Gun Owners Outraged as New Zealand Government Refuses to Pay Full Price

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well if Governments can pay millions for Left Handed Hammers, and spend Billions on development of new Military devices that go obsolete before they are completed and all the other money they waste, you expect them to pay top dollar for guns that will be melted down??

Shocking I say just shocking.
 
Labguy47 said:
I wonder why they didn’t set up a gunbroker account and get fair value?
Click to expand...
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to sell guns on an International level unless you are a bonified dealer who knows the ropes. There are export/import licenses just to name two.
 
I just feel bad for the gun owners. I had no doubt buy back prices would stink.

It's unbelievable to me that so many people in this world have been convinced that when someone attacks you, that laying down arms is somehow a solution. People who vote for politicians that promote gun control are willingly tying on a blindfold , binding their hands, and trusting the government to keep them safe. They are allowing themselves to be disarmed for no logical or conceivable reason.

Hail Hydra is the new world mentality.
 
Come on, did anyone expect the government to pay fair market value?
Click to expand...

In their mind they are. How much would you pay to become a felon? If your law abiding, $0.00 is the correct answer. So your firearm is worthless and at least they are throwing you a bone, so to speak, by giving you any compensation for the loss of your arms and rights.
 
You can't look at NZ through American lenses. The two entities are not comparable.

Like the UK and Australia, the Kiwi citizens are (and were) already disarmed a long time ago. For the ordinary citizen there is no self defense with a gun. There is no "good guy with a gun" amongst the neighbours.

The subscriber base isn't there. If it was, self defense would be a viable reason for a firearms license in those territories.

When the subscriber base is mainly concerned with hunting, sport and pest control, it's a lot easier to ban certain classes of weapons.

It's not the government that's the problem.
It's the lack of subscribers to all forms of gun ownership that is the problem.
 
Odd Job said:
You can't look at NZ through American lenses. The two entities are not comparable.

Like the UK and Australia, the Kiwi citizens are (and were) already disarmed a long time ago. For the ordinary citizen there is no self defense with a gun. There is no "good guy with a gun" amongst the neighbours.

The subscriber base isn't there. If it was, self defense would be a viable reason for a firearms license in those territories.

When the subscriber base is mainly concerned with hunting, sport and pest control, it's a lot easier to ban certain classes of weapons.

It's not the government that's the problem.
It's the lack of subscribers to all forms of gun ownership that is the problem.
Click to expand...

True, unfortunately...
 
351 WINCHESTER said:
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to sell guns on an International level unless you are a bonified dealer who knows the ropes. There are export/import licenses just to name two.
Click to expand...

I would think that since they can’t afford to buy them that they would as a government set something up.
 
There is a parallel in history to illustrate how politicians have ripped off the public, of course in the best interest of the public and for their own good. Executive order confiscating gold in 1933, public was assured they would be reimbursed the equivalent value in paper currency......at $20 per ounce. After the gold was turned in the Federal Reserve raised the value to $35 an ounce.

Executive_Order_6102.jpg
 
If the NZ government had any common sense and/or ethics, it would first research the average retail value (over the last 3 years) of the guns to be confiscated and pay the citizen that price, and allow for some wiggle room if the citizen can prove the gun is above average value, for whatever reason. I mean, how hard is that? The answer: it's not hard at all.

This is another reason to never, ever trust big government.
 
My friends in Australia told me that when their Government was doing the 'Buyback' in 1995(?) they were often paying prices much higher than market value. If a value was considered too low a number of selected people in the firearms trade were consulted to ascertain a correct amount.....this often happened with higher grade guns.
 
Lycidas Janwor said:
If the NZ government had any common sense and/or ethics, it would first research the average retail value (over the last 3 years) of the guns to be confiscated and pay the citizen that price, and allow for some wiggle room if the citizen can prove the gun is above average value, for whatever reason. I mean, how hard is that? The answer: it's not hard at all.

This is another reason to never, ever trust big government.
Click to expand...
It's not just BIG government, it is government in general - unfortunately, a necessary evil whose powers need to be checked and curtailed often and with harsh punishment
 
Odd Job said:
When the subscriber base is mainly concerned with hunting, sport and pest control, it's a lot easier to ban certain classes of weapons.
Click to expand...
That should be the lesson for Americans. Too many people justify gun ownership in terms of hunting and sport shooting, pastimes that are on the decline. The core of the 2nd Amendment is a civil and political right (self defense and -- however theoretical -- defense against tyranny). You can't protect gun ownership, long term, by appealing to the Fudds. You have to increase the number who are actively using their guns for self defense. (I don't carry, but I see those who do as my allies, politically. As long as they don't carry openly, because that alienates the bystanders.) We need to have more legal, concealed carrying among minority communities.
 
The jokes about "boating accidents"---

Doesn't a govt. which might have had the vast majority of "legal guns" on a registry Know when a gun is sold, otherwise it still is listed as being in the owner's possession?
 
Ignition Override said:
The jokes about "boating accidents"---

Doesn't a govt. which might have had the vast majority of "legal guns" on a registry Know when a gun is sold, otherwise it still is listed as being in the owner's possession?
Click to expand...

Unless it’s resting comfortably at the bottom of a fjord
 
Ignition Override said:
The jokes about "boating accidents"---

Doesn't a govt. which might have had the vast majority of "legal guns" on a registry Know when a gun is sold, otherwise it still is listed as being in the owner's possession?
Click to expand...

A government agent can't prosecute without evidence that the one time owner is in possession of said contraband. (caveat, unless it's unlawful to not report boating accidents) ;) At which point tyranny raises to the level of outright abuse, said unfound contraband presents itself, presumably pointed at said tyranny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jjadurbin
  • Locked
A Real Sorry State
Replies
22
Views
1K
Walkalong
Walkalong
C
  • Locked
New Zealand: "Gun Owners Attack Registration"
Replies
3
Views
443
atek3
atek3
F
  • Locked
New Zealand is next...
Replies
4
Views
614
fallingblock
F
F
  • Locked
New Zealand's dilemma
Replies
0
Views
375
fallingblock
F
hso
  • Locked
NYT - New Zealand’s weapons buyback runs into an obstacle: gun owners
Replies
17
Views
1K
whm1974
W
Back
Top