New Zealand Prime Minster Acts to Weaken Its Citizenry with a Ban

Vox, is not real news, it is not real academic research, it is not even really good propaganda. When you start off your hit piece with a false presupposition, everything else you follow with returns null and void by default:



The easiest way to defeat any false argument is to locate and box-in its False Presupposition. Why does that always work in debate? Because, nothing true can EVER come after or subsequent to a False Presupposition. False Presupposition ALWAYS leads to False Supposition and eventually False Conclusion. Basic Debate Tactics 101. You should never have provided this kind of "ammunition." Pun intended.

False Presupposition: "Guns can kill you..."

Stop right there. There is no need to read this hit piece any further because the author unleashed a flat out lie as part of their opening statement in favor of not having guns in the home. Ergo, this author is either stupid, or the author sincerely believes that YOU are stupid. I'm not sure which condition is true. But, I'll let you be the ultimate judge of that. Now, are you smarter than the author? Do you see the author's false presupposition?

Proof for the False Presupposition:

The author never makes the claim, provides any evidence for, shows no statistic researched that concludes and never once addresses the historical fact that at no time in history, has a gun ever developed hands, feet, arms, legs and a brain for the purpose of killing. There is no extant evidence anywhere on earth demonstrating a gun passing through the evolutionary stages sufficient to provide itself, under its own power, the ability to "kill" - which is the dominant precondition for the author's later False Conclusions that firearms in the home are not warranted.

Thus, the Vox author's argument is hereby completely dismantled and otherwise made totally and utterly moot on the premises.

 

Well, that depends on the complexion of your home. Some have children in the home. Some children have friends over for the day. Some children wander where they shouldn't from time to time until they get corrected by a Parent. Until that correction comes, I don't want an untrained child coming in contact with a charged weapon of any kind. It does not matter what kind of weapon it is - it could be any kind of weapon. Sometimes the focus on "guns" and "guns alone" can be a bit absurd.

When I travel, I like to find Katana Swords, whether original or manufactured locally by a craftsman. If they are really well handcrafted, I'll gladly have it shipped FedEx back home while I finish the rest of my vacation. I've done this more than once and have a small Katana collection of my own. I love Katanas because of their wide ranging and variable design potential. And, because they just look cool:



I would never want a Child coming in direct contact with this Weapon without my express and direct guidance. Yes, it is a show piece but it is also fully functional. For that reason (and there are others) I am not one who believes in leaving firearms laying around unsecured while unsupervised by the owner.

Security protocols in the home can take many forms and will vary from house to house. Some people work from home and have a loaded firearm very nearby. Others feel more comfortable with open carry in their home or on their property (.12 acres or 1,200 acre ranch - the difference does matter). Others like to conceal carry while at home - something I tend to favor depending on conditions.

Sometimes, I'll get a little nostalgic and put a Katana on my desk within arms distance instead of an HK. Just kidding. Honestly, I don't do that. Really, I don't. However, I do now someone who does use Swords as one of his primary "home defense weapons." True story. But, he also has 32 years of combined combative martial arts experience as well and it certified in a number of different martial arts weapons types (swords being just one of them). I would not want to be the fool who tried a home invasion on this guy.

 

No. Not a Trump Supporter. I support the Constitution, Liberty, Freedom and real Republican Values which have been dead in this country for well over 100 years now. I'm basically a Douglass Republic without a party home. I have no party alliance because both parties are clearly rogue at this point in the journey. I want Republican Values in government, but they don't exist and have not for a very long time now. So, I pledge allegiance to the Constitution and I hope that one day the Organic Republic gets restored. Right now, we are living under an Elitist controlled Corpratocracy controlled by international banking money interests. Nothing is what it seems on the surface. So, I refuse to participate in that which is destroying the ideals of the Republic, which are predicated on Individual Freedoms and the Rule of Law.

Trump, would have my support, but he has no ethics, morals, integrity and character. He's not fundamentally grounded in the Constitution, not well versed in the Bill of Rights and really seems to care more about his own personal gain than that of the country as a whole. However, it is important to note that in this False Republic we have today, no one makes it to the White House who has not already been pres-elected and per-ordained by the controlling Elites who running the show and who have control over the purse strings. Bottom line.

So, Trump, is there for a reason and that reason is probably to distract from something else taking place that would otherwise be to obvious were it not for the 24/7/365 circus taking place in the media. So, I've learned that when they yell fire in one direction that is is probably misdirection to steal focus and attention away from something else being done out of sight. I have not put my finger on it yet, but I'll find it. I always do. There is something taking place somewhere that would otherwise be highly disturbing to the American People, that is being covered by the coverage of the Trump Show.

It may have something to do with Syria and China. Whether they are linked or not, I don't know, yet. My gut tells me more China, than Syria. But, I have not put it together yet. Something is not right, however. This Trump thing all seems a bit too surreal. A bit too staged. I'm looking elsewhere for answers.

 

We don't live in a Democracy, though most people think we do. We live in a Republic, what remains of it ever since Abraham Lincoln and the Continental Congress sold the nation to the highest bidder - a transaction that finally concluded with the creation of the Federal Reserve and was promulgated when Nixon, removed gold from behind the Buck.

If The People want to change the laws then they need to Amend the Constitution legally. They need to go through the same process that has been in place for quite some time now. Undermining the Constitution or portions thereof at the State level and in the Appellate Court System does the whole country a disservice because it creates an uneven playing field for The People, when it comes to their Constitutional Protections. In the case of Firearms, it creates unevenness when a Texan has legal shall issue laws that allow them to conceal carry, but a Californian has shall not don't even bother asking laws doled out by 58 different Sheriffs, some of them outright hostile to the Second Amendment.

Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land and not subject to State legislature intervention by way of subverting or deleting portions of the Constitution the State does not like. State Rights are one thing and Law Of The Land is another. The Constitution clearly says "Shall Not Be Infringed." That's the Law Of The Land and no State should have the legislative authority to trump it.

If The People, truly don't want it then Amend it. But, going around the side door and tearing down the Constitution through the invocation of State's Rights, or State Constitution Trumps All, should be considered unconstitutional on its face. The problem is that until now, their have not been certain specific kinds of cases the Supreme Court would hear. That's changing, however. There are now several good cases winding their way to the Supreme Court that will once and for all deal with many matters involving a whole class of so-called "Gun Laws" that some States like California, have adopted which are totally unconstitutional but that get upheld during en banc hearings which tend to always apply some ridiculous lower level tests of some kind of intermediate scrutiny, or reapply in order to support an otherwise unconstitutional lower court decision.

So, yes, I believe in giving The People what they want. I'm also a proponent o The People adhering to the Rule of Law and never exceeding the Law Of The Land for political purposes. Merely because your Constitutional favorite is not being targeted today for dismantling, does not mean that your Constitutional favorite won't be tomorrow. Picking favorites is not ideal. Adhering to extant Law is optimal and if The People see fit, then Amend extant Law. These issues have been politicize to the point of absurdity. They need to be dealt with strictly on legal merit and within that context, strictly adhering to what the Law Of The Land actually says, without extra-interpolation or extra-interpretation.

 

Net Effect. How did they get that way is Causation. Its the Cause that needs to be dealt with and taken out.

 

If the criminal is using a gun against you, mere harsh words and platitudes may amuse the criminal for a brief moment, but they won't stop a criminal in deleted you from existence. Since that's what hardened criminals do.

 

Cute and cuddly, but not a solution.

 

Well, to maintain their happiness, I suggest such people not own/carry a gun. So simple.

 

Since their invention every human has had the right to individual ownership of one.

 

Plus households who are playing it close to the vest!

 

Feelings matter. Facts are irrelevant.

 

I suggest looking up the definition of coward. You could avoid being a coward by using a firearm personally or allowing others to in spite of your fear of and distaste for them.

 

Its called World History. Clearly, you are not familiar with 19th Century British Empire exploits of the Royal Crown, or that it was established in London. Maybe you have not studied the name James Busby or William Hobson, or heard of the Treaty signed by and between New Zealand and the British Empire. It was called the Treaty of Waitangi. You can learn about to your hearts content if you decide to. I'm not going to educate your hear on it, however. But, the Royal Crown was behind it and where do you think such draconian "gun laws" obtain their impetus in Royal Crown "territories" whether they are named as "territories" of the Royal Crown or not named as official "territories" of the Royal Crown? Exactly, who gave the Empire rights over land that did not belong to it in the first place, if it were not for the expansionist policies of the Royals in London?

Exactly what planet have you been living on for the duration of your life that you don't know the phrase: The sun never sits on the British Empire? By the way, were you fully aware of the fact that the same Royal Crown in London, still considers the United States of America to be a "Territory." Have you visited the United Kingdom website hiding in plain site that tells you this on its opening page in the Social Security Agreement/Contract between the UK and the United States? Did you know that on that opening page it calls the United States a "Territory." This is not referring to its geographical location relative to the United Kindgom. This is HOW the Royal Crown STILL looks at you living here in the United States. You are still a Subject to them.

Do you understand now, or must I do the legwork and post links? Can you take the information given and do your own legwork, so that you can finally learn "what the hell" I'm talking about? World History, for the most part, is not what you think it is and not what you've been taught in "skool" for the most part. World History is far more interesting than that.

Now, who were the Original New Zealanders and where did their Original Ancestry come from on this planet? They are not who you've been told they were, much like the Original Australians are not who you were told they were in your textbooks. These people have genetic origins that extend back several hundred thousand years on this planet. Long before there was any "Great Britain" to come an steal their land.

Do you know what "the hell" I'm talking about now?

​

Hell, yes, they do. They have the same Human Right to self-defense by any means necessary. Furthermore, who the hell has the right to tell People, they don't have the right to "bear arms" for the purposes of Self-Defense? How the hell could anyone be so sublimely dumbed down as to not know what their basic Human Rights are on this planet? Is the programming that strong in you, that you cannot see yourself having the right to keep and bear arms for Self-Defense without that right being delineated to you by some outside source?

Who the hell programmed your Mind and why the hell did you allow them to do it? And, why the hell are you not re-writing the code for your own Brain, such that your Brain serves YOU and not some third-party entity seeking to control your life? How the hell did you get to be under this much Control?

Australian. American. Canadian. Does it really matter? What we are talking about here is a singular Prime Minister who just took the ability for its Citizens to defend themselves against tyranny, one step closer to Final Solution. What part of that "hell on earth" do you not fully understand?

Some of you guys just don't seem to get it. You can't separate Individual Personal Conduct & Behavior from Tools. If it were not so sad, it would actually be hilarious. When was the last time you drove your vehicle to the dealer's maintenance facility and watched your car repair or maintain itself? When was the last time your Mechanic sat down in a chair and watched his tools float across the shop floor to attach themselves to your vehicle? Until you bring the Tool together with an Individual having the motivation to command the Tool, you've got nothing but an Individual and a Tool suspended, idle in both space and time. What on earth is so difficult to understand about that?

Solve the Personal Behavioral issues and you solve the Criminal Intent issues. It is just that simple. Trampling over the Human Right of Self-Defense by any means necessary is morally reprobate. It means you lack the very understanding of the function of Morality. To strip away Self-Defense by any means necessary is flat out Immoral. Self-Defense is the preservation of Freedoms and Life itself. If you are Defenseless, then by definition you cannot truly be Free at the same time.

Freedom absent Defense is delusion. Who wants to do that. Who wants to make its Citizens defenseless other than a tyrannical government? It is arguable that the British Empire as been the most tyrannical government since the Roman Empire. Having said that, if you truly understood the history of the United States and our involvement in the foreign affairs of Middle Eastern countries who never provoked us, we most certainly make the Top 5 List of most tyrannically inclined nations the world has ever known. However, there have been others over the past 2,538 years, no doubt. We can study those as well and draw comparisons.

That's what the hell I'm talking about.

 

Yet the States issues more driver's licenses to more idiots who will tailgate you at 65 mph while Texting, putting on Makeup and Eating with both hands all at the same time. Meanwhile, our insurance rates go up while average IQ on the roads goes down leading to tens of thousands of deaths each year on our roads. But, hey. Let's go get dem guns cause ya know, saving lives matters.

The don't want our guns. They want our total compliance.

I shall not comply.

 

Google isn't familiar with the terms, "Royal Crown of London" or "exploits of the Royal Crown."

What website?

Same as the US, no?

So where do you draw the line? Should EVERY single piece of weaponry be available to people in the interest of self defense?

Gee, you seem to THINK that you know alot about me from just one single post!

Nothing, it makes sense. Did you previously present the above to me in an earlier post and I replied expressing some confusion? I think you'll find that this is not the case!

Solve it 100%?

More leverage how?

 

Guilty of what?

 

That was dozens of posts back for me. What were we discussing?

 

This: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...enry-with-a-ban.552835/page-3#post-1070363771

 

That’s for the kiwis to decide, I don’t see why Americans would care. That’s just me though.

 

Guilty of gun related crimes. What do you object to? I could have mentioned to execute them but took it easy on them.

 

If all are disarmed, it will not change my life.

 

As in principled Democrat supporters?

 

People who believe guns make life miserable are just as stupid as people who believe guns keep anyone safer. Guns or just objects they can't do anything like that. Misery is a state of mind and if you connect it to an object than you are likely suffering psychosis be it some sort of phobia or an irrational connection of some sort.

No object can make you safer. Training and weaponry can give you a tactical advantage should you need it.

The idea that people kill people because some dude has guns in his house is asinine.

People jump to the band Guns thing because the solution to this sort of thing is complicated and it's time-consuming and it requires not just one or a couple brilliant people are requires all of us. Most people don't give a damn. case in point look at how this is being used as a political issue. anybody who's using this to attack Trump or the Democrats or white people or men or Australians doesn't give a rat's ass about those people that died.

We can stop this all we have to do is give a s*** I just don't see that happening. Banning guns is not giving a s***.

 

You don't think that this action was done with good intentions?

 

Well, I'm actually not in favor of gun bans, but I've always found the argument that we need our guns to fight off the government to be incredibly idiotic. I support the 2nd amendment for personal protection against other people, not because we'll take our hunting rifles and pistols and become freedom fighters.