New Zealanders are refusing to turn over guns under new law

[theprestige]

Rights are not some inherent property of the universe, of being human, or of divine fiat. They are socially negotiated. To state the obvious.

Who's negotiating human rights in North Korea?

Do you think the North Korean regime is oppressing its citizens?

Or do you think the North Korean regime is granting its citizens exactly the same rights its citizens have "socially negotiated"?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Who's negotiating human rights in North Korea?

Do you think the North Korean regime is oppressing its citizens?

Or do you think the North Korean regime is granting its citizens exactly the same rights its citizens have "socially negotiated"?

Why would what I might think about this particular case make rights any less a social construct but instead some universal truth? If you keep this tangent on the nature of rights pointed at the actual thread topic it might be clearer to you.

 

[theprestige]

Why would what I might think about this particular case make rights any less a social construct but instead some universal truth? If you keep this tangent on the nature of rights pointed at the actual thread topic it might be clearer to you.

Either the citizens of North Korea have rights which their government does not recognize, or they do not.

Which one is your claim?

It's a simple question. Try not to complicate it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Either the citizens of North Korea have rights which their government does not recognize, or they do not.

Which one is your claim?

It's a simple question. Try not to complicate it.

Either the citizens of NZ have rights which their government does not recognise, or they do not?

Your claim is they have. Make the argument. Such rights are not preordained.

 

[theprestige]

Either the citizens of NZ have rights which their government does not recognise, or they do not?

Your claim is they have. Make the argument. Such rights are not preordained.

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

 

[Sideroxylon]

America is no longer even a facade of being an exemplar of Enlightenment liberalism so there is no more an aura of authority to your NRA lobby inspired tripe. The people of NZ are socially negotiating the right of their citizens to own certain firearms against the costs of massacres of the likes they recently experienced but reject instead of counting as the price paid for a fetishised idea of freedom while offering up endless “hopes and prayers.”

 

[Sideroxylon]

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

Mr King had an argument to go with that and I am going to be wanting yours too.

 

[Minoosh]

return serve: Why on Earth were people shooting at them? What degenerated so far that there were shooting riots? Which brings me back to the same question: Why is it in the USA that civil order collapses under such small strains so easily? Why the reversion to guns as a solution?

I'm not an expert, but I think plenty of countries have riots. Even first-world countries on occasion. Probably not as many guns though.

 

[Minoosh]

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

Hard to argue with that logic.

 

[smartcooky]

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

...and there's your problem!

You seem to be claiming that, even in the absence of 2A, US citizens have the right to own guns. OK, why have 2A at all then?

Would you allow US citizens the right to own nuclear weapons? If not, why not!

Would you allow US citizens the right to own vials of biological warfare agents.? If not, why not?

Would you allow US citizens the right to own vials of chemical agents.? If not, why not?

If your answer to the above questions is no, and if you think that citizens having guns is a self-evident human right, explain why citizens having nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents and chemical warfare agents is not also a self-evident human right?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Good, it's about time law-abiding citizens started standing up for their right to keep and bear a firearm.

No one in New Zealand has a right to keep and bear a firearm.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Then why did they wait until a mass shooting was committed and why restrict those guns at all?

Did you actually think about this question?

Because the murder rate and gun crimes are so low in New Zealand there was no need to consider restricting these weapons. Then we had a person that literally doubled the number of murders per year in one action. He did it with weapons that previously had been considered acceptable as unrestricted Class A, but could be simply modified to become a restricted Class E weapon.

As a result, there has been a clamp down on a handful of semi-automatic weapons that can be easily converted from Class A to Class E, as well as some accessories that could be used to do so.

What bit of this is problematic to you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nope, and there are still plenty of guns legally available in New Zealand, but now, most semiautomatic rifles are banned, and some will have magazine limitations.

This is literally untrue. Certain Semi-Automatics that could be easily converted from Class A to Class E have been banned. The list was given above, it's about 6-7 rifles and 4-5 pistols. The most commonly use semi-automatic in the county is not on the banned list.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Does a right cease to exist because a particular government doesn't recognize it?

One of the major topics in international affairs seems to be how some countries don't recognize certain rights. The conversation never seems to be about how those rights just don't exist in those countries. Instead, the conversation always seems to be about how those rights totally exist, and the country in question is totally wrong for not recognizing them.

Rights are created by the society that grants them, there is no such thing as a Universal Right. Conversations about rights that some countries don't have are based on the idea that they should have those rights, or that they are granting rights to some of their people, but not others based on an arbitrary reason.

Consider this, much of the world considers Universal Healthcare to be a Right, it is even given as such in the UN Human Rights Charter. How does the US feel about that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Who's negotiating human rights in North Korea?

Do you think the North Korean regime is oppressing its citizens?

Or do you think the North Korean regime is granting its citizens exactly the same rights its citizens have "socially negotiated"?

Here's your problem. Governments do not determine the Rights of the Society. Society itself determines which Rights they want to have, and then it is up to the Government to codify, protect, and make sure that those rights are granted equally to all of the population regardless of status.

Governments fail in their duties when they refuse to accept the Rights demanded by the people, refuse to protect the rights the people have demanded, or that they grant those Rights to some, but not all, of the population based on an arbitrary status.

The North Korean regime is oppressive because it does not up hold its responsibility to allow its society to determine the rights they wish to have. Nor does it protect those rights, and because it grants Rights to people based on an arbitrary status.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

If you want to go down that road, then all you have is that all men (and women) are created (debatable there depending on your theistic belief or lack there of) equal, with the Rights of Life, Liberty, and a Pursuit of Happiness.

These are arguable too, after all, try to tell a hungry lion that you have a right to life. Clearly we have determined that some people can lose their rights to Liberty, and while certainly people probably should be allowed to purse Happiness within certain boundaries, happiness itself is not a right.

And still it comes to this. Men determined those Rights, they weren't granted by some Universal Truth Giver.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Here's your problem. Governments do not determine the Rights of the Society. Society itself determines which Rights they want to have, and then it is up to the Government to codify, protect, and make sure that those rights are granted equally to all of the population regardless of status.

Governments fail in their duties when they refuse to accept the Rights demanded by the people, refuse to protect the rights the people have demanded, or that they grant those Rights to some, but not all, of the population based on an arbitrary status.

The North Korean regime is oppressive because it does not up hold it's responsibility to allow it's society to determine the rights they wish to have. Nor does it protect those rights, and because it grants Rights to people based on an arbitrary status.

On point.

 

[smartcooky]

Here's your problem. Governments do not determine the Rights of the Society. Society itself determines which Rights they want to have, and then it is up to the Government to codify, protect, and make sure that those rights are granted equally to all of the population regardless of status.

Absolutely.

In a Colmar-Brunton TVNZ Poll taken in April, the new gun laws got overwhelming public support - 80%.

61% favour the changes as advertised
19% thought the changes didn't go far enough
14% opposed
5% didn't know
2% refused to answer

The NZ Parliament passed the law 120-1

Its pretty emphatic that NZ Society as a whole wants this done.

 

[Ranb]

Unlike the US, who operate by what I like to call the "All or Nothing Rule", we are prepared to put in place a partial solution to reduce the risk of it happening agian, rather than throwing our hands in the air and saying we cannot fix it 100% so do nothing.

So, would you compliment Trump on the progress he made by going against public opinion when he ordered the confiscation of bump stocks without compensation?

 

[Ranb]

....What bit of this is problematic to you?

Not a problem since I live in the USA and not NZ.

I was responding to this part;

These restrictions aren't intended to address criminal use of firearms in general....

If the new law is not intended to address criminal use of guns in general, then why bother?

It might work, unless someone doesn't turn theirs in and uses it for another mass shooting. But I would certainly hope they don't. I would say that the likelihood of another mass shooting in NZ is nil.