amendment' argument that is presumably what this thread is about? The right of private US citizens to possess firearms surely had no bearing on the outcome of WWII?
what country do you live in ? Who has the strongest military in the world right now ? Americas strength is a deterrent . Wait till China surrpasses the United States and Obama guts our Military .
The fact the America has a second Admendment and most citizens are familar with guns adds to our strenght also is the reason why Japan knew they could not invade America . Why was Switzerland never invaded ?
In order of your statement:
1) I live in the United States.
2) Statistically, the U.S. has the strongest military.
3) Prove that America's strength is a deterrent. It may be deterrent for us to be attacked, but prove that it's a deterrent for another country to attack another.
4) Besides the fact that it is pure speculation and Obama does not plan to "gut" our military (spending cuts, yes, but certainly not enough to completely cripple us - Obama's not stupid), Russia should be a bigger concern military wise than China.
These countries you say would be under tyranny without the United States have a military and can defend themselves - the fact that the citizens have the right to bear arms really doesn't play into it. The reason that Japan didn't invade the U.S. probably wasn't because the citizens owned guns - our military was enough. Why can't that be the same reason for other countries? Or are all countries hopeless to you?
Last edited by plane852; January 29th, 2013 at 06:15 PM.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Why does N Korea not invade S Korea ? why does China not take Tawain ? I could give you plenty of examples if youd like . What state do you live in ? Obama will destroy our military .
Last edited by Joe; January 29th, 2013 at 06:14 PM.
Prove it. Please, and don't post links of articles of journals and institutions with known biases.
I'll admit that our presence in South Korea and Taiwan do prevent attacks - you got me there. What about New Zealand - you still haven't explained how they would be speaking Japanese without America. They've got a military and they know how to use it - even while banning nuclear weapons.
Why does it matter what state I live in?
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Wrong - about 418,000 - less than the UK's roughly 451,000. The UK loast almost 1% of its total population - the USA less than 1/3rd of 1%.
in a foreign war that should have never started if not for the Liberalism of Chamberlain.
I think you mean appeasment, not liberalism. Chamberlain was in the Liberal Party - but that was "old style" Liberal - not US right wing snarl word "leberalism". While it is generally considered "left of centre" it is also "small government", in favour of personal liberty, restricting the power of the Crown and the C of E, and free trade.
It did favour social reform - but this was an era when class politics in the UK were at their height in a way you have never experienced and "social reform" meant allowing people to vote in the first place!
and of course chamberlain did not cause WW2 - Hitler did. France and the UK could not fight a war in 1938 - while we may deplore the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia it did "buy" 2 more years for those countries to prepare for the conflict that favoured them more than it favoured Germany.
Personally I find it offensive that you cannot get your facts right.I find that offensive .
"So-called" because the name of their country was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? That is like saying that the "So called Americans were blind sided by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour".The so called Soviets.....
Indeed - although only against Poland and they were actually never part of the Axis. But then they were so-called America's side - and they still suffered millions dead defeating most of the 3rd Reichs military - somewhere between 20 and 25 MILLION - or 1 person in 7. as oppsoed to 1 person in 300 that the US lost.....were on the Axis side until Hitler lost his mind and invaded Russia.
FYI New Zealand lost 11,900 - about 0.7%, or 1 person in 140-ish.
For what? Daring to point out that the USA did not win WW2 on it's own? I reject your pathetic "shame" and your plea for special consideration for the US and your need for guns to be free - you are a slave to outmoded ideas and concepts and I pity you.Shame on you Mike .
Last edited by MikeC; January 29th, 2013 at 06:43 PM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Failed Mikey I said Military not civilians , coward Military Deaths (Approximate):"Daring to point out that the USA did not win WW2 on it's own?" never said on its own .
NATION CASUALTIES Soviet Union 9,750,000 Germany 5,533,000 China 3,500,000 Japan 2,120,000 Yugoslavia 446,000 United States 416,800 Great Britain 382,700 Italy 301,400 Rumania 300,000 Poland 240,000 France 217,600 Finland 95,000 India 87,000 Philippines 57,000 Canada 45,300 Australia 39,800 Bulgaria 22,000 Netherlands 21,000 Belgium 12,100 New Zealand 11,900 South Africa 11,900 Spain 4,500 Norway 3,000 Denmark 2,100 TOTAL: 23,620,100
Last edited by Joe; January 29th, 2013 at 07:24 PM.
Other components of the Freedom Index include human trafficking, sexual violence, female genital mutilation, homicide, freedom of movement, and adoption by homosexuals ???The by-country breakdown of gun ownership rights here is very interesting:
http://www.freeexistence.org/gunindex.html
I seems like the only way the title argument could be true is if you define freedom as the right to have a gun.
Perhaps it might be worth trying to determine what freedom actually is, and how much of it various countries have. There are a few existing freedom indexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_o...m_in_the_World
Index of Freedom in the World (Freedom Index, Worldwide Index of Human Freedom) is an index of civil liberties on the scale 0 ... 10.[1][2]The most free countries in 2008 were New Zealand (8.73), the Netherlands (8.47), and Hong Kong (8.39). Least free were Zimbabwe (3.38), Burma (3.72), and Pakistan (4.47).[2]
The index consists of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual economic choice, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, violence and crimes, freedom of movement, homosexual rights and women's rights.[1]
The components can be grouped into economic freedom and other personal freedoms. Highest ranking in economic freedom were Hongkong (9.02) and Singapore (8.75).[2] Highest ranking in personal freedom were the Netherlands (9.5) and Uruguay (9.4).[2] Other components of the Freedom Index include human trafficking, sexual violence, female genital mutilation, homicide, freedom of movement, and adoption by homosexuals. [2]
The US was 7th in this index. Of course, it all depends on what you are measuring.
Well it still that the UK lost more troops as a percentage of its population than the US.
Your point being...?
Being they were being bombed that would be expected .but percenatge you are correct , But for someone to say the US played a small part in ww2 is a outright lie and offensive . The UK still is our closest ally .
If thats freedom ? wasnt my point was on Micks post . Just found it odd thats considered freedom ?
You conveniently left out "at a time when US involvement was small." I don't think he ever suggested that the U.S. did not play a major role in WWII at some point, unless I'm mistaken.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
It's considered freedom to not have the category of sexual orientation used as a reason to deny you a right given freely to others who don't fall into that particular category.
"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."
It's not. From the actual report:
Some of the things listed above detract from how free a country is - sexual assault, human trafficking, homicide, etc.What we measureWe have tried to capture the degree to which people are free to enjoy the
major civil liberties—freedom of speech, religion, and association and
assembly—in each country in our survey. In addition, we include indicators of crime and violence, freedom of movement, and legal discrimination against homosexuals. We also include six variables pertaining to
women’s freedom that are found in various categories of the index. (For
an overview of the sources of our data, see the table in Appendix A.)
We would have liked to have included other important variables, such as
drug and alcohol prohibition, but we found no reliable data sources. In
the case of drug use and alcohol consumption restrictions, we discovered
that constructing our own such data set would be an especially ambitious and rather complex task better left for the future. The following is a
brief description and justification of the data we use. For a more detailed
description of the data sources, what they measure, and their methodology, see appendix B.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Since I did not say the US played a small part in WW2 perhaps you would like to apologise for implying that I did?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
No you did not
You said:
So that was American forces (which is military), vs Britain - Britain is a country and not just the military.Half a million Americans forces (more then Britain)give their life
To fail to include civilians who were killed is just sophistry - they died too - in war and from military action. Not being in uniform doesn't change that.
And it STILL wasn't the "half a million" quoted.
you really are a nasty piece of work - selective memory and quote mining seem to be your stock in trade.coward
And you still can't tell me why it is I am not free for not having a constitutional right to bear arms - so you are a dissembler too.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I must admit that living in the UK I am bemused by the idea that our freedom would have to be defined by the right to bear arms. I don't buy into the personal or national defence argument, nor one of protecting from tyranny.
I agree, Biggerdave. I also don't know anyone apart from farmers (I was brought up in a rural area) that see the need for guns either. Unless of course you count some of the far-right groups like the EDL and their splinter-groups that I am unfortunate enough to engage with but they have their own motives beyond personal defence.
Second Amendment: The debate Alex Jones refused to debate.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
Would you listen to the majority opinion from the framers of the constitution and bill of rights as written in the Federalist Papers? Here's what Alexander Hamilton had to say about well trained and properly equipped militias in Federalist No. 29Leftist professors I do not listen too .
Hamilton's point is that the best defense against tyranny is a well trained militia. That much is obvious within the context of this specific article and the Federalist Papers as a whole, which changed my mind on the 2nd amendment when I read them in high school.But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
TCSW, you might also want to read the Federalist Papers and learn a little something about the actual history of the US.
Not that it matters but I'm American and live in Oregon if you have to know.
Neither did the political majority of that era.I don't buy into the personal or national defence argument, nor one of protecting from tyranny.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. Notice the word people ?
The left coast .
Notice the very first words, "A well regulated Militia"?A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. Notice the word people ?
The left coast .
About people. What is People?:
http://thelawdictionary.org/people/...as generally used In constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors.
Taken in context "the people" means the citizens that comprise each state have the right as a group to equip and train their own militias.
About "the left coast"; Did you know that Oregon (40%) has a higher percentage of gun ownership than either Texas (36%) or Florida (25%)?
Have you even bothered reading any of the material I've linked to TCSW, or am I just wasting my time with you?
Oh well, at least some others might benefit.
Last edited by solrey; January 30th, 2013 at 10:11 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks