Left-Wing Activists Accuse Chelsea Clinton of Causing the New Zealand Shooting

[Muda69]

http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/16/chelsea-clinton-nyu-new-zealand-islam#comment

Quote

On Friday, New York University students confronted Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for victims of the mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, which claimed the lives of 49 people.

The shooting took place at two mosques. The killer deliberately targeted Muslims, and was motivated by the delusional concerns typical of the far-right white nationalist fringe: Islam invading the West, immigrants replacing the white race, etc.

If you're wondering what this has to do with Chelsea Clinton, you're not alone. And yet, a leftwing activist wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogans "Jobs for all, Medicare for all, college for all, and justice for all" screamed at the former president's daughter.

"This [vigil] right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world," said the activist, a young woman. "I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep inside—49 people died because of the rhetoric that you put out there."

The young woman's friends—most of whom are not visible in the video footage of the encounter—snap their fingers in solidarity.

So, what's going on? Clinton, you may recall, had joined with many in the Democratic Party to criticize Rep. Ilhan Omar (D­­–Minn.) for perceived anti-Semitic remarks. Omar is Muslim, and calling her out has emboldened anti-Islamic sentiment, according to some on the far left. That's the causal chain: Chelsea Clinton urged Omar to be more careful with her rhetoric, this contributed in some way to Islamophobia, and then Christchurch happened.

Needless to say, this is absurd. I'm all for holding the Clinton family accountable, and it's perfectly legitimate to criticize Hillary Clinton for her foreign policies. As a U.S. senator and secretary of state, Clinton was a major proponent of the Iraq War and the intervention in Libya, both of which destabilized the Middle East and caused the deaths of millions of Muslims. But Chelsea Clinton isn't responsible for that, and she certainly isn't responsible for the actions of a deranged white nationalist in New Zealand.

Sounds like the typical left-wing SJW thinking.  I haven't looked for the "Trump directly caused the Christchurch shootings" accusations, but I'm sure there are scores of them out there.

And as one of the comments to this story states:

Quote

Meanwhile, in Nigeria in the last three weeks 120 Christians were killed by Moslem extremists, including 50 in a single attack. Try to find anything about that in our lazy, left-wing, legacy media with its narratives to put forward. If you want to twist and distort your own party's picture of reality really good, there's nothing like the disproportionately effective propaganda of silence on all those matters you don't want the masses to ever know or think about.

I mean, it worked pretty well in getting Hillary off the criminal hook in 2016 and starting an absolutely ferocious McCarthyite investigation of all Trump associates based on absolutely no evidence except a fraudulent dossier bought and paid for by Hillary, so why shouldn't our noble American "journalists" keep it up?

 

[swordfish]

Last week and through the weekend most of the media played the "Trump rhetoric fueled the NZ shooter and white nationalists" card as hard as they could, totally ignoring the shooter's own manifesto where he somewhat supported Trump "BUT"  https://thehill.com/policy/international/434238-new-zealand-suspect-wrote-in-manifesto-he-supported-trump-as-a-symbol-of  “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”  .......Now the idea floated that Chelsea Clinton is somehow responsible:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-zealand-shooting-chelsea-clinton-blamed-attack/3184870002/   indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade and is looking to place blame anywhere else but themselves......And the US media in all it's anti-Trump rage is very eager to oblige......

SF is struck how in the recent past 5 years or so of the Muslim (ISIS or others) terrorist attacks that happen so frequently are largely ignored.....

[Wabash82]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Last week and through the weekend most of the media played the "Trump rhetoric fueled the NZ shooter and white nationalists" card as hard as they could, totally ignoring the shooter's own manifesto where he somewhat supported Trump "BUT"  https://thehill.com/policy/international/434238-new-zealand-suspect-wrote-in-manifesto-he-supported-trump-as-a-symbol-of  “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”  .......Now the idea floated that Chelsea Clinton is somehow responsible:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-zealand-shooting-chelsea-clinton-blamed-attack/3184870002/   indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade and is looking to place blame anywhere else but themselves......And the US media in all it's anti-Trump rage is very eager to oblige......

SF is struck how in the recent past 5 years or so of the Muslim (ISIS or others) terrorist attacks that happen so frequently are largely ignored.....

so the "blame" is on New Zealand for letting Muslims into their country. 

Wow.

And ISIS attacks? I thought we "defeated" ISIS and the troops were coming home for a victory parade.... 

[Guest]

Nuts I tell ya.

[swordfish]

33 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

so the "blame" is on New Zealand for letting Muslims into their country. 

Wow.

And ISIS attacks? I thought we "defeated" ISIS and the troops were coming home for a victory parade.... 

No - and nowhere did I say that.  You should know SF well enough after the past years on the GID to know, I blame this solely on the shooter, and his accomplices......

[foxbat]

4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Meanwhile, in Nigeria in the last three weeks 120 Christians were killed by Moslem extremists, including 50 in a single attack. Try to find anything about that in our lazy, left-wing, legacy media with its narratives to put forward. If you want to twist and distort your own party's picture of reality really good, there's nothing like the disproportionately effective propaganda of silence on all those matters you don't want the masses to ever know or think about.

This is somewhat of a misnomer.  The Fulani herdsman have been fighting with farmers in the area over resources.  The herdsmen tend to be Muslim while the farmers tend to be Christian.  Similar to the South African farm attacks where the motives tended to be robbery as opposed to race-driven.  

[Wabash82]

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

No - and nowhere did I say that.  You should know SF well enough after the past years on the GID to know, I blame this solely on the shooter, and his accomplices......

Uh, did you not see the part of your quote that I highlighted? You referenced "backlash" to New Zealand's immigration policies, and then said that New Zealand is looking to place the blame (for that backlash) on anyone but "themselves." That seems pretty darn obvious to me: New Zealand's immigration policies drew this backlash -- the massacre of 50 Muslims-- and New Zealand shouldn't have been surprised by it, and thus deserves some of the blame.

If you are claiming that is not what you meant by that statement, will you please explain what you did mean? 

[swordfish]

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Uh, did you not see the part of your quote that I highlighted? You referenced "backlash" to New Zealand's immigration policies, and then said that New Zealand is looking to place the blame (for that backlash) on anyone but "themselves." That seems pretty darn obvious to me: New Zealand's immigration policies drew this backlash -- the massacre of 50 Muslims-- and New Zealand shouldn't have been surprised by it, and thus deserves some of the blame.

If you are claiming that is not what you meant by that statement, will you please explain what you did mean? 

 indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade and is looking to place blame anywhere else but themselves......And the US media in all it's anti-Trump rage is very eager to oblige......

UH - Again - SF believes there is nobody to blame but the shooter himself. (Period) 

The optics in the world's view, where the shooter's manifesto (which obviously nobody but SF read before it was removed) specifically points at the issue(s) of immigration of mainly Muslim population puts the spotlight squarely on the NZ government and it's policies, so (IMHO) I feel the movement by the government to immediately impose stricter gun laws (which are pretty darn strict) as well as (by proxy) point the finger in any other direction is pretty reactionary.  Put the blame on the shooter and his ilk, and don't accept any responsibility, and certainly don't buy into the rhetoric of it being fault of a US President or the daughter of a former US President......

[gonzoron]

7 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade

The shooter was Australian.

[Wabash82]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

 indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade and is looking to place blame anywhere else but themselves......And the US media in all it's anti-Trump rage is very eager to oblige......

UH - Again - SF believes there is nobody to blame but the shooter himself. (Period) 

The optics in the world's view, where the shooter's manifesto (which obviously nobody but SF read before it was removed) specifically points at the issue(s) of immigration of mainly Muslim population puts the spotlight squarely on the NZ government and it's policies, so (IMHO) I feel the movement by the government to immediately impose stricter gun laws (which are pretty darn strict) as well as (by proxy) point the finger in any other direction is pretty reactionary.  Put the blame on the shooter and his ilk, and don't accept any responsibility, and certainly don't buy into the rhetoric of it being fault of a US President or the daughter of a former US President......

I think you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. It sounds like you are trying to say that the shooter (per his manifesto) put the spotlight on New Zealand's immigration policies that let in so many Muslims as the reason for attack, and so "pointing the finger in any other direction" is wrong. That sure likes you are saying, again, that New Zealand is responsible (to blame) -- if it hadn't let so many Muslims in, the guy wouldn't have had to go kill so many of them. 

  

 

[swordfish]

13 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

I think you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. It sounds like you are trying to say that the shooter (per his manifesto) put the spotlight on New Zealand's immigration policies that let in so many Muslims as the reason for attack, and so "pointing the finger in any other direction" is wrong. That sure likes you are saying, again, that New Zealand is responsible (to blame) -- if it hadn't let so many Muslims in, the guy wouldn't have had to go kill so many of them. 

  

 

SF put an opinion out there (after twice stating the obvious blame is solely on the shooter) and won't be responsible how somebody as smart as yourself wants to read and interpret it otherwise - sorry.......

Edited March 19, 2019 by swordfish

[Muda69]

NZ declares massacre video “objectionable,” arrests people who shared it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/new-zealand-men-could-get-14-years-for-sharing-massacre-video/

Quote

The United States is unusual in offering near-absolute protection for free speech under the First Amendment. Most other countries—even liberal democracies—have more extensive systems of online and offline censorship. That difference has been on display this week as New Zealand authorities have begun prosecuting people for sharing copies of last week's white supremacist mass shooting in Christchurch and for posting hate speech in the wake of the attack.

 

New Zealand Chief Censor David Shanks has determined that the 17-minute video livestreamed during the Christchurch shooting is objectionable under New Zealand law. "It is a record of a terrorist atrocity, specifically produced for the purpose of promoting a hateful terrorist agenda," a press release from New Zealand's Office of Film and Literature Classification states.

Distributing objectionable materials online comes with stiff legal penalties. One man—the 44-year-old owner of an insulation company with alleged neo-Nazi sympathies—has been arrested and charged with two counts of distributing objectionable materials in violation of New Zealand's Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. He is being held without bail and could be sentenced to as much as 14 years in prison for each offense.

Another man, an 18-year-old, is also facing charges for sharing the video.

And these two may not be the only ones in New Zealand facing charges for sharing the video. Authorities have asked Facebook for the names of others who have shared it.

Other Kiwis have reportedly lost their jobs for sharing the video with coworkers or viewing it at work, according to the New Zealand Herald.

Another woman has been "arrested on suspicion of inciting racial disharmony after a hateful message was posted to her Facebook page." Such posts may run afoul of New Zealand's Human Rights Act and can carry a fine as high as NZ$7,000 ($5,000).

I haven't seen the video in question, nor do I have any desire to watch it.    But this is a slippery slope that I do not like.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

 

[Muda69]

New Zealand's Sweeping New Gun Ban Would Be Unconstitutional in the U.S.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/21/new-zealands-sweeping-new-gun-and-magazi

Quote

American gun control supporters are citing the firearm restrictions that New Zealand's government plans to impose in response to last week's mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch as an example that should be emulated by American politicians. But the broad gun and magazine bans that legislators expect to enact by April 11 would never pass muster in the United States. If we can learn anything from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's reaction to the attacks, it has less to do with the merits of her policies than with the slippery language she used in announcing them.

"The guns used in these terrorist attacks had important distinguishing features," Ardern said at a press conference in Wellington today. "First, big capacity, and also their delivery. They had the power to shoot continuously, but they also had large capacity magazines."

Contrary to that description, the guns used by the perpetrator of the mosque attacks, which killed 50 people, did not "shoot continuously." They were semi-automatic rifles, meaning they fired once per trigger pull. And while Ardern referred to "important distinguishing features," the only one she mentioned (twice) was "big capacity," which is a characteristic of the magazine rather than the gun itself.

Ardern does plan to ban "high-capacity magazines," meaning those holding more than five rounds. There will be an exception for magazines holding up to 10 rounds of .22-caliber or smaller rimfire ammunition.

Ardern also intends to "ban all military-style semi-automatic weapons" (MSSAs), which under current law include semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, folding or telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, internal magazines holding more than seven rounds, or detachable magazines that have "the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges" (15 for .22-caliber rimfire ammunition). MSSAs already require a special license. Ardern wants to make them entirely illegal, and that includes firearms currently owned by license holders, who will be required to surrender them. They are supposed to receive compensation, but this "buyback" won't be optional.

In addition to banning the guns already classified as MSSAs, New Zealand is expanding that category to include all semi-automatic firearms capable of accepting magazines that hold more than five rounds (or 10 in the case of .22-caliber or smaller rimfire ammunition). That's a big deal, because the prohibited guns will include many models of handguns and rifles that accept detachable magazines but were not heretofore considered MSSAs. The Christchurch shooter reportedly bought two semi-automatic rifles with a standard gun license, then "modified" them to fire more than seven rounds, meaning he switched to bigger magazines. Now Ardern wants to ban not only larger magazines but the guns capable of accepting them.

"We will also ban all assault rifles," Ardern said. If that category is supposed to be distinct from MSSAs, it's not clear what Ardern means. Traditionally, "assault rifles" were military guns capable of automatic fire, but those are already deemed"restricted weapons" in New Zealand, meaning they can be legally owned only by special license holders such as collectors or movie producers, who are not allowed to fire them.

In the United States, politicians, journalists, and gun control activists who talk about "assault rifles" often treat the term as interchangeable with "assault weapons," an arbitrary category defined by law. While the criteria vary from one jurisdiction to another, "assault weapons" in the United States are similar to New Zealand's original definition of MSSAs in the sense that the category includes guns with "military-style" features, such as folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors, that do not make the weapons any more deadly in the hands of a mass shooter.

By contrast, New Zealand's new definition of military-style semi-automatics, which will now be not just restricted but banned, hinges on a functionally significant distinction: the ability to accept detachable magazines. At the same time, that criterion is so broad that it renders the term military-style meaningless and sweeps in a wide range of firearms used for lawful purposes. In the United States—which, unlike New Zealand, has a constitution that guarantees the right to armed self-defense—such a sweeping ban would be inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings rejecting bans on semi-automatic handguns. Yet it is more logical than American-style "assault weapon" bans, which focus on looks rather than lethality.

The "military-style semi-automatic weapons" New Zealand plans to ban (which may or may not be synonymous with the "assault rifles" Ardern "also" wants to ban) include many guns that never fell into that category before and do not necessarily have anything to do with the military. It is therefore more than a little confusing to continue using the same term for them, especially for Americans who imagine that the category is equivalent to what U.S. politicians have in mind when they refer to "assault weapons."

Since the rationale for such laws is that they make it harder to obtain guns that are especially suitable for mass murder, the details matter. "Assault weapon" bans tend to draw distinctions that make no sense in light of that goal. New Zealand's government is implicitly acknowledging that problem by focusing on function instead of appearance. But that also means imposing a much bigger burden on law-abiding gun owners, who now will be required to give up detachable magazines and the guns that accept them, which are surely more widely useful than bayonet lugs or flash suppressors. In that tradeoff, there is a lesson that American gun controllers should take to heart.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

I heard on the radio NZ officials have no idea how they're going pay for all these guns people are suppose to surrender. By all accounts I've heard, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million guns involved, and the government is saying this could cost as much as 200 million. By my calculations that's about 100 bucks per gun. One of two things is happening:

1) Guns are incredibly cheap in NZ.

2) Not only is the government stripping gun rights from law abiding citizens, they're ripping them off as well. 

Lastly, one single man, not even a citizen of NZ, has essentially stripped Kiwis from the ability to own modern sporting guns. 

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Impartial_Observer

[Muda69]

14 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I heard on the radio NZ officials have no idea how they're going pay for all these guns people are suppose to surrender. By all accounts I've heard, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million guns involved, and the government is saying this could cost as much as 200 million. By my calculations that's about 100 bucks per gun. One of two things is happening:

1) Guns are incredibly cheap in NZ.

2) Not only is the government stripping gun rights from law abiding citizens, they're ripping them off as well. 

Lastly, one single man, not even a citizen of NZ, has essentially stripped Kiwis from the ability to own modern sporting guns. 

 

I don't know how good the gun registration database/system is in NZ, but I suspect a lot of guns are going to be just hidden away somewhere, Unless the NZ government comes looking for them.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

I don't know how good the gun registration database/system is in NZ, but I suspect a lot of guns are going to be just hidden away somewhere, Unless the NZ government comes looking for them.

 

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms

 

Quote

 

Changes to firearms

 

As of 3pm 21 March 2019 changes have been made by an Order in Council to ensure the immediate safety and peace of mind of New Zealand communities.

The Order in Council [Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms) Order 2019(link is external)] will bring two additional groups of semi-automatic firearms within the definition of a Military Style Semi-automatic (MSSA) firearm:

• a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges; and
• a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

Acting Superintendent Mike McIlraith explains the changes to the firearms classifications and what this means for firearms owners in the video below.

What do I do if I have a firearm that will now be defined as a MSSA?

Police encourages any person now in unlawful possession of a firearm, as it is now classified as a MSSA, to notify Police to arrange to hand over the firearm to our custody. The transitional period allows for people to do so without facing any penalties(link is external).

How do I hand in my firearm to Police?

Please fill out the online form. Once this form has been filled out and submitted to Police online, we will be in touch with you to make arrangements for you to bring your firearm(s) to Police at an allocated time, or for Police to come to you to collect the firearm.

Hand in Firearms form

You can call 0800 311 311 for help with filling out the form.

Please ensure if Police organises for you to bring your firearm to us that you transport it using a firearm carry case or a non-descript bag.

Next steps

The Government has signalled there will be further changes made over the coming weeks to ban all military style semi-automatics and assault rifles permanently.

As Police continues to develop processes we will continue to update information on this web page.

Indicated buyback

Government have signalled that their intention is to buyback impacted firearms. The details of this are being worked through, and will be made available as soon as possible.

Amnesty statement

On Thursday 21 March 2019 the Government took important steps to help make our communities safer by announcing a reclassification of some firearms.

The changes were made to the definition of a military style semi-automatic by an Order in Council and means a number of firearms owned by New Zealander firearms licence holders are now unlawful, as ownership of these require an E category endorsement.

The additional two groups of semi-automatics which now also fall under the MSSA definition:

• a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges; and
• a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

Firearms that are not affected by the Order in Council include:

• rimfire 0.22 semi-automatic rifles,
• semi-automatic shotguns with a tubular magazine that holds five or less rounds, and
• pump action shot guns with a tubular magazine that holds five or less rounds.

A buyback scheme is being considered by Government and details will be released in due course. The Government also has indicated they intend to ban all MSSA firearms in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, because this takes immediate effect, there is an amnesty period in place for the foreseeable future. Once the legislation has been changed we will have more clarity around the period of amnesty for firearm owners.

The amnesty allows for firearm owners to take the necessary steps to hand their firearms in to Police.

The amnesty period applies to all firearms. This includes firearms which were unlawful before the changes announced on 21 March.

Firearm owners can notify Police of their intention to hand in their firearms by filling in our online form or by calling 0800 311 311.

FAQs

Firearms changes FAQs

Do you have any other questions?

Please fill out the Hand in Firearms enquiry form or you can call 0800 311 311 if you have any enquiries.

 

On the bright side of things, it appears my MKA1919 shot gun is still legal.

[Muda69]

8 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms

 

On the bright side of things, it appears my MKA1919 shot gun is still legal.

Thanks for the info IO.

[Muda69]

In New Zealand, Terrorism Is Winning: https://spectator.org/in-new-zealand-terrorism-is-winning/

Quote

Terrorists, it seems, hate lots of things. And most of those things are either rooted in or expressions of freedom.

Some hate speech that contradicts their beliefs; others clothing that goes against their own religious or cultural norms; and yet others societies in which different races and classes of people are free to live side-by-side. In fact, one of the more popular theories regarding why Muslim extremists so despise the West relies on their resentment of the freedom enabled by Western ideals.

Those who hate freedom naturally gravitate toward its opposite, control, which is at its root the motivation behind any terrorist act, including the horrific attack in Christchurch, New Zealand that took the lives of 50 innocent Muslims attending mosque.

While the gunman claimed to be waging war against Islam’s infiltration of the West, his actions were ripped straight from the playbook prized by jihadis and every other type of fringe lunatic, regardless of ideology. What terrorists can’t control, they kill. Pot, meet kettle.

Such control, however, is anathema to Western culture, which largely shuns zealotry and intolerance in favor of more dynamic, and by extension successful, societies.

Which is precisely why the actions taken by the New Zealand government following the attack are so disheartening. In an odd attempt to prove that terrorism works, the Kiwis have begun rolling back the freedoms that made the nation great and, ironically, served as the motivation for the country’s Muslims to travel halfway around the world and settle in the remote island nation.

New Zealanders’ grief, as well as their desire to prevent future attacks, are understandable. But the use of the tragedy by government and industry to revoke longstanding rights is yet another attack on the people of New Zealand. One the Kiwis need not suffer.

Immediately after the attack, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern channeled the advice of former Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, who notoriously declared “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” by announcing a ban on assault rifles and “military-style semi-automatic weapons.” The punishing of native and lawful gun owners for the actions of a single, misguided foreigner, however, was only the beginning, as Ardern later warned: “But be assured, this is just the beginning of the work we need to do.”

Banning entire categories of guns does little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, as France clearly demonstrates. But it does plenty to solidify government control over its citizenry.

Of course, such increased control seems a logical policy to the new left, and the government’s private-sector sympathizers have proven eager to pile on. The country’s telecommunications companies, as well as their Australian counterparts, quickly leaned on the attack to implement authoritarian censorship measures. Per Ars Technica:

Internet service providers… temporarily blocked access to dozens of websites, including 4chan and 8chan, that hosted video of last week’s New Zealand mass shooting.…

In Australia, ISP Vodafone said that blocking requests generally come from courts or law enforcement agencies but that this time ISPs acted on their own…

“Acted on their own”?

While there are certainly arguments to be made against sharing video of the attack, the shutting down of entire forums by industry for the sake of a single video is eerily reminiscent of the practices of the Chinese and Iranian governments. Or, for that matter, American tech companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

In the digital age, free speech lies more in the realm of the private sector than it does the public, and citizens are sadly at the whim of companies’ political leanings. And the Christchurch massacre provided the perfect camouflage for the region’s tech companies to flex their muscles and police speech, in this case absent a request from the government. 1984, anyone?

But perhaps not even Orwell could imagine a leading New Zealand bookseller removing famed psychologist and pundit Jordan Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos from its shelves. Never mind the fact that the book includes a chapter critically addressing the motivations of mass shooters and prescriptions for preventing such events from happening in the future.

As Ardern warned, however, the powers-that-be in New Zealand are just getting started. They have even gone so far as to ban the shooter’s manifesto, a work that, while vile, should remain in the marketplace of ideas solely for its potential for ridicule.

It seems that Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law, namely that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, is playing out in real time as New Zealand’s powers-that-be are finally achieving a level of control that would make the gunman green with envy.

The people would be wise to not let their emotions cloud the ramifications of government, and corporate, overreach. For just as taxes are never repealed, rights are rarely restored.

As of yet there have been no large-scale protests or significant calls for resistance; of course, one can hardly blame the people of New Zealand for focusing more on the victims than policy in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

But when the dead are buried and the smoke clears, it may well be too late.

 

[Muda69]

New Zealand Gang: We Won't Give Up Our Guns To Government: https://www.dailywire.com/news/45483/new-zealand-gang-we-wont-give-our-guns-government-james-barrett

Quote

As the New Zealand Parliament works through the details of its new hardline gun control laws, including the banning of all military-style semi-automatic weapons and forced gun confiscation, one of the country's more notorious gangs remains defiant, saying they will not give up their weapons because "we can't guarantee our own safety."

 

The leader of New Zealand's notorious Mongrel Mob gang's Waikato branch, Sonny Fauto, told New Zealand-based news outlet Stuff over the weekend that his gang will not comply with the gun ban.

"Will gangs get rid of their weapons? No," Fatu told the outlet. "Because of who we are, we can't guarantee our own safety."

Citing an April 2017 report by the Law and Order Select Committee, Stuff notes that a 2014 police analysis found that nearly half of gang members were charged with firearms offenses. Gang members have admitted that many of those weapons have been obtained illegally. But, Fatu insists, they are necessary for their own protection — and haven't resulted in the kinds of mass violence that occured in Christchurch.

"It's not in our culture to inflict harm on innocent people like what happened in Christchurch," Fatu told Stuff. "The attacks between our organizations are gang-on-gang, they do not involve the non-gang members."

"[H]ow many [mass shootings] have been committed by someone of Pākehā origin?" he asked, referencing white New Zealanders. "Many if we include the terror raids of marae when colonialists stole land and killed women and children, but in more recent times we have Aramoana and now this — the murder of 50 innocent people."

....

The gun control legislation has cleared all hurdles thus far and is expected to go into effect within a couple of weeks. Government officials have already been calling on citizens to voluntarily give up their weapons and are offering a gun buy-back program. Citizens will have until September to turn in any banned guns. Anyone caught possessing a banned weapons after that could face up to five years in prison.

...

I guess the old quote may come true:  "Once guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns."