(Australian) Democrats on handguns ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
290
Location
Western Australia
Must be a universal syndrome with Democrats ...

Event: DOORSTOP INTERVIEW Date: 24/06/2003
THE GOVERNMENT'S HANDGUN BUYBACK INTERVIEWEES: SENATOR BRIAN GREIG,
AUSTRALIAN Democrats SPOKESPERSON FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL & JUSTICE

SENATOR BRIAN GREIG: Um, guns. In the next few hours, or at least in
the next day, the Government is going to introduce its hand gun buyback
scheme. This is in response to the fatal shootings at Monash University
last year, where the Prime Minister said he would do everything humanly
possible to bring about reform in this area.

He has not done that, and the states have not done that. What we're
getting as a result is a scheme where fewer - or at best only twenty per
cent of guns will comply with the legislation. That is, twenty per cent
of guns will be deemed unlawful and will be able to go through a buyback
scheme.

The difficulty with that in part is that it means that those people who
are going to have guns which become unlawful are simply going to use it
as a swap scheme. Get their money back for their now unlawful gun, and
purchase a lawful gun. So people will be swapping illegal guns for
legal guns, but there are still guns in the community.

What we Democrats are calling for, what the broader community is calling
for, is for a complete national ban on automatic and semi-automatic
weapons. Australians do not want to live in armed communities.

QUESTION: But it doesn't appear that a national ban's going to
work, because some of the states are indicating that the laws that the
Government's introducing now they're not supporting.

SENATOR GREIG: Look, we can and must go further. We need stronger
co-operation between the states and the Commonwealth. The Prime
Minister has said he would do everything humanly possible. He's not
done that. Our state premiers need to wake up to the fact that
overwhelmingly polling has shown that up to 90% in some cases,
Australians want tough, unambiguous laws to get hand guns out of our
communities.

QUESTION: So how do you see the Government and the states working
together a lot better? They can't seem to work together now.

SENATOR GREIG: I hesitate to say further discussion is needed. I don't
believe it is. I think we need to - the state premiers need to
recognise that we do need co-operative state-Federal reform in this
area. We're not talking necessarily about elite sporting shooters'
weapons for Olympic and Commonwealth games. They can still have the -
owners can still have them and use them, and they can acquire the
appropriate protection.

We're not talking about the sorts of rifles that people on the land
would be using on farms. We're talking about hand guns, which are
essentially in urban communities.

QUESTION: Given that there was already row at COAG over who was
going to pay for this, I mean, so who can fund it, and how can a
complete buyback scheme, if you like, be realistically funded?

SENATOR GREIG: Well, as it stands the Commonwealth will be putting in
two thirds of the funding, the states will be matching the rest. State
and Federal constitutional issues mean that there's not a huge amount
that the Federal Government can do in a legislative sense, but it can
provide the funding.
But more importantly, it should provide the leadership, and this is
where the Prime Minister has failed.

QUESTION: And do you buy the arguments at all that it does affect
sporting shooters, and could result in more [indistinct]?

SENATOR GREIG: Sorry, the question again?

QUESTION: That it could affect sporting shooters. Does it at
all? I mean, in a competition sense?

SENATOR GREIG: Oh, look, not those in elite sports. Not those in
Olympic and Commonwealth games. But to other sporting shooters, yes it
would affect them. But what we Democrats are saying is that we believe
that is not an unreasonable price to pay in our democracy, and that all
guns, wherever possible, should be removed from the community.


QUESTION: All you calling on these changes now because some states
- I think Adelaide, New South Wales, and Tasmania - say that they won't
even be introducing the current laws until July? So you think some
states haven't introduced the laws as a stand, there's time to review
them?

SENATOR GREIG: It's been slow enough already. It's been more than a
year, or close to a year, since the fatal shootings in Monash which
triggered this. I think going back to the massacre of Port Arthur -
involving , I accept, different guns in that instance - there has been a
hue and call - a hue and cry from the Australian community for better
and stronger laws, and for greater co-operation between the Commonwealth
and the states.

We've not got that. Instead what we've got now is a - is a - is
an inadequate system where, for example, of the - the guns that will
comply, that will come in under the new rules, there are only those that
are of a barrel length less than 100 millimetres - that is for revolvers
- or 120 millimetres for semi-automatics. And a shot capacity of 10
rounds and a calibre in excess of .38 or .45 at special accredited
sporting events.

It's confusing, it's complex, and contributing to the fact - to
this is the difficulty is that there's no uniform way for measuring
barrel length amongst the states and territories. So we're going to
have the absurd situation where the Government has not and will not
produce a list of those guns that have been banned, but instead, when
people go to hand their guns in, police are actually going to have to
measure, with a tape measure, the length of these guns, confusing the
issue even further.

QUESTION: Will the Democrats support the Bill anyway?

SENATOR GREIG: It's a difficult one for us, because not to do so would
mean that we would be leaving roughly ten to twenty per cent of guns in
the community that otherwise wouldn't be there. So yes, we'll be
supporting the legislation. But we have to make the point that it's
inadequate, and we can and must go further.

QUESTION: But wouldn't it be a start to start getting guns out of
the community?

SENATOR GREIG: Yeah, but why not make it a finish as well. Let's do it
thoroughly. Let's get all automatic and semi-automatic weapons out of
our communities.

* * End * *
:cuss: :fire: :cuss:
 
Bruce in West Oz

I would feel sorry for all you gunners down under, but, you see, I live in California, and I'm trying to preserve my right to own a firearm in a state where the legislature has never seen an anti-gun bill they didn't like. :(

Add to that, the battle against prostitution. :what:

Thats right, I said prostitution. There is a recall effort here to remove the Gubber-Naught Joe (I'll sell my soul for a campain contribution) Davis. Davis, the Governor of this fair state is an anti gunner who just might get his just rewards. The first Governor in the history of the United States to be recalled I believe.

Just remember; Never Give Up. ;)
 
You'd think the Australian Democrat party would worry more about its ability (or lack thereof) to recieve a significant portion of the votes of an election, and worry less about laws that will not reduce crime at all.
 
And this in a rural country

With a very long tradition of gun ownership and well-established shooting clubs.

Someone should do a detailed study of how this happened. My guess is that a lack of any strong political group like the NRA to unify shooters, coupled with a "well they aren't talking about taking my Lee-Enfield" attitude, allowed the grabbers to seize control of the government and the public hearts and minds.

Any Aussies have a theory? What can we do to avoid your fate?
 
Cosmoline

There's a lot of theories as to what happened. It's probably a conglomeration of several.

1. Socialism
Australia has been heading steadily to the left since the early 70s. The education system is (a) female dominated, and (b) completely left wing. Students come out of 12 - 15 years of schooling the same way: guns = "bad".

2. "She'll be right"
This is an attitude that permeates all aspects of Australian culture -- "Don't worry about it, mate -- she'll be right!" So, no action is taken and, of course, "she's NOT right"! By then it's too late.

3. Media demonisation
Gunowners were -- and continue to be -- crucified by the leftist mainstream media here. It is impossible for shooters to be heard.

4. The vocal minority
The anti-gunners are very loud, very insistent and, sadly, have the ear of people in high places (like the Prime Minister's wife!)

5. Fragmentation
Shotgun owners don't give a damn about rifle shooters; everyone hates handgun owners unless they shoot ISU events; hunters and target shooters won't support each other; collectors shut up and hope no-one will notice them; blackpowder enthusiasts think it will never happen to them -- so no-one supports anyone else. The biggest shooting organisation in Australia -- the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (http://www.ssaa.org.au) -- can only muster about 125 000 members out of a gun-owner population of somewhere around 1 000 000.

6. Indifference
Average person in the street couldn't care less about guns -- if they're told guns=bad, well, so be it -- "just get rid of them and let me get back to Big Brother on TV". There's no support there.

7. No Constitutional protection
Not only do we not have a Bill of Rights, our Constitution has been deemed by the highest court in the land to be a "living document". Translation: "they" can make it mean any damned thing they want it to mean.

8. Personal whim
The Prime Minister of Australia loathes guns -- he publicly admits this over and over again. He does not believe anyone except security, police or amed forces should have a gun of any kind whatsoever -- end of story. (He also decries the "American gun culture" as being the sole negative factor about the USA, and is "determined to prevent Australia travelling down the American path".)

How did it all happen? The death of a thousand cuts (or the boiling the frog story). A cut here, a "compromise" there, a regulation here, a ban there -- and it's too late -- you've lost so much blood you can't defend yourself any longer.

It could happen in the US. Not a direct confrontation, because "they" know that wouldn't work.

But what if, for example, they tax ammo to the hilt, put a "levy" on each round, ban certain types of ammo? What if they require anyone who wants to reload to be "qualified" in some way? Say after a lengthy and expensive course? What about requiring a licence to buy powder, projectiles or primers? Or taxing them at 1000%? How about ammo limits? What happens if they declare all government land totally off-limits to shooting? I won't even begin to go down the path of compulsory registration of all firearms. :fire:

If you have a mass shooting -- like we did in Tasmania -- you will have to fight like he11 to protect the rights you have. Believe me, the legislation will already be written, just waiting an excuse, the same as it was here and in the UK and now in New Zealand.

Hmmmm ... hope that didn't depress you too much :D

Bruce
 
Sounds like you need a need for guns there.

Maybe since two legged predators aren't a good enough excuse you could talk Canada into trading off some of their bears for kangaroos? :D
 
Bruce--thanks for that post! I'm going to print it out and pin it to my loading bench as a reminder to NEVER rest in the fight.

It sure could happen here. All the elements are there.
 
I think that the urbanization of OZ is also to blame.

A very high percentage of Aussies live in cities, so they never get
exposed to guns as tools or recreation.
 
DakotaSig has it.....

along with what Bruce says....

Australia is now a very urban nation population-wise, as well as having had a high immigration rate over the past two decades with a large percentage of those immigrants coming from nations where firearms ownership is not a strong tradition.

There is such a concerted anti-gun push here from the media and from the politicians that, combined with the apathy to which Bruce refers, there is little hope of retaining many, if any firearms ownership 'privileges' over time.:eek:

The urban elitists are really out to remove all firearms from legal ownership:uhoh:

Of course, the same urban elitists claim they want ALL firearms removed from the public, but only the law-abiding will comply:banghead:

A very comprehensive and accurate list there, Bruce.

I've only been here for eight years, but the rate of anti-gun activity has greatly accelerated in that time:fire:
 
Bruce, I understand that Senator Greig is from W.A. Is there something in the water there that causes this? Obviously it doesn't affect all people in the west, so maybe you can pass the antidote on to Greig.

God knows he needs it!:rolleyes:
 
Post your politican's comments on a refrigerator. Refer to those comments after Al Qaeda puts a hit on a backwood's elementary school. Compare said politician's comments before and after.

You guys down there are overrun with all kinds of predatory varmits: mice, roos, and now bed wetting liberal politicians. Sad to say they seem to multiply faster than natural selection thins the herd.

Good luck to you and oppo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top