Armed Heroes Defend Obama, But Obama Wants To Take Away Your Arms

12
1597
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Obama praises ‘very severe’ gun confiscation program of Australia

Surrounded by heavily armed body guards, Obama pushes for civilian disarmament

Barack Obama (Source: Reuters)

President Barack Obama said in a recent address that he’s become ‘frustrated’ with America’s lack of movement toward civilian disarmament.   As police in the USA become increasingly militarized (with Obama’s help), the president is using crime as an emotional tool to soften Americans toward gun control.  Surrounded by heavily armed body guards, Obama said on June 10th:

Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.

The law he speaks of was Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement.  “Very severe” might be putting it mildly.  Australia’s gun laws are draconian.  The right to keep and bear arms was eviscerated, leaving only a privileged, licensed few citizens who could legally own firearms.

Between 1996-97, an estimated 700,000 firearms were surrendered to the government by citizens wanting to avoid being classified as criminals.

Sales were restricted.  Importation was restricted.  Carry was restricted.  Personal storage was restricted. The few remaining Australians (5%) bearing a government-granted license became subject to having their property inspected by the government.  People who bring firearms into Australia without permission face a potential life sentence in prison.

All semblances of firearm freedom were destroyed.  The government was empowered to pick and choose who would be granted privileges and who would be denied.  The government became the decider of who had an invalid reason to own a firearm, an invalid physical condition, an invalid medical condition, an invalid background, or was unsuitable for any other contrived, arbitrary reason.

The Library of Congress documents some of the relevant information about Australia’s gun laws:

In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition.  Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.  The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.”  A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

Share Button

12 COMMENTS

  1. What they don’t tell you about Australia’s gun ban laws is the crime rate has gone through the roof. Of course, criminals don’t care about a law that bans guns do they?
    Here are specs on the some of the crimes and their rate since the Gun Ban in the land of OZ went into effect:
    Armed Robberies up 69%
    Assault with Guns up 28%
    Murders with Guns up 19%
    Hot Home Invasions up 21%
    Think it will be any different here if they ban guns?

    David Ward
    Gun Owner

    • Dear David,

      Libertarians who have followed the gun controversy could have predicted that.

      Basically the gun prohibitionists turned the entire continent of Australia into one giant “gun free zone.”

      We all know what happens in “gun free zones,” don’t we? The ensuring crime wave was entirely predictable and inevitable.

    • As a person who lives in Australia, those figures quoted by DW may be truthful. What is one reason behind this is the increase in drug use, esp. meth and ice addicts who need to steal and rob to feed their habit. There are far more citizens here who get ticketed for drug driving than drink driving, by about 3 to 1. Also more localities are ignoring or permitting drug use, or even setting up drug houses where druggies can shoot up. As proved in Europe, this increases drug use and leads to more violent crime. Australian drug usage has increased immensely since Port Arthur. That would be one big reason for the increase.

      Also a lot of tourists and immigrants come here from certain countries where butchery is a way of life and continue that life here. I’m talking about muslims.

      More concerning is the politicians here who use extortion to extract money under menaces from law abiding citizens with speed and red light scameras. I’m more concerned about this than the lack of guns. We’re talking about $2 billions per year our states steal off of us. Fortunately people are fighting back through the courts, and many are winning.

      DW those numbers can convey a false attitude. What needs to be defined for the numbers are the whys, whos and whats behind the increases. We also don’t have cities like Detroit, except maybe Redfern ghetto in Sydney where the abos live. I’ve been all around Australia and don’t see the huge numbers of homeless and ghettos like the USA has. That alone is a good reason for living here.

      We also have a big advantage in being surrounded by vast oceans, even with 250 million scum living 200 km north of Darwin. We also have vast quantities of habitable land where one can and do live quite well off the grid and not be noticed.

      • to5 – I believe one of the reasons for the increase in meth use is due to the prohibition of cocaine. I had a lot of acquaintances “back in the day” that drove the white line highway until they finally outgrew it or got tired of it and quit with no lasting effects. As exaggerated as the anti-meth advertising may be, there’s no doubt that prolonged use will mess you up. It is a neurotoxin after all. So as far as I’m concerned, all natural drugs should be completely and totally unrestricted (or “legal” if you prefer); if it grows then it’s none of the gun-varmints’ business. Much like the repeal of reefer prohibition in Washington and Colorado has apparently screwed up pot growing south of the border (so now the Mexican “farmers” are turning to poppies, whoed a’ thunkit http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/04/07/former-pot-growers-fueling-the-us-heroin-invasion), I contend that a similar repeal of coke and opium prohibition would deep six the pseudoephdrine / meth market right along with the Oxycontin / Hydrocodone / heroin market. Gee, I wonder which big transnational pharmaceuticals companies and drug cartels would resist that?
        Everyone involved in the prohibition bidness seems to ignore the fact that back when you could buy Bayer brand Heroin, Laudanum and cocaine tooth drops (for your children no less) over the counter, we had a much lower “drug abuse” rate than we do now. Much like education has reduced the number of cigarette smokers, I would argue that the same thing could be accomplished with recreational drug use. And it is obvious that no amount of laws, narcs, snitches or prison cells will stop people from ingesting their preferred substances. What a free market in recreational drugs would do is provide higher quality product of known purity at lower costs thereby driving prices so low that the black market would simply dry up from competition. Then the incidental violence and property crime would all but stop. I guess the cop-courts-prison industry can’t have that, now can they?

  2. “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.”

    Some chickens coming home to roost. At tax payer expense.

    $7.8 million awarded to man shot by Riverside County deputy
    Maya Srikrishnan – Los Angeles Times

    A jury voted unanimously Wednesday to award about $7.8 million to a man shot in 2011 by a Riverside County sheriff’s deputy. William Howard suffered a severe brain injury and partial paralysis after being shot in the face by Deputy Armando Munoz, said Howard’s lawyer, Dale Galipo. The jury returned its verdict after deliberating for about three hours in U.S. District Court in Riverside. “We are humbled and thrilled with the jury verdict,” Galipo said afterward. “The sheriff’s department for the County of Riverside has denied all responsibility and really forced the case to go to trial. It was not an easy case.” Howard, who was unarmed, was shot as he hid from deputies in a Cathedral City storage facility, court documents said. Deputies were looking for him on an outstanding felony warrant for an armed robbery, according to Galipo.
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-la-to-jury-riverside-police-shooting-20140611-story.html

    Oxnard to pay $6.7 million to family of man mistakenly killed by cops
    Veronica Rocha – Los Angeles Times

    The family of an innocent bystander mistakenly gunned down by police will receive $6.7 million as part of a settlement reached with the city of Oxnard. Alfonso Limon Jr.’s family filed a lawsuit against the city and the Oxnard Police Department last March, alleging officers were negligent and wrongfully shot and killed him. As part of the settlement, the city will also be required to look into equipping its officers with body cameras or vehicle dash cameras to record similar incidents, his family’s attorneys said in a statement. “Our hope is that the changes that the Limon family demanded the police department make as part of this settlement will prevent innocent people from being killed or harmed in the future,” their attorney, Tom Schultz, said in a statement. “This case wasn’t about money. It was about justice for Alfonso.” The city and police department also agreed to educate its officers that recording audio in incidents like the shooting death is department policy, according to the statement.
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oxnard-police-shooting-award-20140611-story.html

  3. In 2016 that Pinocchio fool will be gone to his new digs with his long haired Rottweiler looking wife. I will still have any guns I may own today. Maybe more.

      • @Tor – Of course. 100 years tradition of offering the selected “two to choose from” won’t be undone without an aware educated public.

        • I think ending this tradition can be accomplished using two different tactics.

          Those who are able to become wiser and see things how they really are. They make efforts to create or obtain their own means of production independent from the oligarchs.

          Those with limited intellects and abilities come to see all outsiders as enemies by default and refuse to obey them. The trick here though, is they don’t reject their fellows who legitimately want to trade goods and services and create a complex division of labor and advanced economy for everyone’s benefit.

  4. Wow, “show a genuine reason for owning a firearm which could not include self defense”. So since I don’t go out most evenings to shoot dinner, self defense is the main reason for having a gun. At least that admits the costumed thugs use firearms for aggression and us mundanes are not allowed any defense whatsoever. So far Connecticut’s requirement that gun owners register their weapons has been rightly ignored by most owners, knowing that the next step will be confiscation, having made where to look a moot point. Waiting to see how that plays out, so far I am encouraged by the inaction since the best way to treat these ridiculous “laws” is to ignore them and thumb our noses at their authors.

  5. I think I understand.

    Instead of dealing with the actual individuals that cause harm and destruction, treat everyone as guilty regardless of their guilt/innocence.

    Ban (practically) all guns from the population because a small number (under ~5% of population) of individuals cause harm and destruction to those around them.

    What will be next? Will there be a ban on (cars, motorcycles, knives, metal, wood, bats, clubs, bed frames, chairs, table legs, string, wire, pianos, guitars, etc.) just because someone somewhere might cause harm to someone?

    Perhaps there should be a ban on heavy people because they might crush fall on someone else and injure them.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I am not sure about the good intentions behind the nanny state.

    Oppression just for the sake of controlling others.

LEAVE A REPLY