What they’re talking about when they’re talking about Australia


Regular readers may recall I’m not a member of the National Rifle Association, because I strongly disagree with one of that organization’s most basic modern stances: that all existing “gun control” laws should be enforced.

Yes, I know they mean “The current gun laws are enough; we don’t need any more,” and that they adopt this stance to remain “politically viable” and to be able to claim the “moderate middle ground” in a nation dominated by a left-wing, collectivist, hoplophobe press and political class (not that you’d know it from the way the NRA — and gun owners in general — are demonized in said press.)

But I don’t mind being called an extremist (my defense being the same as Barry Goldwater’s.)

In fact, all existing gun control laws are unconstitutional, since the federal Constitution as amended bars the federal government (and, through the 14th Amendment, any state government), from “infringing” in any way the right of the people to keep and bear — which means to carry around, especially in government buildings — any weapon which could prove of military (“militia”) usefulness, including belt-fed machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and shoulder-launched, heat-seeking missiles.

If this doesn’t sound sensible to you, it’s because they’re succeeding in getting you accustomed to living in a police state. Thomas Jefferson carried a gun with him on his daily walks. So do I. In fact, you — you — pass people openly carrying guns around in public every day. (Did you just say “No, I most certainly do not!”? Think hard. Here’s a hint: They wear blue or beige uniforms. Did you just say “Oh, that’s different!”? Why? In a concentration camp, who carries guns? Who doesn’t?)


(Why were modern American “gun control” laws initially dreamed up? Who were they mostly intended to disarm? Think hard. Now maybe you can explain to me why so many black and Jewish folk vote for collectivist candidates who want to take away their guns — all our guns. Because I sure can’t explain it.)

All that said, however, the highly moderate NRA is sometimes the best champion we have in protecting what’s left of our gun rights, and I don’t mind joining with them or giving them due credit and applause when they fight the good fight, succinctly and well.

As they have, in pointing out what the Lamestream Media refuses to point out, which is what (Saul Alinsky disciple) Barack Obama and his own rather awkward apprentice and designated successor, Hillary Clinton, mean when they say the Australian approach to gun control is “worth a try.”


I believe this video is 60 seconds long. Is that too much time to ask you to spend, learning what Barack and Hillary would like to do with virtually all American firearms developed since 1936 . . . probably in excess of 100 million of them — as well as your duck-hunting grandpa’s pump-action shotgun … while of course their armed bodyguards aren’t about to “lay down their arms”?

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHGit3zF808 .

Or, for more of Hillary on this topic in her own words: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpY0rItDqzM .)

Of course, predictably, the “Australian solution” hasn’t worked, even in Australia. Reason magazine ( http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent ) estimates the rate of compliance with the buy-back (660,000 pieces of fine modern steel engineering confiscated and crushed) at a mere 19 to 20 percent, while the Adelaide Advertiser conceded a few years ago: “Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms — including fully automatic weapons.” ( http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/internal-rivalry-among-comancheros-led-to-gunfight-at-paesano-restaurant-police/story-e6frea83-1226226914996 .)


More recently, Australia’s New Daily gained access to “previously unpublished” (wonder why?) “data for firearms offences” and reported a surge in crime “including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period” . . . after the big gun confiscation! ( http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/11/10/australias-secret-gun-problem-exposed/ .)

(After all, Prohibition only leads criminals — and ever more desperate crime victims — to favor more easily concealed self-defense weapons, doesn’t it?)

“Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade,” the report added. “The national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.”

What? Life gets more dangerous for law-abiding folk when they’re disarmed and the criminal class is not?

As a wise man once said, “Soo-prise, soo-prise.”


Comments are closed.