Hillbillies and guns.

[Seth]

...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.

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

I don't think the Maori agree with you.

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.

Had the Maori been armed with M-4 carbines and .50 Browning M2 machine guns, or merely the equivalent of the state-of-the-art technology of the time...along with a good supply of antibiotics and serums for the biological warfare that the Brits waged on them, things would be substantially different in Kiwiland right now.

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?

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?

The most significant action they are known for was to cut the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge before the governor could do so. We're a different society to yours. Your blinkered, insular mindset is incapable of comprehending just how profoundly, fundamentally different the fabric of societies can be in comparison to that of your country.

You're all human beings, and when push comes to shove you'll react like every other human population that has ever existed to threats to your lives and security. Why the fuck do you think you have both a military (such as it is) and a police force?

The only question is who among you will survive such a spasm...and I can guarantee you it won't be the unarmed pacifists.

*Derp*!

[Seth]

The biggest post disaster risk related to fighting is the people, like certain members of this forum, who insist on arming themselves to the teeth.

Even the recent hurricane in the Philippines, which was the strongest to ever hit land any time in recorded history, did not result in the need for anyone to carry guns.

It didn't?

By Andrew R.C. Marshall and Stuart Grudgings

TACLOBAN, Philippines, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Desperation gripped Philippine islands devastated by Typhoon Haiyan as looting turned deadly on Wednesday and survivors panicked over shortages of food, water and medicine, some digging up underground water pipes and smashing them open.

Five days after one of the strongest storms ever recorded slammed into cities and towns in the central Philippines, anger and frustration boiled over on Wednesday as essential supplies dwindled. Some survivors scrawled signs reading "Help us".

Controversy also emerged over the death toll. President Benigno Aquino said local officials had overstated the loss of life, saying it was closer to 2,000 or 2,500 than the 10,000 previously estimated. His comments, however, drew scepticism from some aid workers.

Some areas appeared to teeter near anarchy amid widespread looting of shops and warehouses for food, water and supplies.

There were reports of gunfire between security forces and armed men near a mass grave in worst-hit Tacloban in Leyte province, but city administrator Tecson John Lim denied the clash based on information he had received from the army.

Eight people were crushed to death when looters raided rice stockpiles in a government warehouse in the town of Alangalang, causing a wall to collapse, local authorities said.

Tacloban City in Leyte was placed under a state of emergency and a curfew was implemented following looting and other anarchistic behavior in the wake of Typhoon Yolanda, or Haiyan, according to reports.

Why not? Because there were no "armed to the teeth" preppers there.

Wrong. "Armed to the teeth preppers" are not the problem, they are the solution to anarchistic civil disorder, the more the merrier.

The simple fact is that, the fewer the guns available to civilians, the less the trouble. The USA will, one day, wake up to the fact that its troubles are of its own making, because of that ludicrous second amendment, and the pathological gun culture.

Except that as usual, you're wrong, particularly in disaster situations where unarmed citizens are even MORE likely to be victimized by armed thugs because of the breakdown in the ability of the police to respond in a timely manner. New Orleans is a quintessential example of that. So are many other natural disasters where the predatory, who are almost always armed, take advantage of the helpless victims in the chaos.

It's been that way since the beginning of human history and nothing is going to change any time soon.

[Seth]

Safe from rogue cops in the US? Do you include Maricopa Co AZ?

You mean Sheriff Joe Arpio? He's just doing his job, and doing it better than most.

If you call what he does "doing his job", including meddling in birther schemes to prove that Prez Obama is not a Native US citizen even though his mother is, we obviously disagree as to what huis job is, and it's certainly not setting up jailss that violate the 8th amentment.

His jails don't violate the 8th Amendment. As he says, if tents are good enough for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan they are good enough for criminals in Arizona.

As for his off-duty political activities, that's his right.

Not when his using county funds and employees to "investigate" the president.

Sure it is. He's the Sheriff. You have no idea how broad the authority of a Sheriff is in the US. And evidently the people of the county appreciate what he's doing, since they keep right on re-electing him again and again and again. If they are happy, I'm happy. If they become unhappy with his policies, the residents of the county will un-elect him.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Blind groper]

I am feeling very disgusted with Seth. Indeed, quite pissed off.

Seth, do a bit of research before you shoot off at the mouth.

The Maori of New Zealand were not invaded by the British. They were not subjugated at gun point. Our history with our indigenous people is quite, quite different to how it happened with the natives of the USA.

Let me correct your ignorance.
After the country was discovered by Captain Cook and others, there was an influx of whalers, sealers and traders. The Maori were not subject to attack by whiteys at this stage. The initial problems came as a result of trade. Certain Maori tribes got hold of guns and proceeded to massacre their traditional enemies - other Maoris. So the ownership of guns by Maori was the problem, not the lack.

Maori then got together with representatives of the British crown, and the Treaty of Waitangi was the result. Maori agreed to governership of New Zealand by the British crown, in return for certain assurances, and most importantly, for "the rights and privileges of British citizens". This meant protection against other Maoris, which was provided. The massacres ended post haste.

New Zealand had troubles later when certain citizens used nefarious methods of obtaining land off Maori, and some limited conflict came from that. Recently, the NZ government has been compensating the Maori tribes who lost land.

So, Seth, your paranoid picture was wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Seabass]

I am feeling very disgusted with Seth. Indeed, quite pissed off.

Seth, do a bit of research before you shoot off at the mouth.

The Maori of New Zealand were not invaded by the British. They were not subjugated at gun point. Our history with our indigenous people is quite, quite different to how it happened with the natives of the USA.

Let me correct your ignorance.
After the country was discovered by Captain Cook and others, there was an influx of whalers, sealers and traders. The Maori were not subject to attack by whiteys at this stage. The initial problems came as a result of trade. Certain Maori tribes got hold of guns and proceeded to massacre their traditional enemies - other Maoris. So the ownership of guns by Maori was the problem, not the lack.

Maori then got together with representatives of the British crown, and the Treaty of Waitangi was the result. Maori agreed to governership of New Zealand by the British crown, in return for certain assurances, and most importantly, for "the rights and privileges of British citizens". This meant protection against other Maoris, which was provided. The massacres ended post haste.

New Zealand had troubles later when certain citizens used nefarious methods of obtaining land off Maori, and some limited conflict came from that. Recently, the NZ government has been compensating the Maori tribes who lost land.

So, Seth, your paranoid picture was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pot/kettle.

[JimC]

I am feeling very disgusted with Seth. Indeed, quite pissed off.

Seth, do a bit of research before you shoot off at the mouth.

The Maori of New Zealand were not invaded by the British. They were not subjugated at gun point. Our history with our indigenous people is quite, quite different to how it happened with the natives of the USA.

Let me correct your ignorance.
After the country was discovered by Captain Cook and others, there was an influx of whalers, sealers and traders. The Maori were not subject to attack by whiteys at this stage. The initial problems came as a result of trade. Certain Maori tribes got hold of guns and proceeded to massacre their traditional enemies - other Maoris. So the ownership of guns by Maori was the problem, not the lack.

Maori then got together with representatives of the British crown, and the Treaty of Waitangi was the result. Maori agreed to governership of New Zealand by the British crown, in return for certain assurances, and most importantly, for "the rights and privileges of British citizens". This meant protection against other Maoris, which was provided. The massacres ended post haste.

New Zealand had troubles later when certain citizens used nefarious methods of obtaining land off Maori, and some limited conflict came from that. Recently, the NZ government has been compensating the Maori tribes who lost land.

So, Seth, your paranoid picture was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pot/kettle.

A strange and pathetic use of "pot/kettle"...

BG was simply correcting the appalling historical mistakes made by Seth, whose knowledge of events outside the US seems to be on a par with his knowledge of nuclear physics...

[Seabass]

I am feeling very disgusted with Seth. Indeed, quite pissed off.

Seth, do a bit of research before you shoot off at the mouth.

The Maori of New Zealand were not invaded by the British. They were not subjugated at gun point. Our history with our indigenous people is quite, quite different to how it happened with the natives of the USA.

Let me correct your ignorance.
After the country was discovered by Captain Cook and others, there was an influx of whalers, sealers and traders. The Maori were not subject to attack by whiteys at this stage. The initial problems came as a result of trade. Certain Maori tribes got hold of guns and proceeded to massacre their traditional enemies - other Maoris. So the ownership of guns by Maori was the problem, not the lack.

Maori then got together with representatives of the British crown, and the Treaty of Waitangi was the result. Maori agreed to governership of New Zealand by the British crown, in return for certain assurances, and most importantly, for "the rights and privileges of British citizens". This meant protection against other Maoris, which was provided. The massacres ended post haste.

New Zealand had troubles later when certain citizens used nefarious methods of obtaining land off Maori, and some limited conflict came from that. Recently, the NZ government has been compensating the Maori tribes who lost land.

So, Seth, your paranoid picture was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pot/kettle.

A strange and pathetic use of "pot/kettle"...

BG was simply correcting the appalling historical mistakes made by Seth, whose knowledge of events outside the US seems to be on a par with his knowledge of nuclear physics...

Blind Groper frequently says outrageous shit about the U.S. Now he's angry over Seth saying outrageous shit about New Zealand. God forbid Groper gets a bit of his own medicine. Seems like an appropriate use of pot/kettle to me. But what do I know? I'm just an backward, fat, American barbarian.

[Blind groper]

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.

[JimC]

Seabass wrote:

I'm just an backward, fat, American barbarian.

[laklak]

I ain't fat. A backward barbarian, sure, but not fat. I'm striving for portly.

[Seth]

...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.

[Seth]

I am feeling very disgusted with Seth. Indeed, quite pissed off.

Seth, do a bit of research before you shoot off at the mouth.

The Maori of New Zealand were not invaded by the British. They were not subjugated at gun point. Our history with our indigenous people is quite, quite different to how it happened with the natives of the USA.

Let me correct your ignorance.
After the country was discovered by Captain Cook and others, there was an influx of whalers, sealers and traders. The Maori were not subject to attack by whiteys at this stage. The initial problems came as a result of trade. Certain Maori tribes got hold of guns and proceeded to massacre their traditional enemies - other Maoris. So the ownership of guns by Maori was the problem, not the lack.

As if they hadn't been warring with their "traditional enemies" for hundreds of years before firearms showed up... Sheesh.

Maori then got together with representatives of the British crown, and the Treaty of Waitangi was the result. Maori agreed to governership of New Zealand by the British crown, in return for certain assurances, and most importantly, for "the rights and privileges of British citizens". This meant protection against other Maoris, which was provided. The massacres ended post haste.

An economic and social invasion is still an imperialistic invasion. And if you think I believe for a moment that no "whiteys" ever attacked a Maori before the British Crown subjugated all of them you're insane.

New Zealand had troubles later when certain citizens used nefarious methods of obtaining land off Maori, and some limited conflict came from that. Recently, the NZ government has been compensating the Maori tribes who lost land.

And you have the temerity to bitch about forcible occupation of native lands in the US? I'll remember this next time you toss out that particular red herring.

So, Seth, your paranoid picture was wrong, wrong, wrong.

No, it's not. New Zealand was invaded by the Brits, who took control of the islands and didn't relinquish it till British interests were secured by the influx of non-native immigrants who crowded out the native inhabitants.

But that's really beside the point, which is that the assertion that New Zealand was settled peacefully is nonsense, as is the claim that the need for individual citizens to be armed for self defense against riot or other public disorder does not exist because there is something "special" about Kiwis in general.

There isn't. They are human beings and shit happens in New Zealand just as it does everywhere else, and when it comes to riots, it can happen tomorrow and you will be entirely unprepared to defend yourself and your family should it happen.

That's the actual point here.

[Seth]

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.

Your so-called "factual" arguments about both New Zealand AND the United States are for the most part grossly ignorant and pretty much universally wrong, not to mention outrageous and stupid.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Re the Maori

The native people of NZ were, indeed, tribal, and pugnaceous before the coming of the white man. Inter-tribal battles were common and often lethal. That is why the coming of the gun was such a terrible thing. When certain Maori tribes got hold of guns, the result was massacres.

However, the British did not "invade". They colonised, which is not the same thing. The basis for that colonisation was the Treaty of Waitangi, in which Maori ceded the governorship of the nation to the British crown. (Incidentally, despite your reference, that treaty never guaranteed Maori culture. Clause two of the treaty guaranteed right to traditonal fisheries, lands and traditional treasures. Not a guarantee to preserve their culture.)

I have never claimed that the process was squeaky clean. As I said before, certain people and government figures of British origin used nefarious methods of stealing land off the Maori - a process we are seeking to redress today. These thefts resulted in a degree of conflict in the mid 19th century, and the deaths of some hundreds of people. However, even then, it was not a simple Maori versus whites fight. There were more Maori fighting for the British than opposing them.

It is also worth noting that all conflicts and land-stealing injustices, were done when the British governed. Since NZ born people took over the governing of our country, no such actions occurred again.

In your nation, Seth, it was the opposite. As soon as the British were forced out, the atrocities against the natives accelerated. Things, from the native American viewpoint, were so bad that, in the 1812 war, the natives sided with the British to fight the white Americans.