Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

New Zealanders hand over guns in Christchurch

283 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Gunn
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

In the end, it became a victory using heavy weapons, in 1975, prior to that, it was taking tremendous losses with no victory.

And you don't think the Mexican Cartel would take advantage of the situation and provide heavy weapons to the resisting forces as well? They already sell drugs and guns on the black market from across the border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Gunn said:

And you don't think the Mexican Cartel would take advantage of the situation and provide heavy weapons to the resisting forces as well? They already sell drugs and guns on the black market from across the border.

Your military would extinguish them. If the military of your own population, turns on you, things have come to a bad turn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
17 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Your military would extinguish them.

Lol. What? Mexican Cartel?

#1 They get some of their hardware from the Police/Mexican military.

#2 A tyrant government would be too busy dealing with a resisting rebel force, without having to worry about involving themselves in another war with the Mexican government if they tried to cross the border to get to the Mexican cartel.

Quote

If the military of your own population, turns on you, things have come to a bad turn.

Well of course it would, it means the government was doing something against the people they shouldn't have been doing, right?

Edited by Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
6 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Lol. What? Mexican Cartel?

#1 They get some of their hardware from the Police/Mexican military.

#2 A tyrant government would be too busy dealing with a resisting rebel force, without having to worry about involving themselves in another war with the Mexican government if they tried to cross the border to get to the Mexican cartel.

Well of course it would, it means the government was doing something against the people they shouldn't have been doing, right?

Don't be silly, the Mexicans would be out of business by lunchtime.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Don't be silly, the Mexicans would be out of business by lunchtime.

I guess you're one of those people that doesn't account for unseen possibilities in any given situation? You think it's black and white and easy as that. You don't even know what a majority of population is like over here in the U.S. It's whole different world in the way we think and how we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, Gunn said:

I guess you're one of those people that doesn't account for unseen possibilities in any given situation? You think it's black and white and easy as that. You don't even know what a majority of population is like over here in the U.S. It's whole different world in the way we think and how we think.

It is something of a slur on your own citizenry, to imagine that the military could turn into an instrument of repression of the general population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

It is something of a slur on your own citizenry, to imagine that the military could turn into an instrument of repression of the general population.

I'm talking specifically about a tyrannical government in power in a "what if" scenario, the military just follows orders and some of them could go A-wall after that order. Who knows. But it doesn't matter, you are just trying to convince me the 2A is not worth fighting for. Why? When you know you are wasting your time with me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Gunn said:

... They already sell drugs and guns on the black market from across the border.

The guns on the Mexican black market are from across the border.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

The guns on the Mexican black market are from across the border.

Right. That's what I'm saying. Our gangs and criminals buy some of their guns and drugs from the Mexican gangs or Cartels from across or either side of the border; A.K.A through the black market, the underground network, whatever you want to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
47 minutes ago, Gunn said:

I'm talking specifically about a tyrannical government in power in a "what if" scenario, the military just follows orders and some of them could go A-wall after that order. Who knows. But it doesn't matter, you are just trying to convince me the 2A is not worth fighting for. Why? When you know you are wasting your time with me.

No worries, I'll be thinking of you when a smart bomb hits your hideout ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
12 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Right. That's what I'm saying. Our gangs and criminals buy some of their guns and drugs from the Mexican gangs or Cartels from across or either side of the border; A.K.A through the black market, the underground network, whatever you want to call it.

So the Ebil Gub'mint Tyr'nts would allow arms manufacturers in the USA to continue to export weapons, even to Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
41 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No worries, I'll be thinking of you when a smart bomb hits your hideout ! :tu:

Lol. Well thanks! But I think heart disease will get me long before any of that ever happens. Blocked arteries suck. :tu:

30 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So the Ebil Gub'mint Tyr'nts would allow arms manufacturers in the USA to continue to export weapons, even to Mexico.

Naw. They'll just move to Mexico like all the other companies have. Lol. Seriously, you ever heard of the international arms market? China? Guatemala? Latin/South America? The Cartels sure in the hell don't get their North Korean fragmentation grenades and RPG-7s from the U.S. What makes you think they get all their stuff from one source such as the U.S.?

 

Edited by Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Lol. Well thanks! But I think heart disease will get me long before any of that ever happens. Blocked arteries suck. :tu:

Naw. They'll just move to Mexico like all the other companies have. Lol. Seriously, you ever heard of the international arms market? China? Guatemala? Latin/South America? The Cartels sure in the hell don't get their North Korean fragmentation grenades and RPG-7s from the U.S. What makes you think they get all their stuff from once source such as us?

Because just some of your states alone are the largest exporters of Chapter 93 commodities in the world.

Of course this Ebil Gubmint wouldn't think to freeze financial assets. Only Trump is smart enough to do something like that ala Venezuela.

Insurrectionary Theory, it seems, necessitates the Ebil Gubmint turning into the Stooges or the Keystone Cops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
16 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Because just some of your states alone are the largest exporters of Chapter 93 commodities in the world.

 

They don't have to get most of their guns from the U.S and they don't. Not to mention, hell we don't even get all our guns from here, some are imported to us from other countries. And the Mexican Cartel are smugglers, it's their greatest profession. Anyway, maybe you should read this.

Quote

 

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

 

Quote

 

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth
 

Quote

Of course this Ebil Gubmint wouldn't think to freeze financial assets. Only Trump is smart enough to do something like that ala Venezuela.

Insurrectionary Theory, it seems, necessitates the Ebil Gubmint turning into the Stooges or the Keystone Cops.

 

Huh? Whose financial assets? The cartel's?

Edited by Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, Gunn said:

They don't have to get most of their guns from the U.S and they don't. Not to mention, hell we don't even get all our guns from here, some are imported to us from other countries. And the Mexican Cartel are smugglers, it's their greatest profession. Anyway, maybe you should to read this.

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth
 

Huh? Whose financial assets? The cartel's?

No... the gun USA gun manufacturer's I was talking about.  The same USA gun manufacturer's you said would just move to Mexico.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
21 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

No... the gun USA gun manufacturer's I was talking about.  The same USA gun manufacturer's you said would just move to Mexico.

Lol. No that was a sarcastic political joke because we've had a lot of other manufactures, BTW not weapons manufactures. lay people off here and move their production down to Mexico in the past. I guess you'd have live in the U.S. to get that. My bad. Anyway, logically they'd probably be shut down or seized by the government. But as you can see that wouldn't matter.

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
13 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Lol. No that was a sarcastic political joke because we've had a lot of other manufactures, BTW not weapons manufactures. lay people off here and move their production down to Mexico in the past. I guess you'd have live in the U.S. to get that. My bad. Anyway, logically they'd probably be shut down or seized by the government. But as you can see that wouldn't matter.

It kind of would. Because those M60s and LAW missiles from Guatemala would no longer be available. 

That's the unconventional trade measure they used talking about USA origin goods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
20 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It kind of would. Because those M60s and LAW missiles from Guatemala would no longer be available. 

That's the unconventional trade measure they used talking about USA origin goods.

Russia and China have the equivalent weapons to sell in place of those type of weapons, which Guatemala and Mexican Cartel can get. So no, it really doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
55 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Russia and China have the equivalent weapons to sell in place of those type of weapons, which Guatemala and Mexican Cartel can get. So no, it really doesn't matter.

So we'd have right wing rebels getting support from communists to overthrow a authoritarian USA government. 

I see.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 hours ago, Gunn said:

It's just a simple issue of distrust in governments and because of our written history, 

You vote your own government in. What on earth would it take to trust one? Is that even possible with 330 million opinions? 

Realistically, that's not going to change wouldn't you say?

Quote

in the past they have tried to confiscate guns and ammunition from the American people, even as recently as New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

No 'they' haven't. That strikes me as overstated. Its been proposed and rejected. What it shows is that it doesn't happen because someone will always step in as long as the law stands. Which I would have thought should breed trust with your government? Knowing the constitution as well as any US patriot they continually support that right, and have done for centuries. So why the distrust? 

And I'm not from there, but I do remember the fuss over guns during Katrina. My understanding is that you have not fairly represented the situation. As I understood it, many were evacuated on transports and weapons were not allowed on. Which comprises the bulk of the 'confiscated guns', and the police took weapons from homes where they thought looting prevention was most important at the time. 

And yes, in some cases police outright took guns. That's what you are obviously referring to, but again consider that the mayor did illegally declare that only forces could be armed and that military and police from all over the US were there, all who had different firearms laws. 

It would be unreasonable not to expect some level of chaos. And everyone got their guns back. It wasn't a legal action so it was quickly corrected. 

And in any case, regulation, as I'm sure you're aware, is not by any means confiscation, or a complete ban. 

Quote

But in the beginning of our nation, it is the reason why our founding fathers put the 2A in our constitution, in case any future totalitarian tyrants try again.

Did they envision automatic weapons shooting up schools? Public massacres? The British episode was centuries ago. And really, you're a nuclear nation with several intelligence agencies, its not like the redcoats are going to be a problem. If it comes down to that, it's not going to be boat's of redcoats showing up with bolt action rifles. It's going to be ICBM's raining fire. 

Quote

We tend to learn from our own past if not other nations, Psyche.

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

I don't even know if most Americans know about this or some have forgotten this little fact in our history.

History is the key word. That honestly doesn't strike me as learning from the past at all. It's living in the past. The British are not a threat. Nobody is really. If some country decides to take the US on for whatever reason, they are going to face the most modern military might on the planet. We all know this. Some people with guns is not where a modern invasion will be fought. There is however an immediate threat to the general public. Particularly schools. The lesson I thought would have been is to protect citizens at all costs. Other countries have made significant impacts in this area with gun regulations. There's some history there too. We have a good record over the last couple decades for a start. Regulation should  be structured to work for citizens, and against criminals. Logically, it strikes me as a far more immediate threat than a tyrannical government, which not only seems unlikely, but also unlikely that some people with guns would make any impact at all in that scenario. Its not making things better at the moment as the headlines and regular threads well illustrate. Regulations could be saving kids lives in the meantime, as well as many daily victims. Unless I'm wrong, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are also in your constitution but seem at odds with disarming the criminal element. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 hours ago, Gunn said:

I guess you're one of those people that doesn't account for unseen possibilities in any given situation? You think it's black and white and easy as that. You don't even know what a majority of population is like over here in the U.S. It's whole different world in the way we think and how we think.

Doesn't that make you a target though? 

If there is a threat of resistance, what would stop another Hitler style dictator from wiping the US population away altogether? Again, that won't be done hand to hand. It will be missiles, napalm, and gas. If there's good chance of armed resistance, why wouldn't a dictator just replace the population with their own and immigrants? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 hours ago, Gunn said:

I'm talking specifically about a tyrannical government in power in a "what if" scenario, the military just follows orders and some of them could go A-wall after that order. Who knows. But it doesn't matter, you are just trying to convince me the 2A is not worth fighting for. Why? When you know you are wasting your time with me.

Aren't you underestimating your soldiers? They are people with civilian families too. They are not so blind as to attack their own and defy the 2nd. While it stands, it stands, always has and I'm sure always will. I can't see soldiers forgetting that on order. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, Gunn said:

Lol. Well thanks! But I think heart disease will get me long before any of that ever happens. Blocked arteries suck. :tu:

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. You honestly seem like a very decent person. Despite having a passionately opposing opinion, people such as yourself I don't see as a threat, nor do I honestly feel you're current position would be affected be the type of regulation we foreigners are discussing with you. I hope you see there's a middle ground here someday. I wish you well and hope your health improves. I respect your choice even though in debate that might not be apparent. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
7 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

So we'd have right wing rebels getting support from communists to overthrow a authoritarian USA government. 

I see.

Saaaaay what? Lol. Why does everybody who supports gun rights and the 2A gotta be all politically right wing to you, GD? You think all people who support the constitution are completely right leaning? Man, dude, that's really an unfair generalization.

Dude, I lean left on a lot of other issues and I'm registered as a Independent with a mix of some liberal and libertarian views. It's just that I happen to agree with my conservative friends here on the issue of gun control and the 2nd amendment and not on a lot on other issues with them. Because I just think there is a better way to take care of the mass shooting problem, other then going all momma Nazi and taking away people's guns away from law abiding citizens; like we are all a bunch of irresponsible kids with guns. And right now the FBI/local police have been showing us there is another way with preventive techniques, which apparently the FBI/local police haven't been enforcing our current laws in the first place. Come on, man, no need to stigmatize us all like that. You're reaching, dude.

 

Edited by Gunn
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You vote your own government in. What on earth would it take to trust one? Is that even possible with 330 million opinions? 

Realistically, that's not going to change wouldn't you say?

 

No I don't think it ever will, bro.  Personally, I think it's foolish to trust anyone these days, let alone our own government, but maybe that's just because of my own personal experience in life with other people.

Quote

 

No 'they' haven't. That strikes me as overstated. Its been proposed and rejected. What it shows is that it doesn't happen because someone will always step in as long as the law stands. Which I would have thought should breed trust with your government? Knowing the constitution as well as any US patriot they continually support that right, and have done for centuries. So why the distrust? 

And I'm not from there, but I do remember the fuss over guns during Katrina. My understanding is that you have not fairly represented the situation. As I understood it, many were evacuated on transports and weapons were not allowed on. Which comprises the bulk of the 'confiscated guns', and the police took weapons from homes where they thought looting prevention was most important at the time. 

And yes, in some cases police outright took guns. That's what you are obviously referring to, but again consider that the mayor did illegally declare that only forces could be armed and that military and police from all over the US were there, all who had different firearms laws. 

It would be unreasonable not to expect some level of chaos. And everyone got their guns back. It wasn't a legal action so it was quickly corrected. 

And in any case, regulation, as I'm sure you're aware, is not by any means confiscation, or a complete ban. 

 

Well see, that's the thing...it was actually the act in the attempt itself. I'm not trying to overstate the rest of what you think I'm implying, I'm just saying when shiz like that happens, it striked or strikes a paranoia nerve with some of us over here, they would even think of attempting it in the first place. For a lot of us, even attempting that is crossing the red line and it sticks in our memories through the generations. It's become a warning sign to us to be aware.

Quote

Did they envision automatic weapons shooting up schools? Public massacres? The British episode was centuries ago. And really, you're a nuclear nation with several intelligence agencies, its not like the redcoats are going to be a problem. If it comes down to that, it's not going to be boat's of redcoats showing up with bolt action rifles. It's going to be ICBM's raining fire. 

Naw I know all that, I was just trying to help you understand as to the "why" for the paranoia my friend. How it became so ingrained in our American souls in the first place. And I guess a lot of us over here tend to believe we are doomed to repeat history if we don't try and prevent it and keep ourselves from repeating it.

Quote

History is the key word. That honestly doesn't strike me as learning from the past at all. It's living in the past. The British are not a threat. Nobody is really. If some country decides to take the US on for whatever reason, they are going to face the most modern military might on the planet. We all know this. Some people with guns is not where a modern invasion will be fought. There is however an immediate threat to the general public. Particularly schools. The lesson I thought would have been is to protect citizens at all costs. Other countries have made significant impacts in this area with gun regulations. There's some history there too. We have a good record over the last couple decades for a start. Regulation should  be structured to work for citizens, and against criminals. Logically, it strikes me as a far more immediate threat than a tyrannical government, which not only seems unlikely, but also unlikely that some people with guns would make any impact at all in that scenario. Its not making things better at the moment as the headlines and regular threads well illustrate. Regulations could be saving kids lives in the meantime, as well as many daily victims. Unless I'm wrong, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are also in your constitution but seem at odds with disarming the criminal element. 

Well don't get me wrong, an invasion from another county of course would be a stupid thing for another nation to try, unless we somehow became weak and lost most of our military might; well then...it's a "maybe" under certain conditions. And there again, the point I was making was what the British monarchy tried to do when they were our government at the time, which left that bad parinioa taste in our mouths, just because we didn't agree with them raping us financially with overtaxations.

But it's like I told GD, I just think there is a better way to take care of the mass shooting problem, other then going all momma Nazi and taking away people's guns away from law abiding citizens; like we are all a bunch of irresponsible kids with guns. And well...right now the FBI/local authorities are showing us it can be done one way, by enforcing the current laws we already have, which apparently they haven't been doing in the first place. And that really irritates the hell out of me, because that lunatic Cruz at Parkland and a number of other shooters in the past, could have been arrested long before he/they went on their shooting spree. I'm thinking...why in the hell couldn't they have done this before. Now they decide to do it after almost three shootings happened after a short amount of time? Man that could have prevent a lot of needless worries and long drawn out gun debates. That's our freaking government for ya.

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Doesn't that make you a target though? 

If there is a threat of resistance, what would stop another Hitler style dictator from wiping the US population away altogether? Again, that won't be done hand to hand. It will be missiles, napalm, and gas. If there's good chance of armed resistance, why wouldn't a dictator just replace the population with their own and immigrants? 

Yeah but you don't really know that it would even go exactly that way, Psyche. Look at how the Vietnamese forced the U.S. to fight hand to hand combat in the jungles with thousands of underground tunnels and gas masks, and then drew out that conflict to a stalemate. We did all that to them and we couldn't get rid of them. They were like buried ticks in a dog's ass and they were never going to give up without a fight and it worked for them. That strategy alone, never mind the Soviets  backing them up, was enough to make most of us over here in the U.S. sick of the whole conflict and start protesting a U.S. withdrawal, because we believed at the time they were playing real dirty guerilla tactics and it was a lost cause.

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Aren't you underestimating your soldiers? They are people with civilian families too. They are not so blind as to attack their own and defy the 2nd. While it stands, it stands, always has and I'm sure always will. I can't see soldiers forgetting that on order. 

Well I meant some may not follow the order at all. I've heard a few local police and even military personal in the past on TV,  say they wouldn't violate people's 2A rights or start immediately taking up people's guns, if a semi-automatic gun ban was issued. Apparently some of them agree with the rest of us, but they could be just talking for the sake of it and maybe they think it's never going to happen anyway and it's all just politician talk pandering for votes. Hard to be really sure without the shiz actually hitting the fan and it came time to put their money where their mouth is. For me, action speaks louder then words I guess.

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. You honestly seem like a very decent person. Despite having a passionately opposing opinion, people such as yourself I don't see as a threat, nor do I honestly feel you're current position would be affected be the type of regulation we foreigners are discussing with you. I hope you see there's a middle ground here someday. I wish you well and hope your health improves. I respect your choice even though in debate that might not be apparent. 

Thanks man!  But don't be sorry, that's what stents are for to help fight such a number one killing disease in the U.S. and prolong living.  I know we've may have had a few heated arguments in the past over this particular issue, well besides a few religious issues - I think, although honestly I'm not even religious and just thought you were wrong on a few things, lol, but I respect your position and opinions as well. May not agree with most of them, but hey, respect, brother. It's all good. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.