In 1996 in the Tazmanian city of Port Arthur a man by the name of Martin Bryant killed 35 people using semi-automatic rifles in what would later be known as the Port Arthur Massacre. This singular event was quickly used as a rationale for the banning of most firearms for Australian civilians, but the new regulations were not a product of Port Arthur. Rather, anti-gun politicians had been pushing for restrictions and confiscation for many years prior; Port Arthur simply gave them enough public panic to get their legislation passed.
This is the modus operandi of the typical anti-gun lobby – Wait for a tragedy and then exploit it to punish all law abiding citizens for the crimes of a handful of deranged people. It doesn't make much sense unless you realize that gun control laws are not meant to thwart criminals, they are meant to thwart good people who might object to government trespasses.
The difference between Australia and America is, of course, that the right to arms and the right to self defense are codified in the US Constitution. There is no legal right to guns in Australia, it is treated as a privilege subject to the whims of authorities. However, regardless of the laws of men or constitutional protections, self defense is also a natural right. Anyone trying to take it away is in violation of natural law.
Outside of the perfect timing of a Port Arthur scenario, most anti-gun measures are incremental as a means to trick good citizens into believing their rights are not being diminished. Once these rights are sufficiently whittled down and the public has been conditioned to give ground to the government over time, the violations will never stop. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
They will argue that there's no need for civilians to have semi-automatic rifles, then they will come for the pistols, then they will come for the lever action rifles, the bolt action rifles, the shotguns, until there is nothing left. Gun grabbers deny this agenda at every turn, but all we have to do is look at countries where gun rights have been cut down to see what the overall strategy is. The end game is total confiscation.
In Australia, the few firearms that are allowed in civilian hands are being scrutinized once again. This time around, pump action rifles that would be considered a joke or a novelty in the US are being portrayed as potential tools for mass shooters. The Australian government has sought to squeeze the Port Arthur attack for every last drop of anti-gun sympathy, even though it happened almost 30 years ago.
One could argue it was the lack of firearms owners in places like Australia that made it possible for the national government to enforce insane and draconian measures during the covid pandemic. These measures included threats of mandatory vaccination, mandatory reporting of vaccination, denying people the right to travel more than 3 miles from their homes, the use of official intimidation and arrest to silence contrary information online, and the installation of “covid camps” which were used for everyone, not just people traveling from overseas.
It makes sense that governments with this level of disrespect for the civil rights of the populace would want to erode whatever means of protection citizens have left, if only to ensure full compliance during the next manufactured crisis. They are doing it in Australia and they desperately want to do it in the US.
In 1996 in the Tazmanian city of Port Arthur a man by the name of Martin Bryant killed 35 people using semi-automatic rifles in what would later be known as the Port Arthur Massacre. This singular event was quickly used as a rationale for the banning of most firearms for Australian civilians, but the new regulations were not a product of Port Arthur. Rather, anti-gun politicians had been pushing for restrictions and confiscation for many years prior; Port Arthur simply gave them enough public panic to get their legislation passed.
This is the modus operandi of the typical anti-gun lobby – Wait for a tragedy and then exploit it to punish all law abiding citizens for the crimes of a handful of deranged people. It doesn’t make much sense unless you realize that gun control laws are not meant to thwart criminals, they are meant to thwart good people who might object to government trespasses.
The difference between Australia and America is, of course, that the right to arms and the right to self defense are codified in the US Constitution. There is no legal right to guns in Australia, it is treated as a privilege subject to the whims of authorities. However, regardless of the laws of men or constitutional protections, self defense is also a natural right. Anyone trying to take it away is in violation of natural law.
Outside of the perfect timing of a Port Arthur scenario, most anti-gun measures are incremental as a means to trick good citizens into believing their rights are not being diminished. Once these rights are sufficiently whittled down and the public has been conditioned to give ground to the government over time, the violations will never stop. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
They will argue that there’s no need for civilians to have semi-automatic rifles, then they will come for the pistols, then they will come for the lever action rifles, the bolt action rifles, the shotguns, until there is nothing left. Gun grabbers deny this agenda at every turn, but all we have to do is look at countries where gun rights have been cut down to see what the overall strategy is. The end game is total confiscation.
[embedded content]
In Australia, the few firearms that are allowed in civilian hands are being scrutinized once again. This time around, pump action rifles that would be considered a joke or a novelty in the US are being portrayed as potential tools for mass shooters. The Australian government has sought to squeeze the Port Arthur attack for every last drop of anti-gun sympathy, even though it happened almost 30 years ago.
One could argue it was the lack of firearms owners in places like Australia that made it possible for the national government to enforce insane and draconian measures during the covid pandemic. These measures included threats of mandatory vaccination, mandatory reporting of vaccination, denying people the right to travel more than 3 miles from their homes, the use of official intimidation and arrest to silence contrary information online, and the installation of “covid camps” which were used for everyone, not just people traveling from overseas.
It makes sense that governments with this level of disrespect for the civil rights of the populace would want to erode whatever means of protection citizens have left, if only to ensure full compliance during the next manufactured crisis. They are doing it in Australia and they desperately want to do it in the US.
Loading…
