Australian Gun Control: Monopoly on Violence Edition

2200

By Dennis DeMartins

In the aftermath of the latest incident in Oregon, the Australian media, like the rabid hoplophobic dog (Labrador in terms of intellect, no offense to Lab owners) they are, they couldn’t resist sticking their smug, uninformed noses in to the United States’s business. Hell, they even got an endorsement from Barack himself while avoiding the huge knife massacre in China at the weekend. But just as Barack Obama was trotting out his ridiculous Australian gun control worship, a 15-year-old boy using an illegal firearm (illegal as he was under 18) shot and killed a Police IT Specialist in Sydney . . .

Sam Lee from Gun Control Australia took to TV in a vain hope of capitalizing on the emotion and spread some whoppers about firearm laws in Australia, including the ridiculous claim that firearm owners are not subject to a criminal check when obtaining a license. (Well, some are exempt – they’re called criminals who don’t buy their legally.) That drew swift rebukes from Sporting Shooters AustraliaDavid Leyonhjelm and Shooters and Fishers MP Jeffrey Bourman.

The Daily Terrorgraph then went full retard. Firstly, they tried the “pose as a firearm owner and call for gun control at the same time” a transparent tactic used by the Bluffington Post a few weeks ago. And then they again went to the courageous effort of anonymizing the article to save them the embarrassment of the author being discovered as not being a firearm owner after all.

However, it was this effort from muppet Claire Harvey, calling firearm owners and Americans “dickheads” that took the cake. Aside from the “slander in place of fact” bent of the article, Harvey decided to miss two small details that kinda underminded her ridiculous rant. The accelerating body count was stopped by – guess what -a good guy with a gun and the firearm acquired by the boy was illegal.

Thanks for playing, Claire.

It also looks like there maybe more coming in Australia with not one but two mass shooting threats as well as a police station that received threats that thousands will die.

This, hot off the heels of a SBS report into the firearms laws, where a Sydney firearm shop threw all firearm owners under the bus for suggesting that “firearm owners were already happy with the laws.” A brief look at the subsequent reviews of the business tells you he’ll be going bankrupt pretty shortly from his comments.

As reported previously, public submissions for the National Firearms Agreement closed recently and suspicions have already arisen that the number of public submissions sent in is being grossly underreported in the hope of trying to ram the legislation through.

An interesting fact about this is that two separate email addresses were released by the Attorney General, but which I’m told is totally “not intentional”, which is about as unintentional as not actually advertising that submissions were open to the public.  A Freedom of Information challenge to the number of submissions has been lodged by firearms groups, which might explain why the Attorney General himself is moving to abolish Freedom of Information altogether.

He might want to conduct a review into why the nearly $100 million a year spent on maintaining firearms registries couldn’t account for nearly thousand firearms in Western Australia after the latest audit, or why Police are going after those hardened crims and their Airsoft rifles. They must’ve been awed by the discovery of this man’s cache that didn’t kill anybody. The humanity!

He also might want to investigate that now Police Commissioners from three states confirmed that they never asked for changes to the National Firearms Agreement, nor for the Adler to be banned. This is confirming once again that the faceless men and women at the NFWPWG, Gun Control Australia and Catherine Smith are the ones driving the ban. Probably with some UN influence for good measure.

As usual, there was a spate of violent crime incidents down under that created more victims, such as a service station attendant being doused in petrol during a robbery, an elderly man sucker was punched on a Sydney train and a train conductor fired for defending a woman who had been bashed by a man on his train. Yes, you read that last part correctly.

With the recent spate of violence against women in Australia, the latest being a pregnant woman stabbed to death by her partner, the “horrified” Turnbull government decided to act. It’s response? $100 million spent on free phones, GPS tracking devices of DV offenders and CCTV cameras in homes of victims. Awesome. What better way to acclimatise the public to government surveillance than to hide behind pretending to protect women? No conversation on allowing women to carry so much as a pepper spray, tazer or concealed firearm, nope. Ladies, take solace in the fact that you now no longer have to pay for that panicked phone call for the twenty minute wait for Police, and that any violence or worse perpetrated against you will be recorded. I’m sure the 50,208 DV orders a year are no sweat for the Police. It seems Disarmament Man is really Malcolm Turnbull in disguise.

MP Bob Katter introduced a disallowance motion to overturn the current ban on the Adler 110 in the Australian House this week. Although he was unsuccessful, it was these comments (on page 94) from Labor MP David Feeney that stole the show and proves the emperor really has no clothes.

The member for Kennedy may have killed his own argument more spectacularly than I am able to do, but nonetheless I will set out Labor’s position on this disallowance motion. It is fair to say that we are motivated by different principles than those that motivate the member for Kennedy. We do believe that the state should have a monopoly on violence.

So there you have it folks, the Australian government isn’t even trying to hide the fact that the upcoming NFA review has anything to do with public safety and everything to do with monopolizing force.

“Rapid fire” lever action shotguns indeed.

comments

  1. avatar Silver says:

    Government monopoly on violence worked great for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other leftist heroes.

    I still don’t understand why we care what Australia says. Why do free people care about the opinions of willful slaves?

    One theory…they obsess because they’re jealous. What do kids do when they’re jealous of a richer or smarter kid? Bad mouth him and angrily try to degrade them. Aussies didn’t have the stones to reject tyranny and still kiss the English queen’s feet, now they project their inadequacy.

    1. avatar Matt in TX says:

      That’s why the anti’s have such a penis obsession.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Makes sense.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    We do believe that the state should have a monopoly on violence.

    When the state has a monopoly on violence, it tends to use it on the citizenry. Viciously.

    That’s a frightening vision for Australia, or anywhere.

    1. avatar dph says:

      And just think our POTUS thinks that the Australian solution would be OK here too.

    2. avatar CRF says:

      Violence monopoly:

      Go straight to subjugation. Turn in you weapons, do not pass GO, give us your money.

      1. avatar CRF says:

        Perhaps we should start a kickstarter fund for Aussie gun owners to immigrate to the (as of right now) land of the free.

        1. avatar Rambeast says:

          Land of the free…what a joke. This nation has more laws on the books than any other, and holds 25% of the world’s prison population.

    3. avatar BDub says:

      I am not worried about a true monopoly of violence happening in this country during my life time – mostly because they will have to kill me to complete it.

  3. avatar dph says:

    “an elderly man sucker was punched”? As well he should be. But seriously, are there really any men left in OZ or should I say any real men left?

    1. avatar CRF says:

      You beat me to it.
      Blast, foiled again.

    2. avatar B says:

      There never were. Crocodile Dundee was an outlier and was promptly dealt with.

      1. avatar CRF says:

        Don’t forget, Quigley was down there for a brief time.

  4. avatar CRF says:

    I wonder if there could be armed resistance down under at some point in the future…

    However, that’s getting less and less likely, since civilians are out of luck when it comes to modern firearms.

    Just a passing thought.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Guns are just tools. The people have to want freedom and be willing to fight for it. Good luck finding that down under.

    2. avatar Ross says:

      That opportunity was afforded to them in 1996 when they still had the tools they would need for such an endover but no one stepped up.

  5. avatar Barry Soetoro says:

    What a nice touch how the http://www.illawarramercury.com.au story stated, “Bryant, a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour, killed 35 people at Port Arthur when he opened fire with an automatic rifle similar to that used at Sandy Hook elementary school in Colorado in 2012, when 20 children and six teachers were fatally shot.”

    Um… wrong and wrong again.

    1. avatar CRF says:

      facts don’t matter when you’re running propaganda.

    2. avatar Don says:

      As I understand it, they have never allowed an official inquiry into this mass shooting, and they have never, and will never, allow anyone to interview the shooter. Perfect storm, perfect fall guy. Who shot Kennedy?

  6. avatar Grindstone says:

    We do believe that the state should have a monopoly on violence.

    Something you won’t get most American liberals to admit: unarmed black men will be hardest hit.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      I really don’t get why people who A) have historically been most brutally oppressed and attacked by government and B) spent the latter half of the 20th century protesting government, have now turned into the biggest supporters of government owned violence this side of the USSR.

      1. avatar the ruester says:

        They haven’t, rather, their organized criminal element has taken over the streets and intimidates them into silence. The only voices allowed must echo their ratchet motives, or face the consequences of organized retribution. The majority of blacks see the “pro black” movement as the very unhelpful tantrum that it is.

  7. avatar jwm says:

    Gotta be the vagimite.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      It’s “Vegemite”. A horrid yeast paste high in B Vitamins. Kinda like Guinness Stout, but much worse. Not that Guinness is bad, mind you. Quite the contrary. 🙂

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I spelled it write.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          Don’t worry…I got it. =)

    2. avatar gsnyder says:

      Hillary’s favorite!

    3. avatar dph says:

      “vagimite” is that like frumunda cheese?

      1. avatar WedelJ says:

        Pardon me, just throwing up my breakfast

  8. avatar William Burke says:

    That’s why we say they’re “down there”. AHEM.

  9. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Where did the revolver used by the teenager come from? My guess is probably from the hundreds stolen from security guards or security companies in the 1980s and 1990s.

    As for the NFA review, the only purpose of a government inquest or review is to support the per-ordained conclusion. We already call the review BOHICA time (Bend Over Here It Comes Again).

    In a bout of gallows humour, we reckon the next terrorism incident will result in a backlash against legal firearm owners. Even though punishing the legal gun owners makes as much sense as a farmer beating his dog because a fox got into the henhouse.

    1. avatar Josh Mephisto says:

      The gun used by little muhammad the terrorist was imported from the US, it had never been registered in Australia.

      The guy who supplied the gun was subject to a “Firearms Prohibition Order”, which is like a restraining order issued by the police commissioner that makes illegal possession of guns even more illegal than normal – double illegal or super-duper illegal.

      So this guy was on the police radar, he’d been flagged as a ‘gun criminal’, the cops were keeping an eye on him for being a terrorist, and he still managed to get a gun…. completely unhindered by John Howard’s gun control.

      That revolver is a huge embarrassment for gun grabbers, and especially for that Labor dumbarse who thinks the State can have a monopoly on violence.

      1. avatar Dennis Rymon says:

        So he was on double secret probation? That worked so well in Animal House.

  10. avatar gsnyder says:

    Imagine how many firearms and ammo are rat-holed.

    1. avatar Ross says:

      10’s of thousands.

  11. avatar Sian says:

    I have argued with people who truly believe that a state monopoly on violence is a good thing.

    There’s nothing you can do about them.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Keep an eye on them. If Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia proved one thing, it’s that those who peacefully live beside us today will gladly torture and kill is tomorrow if their government overlords tell them to do so. It can happen here too. Why do you think the left is ramping up violent, hateful rhetoric so much?

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Unlike many, I don’t believe the left is malevolent.

        They simply want to be more like safe, civilized Europe.

        you know, Safe, Civilized Europe who sparked two global wars and some of the worst state-sponsored massacres ever all within the 20th century.

        But you know, they’re more civilized than us. They know better than we do.

        1. avatar Don says:

          The voters and average citizens (sheep) on the left are not presently malevolent, but the leaders are. They know exactly what they’re doing. Once they have enough social unrest built up, with racial issues, immigrant issues, economic issues, religious issues, then they will lead the sheeple to turn on their neighbors. How many times through history has this happened? How much easier is it now with the internet, TV, other media under their control and half the population either working for the government or on the dole?

  12. avatar Goodacre says:

    It makes me sick to think about what I’m going to do when they bring out the new laws. As much as scientific evidence has been pushing back against disarmament, and gun owners have been trying to fight it, the ratio of hoplophobes to licensees is ten to one. Sooner or later a probably labor government will try to win those 10 votes.

  13. avatar CRF says:

    Perhaps we should start a kickstarter fund for Aussie gun owners to immigrate to the (as of right now) land of the free.

    1. avatar Goodacre says:

      I’d buy into that with 5k. Make that 9k once I’m packed and ready to go, the extra 4k from sale of rifles.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    When the US wants advice about how we should conduct ourselves, no one will be left to give itvecause JESUS will have returned a millenium before that so FU.

    Further…

    We don’t aspire to be any other nation in the world, we don’t aspire to be any other people in the world, we don’t need anyone to come to our country who doesn’t aspire to be American.

    1. avatar WedelJ says:

      Couldn’t agree more.

  15. avatar Kendahl says:

    I have a vague recollection of reading a piece from an Australian newspaper that said no one should ever resort to violence, not even to save one’s life. With such an attitude, prohibition of all weapons, not just firearms, is hardly surprising. The government’s position is that citizens have no need for weapons because there is no situation in which their use is justified. Contrast that with the United States. Everywhere, even in the most restrictive jurisdictions, there is a list of violent crimes against which one may defend one’s self using deadly force. American law places the victim’s safety above that of the assailant. It authorizes the victim to use deadly force, subject to review, to protect himself at the assailant’s expense. In Australia, only the state is authorized to take such action. Foreign critics disparage what they consider to be an irrational attraction to firearms in the United States. It may help to point out that American law on self defense makes civilian ownership entirely rational.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      I guarantee you that same article writer would be perfectly fine with the government resorting to vicious violence. Like gun control, it’s not about safety or morality, but about crushing the idea of independence from government control. Same thing as those pacifists around here who say guns are evil and never the answer, they call the same three numbers as everyone else when someone breaks into their house, in order to get a guy with a gun to come to come running.

  16. avatar Rusty Shackelford says:

    Nice article. Not stuff I would run into on other “media” websites. It’s too bad the Australians are suffering under such a dangerous govt.

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am surprised that the attacker bothered to acquire a firearm. A number of simple, inexpensive (less than $20), and readily available objects would enable a 15 year old boy to easily kill a single person. Such objects, which would serve as melee weapons, include the likes of hammers, axes, machetes, and steel rods.

    And we haven’t even touched on the possibilities for using a garrote wire, gasoline and matches, and vehicles.

  18. avatar Roscoe says:

    “…and CCTV cameras in homes of victims.”

    So *feeling* safe means domestic victims being victimized once again by giving up much of the the privacy of their own home.

    So who’s gonna watch all these CCTV monitors – will that be accomplished by the Aussies with the full peeping Tom employment initiative staffed mostly by coppers, other government employees or contractors who watch as events unfold on CCTV monitors from the safety of their police station until the time is ripe to send in SWAT?

    Oh aghast, too late again.

  19. avatar BigDinVT says:

    History or prophecy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDvMPaspKds

    (Or is it just another day at airport terminal security?)

  20. avatar MeRp says:

    Well the member for Batman would have to believe that private citizens shouldn’t have guns. I mean… Batman; he’s a super hero and he doesn’t use guns, right? 😉

    1. avatar Rambeast says:

      He has, on occasion. Pay close attention to Batman vs Superman, he sports a rifle.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email