Hillbillies and guns.

[Seabass]

Seabass

There is a big difference between factually wrong and outrageous.

I will continue to say outrageous things about the USA as long as they are factually correct. If they are, in fact, wrong, please let me know so I can correct my factual arguments. If they are merely outrageous, then accept them.

When you say the US is uncivilized, barbaric, backward, sick, et cetera, you are stating an opinion, and you tend to support your opinions with cherry picked facts.

[JimC]

This whole thing started with Seth being totally unable to tell the difference between Australia (with its aboriginals) and New Zealand (with its Maoris).

And it wandered far from the main point being discussed earlier, which is that simply and factually, people in of those countries have no need or desire to arm themselves against a future apocalypse...

Paranoia, thy name is Seth...

[Blind groper]

When you say the US is uncivilized, barbaric, backward, sick, et cetera, you are stating an opinion, and you tend to support your opinions with cherry picked facts.

Seabass,
If my facts are cherry picked, you are entitled to offer opposing facts to balance what I say. One of the marks of a less than fully civilised nation is clinging to the death penalty. Another is continuing to use tortures like waterboarding. Do you have some facts to oppose these?

[Seabass]

When you say the US is uncivilized, barbaric, backward, sick, et cetera, you are stating an opinion, and you tend to support your opinions with cherry picked facts.

Seabass,
If my facts are cherry picked, you are entitled to offer opposing facts to balance what I say. One of the marks of a less than fully civilised nation is clinging to the death penalty. Another is continuing to use tortures like waterboarding. Do you have some facts to oppose these?

We already went through this in your other thread. I see no point in having a rehash here.

[Blind groper]

We already went through this in your other thread. I see no point in having a rehash here.

Meaning you do not have an answer.

I am not attacking the ordinary American. The people of the USA are just like people anywhere. Some good. Some bad. Most in the middle. But the administration of the USA, and the laws and practices it creates, are definitely less 'civilised' than those of other western nations.

[Seabass]

We already went through this in your other thread. I see no point in having a rehash here.

Meaning you do not have an answer.

No, jackass. It means you can find my counter arguments in your "USA uncivilized" thread.

[pErvinalia]

I'm starting to think that Seth actually for reals doesn't understand that Australia and New Zealand are different countries. I thought he was just trolling me (in an earlier occurrence of this) and Hermit, but no one writes that much to troll. Seth, get thee to an eduction, stat!

[FBM]

Note to self: Australia and New Zealand are different countries.

[JimC]

Note to self: Australia and New Zealand are different countries.

For the moment. One day, they will accept the Pax Australiana, and all will be well...

[FBM]

Unless they invade you first.

[laklak]

Yeah, best watch out, Jim. Those Kiwis have elves and dwarves.

[FBM]

"have" or "are"?

[JimC]

I suspect that BG is a hobbit...

[Hermit]

...until you do. By then it's too late though.

So you keep saying. Won't happen.

That's what the Jews of Germany and Poland said, and the Tutsi of Rwanda, and the whites of Zimbabwe, and the Cubans of Cuba, and the Ukrainians of Ukraine, and the....well, you get the idea. Every society that's ever existed has at one time or another faced circumstances where resort to arms was necessary in order to preserve liberty and depose a tyrant. Just because human nature hasn't gotten around to subjecting you to it doesn't mean it won't, and particularly it doesn't mean it can't. Trust me, it can. Just ask the Maori of New Zealand who were invaded and subjugated by the British. Someday it'll be your turn.

Uhm, Seth, the countries you mention have a history of war within and without their borders. We don't. We don't even have borders.

Sure you do. Just because they are defined by the ocean doesn't mean you don't have them. And not having a "history of war" is nonsense too. Why, pray tell, the Maori dance around with their "war faces" on? The notion that the original inhabitants of New Zealand were peaceful, pastoral people who never engaged in armed conflict is asinine. And then there's the invasion by the Brits...

As for tyrants, are you suggesting that the Rwandans, Zimbabweans, Cubans etc were democracies that were overthrown by tyrants?

No, I'm saying that they are tyrannies and have faced war and genocide, just like every other culture on earth, which justifies an armed citizenry.

Protection for south coast massacre site urged
tags: New Zealand, Maori, Polynesia, Stuff



A massacre of 50 Maori on Wellington's south coast has been brought to light thanks to a lucky Google search.

Historian Elsdon Best wrote a comprehensive history of Wellington Maori, The Land of Tara and They Who Settled It, in about 1919.

However, an incident in which northern Maori swept into Wellington and killed 50 Ngati Ira iwi at Tarakena Bay about 1820 came to his attention only after his book was published.

He told fellow historian Henry Christie, who wrote about it in 1931. Miramar military historian Allan Jenkins came across Christie's record of the massacre about 30 years ago but, despite numerous searches, was unable to find it again....

We have become an independent nation without needing to resort to a revolutionary war.

I don't think the Maori agree with you.

You had a war to rid yourself of the yoke of colonial rule. We achieved that feat beginning with Acts of Parliament that simultaneously came into force in the UK and Australia on the 1st of January 1901. The Maori had nothing to do with it.

Um...exactly...the Maori had "nothing to do with it." If that ain't imperialistic domestic tyranny I don't know what is...

Just because the native inhabitants (I'm sick of your pettifoggery regarding what they call themselves) were subjugated and enslaved without a formal war doesn't mean they weren't tyrannized by the Brits.

We have taken huge steps in improving our treatment and legal rights of our aborigines without the trauma of a civil war.

And you didn't have to fight a war with the Maori why, exactly? Because the Brits showed up with overwhelming firepower that the Maori wisely decided they could not effectively rebel against with wooden clubs and stone knives. You didn't have a revolution, you had a blitzkrieg invasion, just like Hitler did to Poland.

We did not have a war with Maoris because they lived on another island about 2100 kilometres to the southeast of ours. Many New Zealanders did invade a part of Australia - most notably the suburb of Bondi Beach - much later on, but they did that peacefully. They came in search of work, and they were good workers. Some of them were Maoris too.

Are you trying to tell me that New Zealand was uninhabited when the Brits arrived? Pettifoggery.

New Zealand Shipwreck Points To 18th-Century Race To Colonize Island
tags: New Zealand

Scraps of wood salvaged off New Zealand’s coast probably come from a Dutch ship built in the early 1700s, a study based on carbon dating, tree rings and historical research reports. The recovered vessel is the country’s oldest-known shipwreck — dating more than 50 years before Captain James Cook’s landing — and hints at a 'space race' among colonial powers to reach the remote isles.

“It was a period of European expansion and exploration, and there were many countries that were competing against each other, particularly for resources,” says lead author Jonathan Palmer, a climate scientist who studies tree rings at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. The research has been published in the current issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science....

We do have Aborigines of our own, but no wars with them. There were scores of massacres, but none of them involved the army, and most Aborigines that died prematurely died because they had no immunity to diseases like the the common cold.

Maori Party believes dual heritage can strengthen nationhood
Maori Party, Fuseworks January 7, 2014, 4:14 pm

tweet
Print

The Maori Party welcomes a proposed review of parliamentary protocols - with one critical caveat. The Speaker has been reported as saying that "Parliament needs a protocol that is modern and acceptable to a diversified Parliament" and he wants to review it in a way that recognises Maori traditions.

"The Maori Party believes that the protocols, procedures and practices of New Zealand's Parliament must integrate the traditions and histories of our dual cultural heritage," said Co-leader Tariana Turia. "However the Parliament has no place whatsoever in trying to alter the kawa and tikanga of tangata whenua, who are the sole authorities and guardians of their own cultural heritage."

"Parliament should recognise and respect the culture and customs of tangata whenua alongside Westminster parliamentary traditions without compromising the integrity of either," she said.

"Our Parliamentary democracy was established in New Zealand on the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi, whereby the Crown guaranteed to protect the rights of tangata whenua to their taonga tuku iho - their cultural heritage.

"A review of Parliamentary protocols to recognise Maori tradition is an excellent way to 'continue the Constitutional conversation', as was recommended recently by the Constitutional Advisory Panel.

"The kawa of the marae establish rules for engagement that maintain order and reasoned argument during inter-tribal debates. Our traditions of free expression and respect for alternative points of view could well strengthen the rules of Parliamentary debate and decision-making that we inherited from Westminster.

"The New Zealand Army has successfully integrated the two long-standing, powerful, sacred and vibrant military traditions of tangata whenua and Great Britain into a modern New Zealand Army culture, so that every soldier and every citizen can feel that the Army reflects their dual cultural heritage and their identity as New Zealanders.

"We believe that Parliament has a responsibility to take a lead on this, and we look forward to starting a process to engage tangata whenua and the MPs and officers of Parliament, under the leadership of the Speaker, to set the parameters for this constitutional discussion.
"If the experience of the Army is anything to go by, it takes time and commitment to alter proud traditions. Perhaps this project could be a way to celebrate 800 years of Parliamentary democracy since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215," said Mrs Turia.

We are almost entirely devoid of riots. The only ones worth mentioning did not involve the use of firearms - or indeed any other weapons.

Lucky you. What are you going to do when that changes?

Once again, you seem to be blissfully unaware of the difference between US society and ours. We don't have millions of people milling around with shotguns, automatic weapons, let alone pistols. While this is the case, the police is capable of controlling that, and if that were not so, there's the army. It's quite a good one, I must say.

Um, guns don't cause riots. People cause riots. The vast majority of riots involve people who are NOT in possession of firearms. Riots occur for many reasons and they often occur with great suddenness and no notice (been there, done that many times) for reasons as stupid as college students rebelling over not being allowed to get publicly intoxicated.

But, when people riot, they often get out of control (thus the word "riot") and take out their anger on others, and on public infrastructure, and on private property because, well, rioting is mindless violence that is self-reinforcing and can explode like a bomb on a community without any warning. People who are not caught up in the frenzy can be in grave physical danger from rioters, and private property is rarely distinguished from anything else during a riot. One example is the incident in Greece:

Rioting Protesters Kill Three Bank Workers in Greece (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 6:21 AM

Riotors in Greece killed three bank workers today. The protesting civil servant workers trapped the bank employees in a burning building. Three bodies were found inside the torched bank in the Greek capital.

Those bank tellers, and/or other good citizens outside the bank desperately needed high-power firearms with large-capacity magazines with which to prevent the arson in the first place and with which to kill the arsonists who killed them, and to drive off anyone who might obstruct their safe exit from the building once the fire started.

It was the very fact that nobody in a position to take immediately lethal action against the arsonists (which in the US is absolutely a legal justification for the use of deadly force when the target is an "occupied structure") with sufficient weaponry to kill and dissuade that resulted in three horrific murders. These sorts of murderous events happen all the time, all over the world for the same reason: the law-abiding citizens of the community are disarmed and are unable to band together with sufficient lethal force at their command to convince rioters to stop their activities.

Now you'll say "but that's the job of the police!" Yes, it is, but those bank tellers, and tens of thousands of others, have been killed by rioters and entire neighborhoods have been put to the torch, with their owners inside them, long before the police are able or willing to respond to restore order.

That's precisely why I brought up the Watts riots and the fact that the only stores that survived the Rodney King riots were the ones owned by Asians who already owned and had in their immediate possession shotguns, rifles and pistols adequate to deter rioters and arsonists from destroying their businesses.

You stupidly think it can never happen in New Zealand. You're flatly wrong. It can, and if and when it does, you will be completely unprepared to save your own life, the lives of your loved ones, and your home and community because you have stuck your head up your ass and refuse to see the simple truths involved.

That's fine with me, I really don't care if you choose to be killed by the next raving lunatic, homicidal maniac or wild-eyed rioter you come across. But I really care about me and mine, and I am, and will remain armed for our defense.

The few privately organised militia that sprouted from time to time (all of them rabid right wingers) kept sinking without a trace.

Did they? Or did they just go dark? You know the first rule of Fight Club?

As I mentioned, the militias never amounted to a hill of beans to begin with, and that was in the decades before the vast majority of arms was taken out of circulation. To think that they had merely become invisible requires a mindset that makes one a suitable member of the Above Top Secret forum.

You keep right on thinking that because it fits in very nicely with their strategy and tactics.

Why the fuck do you think you have both a military (such as it is) and a police force?

For the same reason all other nations have them. Have I ever posted anything that gave you the impression that I regard either as unnecessary? I just think your views on militias is weird to the point of hilarity. Many countries do quite well without them. Among them is Switzerland. That country has never been conquered in all the centuries of its existence, and there are no signs that its democratic government even looks like turning into a tyranny any time soon - especially not a left wing one.

Um...you just shot yourself in the foot there my man. Switzerland is the very quintessence of an armed citizen militia which is exactly why they have never been conquered. Switzerland does not maintain a standing professional army, it has relied for centuries on the citizen-soldiers of the militia, and in point of fact the US militia system was deliberately modeled on the Swiss militia system.

Every single able-bodied male between 20 and 30 in Switzerland is a member of the Swiss militia and must attend military training and do service in the Militia. And the Swiss are ubiquitously armed, and it's not just your random Saturday Night Special armament. Every eligible member of the Swiss militia is ISSUED a Sig 550 select-fire rifle and a pistol, which they may opt to keep as their personal weapons on completion of militia service. Which means that just about every household in Switzerland contains a select-fire military-grade "assault rifle" (the real thing) and a handgun, along with ammunition. And yet Switzerland is among the most peaceful societies in the world.

May I suggest you familiarise yourself about reality outside the USA, and outside your mind before attempting another one of your rambles? Going by what you say, I am quite happy that I don't live in either.

May I suggest that you pull your head out of your ass and do it yourself, because I'm far better informed on the issue of firearms and gun control that you could ever hope to be.

Cheeses fucking crust. If even the simple fact that there are no Maoris in Australia - you know, the Australia, in which I live, and the history of which I'm talking about - cannot penetrate your thick skull, and that they live on a different island 2100 kilometres southeast from here which is an entirely different nation with an entirely different history named New Zealand, it's not surprising at all that you are pathologically incapable of comprehending anything at all that goes counter to your dogma. No wonder you are such a narrowminded, wilfully ignorant being.

[pErvinalia]

Nothing wrong with these hillbillies!