Let's ask our Aussie friends

[gitano]

Since you folks have "gone through it", it seems a bit short-sighted not to ask you to relate what happened in your country leading up to the current gun restrictions that you have in place. Specifically, I am interested in:
 
1) What was the behaviour of the shooting community as the rumors began to spread? For example, was there a frenzy to buy up guns and ammo?
 
2) What was the behaviour of the shooting community when the rumors changed to fact?
 
3) What did the government do to "boil the frog". In other words, how did they try to "ease the pain", politically anyway, of the considerable "tightening" of the laws?
 
I'll start with those and we'll see what results.
 
Let me make clear that THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ONE COUNTRY VS ANOTHER GARBAGE. LET ME BE BLUNT - THAT WOULD BE STUPID. GUN CONTROL IS NOT A MATTER FOR NATIONALISTIC BALDERDASH. IF YOU WANNA START THAT UP, TAKE IT ELSEWHERE. We are facing a serious matter in this country, and I want to have the benefit of the experience of our fellow shooters that have gone through it already. MAYBE we can head some of it off to some extent.
 
Paul

[22hornet]

1) What was the behaviour of the shooting community as the rumors began to spread? For example, was there a frenzy to buy up guns and ammo?
 
 
During the gun buy back, there was a saying going round, "Hand 1 in, Buy 2 Back!" In fact I know of few, if any shooters who ended up with less rifles then before the buyback started.
 
 
2) What was the behaviour of the shooting community when the rumors changed to fact?
 
 
Anger, protests, but really there was not much that could be done. The democratic system is really not democratic at all. Once a political party is in power they can do what they want, within reason. There is no denying that.
The Shooters Party, our main political wing lobbied the major parties for assistance and I don't know how much that helped. Probably alot given that at least we were able to keep shooting.
 
 
3) What did the government do to "boil the frog". In other words, how did they try to "ease the pain", politically anyway, of the considerable "tightening" of the laws?
 
 
Are you kiddding me? Ease the pain! All the parties did whatever they could in order to gain political points with the public. It was a joke!
Restrictions are only just being eased now. And by eased I mean instead of having to wait 28 days cooling off plus processing time for a permit to aquire, if you already have a rifle in the category you are applying for you only need to wait the processing time for your permit.

[gitano]

Let's start with that, and let me elaborate.
 

During the gun buy back,

We're not there yet. I'm wondering what happened prior to something like the "buy back". Was there a buying frenzy before any laws were passed but when new restrictions were just being proposed? That's where we are now here in the States, and there is a silly - in my opinion - frenzy of buying going on. A silly response - in my opinion - because:[/SIZE]
 
1) It drives current prices up,
2) If the Socialists disarm the populace, then the newly purchased "assault weapons" and semi-autos of all types will have to be "turned in", and those that bought "in a frenzy" will lose a lot of money.
3) If "those in the frenzy" that are buying these up now are in hopes of "making money" during the buyback, they're goofy. The government is NEVER going to pay fair market value.
 
 
So I don't see any legitimate reason for the buying frenzy, except... If you genuinely intend to USE them to defend the Consitution. I do NOT believe that even one tenth of one percent (one in a thousand) of those participating in the 'frenzy' have that intent or the gumption to actually act.
 

Anger, protests, but really there was not much that could be done. The democratic system is really not democratic at all. Once a political party is in power they can do what they want, within reason.

Which is what I expect here. Lots of "gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair", lots of hot air, and in the end, NOTHING done to stop the Socialists that WILL disarm the populace.
 

Are you kiddding me? Ease the pain! All the parties did whatever they could in order to gain political points with the public. It was a joke!

From that, it seems that "the public" was against gun ownership. Am I reading that right? If so, then the "people" got exactly what they wanted. The main difference in the US is the Constitution. It isn't a matter of what "the majority of the Socialists" want, it's a matter of what the Constitution SAYS. Technically, the Constitution would have to be 'ammended' to allow guns to be confiscated in this country. Of course, the Socialists couldn't care less about the Consititution except as how it can be used to manipulate the stupid socialists that permeate the populace.
 
What I meant in my initial thread, was:
What did the poiticians do to make it "look" like their actions weren't "reasonable"?
Did they make ANY compromises?
If so, what were those compromises?
How did they mollify - if at all - those that raised legitimate arguements?
Did they commit outright lies? And I don't mean different "interpretations" of statistics or data, I mean did they tell outright lies about what they intended to do?
Did they lie about how they would conduct the buyback?
Did they lie about what they were going to pay for firearms they bought back?
Did they renege on any commitments?
 
What I'm looking for is information I can use in recognizing beforehand what specific traps are being laid for me. I know the sons of bachelor's I am facing. I know how to ell when they're lying... their lips are moving. However, my country is filled with sheep, many of whom believe ANYTHING the government, and it's mouthpieces ABC, CBS, and especially NBC say. I would hope to be able to offer an example or two, based on the experience of the lambs that have gone before us, that might point to a common lie or a ploy that the inexperienced would easily fall for, but that once exposed to the 'light of day' might be more difficult to get away with.
 
Don't get me wrong. I believe in my heart that we are fighting a losing battle. I beleive in my heart that the Consitution of the United States SHALL BE so corrupted and emasculated by the Socialists that "the Grand Experiment" - The United States - will be over. We are being swarmed over by Mexicans, and the Socialists are not only doing NOTHING about it, they are encouraging it. They do so because they know they can exploit "immigration" to keep themselves at a place that legally allows them to take other people's money for themelves and their "friends". I believe "the war" is already lost. I would just like to win a battle or two on my way to the slaughterhouse.
 
Paul

[22hornet]

I'm wondering what happened prior to something like the "buy back". Was there a buying frenzy before any laws were passed but when new restrictions were just being proposed?
 
Nothing happened proir to the buyback. As soon as the Port Arthur shooting occurred the political parties jumped on the bandwagon. We were all told of the proposed laws that were coming. We knew what types of firearms would be banned. There were alot of rifle sales leading up to the buyback and during the buyback, I think the SSAA were saying that there has never been such a number of rifles sold in such a short period of time. After the buyback was complete I understand that there were more rifles in the publics hands than before the buyback.
Market value was paid, in my state, for all firearms. If you wished to dispute the value you could get your firearms valued by a firearms dealer, and I understand some shonky values were put on paper. I handed in a semi auto .22 that did not work, the police sargent looked at it, put on the paperwork "new firearm" and was paid the new market value. I made $220 on a rifle that did not even work!:D



Quote:
Anger, protests, but really there was not much that could be done. The democratic system is really not democratic at all. Once a political party is in power they can do what they want, within reason.

Which is what I expect here. Lots of "gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair", lots of hot air, and in the end, NOTHING done to stop the Socialists that WILL disarm the populace.


Quote:
Are you kiddding me? Ease the pain! All the parties did whatever they could in order to gain political points with the public. It was a joke!

From that, it seems that "the public" was against gun ownership. Am I reading that right? If so, then the "people" got exactly what they wanted.

Thats right! The ignorent masses got what they wanted. In the end the politcal partied "told" them they are now safer with the guns "off the streets" and the people belived them.

What I meant in my initial thread, was:
What did the poiticians do to make it "look" like their actions weren't "reasonable"?

We, the shooters, in OZ are not supported in any way by the general public. If you shoot you are treated like a leaper by anyone outside of the shooting public. The politicians did not have to make anything sound reasonable or try to sell the changes in any way. They had the support of the public as soon as they said, "We are going to take the guns off the streets".

Did they make ANY compromises?

Only to primary producers. And then they had to apply for an exemption. I understand not too many exemptions were given.
 
Did they commit outright lies? And I don't mean different "interpretations" of statistics or data, I mean did they tell outright lies about what they intended to do?
Did they lie about how they would conduct the buyback?

No, they did pretty much what they said they would do.

Did they lie about what they were going to pay for firearms they bought back?


In some states the valuer were gov appointed and you couldnt dispute the value given. In my state you could take your rifle to a gundealer and he would basically give you a value based upon whatever you were going to buy off him.
It only really affected thte high end guns, custom jobs, engraving and the like.

Did they renege on any commitments?

Not that I am aware of.

[gitano]

That's interesting and good information. Thanks.
 
I think the big difference between OZ and the US is the 200 years of the 2nd Ammendment in the US. Here, the battle is over whether or not the Founding Fathers really meant what they wrote. The socialist disarmers argue that the 2nd Ammendment was designed to create the "National Guard". Fortunately, there is NOTHING in the records associated with the writing of the 2nd Ammendment that supports that interpretation. In a recent case before the US Supreme Court - Heller vs The District of Columbia - the Supreme Court held FOR Heller and against the District of Columbia, ruling for the first time in some 90 years, if I remember correctly, that the 2nd Ammendment protects the Right of an INDIVIDUAL to "keep and bear arms". Without such a constitutionally granted right, and the 200 years of national history behind it, I think the Aussies were 'up against it'.
 
It's interesting to hear that the government actually paid fair market value (and better). There is no way on God's green earth that will happen here. In fact, some state in New England just ruled that a State's right to "emminent domain" (meaning the state can take your land if they so choose to) can be extended to "developers", if the "development" is "positive". That ruling created quite a firestorm around the country, and prompted several states to ammend their constitutions to prevent it happening elsewhere. The point is though, the "state", (federal or state), NEVER pays even CLOSE to fair market value whether it is seizing land or other privately owned property. Is a robbery plain and simple. I've never even heard of a state-forced sale of ANY privately owned property garnering anything even close to fair market value.
 
While I generally refuse to even think "it can't happen here" about anything, I can assure you that getting paid fair market value for anything siezed by the US government, will NEVER HAPPEN HERE.
 
Paul

[Jorge in Oz]

Although you guys live in a democratic country, being the land of the free, I believe the shift away from what your forefathers intended your nation to be, has had it's reprecussions which have impacted on your rights as citizens. The men that established your nation were Godly men that had good moral standing and principles but perhaps the complexities of the current world we live in were not as prevalent in those times, but man's nature never changes so I'm sure they had many challenges also.
 
Whether you are a believer or not, the discipline which comes with practising christianity is useful to all people not just believers. Our modern laws have been fashioned on God's Laws which are a good basis for any society.
 
I respect the fact people have a choice to believe in God or not, and I have never treated anyone any different. Everyone is the same in my eyes as I look at the nature and character of the person and even if I don't like somebody I will always respect them as human beings. I digress.
 
By moving away from the conservative nature of a christian foundation and becoming one who accepts everything, a bit like the new age movement, then the differences between what is moral and right and what is not are blurred. This blurring gives the opportunity for liberal thinkers to come to the forefront and use that blurring to entice and appeal to a larger majority. From my limited knowledge of US politics it is probably one of the first times, it seems to me, where there is such a large majority of liberal, socilaist oriented representatives that may not hold the same values as the guys on this forum. This ultimately will hinder the firearms owners as the liberal contingent are very anti war and anti guns.
 
The notion of the new age movement that everyone is good and they want to befriend the enemy (and not accept that some persons/countries are downright evil), has major risks for your nation now with the approach being taken to foreign affairs. There are certain countries that will never be friends of the US, no matter how much you woo them and entertain them. They will pretend to be your friends to use it against you. I don't need to mention names of the countries, you know which ones I mean.
 
I feel for you guys but I also watch with interest as anything that happens there in relation to firearm ownership will ultimately impact on us, so freedom lost there will translate to lost freedom here where owning firearms is concerned.
 
It's astounding how powerful your government is in relation to domestic matters so I guess it's a bit of watch this space.
 
Jorge

[gitano]

You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned, Jorge.
 
There was some fantastic news today, and the major news networks didn't even MENTION it. Two states - Tennessee and Oklahoma - essentially "seceded" from "the Union". Their legislatures passed resolutions claiming "State Sovereignty", based on the fact that the Congress of the US has GREATLY exceeded the authority granted it under the Constitution, and until the Congress comes into compliance with the 10th Ammendment, (which strictly limits the government's authority), those two states are not recognizing the authority of the US federal government.
 
YEEHAA!!! It's about time!!!!!

IN ADDITION! Montana's Socialist governor just signed into law an act that is identical to the one I mentioned before the Alaskan legislature. Specifically, if any firearm - "firearm" as defined under federal law - is made in Montana, and remains in Montana, it and it's owner are exempt from federal gun laws and regulations. That includes fully automatic weapons, and of particular interest to me - suppressors!The spineless snakes in the Alaskan legislature didn't have the guts to even address the issue "on the floor".

"Things" are happenin'! folks! Things are happenin'.

Paul

[LvrLover]

So I don't see any legitimate reason for the buying frenzy, except... If you genuinely intend to USE them to defend the Consitution. I do NOT believe that even one tenth of one percent (one in a thousand) of those participating in the 'frenzy' have that intent or the gumption to actually act.
 
Which is what I expect here. Lots of "gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair", lots of hot air, and in the end, NOTHING done to stop the Socialists that WILL disarm the populace.
 

Paul

I guess that puts me in a very small group. One of 300,000 people in this country who believe in liberty. Thats an army.

[gitano]

One of 300,000 people in this country who believe in liberty. Thats an army.

Only in number. If those 300 thousand aren't organized, they aren't an "army". ALso, it isn't the 3 million Americans that I was refering to when I mentioned 1 in 100. It was 1 in a 100 of those participating in the buying frenzy.
 
As I said in another thread, it is a truly sad day for this nation when we The People have to fight with our government as if it was a foreign enemy, AND we have the "free" and totally corrupted Press to fight with too. I am far from confident that "liberty" will prevail.
 
Paul

[LvrLover]

I see my error, Paul. My new figure comes to one of 300 people. At least we die standing up.:undecided: