They voted for it indirectly, they can vote for someone to remove the legislation if they really deem it worthwhile.
Again you do not live in some fantasy world where they should do nothing as representatives.
Right Wing terrorist attack in Surrey
- Thread starter C.R.A.Z.Y
- Start date
They voted for it indirectly, they can vote for someone to remove the legislation if they really deem it worthwhile.
Again you do not live in some fantasy world where they should do nothing as representatives.
So soon after a massacre is basically a follow up, it’s well documented that crime begets more crime in a short period after the fact.
This is no different and is entirely why global news needs restrictions. We will be heading for civil war at this rate.
Still not quite sure why your need semi automatic rifles for the things you have listed?
New Zealand has a lower murder rate than the UK at 0.99 deaths per year, despite there being 30 guns per 100 people. Yet guns must now be banned following an emotional reaction to a terrorist attack. The left will simply not be happy until people are being prosecuted for thought crime and men are neutered at birth because testosterone is linked to aggression.
Why do you need such a powerful camera? Could you use that camera to take a picture of a woman getting changed through a window or school children playing at long distance? Not quite sure why you need it mate?
Why do you need such a powerful camera? Could you use that camera to take a picture of a woman getting changed through a window or school children playing at long distance? Not quite sure why you need it mate?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
I think you'll find that statistic will jump now...
What rights have been stripped?
Democracy does not mean the public gets to vote on every single piece of government legislation. That's what elected representatives are for.
But guns aren't being banned. People will still be able to purchase, own, and use guns after this legislation is passed.
Semi autos are the only contention here going by the language used, you’re being disingenuously exaggerative.
And you’ve e completely gone off on a **** tangent, control yourself.
And it begins. The NZ government tries to actually do something constructive and is immediately criticised for being "the left".
Woah. What is it with you people and phallic obsessions? I hope you aren't sharing these paranoid delusions beyond the online world, it would raise a few eyebrows amongst your acquaintances.
Since all this discussion about homicidal crazy people and their manifestos.
Did you ever read the Unibombers manifesto?
Just because he was crazy didn't mean he was wrong! :/
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
I assume Roar87 had a massive problem in 1997 when the UK government put tighter restrictions on gun ownership?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
IS there a law against taking pictures of fully clothed children outside playing? Journalists do it all the time.
There is a big difference between owning a camera which is a tool than a gun which is a weapon.
There is simply no need to own a gun but I think you will find most people will take several pictures on an almost daily basis.
You are being ludicrous. Why don't we all own nukes for enjoyment too? I mean I would love to be able to use one on fireworks night. It's for enjoyment so it's okay for me to make my own nukes. So long as I use them for my own fun it doesn't matter.
Wat.
Hunting for food? Do you even believe this bs? You don't need semi-automatic rifles to kill deer, mate. Nor do you need them to qualify for the Olympics.
Lots of replies from people who didn't read the post I was replying too which ONLY asked "Why do people need guns" to which I answered correctly. Maybe use less emotion and more logic to read and understand both the question which was asked (it's important) and then you'll duly understand the answer I gave.
If you make up questions in your own head then my answer will obviously make no sense to you or if the question actually asked was ONLY regarding semi-automatic firearms, my answer would have been different but ,because I read the question correctly, I answered the question that was actually asked and not something you guys have made up.
I think you maybe confusing me with the poster above as I haven't said anything about voting or representatives. My "complaint" as always in these situation is that the 0.01% of bad owners will have a disproportionate effect on the 99.999% of good owners so I feel sorry for them, thats it, nothing else.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Why the need to go mobile free? Do you have no self control?
I have never had facebook, instagram, twitter, snapchat, etc, etc.
I use my phone for whatsapp, camera, youtube, emails and calls/text and some reading.
Basically what you are advocating here is like if some people drink too much they need to ban alcohol. What about those who do it in moderation? What about TV should be ban that too? Just because some people will quite happily sit in front of one for 12 hours a day? Ban computers too?
Going smartphone free just shows you have an issue not the smartphone itself.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
the unibomber was against technology iirc.
he believed tv to be the devils work or some crap like that
If a Muslim attacks a non-Muslim shouting about the 'kuffar' it's not a random attack is it?
I know what you mean though, but it does support the possibility of greater attacks against Muslims. Of course that does also mean others getting caught up in the violence (e.g.Sik have been targeted a number of times, being brown with beards and turbans).