New Zealand Passes First Reading On Gun Bans Bill

So many gun grabbers here in the U.S. are wondering why we can’t do the same, all while proclaiming they aren’t for banning most guns, they just want common sense reform

New Zealand passes initial vote for new gun controls

New Zealand lawmakers on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly in favor of new gun restrictions during the first stage of a bill they hope to rush into law by the end of next week.

The bill would ban the types of weapons a gunman used to kill 50 people at two mosques last month.

The bill was backed by both liberals and conservatives, with only a single lawmaker from the 120 that sit in Parliament voting against it. The vote was the first of three that lawmakers must pass before the bill becomes law.

So, what exactly is this gun grabbing bill doing?

(NPR) In addition to banning most semi-automatic firearms, the bill also prohibits the sale, import, supply or possession of pump-action shotguns that can be used with detachable magazines or that hold more than five cartridges. It excludes pistols, as well as some guns — “small-calibre rimfire semi-automatic firearms and lesser-capacity shotguns” — often used by farmers and hunters. The measure also provides exemptions for groups such as “bona fide collectors of firearms” and pest controllers.

The bill provides amnesty covering the surrender of firearms, magazines and parts through Sept. 30. Ardern has said the government will create a buyback scheme to compensate owners of banned firearms, a program that could cost up to 200 million New Zealand dollars (about $137 million).

Have a shotgun that holds more than 5 shells? Banned. You’re now a criminal unless you turn it in. Have a rifle that shoots a caliber higher than a .22, which many, many hunters of bigger game have? Criminal unless you turn your legally purchased property in. Pistols may be excluded, but only if they hold 10 rounds or less. And, really, any gun owner knows that a handgun can do just as much damage in a crowded area as an “assault rifle.” Maybe more.

The bill is set to have its first reading on Tuesday and then head to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, New Zealand newspaper Stuff reports. A second tranche of gun control measures, including a weapons registry, is expected later this year.

The government can take anything if it knows where it is. I wonder how many women will now be dis-empowered now that they are disarmed?

Oh, and the graphic isn’t quite correct, since the non scary rifle would seem to be banned, too.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

63 Responses to “New Zealand Passes First Reading On Gun Bans Bill”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    “Gun grabbers” sounds like a derogatory epithet to me.

    But anyway, Teach typed: Have a rifle that shoots a caliber higher than a .22, which many, many (all?) hunters of bigger game have? Criminal unless you turn your legally purchased property in.

    Are you sure that’s what the bill says? I could be wrong, but it sounds like the bill bans center-fire semi-auto rifles but leaves other actions (bolt, single-shot, lever) in all calibers and rimfire (.22) alone.

    Will women really be disarmed if limited to a 10 round semi-auto handgun??

    Teach asks: Have a shotgun that holds more than 5 shells? Banned.

    Most hunting/skeet/trap shotguns have a 5 (4+1) shell capacity, although many states limit the capacity to 3 (2+1) for hunting. So-called “tactical” (home defense) shotguns have larger magazines.

    In Missouri, if you’re hunting waterfowl without a “plug” in your Remington (to limit magazine capacity) you can get into big trouble with a Game Warden. Does this violate your 2nd Amendment rights?

    Mass shootings have an outsized negative effect on a society, compared to the same number of violent deaths over the course of a month.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Count the number of “red herrings”… https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Thanks. I’m always trying to improve. Would you be so kind to point out a couple of red herrings and explain them to us?

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Should I define it for you too? https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Yes! If you point out the red herrings and explain them, by all means define red herring.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Re-read your first sentence. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Lil,

            It’s obvious that you and formwiz are much smarter than I am, so could you just humor me by telling me in simple terms where I used red herrings?

            Thanks.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Here. I’ll make it a little easier for you since you don’t have the ability to do it for yourself.

            Red Herring:
            also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation.
            Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif
            You’re welcome.

        • formwiz says:

          Not exactly red herrings, but, as with so much else, you either make it up or rely on some Lefty website to give you talking points, mostly based on misinformation.

        • formwiz says:

          Not exactly red herrings, but, as with so much else, you either make it up or rely on some Lefty website to give you talking points, mostly based on misinformation.

          Of course, you object to people being armed for self-defense, particularly home defense, so it’s more an issue of hypocrisy.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            formwiz typed: you object to people being armed for self-defense, particularly home defense

            That’s not true. The Supreme Court ruled in DC vs Heller (2008) that Americans have the right to possess handguns for self-defense. Case closed.

            Frankly, although I have about 20 firearms, they’re all locked up, and never laying around.

    • formwiz says:

      Oh, you mean like deniers or white nationalists or Christianists?

      Semi-automatic only means you don’t have to cock it after firing a shot and an AR-15 is a .22, so this bill sounds like the kind of thing Commie News Net and DiFi would think is OK.

      Will women really be disarmed if limited to a 10 round semi-auto handgun??

      Depends who’s coming after her.

      Most hunting/skeet/trap shotguns have a 5 (4+1) shell capacity, although many states limit the capacity to 3 (2+1) for hunting. So-called “tactical” (home defense) shotguns have larger magazines.

      So, an AR-15 with a 30 round mag should be OK if it’s for home defense. This is why some people get exercised when politicians talk number of rounds. A gang of 10 tries to break into your abode. Hell of a time to have to change magazines.

      Does this violate your 2nd Amendment rights?

      Lefties are famous for their camel’s nose.

      Mass shootings have an outsized negative effect on a society, compared to the same number of violent deaths over the course of a month.

      So, it’s OK for black people to be cut down a dozen a weekend, but we’re going to ban everything other than Saturday Night Specials to save the public’s delicate little psyche.

      Right up there with, “It’s for the chil’run”.

      You people never change.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        formwiz typed: an AR-15 is a .22

        That’s not true. Compare a .22 with a .223 (5.56) cartridge and get back to us. .22LR has 7 grains of powder. .223 has 27.5 grains. Why do the Marines use the 5.56 M4 and not a .22?

        formwiz typed: it’s OK for black people to be cut down a dozen a weekend

        As I said, the mass murders have a greater effect on society. Sad, but true. I didn’t say it was OK, I was making the observation. Do you disagree?

        If you have to worry about a gang of 10 invading your home you should either move or invest in Claymore mines.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          …invest in Claymore mines.
          Yep. That makes sense.
          Or one could simply purchase an AR.
          https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • formwiz says:

          The shell capacity for powder has nothing to do with the caliber. The 223 is longer than a 22 Long.

          And the effect of mass murder in terms of shock value is not the issue. You made the point you need the shock value. An unceasing list of murders in the Democrat-controlled urban paradises of the US would have just as big an effect if the media made them known.

          They don’t want people to realize, however, that the cities with the most gun control have the most murders.

          If you have to worry about a gang of 10 invading your home you should either move or invest in Claymore mines.

          Nice cavalier Limousine Liberal attitude.

          Says the —– with 2 gun safes.

          If I call you a hypocrite, is that an epithet or just an accurate description?

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Apparently the guy with 2 gun safes lacks a rudimentary knowledge of calibers and ballistics.
            But that’s not surprising. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            A .22 is not a .223, regardless of how often formwiz and Lil lie about it.

            This is what they do. They distract and ridicule but offer little else.

            They say I don’t know anything about guns, but these two think a .22 and .223 are the same! Tell it to the Marines.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            A .223 is not a .556.
            And vice versa.
            Tell it to the Army. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            formwiz typed: If I call you a hypocrite, is that an epithet or just an accurate description?

            It’s a lie, but that’s what you do. Do you know the meaning of hypocrite or epithet?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Lil typed: A .223 is not a .556.

          Actually it’s .223 vs. 5.56, not .556; a .556 would be a bit larger than a 50 cal or 12 G bore!

          A .223 is much, much closer to a 5.56 than it is to a .22LR

          Many AR-15 style rifles, but not all, can shoot .223 and 5.56 interchangeably. The 5.56 round generates greater pressures.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Wow! A misplaced period. Can’t get anything by you. Well done. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Lil,

            Oh, so I see… you used a red herring as an example to show me how it’s done!

            I get it now! Thanks!

            I take it you agree that a .223 is not a .22

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Never claimed .22 and .223 were the same. Other than a misplaced period my comment was correct, but your response was somewhat pedantic…
            https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Lil,

            My mistake. I thought you were backing up formwiz’s position that the .223 is a .22 when he typed “an AR-15 is a .22”. It’s also possible he has a .22 AR-15 but I doubt he’d admit that, unless he’s defending his family from squirrels.

            Anyway, you responded with: “Apparently the guy with 2 gun safes lacks a rudimentary knowledge of calibers and ballistics.”

            Obviously, referring to me. Did you mean to imply that a .223 and .22 have similar ballistics?? I did correctly point out to you guys that a .223 is not a .22. That said, I do not own a rifle that shoots the .223 cartridge.

            I guess we can lay this to rest unless you want to Teach me more about red herrings.

  2. Kye says:

    If “gun grabbers” is an epithet (which it is) is “climate deniers” also one (which it is)? Aside from the fact it’s Teach’s blog so he can do what he wants. After all his motto is: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Which is why I’m still allowed to post here I assume.

    Beside the fact that I do not believe we should grant freedoms to people who would take ours away like commies and Mohammadans. Which is just another reason I should be banned from all civilized discourse. I just don’t believe our mortal enemies and those who would use our laws to murder us deserve any “rights”. They gave that up when they decided to “fundamentally transform” our country or eliminate Constitutional law with Sharia Law.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      If Teach chooses to use derogatory epithets to describe others, you can’t object to him being criticized for it, can you?

      Mockery and ridicule are tried and true methods to distract and frustrate.

      The problem with wanting to eliminate Americans because you disagree with their religion or politics should be obvious. Muslims and Democrats are not our mortal enemies to be eliminated.

      • formwiz says:

        It’s Teach’s blog, his rules.

        I have no doubt you whined to him about what all us nasty Americans called you, but you still don’t give up your little rimshots.

        Mockery and ridicule are tried and true methods to distract and frustrate.

        And you use them all the time.

        The problem with wanting to eliminate Americans because you disagree with their religion or politics should be obvious. Muslims and Democrats are not our mortal enemies to be eliminated.

        Islam has declared war on us. An d guess what? They go after Americans all the time – Jews. That’s why there’s a thing called Jexodus, just like Blexit and Lexit, because the Demos won’t denounce Hell’s Harem.

        As for the Demos, I think they’ll be in worse shape 2 years from now than they were 2 years ago.

      • Kye says:

        Once again you are deliberately misinterpreting my words and/or my intent. I did not say I want to “eliminate” anybody. I don’t want the enemies of my country, my family and my culture allowed to live here. Have you ever heard of The Trojan Horse? Why would you let Mohammadans and communists who are both dedicated to the destruction of our country to enter, stay and get elected here? That’s plain stupid. If this were 1942 would you be for bringing in Nazi’s and Japanese to “prove” we’re open minded to other cultures and races? That is not a policy of Freedom it’s a policy of suicide.

        We cannot maintain our Freedom if we allow our enemies to use them against us. There must be a line of loyalty which one cannot cross and still be allowed to be an American. I don’t care what race a person is (obviously) nor do I care what religion he is. I do care if their religion is at war with us and so many of my countrymen are so stupid they refuse to see it and listen when they shout “Death to America” or “Allahu Akbar” whilst murdering people around the world. That ids war. And if any American fails to realize that “Fundamentally Changing” the United States means they don’t love our country. Do you want to fundamentally change your wife, kids, religion? Not if you love them you don’t. You ant to make them better, stronger, healthier. You want to make them great as they can be.

        • Bill Bear says:

          It is not possible to make America stronger and healthier by abandoning the moral principles on which the country was founded and substituting fear, lies, and bigotry.

          Of course, that does not mean that the fearful lying bigots won’t keep trying.

          “When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevail.” – Pearl S. Buck

          • formwiz says:

            It is not possible to make America stronger and healthier by abandoning the moral principles on which the country was founded and substituting fear, lies, and bigotry.

            So you do everything you can to destroy them. You and your little friends have been sneering at morality for 80 years.

            All you spread is fear, lies, and bigotry.

            that does not mean that the fearful lying bigots won’t keep trying.

            Which is why ewe have to stand against you every second.

            And, of course, it takes a particular gall to quote Pearl Buck as she stood against the Commies in China and whose work was banned there.

            You’re as big a hypocrite in the bear suit as you are in the bunny suit.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Kye,

          You’re suggesting we destroy America to save it. What do we have left if we discriminate against citizens based on religion? Only citizens can be elected to Congress – would you stop Muslim citizens from being elected?

          • formwiz says:

            My God, what drivel.

            The same crew now whining Kumbaya for the Moslems allows the Moslems to spew anti-Semitism.

            Death to America ring a bell? Fatwas?

            What do we have left if we discriminate against citizens based on religion?

            You do it all the time. Christianist? The word is Christian, but you never miss a shot to demean it. Or any other faith.

            Can’t wait until the Moslems get their hands on you.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Count formwiz’s red herrings!!

            Anyway, guilty as charged regarding Christianist. It’s like Islamist except with Christians! But calling a far-right Christianist is not discriminating, is it? Deporting American Muslim citizens, banning them from running for office and who knows what else you would want IS discriminating.

            I won’t use Christianist anymore since it bothers you. BTW, Muslims prefer Muslim, not Moslem or Mohammedan, so we’re sure you and Kye will stop using those terms. Maybe stop calling President Obama a shoeshine boy, too.

            Most agnostics have more to fear from right-wingers than Muslims.

            Do you hope that someone kills me?

            Thanks for supporting my point.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    What New Zealanders do in New Zealand has no relevance to what we do here in the USA. We Aren’t New Zealand. We aren’t Australia. We Aren’t even Canada. All of those countries have the freedom to be as silly as they like because we are America, not them.

  4. Bill Bear says:

    “Beside the fact that I do not believe we should grant freedoms to people who would take ours away like commies and Mohammadans. Which is just another reason I should be banned from all civilized discourse.”

    No, not at all. I strongly advocate for freedom of speech, even for those with viewpoints as odious as those that Kye espouses here.

    It is very important that we know who among us is opposed to the fundamental principles of freedom, equal rights under the law, and freedom of religion upon which our Republic was founded. We need to know which pretend patriots are in fact the enemies of America.

    • formwiz says:

      I strongly advocate for freedom of speech, even for those with viewpoints as odious as those that Kye espouses here.

      That’s awfully white of you.

      Fact is, both entities are at war with us and have said so in no uncertain terms. Funny how, back in WWII, you never heard the Liberals say anything like this about Nazis or Fascists. Of course, they saw the war as the War To Save Communism.

      It is very important that we know who among us is opposed to the fundamental principles of freedom, equal rights under the law, and freedom of religion upon which our Republic was founded. We need to know which pretend patriots are in fact the enemies of America.

      IOW people like you, who expect a separate set of rules for the pecking order in your caste system.

      • Bill Bear says:

        I thank formwiz kindly for reinforcing my point.

        • formwiz says:

          No, I just killed it because the Left has any number of separate sets of rules for the members of its caste system.

          Rich white guys walk.

          Rich black guys do a little time.

          Poor white guys spend the rest of their lives in stir.

          Poor black guys get a hole in the ground.

          More to the point, when you talk about pretend patriots and the enemies of America, you’re just projecting. They’re also epithets, as is who among us is opposed to the fundamental principles of freedom, equal rights under the law, and freedom of religion upon which our Republic was founded.

          You oppose equal rights because most of the Democrat party would be in jail, along with many of its supporters. You oppose freedom of religion because you denigrate those who have faith. And you’re against the fundamental principles of freedom because you want everybody to live their lives the way your trollmassas tell you they should.

          Getting sanctimonious is where you always trip yourselves up because you always have to project your own neuroses onto us.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        formwiz typed: Of course, they (liberals) saw the war (WWII) as the War To Save Communism.

        A little confused. It was American conservatives who opposed the US involvement in WWII, preferring Nazis over Communists and Christians over Jews.

        Wanting to eliminate certain Americans because you disagree with their religion or political stance is not very patriotic, is it?

        formwiz typed: who expect a separate set of rules for the pecking order in your caste system.

        Do you have any evidence to support your belief that liberals want a caste system? Liberals fight against the inequalities in justice and economics. If your answer has Clinton in it, don’t bother.

        • formwiz says:

          Try again, sweet cheeks.

          American Conservatives opposed intervention into another European war because we had been shafted by the Euros first time out.

          Howsomever, Communists demanded Franklin Roosevelt declare war on Britain because it was fighting Russia’s great ally, Germany. That only changed when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

          Do you have any evidence to support your belief that liberals want a caste system? Liberals fight against the inequalities in justice and economics. If your answer has Clinton in it, don’t bother.

          First, don’t you dare tell me what I can and can’t do.

          Second, it’s already in place. How many blacks are in leadership positions in the Democrat party? Senate and House leaders are white. Most committee chairs are white and most of those are men.

          When has all this fighting happened? Lefties never met a tax they didn’t like and impose unconstitutional laws all the time.

          They oppose tax cuts that give Americans more take home, they oppose more energy in this country, they want to tell us what we’re allowed to eat, and how many Democrats have even been indicted, much less sent to prison for breaking the law?

          This, of course, includes the Ozark Mafia (up yours), but also takes in the Choom Gang, Occasional Cortex, Hell’s Harem, Teddy Kennedy, etc.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Thanks for making my point. Again.

            But if you’re interested in helping poor whites and poor Blacks we can work together!!

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            There you go again. Run out of arguments? LOL.

            “Sweet cheeks” and “up yours”… LOL. Why are you obsessed with my butt?

            formwiz typed: don’t you dare tell me what I can and can’t do.

            LOL. I’ll type whatever I please. We comment here at the pleasure of our host, not you.

  5. Kye says:

    We do need to know who the “pretend patriots” are. They would be the ones willingly inviting enemies of America to come here. They would use our freedoms to destroy us. Killing America is NOT patriotic so I’m thankful those who are doing so have revealed themselves.

    Indeed “our” Republic was founded upon certain freedoms but it was not meant as a suicide pact and as we all know, freedoms are not absolute. Ask a gun grabber or a person indicted for “hate” speech. Same goes for religion. Especially one which has been at war with Christianity and Judaism for 1200 years and at war with America since 1776. There is noting in our laws forbidding us to defend ourselves against a warring theocracy disguised as a theology.

    • Bill Bear says:

      Many thanks to Kye for once again confirming his opposition to the founding principles of the United States. This is why freedom of speech is so very important.

      • formwiz says:

        It lets you spread your lies. What Kye says, and you damned well know it, is that, under the Left, the law is applied unequally and laws are written to silence opposition to the Left.

        You can bloviate all you want, but you betray yourself every time you open your mouth.

    • Bill Bear says:

      Kye is wrong — as usual. We know where he got his ludicrous claims, and we know that his source is a pathological liar.

      Trump’s False Muslim Claim

      https://factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-false-muslim-claim/

      March 16, 2016

      Trump wrongly claimed that a Pew Research Center survey found that among the world’s Muslims, “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war” against the U.S.

      The Pew Research Center says it has conducted no survey that asks such a question, nor did experts we consulted know of any such survey. One expert we talked to called Trump’s claim “nonsense.” Another told us it had “no scientific basis.”

      Trump’s statement came when “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked Trump about his blanket statement during a March 9 interview on CNN that “Islam hates us.” (Trump doubled down on that statement during the Republican debate the following night.)

      On “Fox News Sunday,” Wallace said that among the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, “according to the best experts, think tanks around the world, they say at most, 100,000 people are fighting for jihadist causes. That’s less than — it’s a tiny fraction of 1 percent.”

      Trump said Wallace’s figure was “about as wrong as you can get” and that “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war.” Trump cited Pew as his source.

      Trump, March 13: You’re saying that out of 1.5 billion, 100,000, right — let me tell you, whoever did that survey was about as wrong as you can get. It’s 27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war, would — the hatred is tremendous, Chris.

      Wallace: … Wait, wait, you’re saying 250 — you’re saying 250 — 300 million Muslims would go to war against us?

      Trump: Why don’t you take a look at the Pew poll that came out very recently or fairly recently, where I think the number — I mean, I could be corrected, it’s whatever it is — but it’s something like 27 percent are, you know, really very militant about going after things.

      And you’ll have to look at it. They did a very strong study. And let’s see what it says. But it’s a very significant number. It’s not 100,000 people, I can tell you that. It’s a ridiculous number.

      But, look, there’s something going on, Chris, whether you like it or not. It would be easier for me to say, “Oh, no, everybody loves us.” But there’s something going on. There’s a big problem. And radical Islamic terrorism is taking place all over the world.

      We reached out to the Pew Research Center — a nonpartisan group that conducts public opinion polling but does not take policy positions — and a spokeswoman told us it has not conducted any survey that fits Trump’s description.

      “The Center has not issued a survey saying that 27 percent of Muslims would go to war with the US, nor has the Center asked a question of Muslims about ‘going to war,’ ” Dana Page, a spokeswoman for the Pew Research Center, told us in an email.

      Pew did publish a report in 2014 that generally found concern about Islamic extremism is high among countries with substantial Muslim populations, and that the concern was growing in the Middle East. It found that overall, few Muslims endorse “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets as a means of defending Islam against its enemies,” Page said. However, there were a few countries where “substantial minorities believe suicide bombing can be often justified or sometimes justified,” Page said.

      For example, more than a quarter of Muslims in a few countries responded that violence against civilians is at least sometimes justified in defense of Islam, including the Palestinian territories (46 percent), Lebanon (29 percent) and Bangladesh (47 percent). But those countries were the exception rather than the rule. For example, in Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, 89 percent said suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians are rarely or never justified.

      But those who expressed support for violence to defend Islam from its enemies didn’t say, nor were they asked, if they “would go to war” with the U.S., as Trump claims.

      Page noted that the question on whether violence against civilians is ever justified does not specify a particular country (such as the U.S.) or group (such as Christians).

      Pew Research Center also found that “most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of the terrorist group ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94 percent in Jordan.” This refers to the terrorist group Islamic State — also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). And strong majorities in most countries with substantial Muslim populations have unfavorable opinions of al Qaeda, the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

      We emailed Trump’s campaign to ask what survey Trump may have been referring to, but we did not hear back. However, in December, Trump released a statement that called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” and cited Pew Research and one other survey.

      Trump, Dec. 7, 2015: According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.” …

      The other survey referenced by Trump was an unscientific, opt-in online poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy in June 2015. The survey of 600 American Muslims, culled from those who had previously agreed to respond to such surveys, found that 29 percent agreed that “violence against those that insult the prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable.” Also, 25 percent agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

      Experts warn that an opt-in Internet survey is notoriously unreliable, and the Center for Security Policy itself cautions that the survey can’t be used to represent the American Muslim population at large, but rather “the results are of those individual Muslims polled.” The Washington Post noted that the president and founder of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, is identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Muslim extremist. The survey doesn’t represent all Muslims living in the United States — only those surveyed who purported to be Muslim — let alone the world’s Muslims, which was Trump’s claim on “Fox News Sunday.”

      In any case, none of these results speaks to Trump’s claim that 27 percent or more “would go to war” with the U.S. And experts we spoke with said they knew of no other surveys that found — or even asked — such a thing.

      “I don’t know where Mr. Trump got the figure of 27 or 35 percent of Muslims that want to go to war with the U.S.,” Angel Rabasa, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation who has written extensively about extremism, told us via email. “As far as I know there is no scientific basis for that statement.”

      We also reached out to Shadi Hamid, senior fellow for the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World in the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and asked him about Trump’s claim.

      “The short answer is: It’s nonsense,” said Hamid, author of “Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam Is Reshaping the World.” “Either Trump imagined the poll or misunderstood whatever the poll was saying.

      “Luckily, we don’t even have to pretend to take the claim seriously, since it’s absurd on its face,” Hamid said. “We can look around and say: Yes, terrorism is a real problem but do we actually see millions of Muslims — or in Trump’s telling hundreds of millions Muslims — either waging war against the U.S. or saying they would?”

      While we could find no Pew Research Center survey to back up Trump’s claim about the percentage of the world’s Muslims who want to go to war with the U.S., we did find recent Pew research that asked voters how the next president should talk about extremism and Islam.

      According to Pew research published in February, “about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (65 percent) – including seven-in-ten conservative Republicans (70 percent) – want the next president to speak bluntly about extremism even if it means being critical of Islam.” By contrast, 70 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents “say the next president should be careful not to criticize Islam as a whole.”

      • formwiz says:

        First off, Factcheck is part of the Annenberg Center out of Penn and as Lefty as they come and betray themselves describing Pew as a nonpartisan group that conducts public opinion polling but does not take policy positions. Pew is notorious as a Left-biased outfit.

        Second, it is no more terrible than “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” or “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”.

        Third, if he misstated the polling organization, it’s no worse than Zippy calling Marine medics “Corpsemen” or talking about 57 states.

        • Bill Bear says:

          “Factcheck is part of the Annenberg Center”

          “Pew is notorious as a Left-biased outfit.”

          formwiz has provided two wonderful examples of one of the most popular logical fallacies used by the far right…

          genetic fallacy

  6. david7134 says:

    It seems that many people like to treat Islam just like any other religion. The believers in Islam are not Methodist, or Jews or Buddhist. A quick review of their religion shows that they are ok with violence, especially if violence promoted the religion. I have worked with Muslims, have them living beside me, had them trying to kill me in terrorist actions and seen them in Egypt and other middle East countries. I can tell you that they are not peaceful and can easily turn into people that would kill for their prophet. In my mind they are a cult and we are at war with them.

  7. formwiz says:

    A .22 is not a .223, regardless of how often formwiz and Lil lie about it.

    This is what they do. They distract and ridicule but offer little else.

    They say I don’t know anything about guns, but these two think a .22 and .223 are the same! Tell it to the Marines.

    You lie again.

    I mentioned the differences between a 556 round and a 22 long.

    So you lie.

    It’s what liars do.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      It’s kinda funny how the little fella only reads what he wants to not what is written.
      Have you noticed that? https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      formwiz typed: “I mentioned the differences between a 556 round and a 22 long.”

      after he typed: “an AR-15 is a .22”.

      My apologies for missing your discussion comparing the 5.56 vs .22LR. They are nothing alike, obviously. It’s like comparing a 30-30 vs 30-06, except the 30 caliber cartridges are more alike than the 5.56 and .22LR.

  8. formwiz says:

    Oh, one other thing.

    After something of a slump, NRA says its membership is higher than ever. I guess Americans are voting with their feet.

    PS A little embarrassing, but what the hey. FL enacted one of those let felons vote laws. They’re all registering as Rs. I guess there is honor among thieves.

  9. formwiz says:

    Thanks for making my point. Again.

    Clearly, I didn’t, but Lefties live in their own universe of denial.

    But if you’re interested in helping poor whites and poor Blacks we can work together!!

    You’re not interested in helping anybody but the Left.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      formwiz typed: You’re not interested in helping anybody but the Left.

      Classic projection from the right, who only support Caucasian, conservative Christians.

      Thanks for making my point, again. Again.

    • Kye says:

      “But if you’re interested in helping poor whites and poor Blacks we can work together!!”

      And therein lies the rub. How about we just “help the poor” and forget about what color they are? You leftists can’t see people, only potential voters so you see color. Brown=good, white=bad. What if I just want to help poor white people? Or what if someone wants to give scholarships to only black people? I assume you’d think me a racist whilst the other guy is full of virtue for helping “victims” of white privilege. Now my assumption could be wrong but I doubt it.

      You leftists don’t see people as people, you see them as potential voters or enemies. Period. That’s why you’re incapable of seeing the truth in what Mohammadans are. To you they are a voting block for democrats moving us ever closer to the Glorious Next Tuesday. To people who don’t care about their religion but do care about their intentions we see an enemy of all Americans as they do not believe in Constitutional government or Freedom. Name one truly democratic and free Mohammadan state. Just one. The only democracy in the Middle East is Israel and the antisemitic democrats hate them. Ask Ilhan Omar from Minnesotastan.

      I guess that answers my previous question. Yes, if the Nazi’s and Japs were a democrat voting block in 1942 you would have welcomed them into America. Just as you see no problem with communists and Mohammadans today. Case closed I guess.

      Since I’ve seen you more than once type “Praise Allah” or something similar here, Elwood would it be safe to figure you are a Mohammedan?

      • Bill Bear says:

        “How about we just “help the poor” and forget about what color they are?”

        Says the man who uses the racist epithet “Japs” in the same comment, and who mindlessly classifies all Muslims as terrorists.

        “I assume you’d think me a racist”

        That’s already an established fact.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Kye,

        The political donor class in America and their minions (Republicans and Democrats) support the wealthy at the expense of the working classes, white, black, brown etc. If we want to help America’s poor and working classes we have to share America’s productivity.

        My religion is easily summarized as: no evidence of gods, goddesses, demons, angels, miracles, afterlife, magic, orcs, spirits, elves, heavens, hells, spells, witches, mind-reading etc… so no evidence of Yahweh, Allah, Osiris, Zeus, Mercury, Athena, Vishnu etc. But I could be wrong – all it takes is evidence. The universe is governed by physical principles, not magic.

  10. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Mr. Robinson speaks the truth to power.

    https://tinyurl.com/y2ygo68o

    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  11. formwiz says:

    It’s a lie, but that’s what you do. Do you know the meaning of hypocrite or epithet?

    Says the cartoon character with 2 gun safes. So it’s not a lie. And, clearly, I know the meaning of both words since they fit you perfectly.

    formwiz typed: You’re not interested in helping anybody but the Left.

    Classic projection from the right, who only support Caucasian, conservative Christians.

    Thanks for making my point, again. Again.

    When was the last time the Left bettered anybody’s life?

    Black people have been mired in welfare and violence for 50 years on the lie white people owe them a living because of slavery, thanks to the Left. Women have been taught they must hate men to be real women, thanks to the Left.

    And you spread hatred of Caucasian, conservative Christians. You also spread hatred of Jews and have been doing so for 50 years, once the terror organizations started striking ever closer. Now you support hate-filled Moslems because you’re afraid to face them down.

    You’re supposed to be for the people, but all you do is divide them into petty bickering camps.

    Divide and rule, isn’t that your motto?

  12. Bill Bear says:

    formwiz wrote:

    “So you do everything you can to destroy them. You and your little friends have been sneering at morality for 80 years. All you spread is fear, lies, and bigotry.”

    It’s a lie, but that’s what you do.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5870 access attempts in the last 7 days.