Gun nuts should be under surveillance now

26
98

The more & more I read of the irrational, wilfully ignorant & down right malicious crap spouted by the NZ Gun Lobby…

Gun lobbyist said this is why ‘politicians get burnt’, Judith Collins said

In a call to Judith Collins’ office, gun rights enthusiast and blogger Mike Loder said “this is why politicians get burnt”, the former Minister said.

Collins told Stuff  the phone conversation was made when she was Police Minister in the National government. She said one of her staff was trying to clarify an Official Information Act request from Loder when the blogger got frustrated and made the comment.

The matter was raised on Thursday as the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee heard public submissions on the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill.

Loder was one of 20 submitters to air his views on the new gun laws introduced after 50 people died in attacks on two Christchurch mosques in March. He said the changes had the possibility to drive guns “underground”.

During questions,Collins asked Loder if he thought he was a responsible proponent of the gun lobby, and he said yes.

She asked if he thought it was reasonable to phone up the office of the former minister of police and advise the staff member that the behaviour of the minister was the reason why some people burnt politicians.

“I was dealing with someone who was taking delight at obstructing me and obfuscating … I basically said this is what drives people nuts …,” he replied.

He said the person was excluding him from contacting his representative and called it “disgusting”.

She followed up by asking if he considered himself to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

“It’s not a question, I am,” he said.

Loder said the Christchurch shooter would have killed more people had he not used semi-automatic weapons because he would have used something like a truck bomb.

He addressed Collins directly, saying she is wrong about the gun lobby “scaremongering”.

He claimed it was the police association who were ones scaremongering.

During questions committee chairman, Labour MP Michael Wood asked Loder to explain a blog post where he said the guns that would be banned were an essential tool of liberty.

Wood, covering up an image on the blog-post of bodies in a concentration camp, then asked him to explain why exactly it linked gun control to Nazi Germany.

Loder called it “historical accuracy”

Wood went on to note that Loder had called Prime Minister Jacinda Arden a “tyrant” and that shadowy foreign forces were involved with gun control efforts.

Loder said tyrants always supported gun control.

“Can you understand, given what happened in Christchurch, why some of us may be concerned that you have a strong voice within the firearms community. Towards people who are armed with these military style semi-automatic weapons, and you are promoting what are effectively conspiracy theories that are listened to, often by people of white nationalist, extreme right wing agenda,” Wood said.

Loder alleged that “deals were done” behind closed doors to get the support of rural groups, which he has called “scumbags”.

In his submission, he said hunters did not support the bill at all and called those who did “useful idiots”.

The gun lobby shouldn’t be seen as an “other” as they were part of New Zealand society, he said.

He said the problem wasn’t people with gun licenses and instead pointed towards gangs and recidivism.

“Criminals will always have access to firearms, whether or not they use them is up to us”.

He asked that police have control of the Arms Act taken away from them as they were not up to the job, he claimed.

He suggested oversight should be given to “a simple agency”.

As evidence of this he said several Australian criminals had been allowed to be armed in New Zealand because the police were not data-matching across the Tasman.

…the more & more convinced I am these folk should have been on Police & SIS radar from day bloody one rather than Māori, Muslims, Greenpeace, Environmentalists, the Green Party, the MANA Party & activists.

How far have we collectively allowed these gun fetishists to define the debate?

Read what the gun mad Fishing and Outdoors editor Graham Carter had to say about it all

Fishing and Outdoors editor Graham Carter stood by an article in his paper today which called out Ardern and Police Minister Stuart Nash.

“Our Dumb-as-a-Plank New Zealand Prime Minister and lapdog New Zealand Police Minister have announced a ban on assault rifles that are and have been banned for the last ‘thirty-five years’.

“Comments made by our PM are disingenuous and misleading the general public.”

The article, written by John McNab, goes on to say that it was already illegal to fire any rifle which was “full-auto” even if it was a defence force firearm.

“This is what happens when dumb people are put in charge of stuff they don’t understand, and who are too dumb to either admit it, or to listen to facts from people who do understand the stuff in question.

“Then we have all the flower powder puffs coming out of the woodwork who know little if anything about the issues here.”

…look beyond the abuse and just consider the argument. His claim is that the semantics and technical language is false hence there isn’t really a problem.

His argument boils down to’ you can’t call the guns machine guns’ because the public recoil in horror at the word, and so Graham Carter wants to focus on how the term isn’t machine gun, it’s actually called semi-automatic which apparently sounds a lot less scary.

Can we believe this is their response? Some bullshit questioning over the terminology?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

If it shoots like a machine, kills like a machine gun and maims like a machine gun.

It’s a fucking machine gun.

Civilians. Do. Not. Need. Easy. Access. To. Weapons. Designed. To. Kill. Humans. As. Quickly. As. This.

End.

Of.

Story.

And if you are a gun proponent who is now using violent language or imagery or words to insinuate threats then you should be under surveillance by our intelligence agencies.

Responsible farmers and hunters have nothing to fear here. Gun fetishists and violent extremists, (from all parts of the political spectrum), should openly know they will be under the obligation of extra surveillance and responsibility.

The atrocity in Christchurch has made us all question why weapons of such enormous violence were allowed to be accessed with such ease. If it costs a billion dollars to buy back and eradicate this tumour before it metastasises, then so be it.

 

 

26 COMMENTS

  1. Yes 100% to that as anyone who has automatic rifles is not a normal person as those rifles are deadly mass weapons of death.

    They should be illegal to anyone.

  2. Come on, banning semi automatic guns and some cartridges and the likes should ensure that access to such dangerous guns gets severely restricted. We cannot ban all guns outright, as then we will have no hunting, no sports shooting, no pest control.

    What is needed is a tightening up of the law.

    Also we need to ensure ‘nuts’ do not even get access to guns.

    Using the spy services is just BS, the horse will already have bolted, when that situation should warrant surveillance.

    As the law stands, and under the anti terror laws, and other laws, the police, GCSB and SIS have more than enough powers to deal with any threats.

    For years Martyn and others have criticised this, now some call for them to spread the blanket of surveillance, that is just nonsensical.

    And how will we deal with a real future threat to the country and its population, should there indeed be a kind of attempted invasion one day, in a world that is increasingly becoming hostile, over populated and uncontrollable.

    We will have hundreds of thousands or millions of climate change refugees head off over waters in future decades, also here in the Pacific and Indo Pacific region.

    It is totally naive to think that New Zealand’s isolation will protect it from a flood of very desperate people, who may have less friendly intentions, and want to live, and eat and share the pie.

    Shall we simply open the borders, embrace them all, and let the Noah’s Ark become overloaded, so we will all ‘sink?

    There may well be a future scenario where we need effective weapons to defend ourselves, as a kind of guerilla force, because our armed forces, navy and laughable ‘air force’ are not going to be up to it, to defend this territory.

    Then we may be stuffed if we have no guns at all.

    • There may well be a future scenario where we need effective weapons to defend ourselves, as a kind of guerilla force, because our armed forces, navy and laughable ‘air force’ are not going to be up to it, to defend this territory.

      Marc, that is delusional.

      If you think that a few thousand semi-automatic rifles will be sufficient to arm a guerilla force “to defend this territory” – you’ve been watching too many Hollywood movies. You should chat with a few Hungarians who were part of the 1956 uprising against the Soviets. Ask them what happened. Ask them what happened when people armed with rifles and automatic weapons went up against a professional army with tanks.

      This is my mother in Budapest, 1956. https://twitter.com/fmacskasy/status/793319233924980736

      Do not ever think it is a simple matter to put together a guerilla force.

          • Hence my strong advice: Better BE prepared! Your Mum by the way would probably have been called a ‘terrorist’ by some in her days, daring to take up arms.

            • I think you’re totally missing the point, Marc. You’re indulging a fantasy if you think uprisings are s simple matter.

              For one thing,they shoot back at you. And unlike Hollywood movies and video games, you tend to stay dead.

              • The fact remains, guns make uprisings (i.e. revolutions) possible. Without them, we are entirely beholden to the whims of a bad government or a coup that ends in a dictatorship. Would you rather be shoved into carriages with your hands up for a one way ticket to a death camp, or be able to go out on your own terms? I, for one, would rather someone (even if not me) be able to put up at least some resistance to ruthless oppression.
                With the last of the WWII survivors dying, I strongly suspect that most of the Western world is becoming super complacent to how vulnerable the balance between war and peace actually is – naively believing the relative calm in the world we’re currently enjoying will last forever.

                • “The fact remains, guns make uprisings (i.e. revolutions) possible. Without them, we are entirely beholden to the whims of a bad government ”

                  The best way to avoid bad government is to vote.

                  By the time it comes to at armed uprisings, be prepared for a massive death toll.

                  A bunch of civilians with semi automatic rifles against tanks is the definition of futility and idealised notions of the ” heroic freedom fighter”.

                  As I said above, talk to people who’ve actually been involved in armed resistance. You may actually come to understand the grim realities of it.

              • How can I stay dead when I am alive and kicking, and in such a case would use guerilla warfare, attack from the bush and so, in the dark of night, and using all kinds of technical and other means, avoiding detection.

                • Marc you and Nitrium are living in cloud cuckoo land. If you think going up against the SAS and the rest of the States paraphernalia of weaponry and professional soldiers is feasible, you both have been watching too much TV.

                  This is not “Red Dawn” or whatever crap you’ve been watching.

                  No excuse. Ban these semiautomatic weapons now.

  3. Hells Bell, what sort of world have we been transported to where Judith Collins is the voice of restraint in a debate?

  4. As a (former) National supporter I was horrified by Judith Collins behavior.

    Mike Loder made many excellent points in his submission, all of which were factually based.

    But rather than address the points he made, Collins chose to make an ‘ad hominem’ attack on him personally. This is presumably because she was unable to contradict him.

    Here is his submission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc8YfEMS_cc

  5. I’m glad to see that the government are threatening gang members with 5 years imprisonment for not handing in their AR15s .

    They must be absolutely quaking in their boots.

    Meanwhile, possession of the “manifesto” could get you 10-14 years inside.

    I’m so glad we have our priorities right in NZ.

    PDF documents are lethal in the wrong hands.

    • Actually, yes, Andy. Words, ideas, dogma can be even more powerful that weapons. History is replete with movements based on the written word.

      Whether it’s the Bible or the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf. And now, white supremacist neo-nazi garbage.

      If the (alleged) Christchurch terrorist had not read words, advancing certain ideas, he might not have been so readily radicalised.

  6. I think you misunderstand Mr Loder and are taking the media and Ms Collins at face value, not generally recommended.
    Mr Loder is reputed to (or was) actual friends with Ms Collins who was until recently “gun friendly”.
    Ms Collins being the soulless creature she is decided to ride the wave of media fueled public outrage at the atrocity and become anti gun, throwing Mr Loder under a bus in the process.
    Mr Loders comments are regards politicians getting burned by their supporters who they have done a 180 degree shift on.
    Make sense?
    There is no physical threat it’s an intentional beat up to discredit him.

    No one addressed the many police failures and lies Loder mentions in his video.
    He is one of few people brave enough to stick his head above the parapet and give valuable information from the other side, and he is attacked for it, now calls to secretly investigate him? Sound familiar Martyn?
    You of all people should know where that road leads.

Comments are closed.