New Zealand Doubles Down

NZ PM Jacinda Ardern, image via Newsweek

Monday the New Zealand Prime Minster, Jacinda Ardern, doubled down on the gun control slippery slope she is placing the nation upon. Adding to the semi-automatic ban and confiscation order the New Zealand government passed in the wake of Christchurch, the PM is implementing a second wave of changes.

The changes, which include a mandatory gun registry and a ban on gun purchases by foreign visitors, will “enshrine in law that owning a firearm is a privilege” rather than a right, Ms. Ardern said. [emphasis added]

Arms are not a privilege, they are a right of all free persons. But for those who disagree that owning the tools for self defense is a right, that you in fact have the right to be secure in your person and property, this is music to touch their misguided or authoritarian hearts.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she thinks the vast majority of New Zealanders disagree with the U.S. model under which gun ownership is seen as a constitutional right and is interpreted by many to be a defense against potential government overreach.AP

Says the overreaching government…

Ardern said that growing up in a rural farming area, she always understood New Zealanders had a practical need for owning guns.

“But at the same time I don’t think that extends to this view that every New Zealand citizen has the need and right to generally arm itself,” she said. “We’re a society that I think has always drawn that very clear distinction.”

New Zealand, are you a free society or not?

Are your rights… your civil rights… your natural rights… are they yours or are they privileges from the government? If they are privileges then that is not a free society and you are not free, just well taken care of at the moment.

Ardern listed the differences between New Zealand society, their policies and procedures policing, and their societal attitude toward firearms being less impassioned than here in the United States but that does not change two things.

  1. These changes will not prevent another massacre. It won’t even drastically change the chances of the event or the methods by which casualties can be caused.
  2. There will be a level of disobedience and the individuals who want to cause havoc will happily work within that framework to accomplish their ends.

Ardern can shout the fact that New Zealand police generally don’t patrol with guns all she would like, but policing practices shift to meet threats. Just look at the UK quietly increasing armed patrol officers to counter violent crime.

Let’s also quietly pass over the fact that a madman in Japan killed 34 with arson. It didn’t take a gun. Banning a gun doesn’t stop mass casualty attacks. Nice, France folks…

I’m just beating the drum and shaking my head… maybe actually beating the drum with my head. Why must we jump to bad reactionary policy after every horrific event? Why are the opinions of experts discarded because the true answer of, “We can’t prevent this.” is summarily rejected?

Why am I harping on the legislative decisions of a foreign country?

Easy, the legislative anti-gunners here want to use the same arguments to the same end here and the successes there will be used as leverage.