Monday, December 15, 2014

How's that citizen disarmament working out for you, Aussies?

Hostages run for their lives: Three men and two women ESCAPE from Sydney cafe where dozens are being held by a Muslim extremist armed with a shotgun, machete and suspected bomb.
Herschel Smith comments:
You mean that the police weren’t able to anticipate it and stop it before it happened? You mean the police being armed isn’t enough to keep people safe? You mean that there are 40-50 people now in Sydney, Australia who wish they were concealed handgun carriers?


Anonymous said...

Nah - they are Aussies so they will now want shotguns, machettes and suspected bombs banned!

Never underestimate the sheer anti-gun gutlessness of Aussies ...

Kiwi III

Anonymous said...

Those people being held hostage aren't Aussies. They're quivering masses of spineless jello, bred and educated by the Libtard (or the Down Under version thereof) state to be obedient little serfs, dependent on the Gubbment for protection (and everything else).

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

Gun Control in Australia - Watch and Weep

T. Paine said...

I am completely at a loss to understand how this could happen in a place where citizen ownership of firearms is outlawed. That's all illegal isn't it? Clearly this is a psy-op ruse of some sort, isn't it?

Back to reality now: I'm willing to bet some Aussie political puke will come up with even more onerous disarmament ideas. Wanna bet?

Anonymous said...

I wonder how they will ban imaginary weapons?

Thank God this man wasn't creative enough to chew a pop-tart into the shape of a gun. The Aussies would probably have already surrendered to isis by now.

Amazing how much one psychopath can have over a disarmed society. Once again history rhymes with its past.

Anonymous said...

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"

(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

Anonymous said...

What? You mean to say that the evil, psychotic, megalomaniacs who practice the religion of peace don't care about national gun free zones?
The butchers bill for liberal hubris and head in the sand self fulfillment is coming due.
Who'll be sending the bill is anyone's guess.

Anonymous said...

Bad guy was stopped by the good guys with AR-15's. Interesting.

Nemesis said...

This incident is not so much about the inability for ordinary folk to carry firearms, but more to do with the Collective's inroads into all aspects of Australian society.

In an homogenous society that this country once was - and that can be a nation of many races so long as all citizens aspire only to the Host's Laws and cultural mores - in other words, assimilate! There once was, and could one day be again, an expectation that any citizen could walk down any street without the fear that comes from being taken hostage by people who are completely alien to Australian cultural norms and who are literally a protected species under MC/PC fascist rules.

Carrying firearms to ward off a perceived threat is really a Band-Aid that only covers the root causes of why people would feel compelled to carry around firearms for their own protection, especially in this country. Redress the situation as to why personal protection is deemed necessary and the inclination to carry firearms would abate to the point of being almost non-existent.

Check out your own history five decades back and see how few believed they needed to carry firearms

I am familiar with why so many Americans carry firearms today, but your country has many 'problems' that has only gotten worse over the past five decades and that looks to explode into all out civil war.

If I was living in your country I too would carry a firearm, but you cannot equate the American 'problem' with the Australian 'problem' because the issues are far less severe and life threatening in Australia than what Americans now have to face.

And this part of my comment is to that Anonymous fool, Kiwi 111. For sheer stupidity and arrogance your own government has reduced your defence forces to token efforts reliant on us Aussies riding to the rescue in time of trouble!

You may wish to remember that in future!

Nemesis said...


Anonymous said...

Politicians, Nemesis - Politicians!

Yours have deprived a generation of civilians the lawful use of modern arms.

At least here several tens of thousands of civilians are well regulated in the use of modern arms - and numbers are rising.

Kiwi III

Anonymous said...

Woodman,short and sweet and you are hell on right
Fusion III

Nemesis said...

Prior to the Port Arthur massacre, the catalyst for the federal gun buy back scheme for which there were 650,000 long and short arms handed in for monetary reward, there was an estimated three million firearms of all descriptions in owners hands of the then population of 18 million Australians.

And that three million is only an estimation.

Where do you think all those firearms that were not handed in are now, Kiwi 111?

I personally know many who have simply hidden their weaponry.

And in answer to you derogatory generalization of all Australians I would also point out that the ownership of licensed and now registered long and short arms have gone through the roof since the advent of 9/11.

Like I suggested previously, you live in a country that can no longer fend off a determined enemy because your country no longer has the capability.

One day you'll need to eat crow when it comes to your own countries defence. I hope you remember that and act accordingly!

Anonymous said...

Australia's history is rather similar to America's in that both began as outposts of Britain. Both were populated by the sort of people who, for various reasons, chafed under the rigid and small lives available to them in the Old World. In other words, both lands had a frontier culture. That makes it all the more disheartening that they allowed themselves to subjected to such draconian laws.

But I would not count them out. Their PM is a far more worthy defender of the West than our illegitimate man-child president. Australia also has a backbone when it comes to illegal immigrants.

Anonymous said...

So Aussie firearms owners either concealed their firearms or used the compensation money to buy more firearms?

What a wonderful object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences!

Kiwi III

Anonymous said...

Angela Thirkell* 1934 novel Trooper
to the Southern Cross
relates the
passage of a troop ship back to Australia
after WWI. near the end, in passing she
mentions a movie theater paged veterans
in the audience, asking for their help
in quelling some civil disturbance.
Changes "for the worst" as the elder
Gamgee said.

* under another name originally IIRC.

Nemesis said...

Anonymous Dec 16 1:31pm.

Yes it is true, Australia and America share much in common not only by history but in cultural terms as well. Where we differ is in our Constitutions, we do not have a 1st or 2nd amendment. A grave error by our founding fathers or perhaps they thought it a bridge too far?

But, even the gunphobic crowd at the height of their influence after the Port Arthur massacre could not persuade any state or federal government to completely ban all firearms availability for the citizenry - that tells me much in the way that even the political control freaks within the Labor Party (your Democrats) know that would indeed be a bridge too far!

Kiwi 111 - yes, precisely!

Nemesis said...

Anonymous Dec 16 6:19pm

Your reference is vague, but I would hazard a guess that what you refer to is the Melbourne Police strike of 1923 when the city's cops went on strike over government spies who followed them about on the beat to make sure that they did their job!

No one appreciates anyone looking over their shoulder to ensure they do their job, so as an ex-cop myself I can understand why all those officers went on strike.

What followed and almost immediately after the beginning of that strike was massive civil unrest and looting, and with no law enforcement available it grew worse until General John Monash was approached by the state government to organize some kind of force for peace keeping until the government could hire more police officers.

Monash only had to lift his finger, he was that respected by WW1 veterans, to recruit in two days a force of 5000 vets that he then had sworn in as special constables who kept the peace for the next few weeks until the police force could take over the streets again.

One of the greatest generals of WW1 was John Monash who integrated the mechanized aspects of war with infantry in such a way that it completely changed how wars should be fought. In fact, he was so good that I would place him up there with the world's best.