Nobody Trusts Nicole McKee

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.

One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

Political rhetoric, nothing more. And a profoundly stupid header to your post.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Another issue is the threat of the same thing
happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has a long
connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince anybody she
can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another meeting
elsewhere.

Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Another issue is the threat of the same thing
happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has a long
connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince anybody she
can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another meeting
elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above? Perhaps not?
People make shit up don't you know?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another meeting
elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

[Tony]

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another meeting
elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Did he produce evidence?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another
meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Did he produce evidence?

You mean, did he secretly record the meeting?

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another
meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Did he produce evidence?

You mean, did he secretly record the meeting?

I mean what I wrote, you should try it.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she
was mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to
another meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Did he produce evidence?

You mean, did he secretly record the meeting?

I mean what I wrote ...

So did I.

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she
was mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to
another meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Did he produce evidence?

You mean, did he secretly record the meeting?

I mean what I wrote ...

So did I.

No. you assumed that you know what I meant - and you don't. Period.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another
meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Let’s see: on one side, you have a politician with known connections to a
completely unscrupulous, ruthless and well-funded lobby organization. On
the other side, you have a well-regarded leader of the local community.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Tony]

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another
meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Let’s see: on one side, you have a politician with known connections to a
completely unscrupulous, ruthless and well-funded lobby organization. On
the other side, you have a well-regarded leader of the local community.
Draw your own conclusions.

I usually do but I, unlike you, don't make assumptions about people. The
politician you are referring to is not left wing and therefore you believe
deserves your condemnation and abuse. There it is, all that matters. Just your
political bias at play.
You have still to make your case. Good luck.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss
the community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen;
she was mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to
another meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Let’s see: on one side, you have a politician with known connections to
a completely unscrupulous, ruthless and well-funded lobby organization.
On the other side, you have a well-regarded leader of the local
community.
Draw your own conclusions.

And here she is again
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/08/officials-raise-alarm-after-mckee-makes-rapid-gun-law-change/>,
making changes to gun laws via an “Order In Council” shortcut,
bypassing the usual checks and balances. Sure, technically she has the
power to do that, but her own officials were raising concern about the
haste with which the law change was going through.

Somehow the Minister believes these changes “do not impact on public
safety”. But it’s not clear where she got this advice from --
certainly not from her own officials. But if not them, then who?

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss
the community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen;
she was mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to
another meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Let’s see: on one side, you have a politician with known connections to
a completely unscrupulous, ruthless and well-funded lobby organization.
On the other side, you have a well-regarded leader of the local
community.
Draw your own conclusions.

And here she is again
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/08/officials-raise-alarm-after-mckee-makes-rapid-gun-law-change/>,
making changes to gun laws via an “Order In Council” shortcut,
bypassing the usual checks and balances. Sure, technically she has the
power to do that, but her own officials were raising concern about the
haste with which the law change was going through.
Somehow the Minister believes these changes “do not impact on public
safety”. But it’s not clear where she got this advice from --
certainly not from her own officials. But if not them, then who?

You certainly seem to have plenty of questions but little substance for your
complaints against this minister, complaints that are one hundred percent
politically motivated. How pathetic.

[Gordon]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss
the community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen;
she was mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to
another meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Let’s see: on one side, you have a politician with known connections to
a completely unscrupulous, ruthless and well-funded lobby organization.
On the other side, you have a well-regarded leader of the local
community.
Draw your own conclusions.

And here she is again
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/08/officials-raise-alarm-after-mckee-makes-rapid-gun-law-change/>,
making changes to gun laws via an “Order In Council” shortcut,
bypassing the usual checks and balances. Sure, technically she has the
power to do that, but her own officials were raising concern about the
haste with which the law change was going through.
Somehow the Minister believes these changes “do not impact on public
safety”. But it’s not clear where she got this advice from --
certainly not from her own officials. But if not them, then who?

My question is why the rush to alter the existing situation. Due process
which is set in our Democracy process.

Ignoring this is a slippery slope to dictatorship and there is enough of
this going on.

[Gordon]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Imam relates being at a meeting with the Minister to discuss the
community’s concerns. She didn’t seem to have time to listen; she was
mainly there to make her statements, and then rush off to another
meeting elsewhere.
Stakeholders deserve more respect than that, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the above?

It’s in the Imam’s own words.

Let’s see: on one side, you have a politician with known connections to a
completely unscrupulous, ruthless and well-funded lobby organization. On
the other side, you have a well-regarded leader of the local community.
Draw your own conclusions.

Been done long ago.

[BR]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 06:45:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

STICK TO YOUR GUNS.

In their hasty response to the act of multiple murder that took place
in Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
before the bodies had been buried.

Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there maybe a
problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that day
was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.

Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the mainstream media
can't shut up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards,
labouring their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and
giving the perpetrator what he so desperately craves; publicity.

If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb). That is fewer than the Nice attack in France
in which 86 people were killed without involving firearms. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people, also without a gun.

It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on the shopping list.

What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on mass murder is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The mainstream
media will not be diverted from their own narrative in which they
would have everyone believe that fewer guns make for a safer society.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference.
Criminals will not be surrendering their guns to the authorities, with
the result that only the bad guys and the government will be packing
heat.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed".

So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the government, essentially codifies
the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right and that
the government has no business violating that right.

Self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment. In fact
it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to keep and
bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to defend
themselves against their own government. The framers understood that a
well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to any
potential tyrant.

It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off the campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy" and
then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun confiscation
legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not surprise
anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators. All this
happened with the approval of a weak and gutless opposition.

DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.

Bill.

[Rich80105]

Post by BR
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 06:45:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
In their hasty response to the act of multiple murder that took place
in Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
before the bodies had been buried.
Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there maybe a
problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that day
was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.
Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the mainstream media
can't shut up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards,
labouring their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and
giving the perpetrator what he so desperately craves; publicity.
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb). That is fewer than the Nice attack in France
in which 86 people were killed without involving firearms. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people, also without a gun.
It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on the shopping list.
What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on mass murder is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The mainstream
media will not be diverted from their own narrative in which they
would have everyone believe that fewer guns make for a safer society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference.
Criminals will not be surrendering their guns to the authorities, with
the result that only the bad guys and the government will be packing
heat.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed".
So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the government, essentially codifies
the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right and that
the government has no business violating that right.
Self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment. In fact
it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to keep and
bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to defend
themselves against their own government. The framers understood that a
well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to any
potential tyrant.
It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off the campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy" and
then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun confiscation
legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not surprise
anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators. All this
happened with the approval of a weak and gutless opposition.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.

We have a well regulated militia, Bill - it is our Defence forces.

Why would you want private armies? - or deranged individuals having
access to semi-automatic firearms?

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 06:45:20 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.

Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS.
In their hasty response to the act of multiple murder that took place
in Christchurch in March 2019, the government decided, by decree, that
all semi automatic "military style" weapons were to be confiscated. No
process, no consultation, nothing. The gun grabbing had started even
before the bodies had been buried.
Nowhere in the mainstream media was it even hinted that there maybe a
problem with this. The crime that took place in Christchurch that day
was always going to happen in this country because NZ is among the
softest of targets. Multiple murderers always target areas where
people are defenceless.
Whenever these brutal killings are carried out, the mainstream media
can't shut up about it for days, weeks and even months afterwards,
labouring their own talking points to the exclusion of all others and
giving the perpetrator what he so desperately craves; publicity.
If the government believes that disarming the people will discourage
further incidents of multiple murder, they are sadly mistaken. The
greatest number of people killed by a terrorist with a gun was 69 (as
far as I know), by Anders Brevik in liberal Norway (plus another eight
with a fertilizer bomb). That is fewer than the Nice attack in France
in which 86 people were killed without involving firearms. The 9/11
terrorists killed almost 3000 people without a single shot being
fired. The Oklahoma bomber murdered 168 people, also without a gun.
It is therefore quite plain that if someone is determined to to murder
as many people as possible, guns and ammo would not be the first items
on the shopping list.
What the media never reports is those incidents when some lunatic bent
on mass murder is stopped by a good guy with a gun. The mainstream
media will not be diverted from their own narrative in which they
would have everyone believe that fewer guns make for a safer society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gun confiscation works only on compliant, law abiding people. Taking
guns away from good citizens won't make a damn bit of difference.
Criminals will not be surrendering their guns to the authorities, with
the result that only the bad guys and the government will be packing
heat.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed".
So reads the second amendment of the US Constitution. The
constitution, being binding on the government, essentially codifies
the principle that self defence is a fundamental human right and that
the government has no business violating that right.
Self defence is not the only reason for the second amendment. In fact
it is not even the main reason. The constitutional right to keep and
bear arms was primarily contrived to enable the people to defend
themselves against their own government. The framers understood that a
well armed citizenry would serve as a significant deterrent to any
potential tyrant.
It is also worth noting that every brutal dictator who has ever
bludgeoned his way to absolute power, kicked off the campaign of
murder and torture by first promising to "help out the little guy" and
then later taking steps to disarm the population. The gun confiscation
legislation that the Ardern government enacted should not surprise
anyone who is familiar with the behaviour of past dictators. All this
happened with the approval of a weak and gutless opposition.
DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR GUNS TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR FREEDOM MAY ONE DAY
COME TO DEPEND ON THEM.
Bill.

We have a well regulated militia, Bill - it is our Defence forces.
Why would you want private armies? - or deranged individuals having
access to semi-automatic firearms?

Geez you are thick. Can you ever actually respond to another post without
puking all over it? Or was it just more sarcasm? In either event, attrocious
behaviour.

[BR]

Post by Rich80105
We have a well regulated militia, Bill - it is our Defence forces.

What if the government turns feral?

Post by Rich80105
Why would you want private armies? -

I made no mention of private armies.

Post by Rich80105
or deranged individuals having acess to semi-automatic firearms?

They already have access to them. It's just a shame their victims
didn't.

Bill.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by BR
What if the government turns feral?

What if it does? Look at the USA. The Government has more, and bigger,
guns, than anything private citizens have access to, even under their
infamous “Second Amendment”. It has already reached the situation where
opposition groups regularly accuse the party in power of “trying to
destroy America”. If that’s not the point at which to raise arms and
“fight to regain our freedom” (or substitute alternative suitable content-
free polemic), what is?

But that doesn’t work. And we get a daily demonstration in the USA of why
it doesn’t work, because people raise arms against agents of the
Government every day. They immediately get shot and killed as “violent
criminals”, and nobody gives them a second thought.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

No right wingers here old chum, just you neo-marxist fools.

[Gordon]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

Sorry but that is the Left which does this.

[BR]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?

Bill.

[Rich80105]

Post by BR
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?
Bill.

One fact is that this thread has diverged significantly from the first
post :
__________________________
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.

One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.
__________________________

Now we have seen McKee make changes to the law through order in
council - no consultation, no expert advice . . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?
Bill.

One fact is that this thread has diverged significantly from the first
__________________________
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.
__________________________
Now we have seen McKee make changes to the law through order in
council - no consultation, no expert advice . . . .

As did Ardern. more than once.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:22:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?
Bill.

One fact is that this thread has diverged significantly from the first
__________________________
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.
__________________________
Now we have seen McKee make changes to the law through order in
council - no consultation, no expert advice . . . .

As did Ardern. more than once.

What examples do you have, Tony?

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:22:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?
Bill.

One fact is that this thread has diverged significantly from the first
__________________________
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.
__________________________
Now we have seen McKee make changes to the law through order in
council - no consultation, no expert advice . . . .

As did Ardern. more than once.

What examples do you have, Tony?

Gun law changes after the Christchurch shootings. Covid mandates and more.
Not sure of the process but there was zero consultation so it is the same
behaviour. Eh?

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:47:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:22:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?
Bill.

One fact is that this thread has diverged significantly from the first
__________________________
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.
__________________________
Now we have seen McKee make changes to the law through order in
council - no consultation, no expert advice . . . .

As did Ardern. more than once.

What examples do you have, Tony?

Gun law changes after the Christchurch shootings. Covid mandates and more.
Not sure of the process but there was zero consultation so it is the same
behaviour. Eh?

So you are not sure of even your own examples. For gun laws, there
had been considerable discussion about following Australia's actions
after a bad mass shooting there - they had taken actions very similar
to those adopted here in New Zealand - it had been a Liberal / Country
government that made the changes there. The use of that type of
firearm here brought home the reason why banning them made sense - the
change was not immediate but there was plenty of consultation.

Covid mandates were a government decision to allow some employers to
insist on vaccination for employees; I suspect one of the first would
have been the government itself for defence forces and some nurses.
There was no blanket mandate; I know a construction firm that had
about 5% that did not get vaccinated; they were restricted in their
contacts but not required to vaccinate.

There was in fact considerable public support for the actions the
previous government took during the Covid time, and also in relation
to the Mosque shootings - there is little support for McKee's
policies.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:47:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:22:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:18:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
Now seems like a good time to post something that was posted shortly
after after the Christchurch massacre.

By whom, I wonder? What a load of content-free hot air.

Does it matter?

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But then, there’s nothing right-wingers like better than to keep spouting
the same old tired ideology, no matter how much the facts stack up against
them.

What are the facts?
Bill.

One fact is that this thread has diverged significantly from the first
__________________________
The Christchurch Muslim community has become so riled up, they have
joined Christians in a church to make their feelings known about the
Government’s attitude
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/07/govt-turning-its-back-on-victims-of-march-15-attack-imam-says/>.
One issue is the seeming rolling back of support services since the
2019 Ides of March massacre. Another issue is the threat of the same
thing happening to gun laws. The Minister concerned, Nicole McKee, has
a long connection with the gun lobby, and she has yet to convince
anybody she can consider the issue with an unbiased eye.
__________________________
Now we have seen McKee make changes to the law through order in
council - no consultation, no expert advice . . . .

As did Ardern. more than once.

What examples do you have, Tony?

Gun law changes after the Christchurch shootings. Covid mandates and more.
Not sure of the process but there was zero consultation so it is the same
behaviour. Eh?

So you are not sure of even your own examples.

Oh don't be such a prissy little twerp. Can't you just debate?

Post by Rich80105
For gun laws, there
had been considerable discussion about following Australia's actions
after a bad mass shooting there - they had taken actions very similar
to those adopted here in New Zealand - it had been a Liberal / Country
government that made the changes there. The use of that type of
firearm here brought home the reason why banning them made sense - the
change was not immediate but there was plenty of consultation.

Off topic.

Post by Rich80105
Covid mandates were a government decision to allow some employers to
insist on vaccination for employees; I suspect one of the first would
have been the government itself for defence forces and some nurses.
There was no blanket mandate; I know a construction firm that had
about 5% that did not get vaccinated; they were restricted in their
contacts but not required to vaccinate.

Off topic.

Post by Rich80105
There was in fact considerable public support for the actions the
previous government took during the Covid time, and also in relation
to the Mosque shootings - there is little support for McKee's
policies.

Off topic.
Now keep on topic and show how any of the examples I gave were consulted with
the public or with parliament.
Go on, do try to be honest for once.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by BR
What are the facts?

Fact: Australia has proven that gun control can be made to work, and makes
everybody safer.

[BR]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
What are the facts?

Fact: Australia has proven that gun control can be made to work, and makes
everybody safer.

What rubbish.

Criminals never give up their guns just because the government tells
them to. Only law abiding people do that. The Christchurch mosque was
gun free in March 2019. How did that work out for them?

Bill.

[Rich80105]

Post by BR
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
What are the facts?

Fact: Australia has proven that gun control can be made to work, and makes
everybody safer.

What rubbish.
Criminals never give up their guns just because the government tells
them to. Only law abiding people do that. The Christchurch mosque was
gun free in March 2019. How did that work out for them?
Bill.

So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?
Should people attending a church or mosque be safe from being shot,
Bill? What sort of a world do you want our children to live in? Do you
normally carry a firearm? Do you think you should?

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
What are the facts?

Fact: Australia has proven that gun control can be made to work, and makes
everybody safer.

What rubbish.
Criminals never give up their guns just because the government tells
them to. Only law abiding people do that. The Christchurch mosque was
gun free in March 2019. How did that work out for them?
Bill.

So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?
Should people attending a church or mosque be safe from being shot,
Bill? What sort of a world do you want our children to live in? Do you
normally carry a firearm? Do you think you should?

Don't be so pathetically stupid. Bill is not saying that. Jeez you are nasty.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the NRA
in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA convention
was itself a gun-free zone!

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the NRA
in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA convention
was itself a gun-free zone!

Another p;ost with no useful context.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

I didn't post what you replied to, you have caught Rich's disease.
Additionally I have not at any time made comment in this thread about the USA
and their guns. Do try to keep up with simple conversations and reply to the
correct person.

[Rich80105]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:44:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

I didn't post what you replied to, you have caught Rich's disease.
Additionally I have not at any time made comment in this thread about the USA
and their guns. Do try to keep up with simple conversations and reply to the
correct person.

You really do love the little rules you make up, don't you Tony.
nz.general is a group discussion forum, available to anyone that cares
to connect. Many responses are general comments, just as would happen
in a verbal discussion - they may relate to the previous post but they
do not need to - some people just believe they have a worthwhile
contribution to make. others of course seek a hierarchy in everything
(preferably with themselves at the top - which they seldom deserve).

Now to leave you to your ruminations and addressing the subject of the
thread: Lawrence is correct that the USA, by taking an extreme
position regarding private ownership and use of firearms is a world
outlier - and that country does indeed provide a salutary lesson to
the rest of the world of how dysfunctional politics in the USA can
leave the population worse off. McKee is breaking a lot of conventions
in your mad rush to force her extreme views on others, and while not
trusting her is near universal, it casts an additional pall over those
that purport to lead the government - clearly McKee is immune to any
form of control from Cabinet or the current Prime Minister.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:44:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

I didn't post what you replied to, you have caught Rich's disease.
Additionally I have not at any time made comment in this thread about the USA
and their guns. Do try to keep up with simple conversations and reply to the
correct person.

Removed abusive and terrible English comment.

Post by Rich80105
nz.general is a group discussion forum, available to anyone that cares
to connect. Many responses are general comments, just as would happen
in a verbal discussion - they may relate to the previous post but they
do not need to - some people just believe they have a worthwhile
contribution to make. others of course seek a hierarchy in everything
(preferably with themselves at the top - which they seldom deserve).

You are simply stupid. Lawrence clearly addressed me, not the group. He was
wrong to do so and you are wrong to support him. There is no justification for
that. You are both wrong. And you are a coward because you use that technique
to deliberately hide.
Off topic crap gone.

[Rich80105]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 07:17:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:44:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

I didn't post what you replied to, you have caught Rich's disease.
Additionally I have not at any time made comment in this thread about the USA
and their guns. Do try to keep up with simple conversations and reply to the
correct person.

Removed abusive and terrible English comment.

It is still there, do you really think it cannot be seen because you
delete it, Tony?

Here it is again, just for you:
You really do love the little rules you make up, don't you Tony.
nz.general is a group discussion forum, available to anyone that cares
to connect. Many responses are general comments, just as would happen
in a verbal discussion - they may relate to the previous post but they
do not need to - some people just believe they have a worthwhile
contribution to make. others of course seek a hierarchy in everything
(preferably with themselves at the top - which they seldom deserve).

Now to leave you to your ruminations and addressing the subject of the
thread: Lawrence is correct that the USA, by taking an extreme
position regarding private ownership and use of firearms is a world
outlier - and that country does indeed provide a salutary lesson to
the rest of the world of how dysfunctional politics in the USA can
leave the population worse off. McKee is breaking a lot of conventions
in your mad rush to force her extreme views on others, and while not
trusting her is near universal, it casts an additional pall over those
that purport to lead the government - clearly McKee is immune to any
form of control from Cabinet or the current Prime Minister.

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
nz.general is a group discussion forum, available to anyone that cares
to connect. Many responses are general comments, just as would happen
in a verbal discussion - they may relate to the previous post but they
do not need to - some people just believe they have a worthwhile
contribution to make. others of course seek a hierarchy in everything
(preferably with themselves at the top - which they seldom deserve).

You are simply stupid. Lawrence clearly addressed me, not the group. He was
wrong to do so and you are wrong to support him. There is no justification for
that. You are both wrong. And you are a coward because you use that technique
to deliberately hide.

You are addressing me rather than the group, Tony, having just said
that to address an individual is wrong - you really are very confused.

Post by Tony
Off topic crap gone.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 07:17:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:44:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

I didn't post what you replied to, you have caught Rich's disease.
Additionally I have not at any time made comment in this thread about the USA
and their guns. Do try to keep up with simple conversations and reply to the
correct person.

Removed abusive and terrible English comment.

Post by Rich80105
nz.general is a group discussion forum, available to anyone that cares
to connect. Many responses are general comments, just as would happen
in a verbal discussion - they may relate to the previous post but they
do not need to - some people just believe they have a worthwhile
contribution to make. others of course seek a hierarchy in everything
(preferably with themselves at the top - which they seldom deserve).

You are simply stupid. Lawrence clearly addressed me, not the group. He was
wrong to do so and you are wrong to support him. There is no justification for
that. You are both wrong. And you are a coward because you use that technique
to deliberately hide.

You are addressing me rather than the group, Tony, having just said
that to address an individual is wrong

You poor little queer, I said nothing of the sort.

Post by Rich80105
- you really are very confused.

Post by Tony
Off topic crap gone.

[BR]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 23:56:03 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105
So are you advocating that everyone should carry a firearm with them?

Don't be so pathetically stupid.

A lot of pro-gun fanatics do say exactly that--they say that having more
guns around somehow makes people safer. Remember Trump addressing the
NRA in 2016, promising to abolish gun-free zones? Except the NRA
convention was itself a gun-free zone!

It’s just too easy to completely destroy the pro-gun position by pointing
to the US as an example every time. It’s an argument that people like you
can’t win.

Not true.

The murder capital of the US is Chicago. A democrat controlled city
with the arguably the most stringent gun controls in America.

Bill.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by BR
The murder capital of the US is Chicago.

Ah, the hoary old Chicago example. Illinois has strong gun laws, why don’t
they work?

They never mention Massachusetts or Hawaii, do they? States with strong
gun laws, that *do* work.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by BR
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by BR
What are the facts?

Fact: Australia has proven that gun control can be made to work, and
makes everybody safer.

What rubbish.
Criminals never give up their guns just because the government tells
them to.

And yet, that’s exactly what they did in Australia. The figures on the
decline in shooting crimes since then speak for themselves.

Another thing the figures make clear, particularly in the USA, is that
most of the guns used in crimes are obtained legally. So you do need to
look carefully at legal purchases.

See what I mean about right-wingers clinging to their ideology in defiance
of the facts?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Just when you thought she couldn’t be any more slippery ...

<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/16/firearms-minister-wont-rule-out-trying-to-bring-back-banned-guns/>

[Tony]

Just when you thought she couldn’t be any more slippery ...
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/16/firearms-minister-wont-rule-out-trying-to-bring-back-banned-guns/>

No context to your post - pointless waste of bandwidth.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Under the previous National Government, McKee was hired to give advice
to Police Minister Paula Bennett on a select committee report on
illegal gun ownership in NZ. There was a loophole in the law at the
time which was later exploited by Shooty McShootFace* to kill those 50
people on the Ides of March.

McKee keeps insisting that she recommended the Government close that
loophole at the time, and that she made the recommendation at every
available opportunity. Such a tightening never happened, and there is
nothing to back up her claim -- her own written advice to the
Government never mentioned it, and even Bennett has no recollection of
receiving such advice from her.

Apparently McKee’s job was as a “firearms safety specialist” ... as if
“firearms safety” were not an oxymoron ...

<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/10/06/checking-the-record-on-firearms-ministers-qa-interview/>

*Like Ardern, I won’t say his name either.

[Tony]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Under the previous National Government, McKee was hired to give advice
to Police Minister Paula Bennett on a select committee report on
illegal gun ownership in NZ. There was a loophole in the law at the
time which was later exploited by Shooty McShootFace* to kill those 50
people on the Ides of March.
McKee keeps insisting that she recommended the Government close that
loophole at the time, and that she made the recommendation at every
available opportunity. Such a tightening never happened, and there is
nothing to back up her claim -- her own written advice to the
Government never mentioned it, and even Bennett has no recollection of
receiving such advice from her.

And you have no evidence to support your statements. What a waste of bandwidth.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Apparently McKee’s job was as a “firearms safety specialist” ... as if
“firearms safety” were not an oxymoron ...
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/10/06/checking-the-record-on-firearms-ministers-qa-interview/>
*Like Ardern, I won’t say his name either.

That is not all you have in common with the liar.

[Rich80105]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 18:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Under the previous National Government, McKee was hired to give advice
to Police Minister Paula Bennett on a select committee report on
illegal gun ownership in NZ. There was a loophole in the law at the
time which was later exploited by Shooty McShootFace* to kill those 50
people on the Ides of March.
McKee keeps insisting that she recommended the Government close that
loophole at the time, and that she made the recommendation at every
available opportunity. Such a tightening never happened, and there is
nothing to back up her claim -- her own written advice to the
Government never mentioned it, and even Bennett has no recollection of
receiving such advice from her.

And you have no evidence to support your statements. What a waste of bandwidth.

The link is given below, Tony. Try reading all of a post before
getting it wrong . . .

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Apparently McKee’s job was as a “firearms safety specialistâ€? ... as if
“firearms safetyâ€? were not an oxymoron ...
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/10/06/checking-the-record-on-firearms-ministers-qa-interview/>
*Like Ardern, I won’t say his name either.

That is not all you have in common with the liar.

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 18:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Under the previous National Government, McKee was hired to give advice
to Police Minister Paula Bennett on a select committee report on
illegal gun ownership in NZ. There was a loophole in the law at the
time which was later exploited by Shooty McShootFace* to kill those 50
people on the Ides of March.
McKee keeps insisting that she recommended the Government close that
loophole at the time, and that she made the recommendation at every
available opportunity. Such a tightening never happened, and there is
nothing to back up her claim -- her own written advice to the
Government never mentioned it, and even Bennett has no recollection of
receiving such advice from her.

And you have no evidence to support your statements. What a waste of bandwidth.

The link is given below, Tony. Try reading all of a post before
getting it wrong . . .

I did and there is no evidence. Try reading before you become stupidly hasty.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Tony

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Apparently McKee’s job was as a “firearms safety specialistâ€? ... as if
“firearms safetyâ€? were not an oxymoron ...
<https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/10/06/checking-the-record-on-firearms-ministers-qa-interview/>
*Like Ardern, I won’t say his name either.

That is not all you have in common with the liar.