RejectSociety.com

Australia gun laws:

12 years after performing the classic blunder of attempting to disarm citizens to prevent crime, Ex-Prime Minister, John Howard has effectively spent his anti-gun fervor accomplishing nothing. The stricter gun laws, arrived after a 1996 tragedy where this guy Martin Bryant went nuts and pulled out two semi-automatic assault rifles and went all GTA on the town, killing 35 men and women in 8 minutes. It is described as the worst mass murder in Australian history. Howard was later described by his sentencing judge as a “pathetic social misfit.”

Lesson Lost:

Almost immediately following the Port Arthur massacre Prime Minister, John Howard (who will be later be described in this sentence as a “pathetic socialist jackass”) in standard government fashion, took the opportunity over an angry and saddened population, acting like a pathetic socialist jackass, overhauled the Australian gun laws making them among the strictest gun laws in the developed world. He is quoted as saying, “I hate guns… One of the things I don’t admire about America is their slavish love of guns … We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The “American disease” he is referring to is our love of freedom, and our “slavish love of guns” is quite the opposite; It is us embracing freedom and firearms to avoid a “slavish” mentality. But John Howard hates guns, and so he did everything he could to make sure his citizens were left vulnerable to future Port Arthur massacres.

Imagine if those 35 men and women had been armed. It is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Bryant would not have lasted 8 minutes, and would not have had the opportunity to kill so many people. In fact, he may have not attempted to murder his fellow citizens at all, knowing that there was a high probability they would fight back. Moreover, the guns that were used in the Port Arthur massacre were acquired illegally although the type of weapon was considered “legal” at the time. Prime Minister Howard argued that there was “no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.” Do you see the absurdity of this statement? I can think of 35 people that have one reason to “be allowed” to own an assault weapon… but apparently Howard has forgotten the victims. If they had weapons, they could have defended themselves.

Idiot Politicians:

Prime Minister, your firearm laws do not prevent people from buying guns illegally, they only prevent people who respect the law from buying firearms legally. As such, your stricter gun laws protect the criminals of your nation from armed citizens who are able to defend themselves. However, I understand your fear of guns, you are a socialist prick, and you used a massacre to further cast restrictions upon your citizens. Why? Do you really believe that restricting legal firearms will help prevent crime committed by illegal firearms? Do you simply have an irrational negative feeling towards guns? OR like every corrupt politician, do you want to disarm your citizens so they are unable to revolt? Either you’re stupid, an emotional wuss, or you’re evil and corrupt. But what you aren’t is a servant of the people, and they ought to remove you from office.

In the end, 12 years after the Port Arthur massacre the decline of firearm related homicides hasn’t changed. It was decreasing in 1996 at the same rate is decreasing now. I am actually surprised that Australia didn’t end up like England, and have a sharp increase in gun-crime when they banned guns. Although, the article does not discuss “Gun crime” it is only discussing “gun homicide” so I cannot say that crime didn’t increase.

It is proven over and over that increasing the amount of restrictions and prohibitions you put on law abiding citizens only benefit the ones who do not abide by the laws. It is a message every government seems to ignore, that when they ban weapons they do not serve the people, but they end up serving the criminals. Moreover, they create these laws to protect themselves by taking power away from the citizens. A government does not have any right to take away an individual’s ability to protect himself. An individual’s rights are his the moment his is born, and can never be morally taken away. Yet every day governments all over the world, without moral or rational basis, create environments that make these individuals more vulnerable to loss of freedom and life.

©2008 Rejectsociety.com

Related posts

• Immorality of the Same-Sex Marriage Ban (6)
• Spain’s Odd Definition of “Human” (0)
• Mainstream Media Weighs in Ignorantly on Gun Ban Ruling (0)
• Mexican Army working for Drug Cartel (6)
• The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment (1)