By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “I was reading your column Rights Watch in the May 2017 issue regarding the Turkish Bloodbath and your comments about the ‘draconian regulatory schemes,’” an email from a reader, forwarded to me by the editor of GUNS Magazine, began. “I'm a sporting shooter living in Perth, Western Australia…”
The column in question is posted on the magazine’s website. Likewise, the email has been posted in its entirety, except the name of the correspondent has been withheld.
He begins by recounting all the hoops he must jump through in order to exercise what his government treats as a privilege. He claims “over 95% of gun crime in Australia involves illegally imported guns” and then proposes what he calls “a happy medium” we all should be able to live with.
It’s a sincere attempt from someone who is not looking at the issue through the eyes of an American who views the right to keep and bear arms as unalienable, and who takes seriously Patrick Henry’s warning:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Here’s the crux of what my correspondent sees as the problem and his proposed fix:
I'm in favor of the right to bear arms, even though they don't apply in Australia, but when making the argument against gun control being ineffective you must consider that the countries in this world aren't completely isolated entities and the freedom one allows for firearm ownership can impact the ability for another to enforce a stricter control.
In a perfect world, I believe we would all be best served with an international standard minimum level of registration, with ownership restriction that only applies to convicted criminals / radicals, with the relaxation of the more draconian laws like we endure here. Unfortunately, I fear this happy medium could never be realised with the vast political differences and social attitudes in today's societies and this fever dream of mine is nothing more than lament for what could have been. I hope that sensible argument endures with respect to gun laws but we should also focus on what impacts our own actions will have on others when it comes to regulation.
The first arguable point is that Australians have no right to keep and bear arms. All human beings do, and its preexisting to any legislatures. It’s just that some live under governments that don’t recognize that. And as the Supreme Court has noted:
“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
And why would freedom-loving people want to help more repressive regimes put the squeeze on those they rule? Besides, experience shows it’s not so much that “the freedom one allows for firearm ownership can impact the ability for another to enforce a stricter control,” as it is that places with more repressive “laws” do what they can to diminish freedom in areas beyond their control.
We see that here all the time, with high gun owner control cities and states blaming freer (and safer) locales for violent crime issues overwhelmingly concentrated in places dominated by “progressive” regimes. We see fictions promulgated like “the iron pipeline,” supposedly the source for a “flow” of “crime guns,” which invariably ignore ATF “time to crime” statistics measured in many years.
As for setting up and adhering to “international standards,” unless they say “shall not be infringed” and recognize the Constitution as “the supreme Law of the Land,” that’s a no-can-do. We’ve seen that no amount of global citizen disarmament is enough for those who would direct the world, and we’ve seen the lessons of history from those imposing it anew.
Imposing restrictions on criminals (which I freely admit to qualifying for) disregards an inescapable truth:
Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.
If violent criminals are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his classic “Gun Control,” equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.
And as for registration, gun owners serious about their rights will never let that happen – and if it does they will not comply, as we’ve seen play out in California, Connecticut and New York. By imposing such an edict, gun owners can either surrender and obey, setting themselves up for the consequences of being “outed” or for later confiscation (not to mention being forbidden to pass their property on to their heirs), or take the terrible risks of having their lives destroyed if they’re caught out of compliance.
And let’s not forget who is immune from all registration requirements: Criminals. The very ones causing the problems. The Supreme Court said so. And, counter-intuitively at first glance, it was actually a proper decision. Not that they'd register regardless.
Expand that to an international standard and there are people alive today who were alive when Olympic medalist Alfred Flatow was arrested and deported to die in a concentration camp because his name was on a gun registration list (and anyone who says “it” can never happen again is ignoring the cultural terraforming of the West and whistling past the graveyard of history).
Some of us aren't “sporting shooters.” Some of us are fighting for nothing less than freedom and we know what’s at stake. We also know that the gun-grabbers will happily accept any incremental concessions they can swindle us out of and then complain about how “extremist gun nuts” are unwilling to “compromise.” Cede to them a beachhead without a fight and they’ll use it to launch their next incursion, because their long-stated goal, before they felt compelled to mask it, is to have it all. Any sop thrown their way in an attempt to appear “reasonable” makes about as much sense as throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to go away sated and to leave you unmolested.
I’ll open the floor up now to your responses in comments if you have anything to add. Please consider that this gentleman approached in good faith and courtesy, and from a foreign perspective that has not been shaped by a lifetime of influences bolstering the predominantly American view of the right to keep and bear arms. As such, if you do choose to weigh in, please do so with the intent of generating light rather than heat.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Make no mistake – these are the laws that all of the leftist gun control types in the media and politics would love to have here in america. Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of the country rejects those extremist views, so they have to lie and claim to just support bg checks. They were far more honest even as late as the 90s and the 2000 election, but losing too many political races caused the dems to cover up their true views.
This is a good article and it makes some very realistic points. I have been a shooter, gun owner, soldier, competitive shooter and now a 73 year old fun shooter. This has been a lifetime sport for me along with fishing and I intend to do both until the time I die. I must fully agree with the author that no ground can be given to the anti-gun crowd. If we think, we must realize that the anti crowd has no logical or legal argument to take our guns. I think of Senator Feinstein who stated she wants to confiscate… Read more »
The Australian government has also cited the threat of terrorism, and in particular the December 2014 siege on the Lindt Café in Sydney, as justification for the new turn-in.
What a farce! So what are they saying??? – either they are implying that the TERRORISTS will turn in their guns – or – they are working to insure that the TERRORISTS will be able to kill unopposed!
How is it possible that a voluntary turn in of firearms will reduce TERRORISM??????
Actually you could say that it is neither and it is both by default: The reality is their objective does not have anything to do with terrorism or the victims of terrorism. As devout Communist Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want to let a crisis go to waste.” They don’t give a damn about terrorism; they are concerned with their own skin because the Aussies are pretty well fed up with them. This is an excuse to pull everyone’s liberty teeth.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
” … [A]ll men are created equal,”. Samuel Colt – – along with other gifted arms developers – – has helped to ensure that all free men remain equal. The gun-grabbers will not rest until all peoples are equally subservient to and oppressed by tyrants.
[W3]
The mind boggles that seemingly intelligent Australians turned in their guns. Never. Under ANY circumstances. And that goes for registration, too.
When I was there 1970-1974, Aussies were adamantly opposed to their government, and with good reason: Out of the entire Australian Parliament at the time, there was only one Australian member, and he was an aboriginal. All the rest were what the Aussie called “Pommies,” aka “Brits.” And Brits were nothing if not dominating. They HAVE to be in charge; it is in their DNA. That’s why Australia was famous, at least internally, for the “Donkey Vote.” Believe it or not there was a A$10 fine for refusing to vote. So Aussies avoided the fine by appearing at the polling… Read more »
Several years ago, I was puzzled by the NRA standing against the banning of machine guns. I now understand why. If, as some say, these laws are to protect us, they are purporting to protect us from our self and that is absolutely impossible to do. The Court recently ruled that knives are arms protected under 2A and now there are debates as to what restrictions should be placed on them since they also ‘shall not be infringed’. If we gun owners ever relinquish any of our God given rights willingly, we are deserving of what will follow.
I spent four years in the nation of Australia from 1970 to 1974. The communist Labor Government was in control and you could not own a handgun at all unless you were a member of an “armory” (shooting club) and even then you had to keep your handgun in the club safe. If you did not show up for a club meeting, the cops were on your doorstep the next morning wanting to know why. You could not on a military-caliber rifle without special permission, and it, too, had to be kept in the club safe. .22 rifles and shotguns… Read more »
Yea sounds so familiar; media not stepping on the toes of a corrupt government by reporting the truth. God bless the USA.
Well it does show what they are attempting to achieve here, doesn’t it!
It is important to remember that firearms have always been mainly regulated at a state level (the federal government regulates the movement of firearms across national borders but not internally either directly or indirectly) which means that there can be variability in what you can own depending on what state you live in (even though people claim that Australia has national gun laws this is not correct they are implemented at a state level and enforced by state governments). the prohibition on “military calibres” and the requirement to keep pistols at clubs was removed in the early 80s. Although the… Read more »
Thanks for the new information. That is the second surprise I have had about Australia since leaving there; the first was rescinding the mandatory trade union membership. I lived in Sydney while working for QANTAS and then while writing articles for the Herald. When my fiancé arrived we got married in Avalon Beach (north of Sydney) and then drove the Nullabor Plain to Perth, where our daughter was born 3 years later. At the time there was never any talk we heard about “State laws” on firearms; all indications were that all such laws were federal — with the communist… Read more »
I don’t know that I can add anything to your rebuttal but the article certainly opened my mind to the mentality of those who live under stricter gun laws in other countries. It really is about inalienable rights not privileges granted by govt.
I don’t know what could turn this around other than a thorough educational campaign here and in other parts of the world. If we don’t realize what’s at stake here in America how are they going to get it overseas?
I am one of the many Australians who live with the gun control laws and the consequences of them. I also run the Facebook page for the Australian hunting podcast which has been taking the fight to roll back the increasing restrictions on gun control that are being shoved down our throats by both sides of the political spectrum (yes it’s got by partisan support so that we don’t have much of an option in terms of candidates to vote for when it comes to Election Day) and unfortunately we’re repeatedly let down by our leaders in our major shooting… Read more »
Thank you, Mike. Having lived in Australia, I am very glad to hear your assessment of the situation. I am hopeful that Australia will eventually kick the Pommies out of their government and start making the government serve the people instead of the other ‘way around.
Yea you can sure count on every ISIS operative rushing down to the local gun drop off point so they can get the amnesty. LMAO What is it about politicians that they think criminals will disobey laws about killing people, or the like but run down to turn their weapons in when the government banns having them? Gun violence wise Switzerland is the safest Country in the World and they REQUIRE gun ownership to its competent citizens; Honduras bans guns, same population as Swiss, highest homicide rate in the World. It doesn’t take a highschool graduate to understand what those… Read more »
Funny how all these facts have a common denominator government can’t see.
it is decidedly NOT a matter of “cannot see”. It is a matter of REFUSING to see.
Read your history. The past century is replete with accounts of governments disarming their people and then murdering them in incredible numbers. What’s that total again, somewhere above a couple hundred millions? Nearly the populationi of the entire US.
And after rushing down to drop off his firearms, the ISIS operative would drive away and happily mow down pedestrians with his vehicle on the way home!
…or just hack their heads off with a dull machete.
What do all those cities have in common besides being controlled by Democrats? I’ll give you one guess.
Actually, America is 111th down the list of high homicide rate countries at 4.7 homicides per 100K population per year, but as you say, if the Major Metro centers run by Democrats (who are terrified of guns) are taken out of the statistics, the homicide rate drops to less than one for the same parameters. I commend you to Gunfacts.com, and I also recommend Bill Whittle’s video “Number One With a Bullet” at https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Bill+whittle%3a++Number+one+with+a+bullet&view=detail&mid=6E00CCF80026F138FB106E00CCF80026F138FB10&FORM=VIRE.
“In a perfect world, I believe we would all be best served with an international standard minimum level of registration…” The author has no clue of what he asserts. In a perfect world, there would be no argument for registration. Or consider this, in a perfect world, firearms might have never come into existence. i will keep my guns thank you, just in case our imperfect world again walks into my bedroom at 1:30am. That wouldn’t happen in a perfect world either.
AMEN
best served with an international standard minimum level of registration…” the main difficulty I see is that, to my knowledge, there is not one nation on this planet that can be fully trusted to evenly and objectively apply any such standard. Why, even in the honourable and law-upholding United States, specifically California, one of the most vocal and effective proponents of draconian anti gun laws was found to have been rather busy in the shadows…. while he worked to impose more restrictions and limits on the People of the State of California as one of their lawmakers, seems he was… Read more »
Exactly Leon… that couldn’t have been said any better.. I was going to type almost the exact same thing.
Im just glad that in our imperfect world (full of the lefts delusions, unicorns and fairies, and a world singing Kumbaya while on meds that distort reality) that there are still a lot of people who are rational and think like us out there…
That should be 0 registration, the government does not need to know what we own. Just watch what is going in Canada and that’s right on our door step. Had clinton been elected I believe they would be trying it here. If you don’t believe it just remember Wounded Knee, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, and what was the name of the cattle rancher that they killed last year.
Lavoy Finicum. His murder by the FBI was celebrated by leftist media. They were quick to characterize him and the other peaceful protesters who holed up in a vacant building in the forest as terrorists, but continue to defend blacks lives matter and Muslims.
Nice…
never buy centry arms they are junk
God gives us the right to defend ourselves and that includes a gun, sword, and so own, so what gives any government the right to take away something God as given us. Start putting those who us guns to commit any and all crime to death in two week after they are found guilty and see the crime rate go down by leaps and bounds!
if for no other reason than that recidivism will be reduced to zero.
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” – George Mason at Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, 1788 (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” seems to apply here. You can’t compromise with gun grabbers.
Indeed. And that is one of the most important factors to keep in mind when arguing with them. I like to wreak havoc on their websites and Facebook pages, pointing out facts and how every one of their incremental chipping away of the right to keep and bear arms also chips away at every other right we have — like converting the 2nd amendment to a revocable government-issued privilege by having to ask government permission to exercise our right to keep and bear arms by buying a firearm, and compelling us to waive our 4th Amendment right to be secure… Read more »
When reading the Second Amendment, I cannot find the words “except” or “depending” or anything like them. It doesn’t say “shall not infringe ‘except’ blah, blah.” Nor does it say “shall not infringe, ‘depending’ on the following circumstances: blah, blah.” So saying convicted criminals cannot own firearms and ammunition is clearly a “common sense” infringement – to which I say, BALDERDASH! Alternatively, I think gun control laws could all be scrapped without any harm and likely a lot of good. Assault, murder, etc. are already against the law. How many crimes are committed regardless of the law – with or… Read more »
Herb T, we already do have laws that makes using weapons during crimes punished more severely. However, during the Messiah’s reign, those laws were vastly ignored and unused. He even went so far as to pardon criminals who committed crimes with firearms.
Yes!! The real thing to keep in mind Herb is that the entire Bill of Rights and the 2nd doesn’t “grant” anybody any rights—its one of the biggest misteachings in our modern society—-all the document simply is, is a reminder to GOVERNMENT that they cannot step on our unalienable rights given by their creator…whoever or whatever that may be… simply because we exist as a Human beings. So much for them listening to the rules. A lot of people forget that our document grants nothing. Although we are talking about Australia here… ALL of us EVERYWHERE have these same unalienable… Read more »
Although he has what might be an acceptable alternative to gun control, it is still gun control. He has grown up in a democracy that has an imperial mother, not one that was forged by freedom fighters against the crown. The perspective he puts forth still shows a reverence for the mentality of the crown having the last word, we do not. I understand him completely and feel saddened that he has really never known true freedom.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.”
….. COL. JOHN DEAN “JEFF” COOPER
@RM, Oh.. the rifle! At first I misread it. At first I thought it said the democrat itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own! Ha, silly me.