While we don’t condone these comments (insults, the calling card of the left, don’t contribute anything to the debate) we can also see frustrated firearm owners tired of not being listened to, being forever treated like criminals and having to endure the eternally dishonest likes of Shoebridge and his ilk routinely lie, slander and harass firearm owners, often unchallenged in the media. It’s also freedom of speech whether you agree with it or not, and we all know what the authoritarian Greens are all about when it comes to that issue. Shoebridge is perhaps the epitome of this – a lawyer that is absolutely petrified of any rigorous debate or intellectual challenge on the issue of firearms that he goes out of his way to avoid any such challenge. His version of a safe space differs from ours, greatly.
And herein lies that Greens’ hypocrisy and sophistry we all know and hate – Shoebridge picks a few tweets from firearm owners and makes them representative of the entire 1.3 million plus firearm owners in this country. Could you imagine the outrage if a similar stunt was directed at any of the minority groups the Greens approve of and that were referred to in some of the tweets? Remember, it’s only minorities they care about (and will vote for them) that matter.
Shoebridge actually provides no proof that these individuals own firearms. It’s fair to say they do however, Shoebridge goes one further and says they are “part of the gun lobby.” Ah yes, the perpetual myth of an NRA style, well funded firearm lobby with limitless media access continues it’s magical neurolinguistic journey in the Australian discourse. It doesn’t exist, however a well funded (meaning with international funds from George Soros’ Open Society, primarily through Rebecca Peters), vocal minority anti-firearm lobby in Australia does exist which can actually be proven.
Further, a sweeping glance of the Facebook pages of Coalition Against Duck Shooting, Hunt the Hunters, etc or any time a firearm article graces the social media pages of the ABC, Guardian, SBS or any other media outlet in this country and the anti-firearm and anti-hunting vitriol begins in earnest. But that doesn’t apply because the Greens approve of it.
And there’s this historical gem from Gun Control Australia (note the free speech invocation):
The kicker in this article – Shoebridge also mentioned that he is travelling to the US to “study the US gun lobby.” Well, we’re sure that will be fair and balanced. The reality is obvious – he’ll travel there, pick some “far right leaning Southern boys” and make them representative of the firearm lobby, in some selectively edited video he’ll put out through his social media channels. No doubt David will also be going to the gun control mecca of Chicago, or perhaps not.
He’s also going on Tom Gresham’s show, and will no doubt attempt to exploit Tom’s lack of knowledge of Australian firearm laws (in fairness Tom probably knows more about our laws than Shoebridge, not difficult) and try to pass off the same garbage narrative about our unsuccessful success and make the same intellectually dishonest comparison between Australia and the USA. He wouldn’t dream of travelling to New Zealand as that would also be the coup de gras for his gun control fairy tale.
The hypocrisy is ever more rank when one takes into account that Victorian Greens MP Greg Barber called Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Senator’s Daniel Young and Jeffrey Bourman recent journeys to the US to study firearm laws “shooting junkets.”Well, I can’t wait to see the expenses audit on Shoebridge’s tax payer funded jaunt to the US. Either that or is he using AMF/GCA/Soros money before it all dries up.
With recent news that Bill Byrne MP has been moved on as Queensland Police Minister, we took some time out to ask some questions of the new Minister Mark Ryan.
Dear Minister Ryan,
Congratulations on your appointment as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The discharge of your office directly impacts the maintenance and enforcement of the laws of the State.
Primary producers play a vital role in this State’s economy. Farmers often work on vast properties alongside invasive species. The Queensland Department of Agriculture acknowledges:
Feral pigs alone have been estimated to reduce grain production by $12 million a year.
Wild dogs cost $33 million a year in livestock losses, diseases spread and control.
Negative environmental impacts include direct predation on native fauna – foxes and feral cats have been implicated in the decline or extinction of at least 17 native species.
The geographical and human scale of the problem of invasive species and the difficulties in minimising their impact is simply enormous. The challenge to farmers is great. They rely on tools that are compact, reliable and safe to transport.
Unfortunately, the previous Police Minister took a very public position against farmers using pistols as a tool in pest control, likening them to ‘cowboys’. The Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch has taken a similarly strong position.
I write to raise this as a matter of great concern regarding the administration of the Weapons Act 1990, which plainly provides for the occupational use of pistols – including by farmers and the pest controllers who work with them.
There is a great deal of evidence that the occupational needs of farmers are real. I’ve seen a variety of material sent to applicants from those sitting in the air-conditioning of a Charlotte Street office in the Brisbane CBD. It reveals a very negative attitude to the real needs of farmers in this area.
Questions for you
Is your office aware that a number of National Standard Operating Procedures, maintained by a joint Commonwealth-State Cooperative Research Centres Program, were this year updated to put it beyond any doubt that pistols are not inherently unsuitable for pest destruction?
Is the Weapons Licensing Branch aware of this?
What is your attitude towards farmers and pest controllers attempting to deal with the invasive species challenge using pistols as a legitimate tool?
How many applications or renewals for occupational use of pistols in primary production or pest control have been refused by the Branch in the last four years (year by year, if you please) and what steps will you take on this issue?
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this important issue.
Channel 7 did their best with the subtle social engineering, making sure they had a screen grab with the business owner saying “I don’t worry, it’s Australia” – the subliminal message obviously being “you don’t need to defend yourselves.”
Meanwhile in Sydney, a gentleman decided to deal with a home invader by shooting him in the backside with a recurve bow directed arrow. Although it’s debatable if the home owner acted at the appropriate time (he’s being charged), the facts will come out in the wash and the mere fact that he was willing to defend his property shows that this gentleman was prepared to do the right thing and protect himself from the criminal element.
The most interesting parts were the social media comments sections – overwhelming support for self-defence and empowering members of the public to defend themselves with appropriate force. But mention this to the average Australian with the suggestion of using firearms instead and the usual emotive, socially engineered diatribes about America, Port Arthur or a combination of the above ensues.
Herein the lies the inherent hypocrisy: it’s ok to use knives or a steel broadhead to protect yourself and property with, but if that same steel is in the form of a firearm, Ragnarok will commence.
It wasn’t so much the comments from the public that were interesting, as perhaps the most interesting comment came from NSW Police Inspector Dean Johnstone:
Abhorrent. The same NSW Police that brought us Hornsby and claim they are undermanned are now overtly telling people to ‘shelter in place’ as the preferred alternative. Well no, that’s not how it works. If someone makes a conscious decision to invade someone else’s home – their rights are forfeited instantly.
Police are our servants, not our masters. And when they are not there to protect the public from aforementioned threats to the innocent, the innocent have every right to do what is necessary to protect themselves, rather than become a statistic.
The first responder to a violent crime is always the victim – not the Police. The public, and the Police need to remember that.
Otherwise, we continue the tradition of Australia: where criminals are victims and victims are criminals.
In the wash up of all the Adler insanity of the past two weeks, a new threat has emerged to attempt to ram home unsuccessful changes to the National Firearms Agreement. Authoritarian control freaks never rest.
Dubbed the “Parliamentary Friends of Gun Control” the group was apparently formed by Labor MP Andrew Leigh and Walter Mikac over a dinner conversation. Yes, this is more of the same tired old antics from professional victim Mikac who once claimed “his letter to John Howard” was the catalyst for the National Firearms Agreement, when in fact the laws were already drawn up as early as 1991 and John Howard freely admitted he already had them ready to go.
When Mikac wants to campaign as hard for a royal commission or coronial inquiry into the many unanswered questions about the events of Port Arthur, as he does continuing his 20 year crusade to collectively punish those not responsible for a crime committed with illegally acquired firearms, we might take him seriously.
Essentially, this latest move is just a blatant marketing attempt to rebadge the same snakes and charlatans we all know. Frustrated that their brute force campaign of lies, half truths, shutting gun owners out of consultation and misleading of parliament didn’t work, they now are trying to court the public and shooting community by appearing “reasonable.”
They aren’t the Judean People’s Front, they’re the People’s Front of Judeah.
It’s lines like this that have us incredibly convinced:
“A letter to all MPs and senators sent on Thursday noted that 80 per cent of Australians support strong gun laws and debate should be “informed by evidence and facts”.
The same “facts and evidence” that has been forsaken from the anti-gun side in favour of screaming “Port Arthur” and buzzwords for the past 20 years, is now going to magically appear in the discourse? I’d also hazard a guess most Australians also support the right of self defence but let’s completely gloss over that too?
Who else is behind this latest move?
“Liberal John Alexander, who occupies Mr Howard’s former seat of Bennelong”
And there you have it. Alexander is obviously under instruction from a certain narcissist suffering relevance deprivation syndrome. There comes a price tag with holding on to Herr Howard’s former base of operations.
Ah yes John Alexander, the former Australian Gladiators first season referee and former tennis player. Alexander is the latest in the string of household names that pop up when we instantly think of “authority on firearms.”
His first serve is definitely a foot fault:
“I had a dinner party and one of my American friends said, ‘John, you’ve got to get a gun.’ It turned out that I didn’t know one person there who didn’t own a gun”
On cue, the old false comparison to the US card which we’ve written about ad nauseum. No, living in a geographical location does not make you an expert on all issues in the locale and neither does once having a dinner party in the United States and forming your opinion and expertise solely off of that.
“I understand the need of people in regional areas [of Australia] to have certain types of rifles, but why would you need a gun in urban areas?”
So, only gun owners who live in rural Australia are suited to own firearms? What criteria determines rural? The rest that all reside in “urban” areas and have lives 9-5 are completely excluded from ownership because of an arbitrary geographical exclusion you’ve placed on them? Because, that stops firearms from being procured illegally into the city doesn’t it? That’s locationist! And again, the strawman ‘need’ argument comes into play.
Double fault. 0-15.
Alexander is not off to a great start. Perhaps he should not start at all, stick to tennis and stop wasting his time on an issue he is so far out of his depth on but is obviously being pushed into, purely because of the man who previously occupied his constituency.
“Friends of Gun Control”are No Friends of Law Abiding Firearm Owners. They never have
been. One only needs to look at their track record.
The .250-3000 Savage cartridge was released in 1915 in Savage’s famed model 1899 hammerless lever action rifle. It was the first commercial cartridge to attain a velocity of 3000fps. It accomplished this with an 87-gr bullet. The reasons for its success were easy to fathom. First of all, to a world barely out of the blackpowder sporting cartridge era, this little number seemed light years ahead of its time to hunters accustomed to cartridges like the .30-30, .38-40 and .25-20. Secondly, the model 1899 Savage rifle in which it made its debut was easily the most modern lever action of the day, some would say of all time. Bolt action sporters were practically unheard of. Bolt action military rifles of the era such as the Mauser models 1896 and 1898, Lee Enfield and 1903 Springfield were not always considered optimal for hunting and full metal jacket ex military ammunition was not ideal for hunting. The lever action was the dominant sporting arm in the U.S. until well after WWII.
Savage already had a winner with the 1912 introduction of the .22 Savage Hi-Power, a .228 calibre shooting a 70-gr bullet at 2800fps. The popularity of the .250-3000, or .250 Hi-Power as it was also known, helped launch the last of the Savage cartridges, the .300 in 1920. They were the highest velocity cartridges of their calibre available to sporting shooters at the time and enjoyed a position akin to the WSM and Weatherby magnums of today. The original designs for the .250-3000 were based on a slightly shortened .30-40 Krag case submitted by Charles Newton, who had also come up with the .22 Hi-Power. The Krag was a rimmed case and Savage wanted a rimless, modern one, so Newton shortened and necked down the .30-06. The 87-gr bullet was a fine long range proposition for small and medium game. Many hunters, exhibiting more poor judgement than good sence, used that small slug on bear, moose and elk. In 1921 the Peter’s Cartridge Company released a 100-gr loading at just over 2800fps. This load proved a more emphatic slayer of large animals. Its hard to imagine the 21st century hunter using a 100-gr, .257 calibre bullet at that velocity to hunt large game, but to the average hunter used to going out with his 1892 Winchester in .44-40, the .250-3000 must have instilled high expectations! The .250-3000 reigned supreme as the must have cartridge of the high velocity crowd for over 40 years, although its name was changed to plain old .250 Savage after 3000fps velocities became more prevalent. It survived the 1934 introduction by Remington of the .257 Roberts. It didn’t begin to loose favour until the late 1950’s, after the 1955 introduction of the .243 Winchester began to cut inroads into its popularity.
When Savage introduced its model 1920 bolt action, the .250 was the first cartridge chambered. The Winchester model 54, precursor to the famed model 70 was chambered in .250 in 1931. When the model 70 rolled off production lines in 1936, the Savage cartridge was chambered right there with it. Savage continued to chamber the 1899 for the .250 until 1960, when demand started to wane. Winchester had dropped it from the model 70 a few years before. The legitimisation of the .25-06 wildcat by Remington in 1969 cut deeply into remaining .250 popularity. Both Savage and Sturm Ruger made small production runs of rifles in .250 during the 1970’s and 80’s. Demand was high, apparently, what few rifles were produced were snapped up quickly. Currently I know of no factory rifles being chambered for the .250.
However, when you have a cartridge which was consistently popular for close to half a century, you can be assured that there are a multitude of firearms out there chambered for it. At time of writing, only Winchester and Remington are loading ammunition, both with a 100-r bullet. Winchester makes a run of cases every two to three years, so low is demand. Reloading for the .250 is a snap. Rifles of modern manufacture can be found with one in 10-inch twists that will stabilise 117 and 120-gr heavyweight projectiles. Certainly, the Savage case can be reloaded with projectiles this heavy, but velocity will suffer. The .250 case is a small one and in my experience it is best suited to reloading with projectiles 100-gr and under. I have found that too many shooters attempt to turn one cartridge into another by varying projectile weight beyond sensible realms and loading to the hilt in an attempt to gain extra performance in hopes of using a single load for hunting game of all sorts. Perhaps not much has changed since 1915 after all. If you need more projectile weight and velocity, go find a .257 Weatherby. Use a cartridge like the .250 for its intended purpose, namely hunting small and medium game at long and medium ranges.
My own two rifles in .250 Savage will both stabilise projectiles up to 100-gr. I don’t consider it worthwhile loading this case with bullets heavier than this, they simply can’t be driven to healthy velocities, and downrange performance can suffer. The case is a reloader’s dream with a neck .275 inches in length. This means that the neck is longer than the calibre is wide. Cartridges with necks longer than the calibre chambered are preferred by a lot of knowledgeable reloaders. Not only do they afford a more reliable grip on the projectile, but they allow more room to play with seating depth before the base of the projectile begins to protrude below the case neck into the case shoulder, encroaching on valuable powder space. Fortunately, with 100-gr bullets seated to the base of the neck there is still enough room in the magazine to permit bringing them forward a wee bit, conducive to both finer accuracy and perhaps a little higher velocity. Where I am able, I use Winchester brass exclusively. It is well distributed and of sound quality. Standard Winchester large rifle primers and ADI powders work fine as well, although I have also been experimenting with Alliant powder. Even though I have used all bullet weights from 75 to 120-gr in this cartridge, I have found those in the 85 to 100-gr bracket work best. Personally, it takes me quite a bit of experimenting with any selected calibre to work up optimal hunting loads. Once there, I rarely deviate from a proven recipe.
Being a mere .25 calibre, the majority of projectile manufacturers tend to load their tougher premium controlled expansion bullets in heavier calibres like 7mm and .30 calibre. Of those who do make tough .25 calibre bullets, they usually concentrate on the heavier end of the weight spectrum. However, if you are prepared to do a little experimentation, you can find bullets in mid weight .25 calibre, which will suit most of your medium game hunting requirements. Here are a few tips in popular .25 calibre weights along with a few comments based on my own experience reloading and hunting with this excellent compact cartridge.
My experience with the lighter bullets is rather limited because I consider a .25 calibre too heavy for varminting purposes. However, I have used the 75-gr Barnes solid for both rabbit and hare when shooting for the pot. My reckoning for using a solid goes like this, I wanted to reduce meat damage. This bullet can be driven at over 3300fps in the .250. Same weight bullets by Hornady in the form of their V-Max practically disintegrated small game animals at this velocity. The 87-gr is the weight this cartridge was designed around and bullets in the 85 to 90-gr bracket work very well. Unfortunately, the bulk of component bullets in these weights are designed to be of varmint type. Of notable exception is the 87-gr Speer Hot-Cor and 90-gr Barnes X. the Barnes is virtually indestructible and is a good choice for chamois, thar, goats, pigs or fallow deer. Bullets like the 87-gr Hornady and 85-gr Nosler Ballistic Tip and Winchester/Nosler combined technology Ballistic Silvertip are better suited to small game on account of their thin, highly frangible jackets.
The 100-gr weight is where the majority of the tougher bullets kick off. Once again, we have the Speer Hot-Cor and Barnes X. There is also Hornady’s Interlock, Remington’s Cor-Lokt, and the Nosler Ballistic Tip hunting and the Partition. The toughest is the Barnes, but excellent performance can be had from the Hot-Cor, Cor-Lokt, partition or Interlock. At 2900-3000fps all perform as well as each other. The Partition does have a reputation for breaking up at high impact speeds. This is true of Partitions in most calibres. I tend not to trust them as big game or deer bullets when driven in my 6.5×55, 7mm-08 or .300 Holland and Holland magnum. I have experienced satisfactory results at ranges past 100m with Partitions in the .250 Savage, although the Nosler Partition is not noted for its weight retention in any calibre. Retained weight is usually in the vicinity of 60%. In my book, fine for smaller thin skinned game in the class of wild dogs and goats, but I refuse to trust it for deer and would never think of using it on large heavy game in the class of water buffalo. The Hornady and Speer both open quickly whereas the excellent Remington Cor-Lokt is a deep driving bullet. This is due to not only its long ogive, but also the tiny tip of lead showing at its nose, it ensured that expansion is not so rapid. I’ve used the Remington on tough mud caked boars as well as billy goats, chital and fallow deer with utmost success. It would be my pick in 100-gr.
The heavier bullets entail offerings like the 110-gr Nosler Accubond, 115-gr Ballistic Tip hunting, Combined technology Ballistic Silvertip, Partition and Barnes X. In 117-gr there is the Hornady round nose Interlock, Spitzer Interlock and Super Shock Tip. The 120-gr weight brings the Partition, Speer Hot-Cor and Grand Slam and Hornady hollowpoint. Of course, there are other bullets by other makers, but projectiles made by these manufacturers are well distributed and easily obtainable everywhere. Bullets weighing between 110 and 120-grs can be driven to between 2700 and 2800fps in the .250 Savage, but they are best confined to shots no further than around the 200-metre mark. They tend to lose velocity far quicker than when driven in higher capacity .25 calibre cartridges, as is only to be expected. It must be kept in mind that the .250 Savage is in the small-bore crowd; thus bullet selection is the secret to its success. A hunter’s margin for error is more slender than hunting with, say, a 7mm, but if the hunter has experience, a good well placed premium bullet will make our work easier. I tend to zero my .250 model 70 Winchester for 200 yards. I feel this makes the most of its trajectory with my favored 100-gr bullets. With a 100-gr bullet at 3000pfs zeroed to hit an inch and a half high at 100 yards, it will be spot on at 200, and just on seven inches low at 300. At 200 it is hitting with almost 1500-ft lbs. I’ve taken a number of fallow at these ranges using the Remington Cor-Lokt and haven’t lost a single one yet. The .250 has very mild recoil and it is easy to shoot accurately, factors conducive to successful hunting.
The .250 is this year celebrating its 101st birthday. It may have been overshadowed by more modern developments, but it continues to get the job done without making a fuss over it. Its still one of the best of the medium range small bores around.
“If only bloody NIOA hadn’t made that video” – 50% of online posters
“Stop posting about the Adler, you’ll get it banned” – 20% of online posters
“Those guys at Shooting Stuff Australia should have their licence taken off them” – some cuck who ended up making a petition
Stop chewing down on the blue pill. Chew on this red pill whilst we drop a few truth bombs.
The NFA review as we have come to discuss today stems from a 2005 (Yes, 11 years ago) COAG (Council of Australian Governments) meeting. Changes put forward for further discussion included:
– All lever action firearms to face a possible recatagorisation
-5 round magazines
-Bans on detachable magazines
-cosmetic/appearance to be used to determine category
Now, this was 11 years ago. None of that has happened. Current gun control was seen as good enough (for them).
Flash forward to the importation of the Akkar 3, a triple barreled shotgun. This made waves. This was (to an extent) reasonably unheard of. Meets were had. Discussions were made. Old documents were brought up from the 2005 meetings.
Suddenly the Adler arrives. Gun control activists shit their beds, David Shoebridge faints, and the issue gets flung into the mainstream media. Thanks to them, certain politicians play their hand before the river card has come out. They turn up the heat on the boiling frogs far too quickly. People take note of further gun control.
Australian shooters start getting politically motivated. They form groups at the grassroots level, conduct letter writing campaigns, phone calls etc. They levy voting pressure.
Now here we are today. So no longer can you put the blame on NIOA for advertising a product which was legal for the entire country (a majority of footage had been sped up), nor can you put the blame on random youtube videos for showing off a new gun.
The plans were laid well in advance. If the Adler had not been thrust into the wider public spotlight by hysterical voices, we probably wouldn’t exist today, and shooters wouldnt be as aware as they are now of further gun control measures trying to be legislated by stealth.
Upset about the outcome of the National Firearms Agreement and Adler fiasco last week, Gun Control Australia and a cavalcade of irrelevant names decided to pen an emotive, void of fact letter in the most left leaning, anti-gun publication in Australia. The group are not happy with the outcome, claiming it was “biased” and that gun control advocates were “locked out” of discussions.
That’s interesting, considering it took the Firearms Dealers Association of Queensland going on strike before they were able to get a meeting with Police Minister Bill Byrne. And aside from Troy Grant (who proved to be the lone voice of reason at COAG), no other Police Minister consulted with shooting groups.
“We aren’t happy with the outcome as our 18 month brute force campaign of lies, mistruths and sensationalism didn’t work. So we’d ask for you to review the NFA again until we get the outcome we want. Because a group of 39 people who have no expertise on this issue and are in no way impacted by said laws, should totally get to determine the fates of over 1.2 million people who were consistently locked out of being consulted on laws that would have direct consequence to their way of life.”
Let’s have a brief look at signatories to this letter:
University of Sydney Emeritus Professor of Public Health (code for: authoritarian with no real discernible skills living off the public purse who specializes in banning things he doesn’t like, ie guns, tobacco and alcohol) Simon Chapman recently published further research claiming Australia’s gun laws had worked, etc. Anyone who bothers to read his latest “research” on the subject realises that conclusion of said study stated “Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms”. That’s also after he changed the definition of mass shooting from 4 killed to 5 killed by one or more assailants (after it was changed from 3 to 4 in 1997). Nothing like a good bit of intellectual dishonesty? What would you expect from a guy who claims to be an authority on the subject but did his PhD on cigarettes and advertising. Totally relevant.
Like all good intellectual cowards, Chapman will block you on Twitter instantly over a difference of opinion. Can’t be shown up to be an intellectual fraud in public now, can we? He also once called semi-automatic rifles “frightening death machines” and a pro-gun activist as “frothing” when the only thing “frothing” is the milk on Chapman’s latte.
The man with the most elusive academic qualifications on the planet who recently claimed on ABC Radio Perth that “illegal firearm imports are an urban myth” and that Australia has “no local firearms manufacturers”. Alpers seems to have taken a back seat these days as maybe even GCA have realised no one takes him seriously, and the bulk of the spokesperson duties has moved over to fellow signatory Charles Watson at Curtin University who, as pointed out by Justin Luke, is another academic fraud with his snout in the gun control funding trough.
Ms Peters has returned to the University of Sydney and it is no doubt in my mind that she was brought back to help with this latest anti-Adler campaign. This is the same woman who along with Roland Browne produced a TV segment (cough, predictive programming, cough) in 1995 about “how easy it is to get a gun in Tasmania” and that Bryant was alleged to have referenced during interview. Neither were investigated nor held criminally culpable and the video has miraculously disappeared.
The rest of the list are predominantly a who’s who of leftists, union representatives and random list of authoritarian media and business figures and more than likely signed on for a financial incentive. Walter “being a victim makes me an expert” Mikac also makes an appearance right on cue. Spider Redgold of the “Erinyes Autonomous Activist Lesbians” is also a signatory. Yes, another household name and organisation when I think of firearms and totally relevant to this discussion. Obviously they are also against the LGBTI community owning firearms?
Would Spider Redgold be happy with the Catholic Church or Islamic Council adjudicating over gay marriage laws in this country? Imagine the outrage. But as usual, it’s only minority groups they like that get special treatment.
The strong union presence is interesting and the most interesting omission would be the Maritime Union of Australia – because revelations of illegal firearm and drugs trafficking on the docks might be a touch embarrassing to the Labor Party and the weight of the letter.
Perhaps Rita Mallia of the CFMEU would like to explain why she was a signatory? Considering that the same CFMEU who fought tooth and nail against the ABCC Bill, were saved by Senator Leyonhjelm who was not originally going to vote for it because of certain provisions (ie reverse burden of proof, etc). So a pro-gun Senator essentially saves the union movement and the CFMEU’s response is to call for more gun control out of spite? Especially as many of it’s members enjoy hunting and shooting? I’ll just let that sink in for a bit.
It’s also applicable to the CPSU whom also signed this letter, representing Australian Border Force (essentially the agency attempting to stop illegal firearms entering the country) against the Australian government, who have been locked in a pay dispute for 3 years.
Yes, we have officially hit peak derp in the gun debate in this country.
One thing I have said for a number of years now is that the disconnect between city and country has grown so wide that you could almost describe it as chalk and cheese. Those in our rural and farming areas know that not much has changed apart from the advancement of technology to make their jobs less laborious. Meanwhile, in the cities, it seems to be a case of me, me, me.
Many people have been drawn to the cities over time due to work, school, etc and therefore only know the city and suburbs. In the cities it seems to be a case of ‘how can I advance myself and get a better outcome for me/ my family?’ as compared to the country, where the general idea is ‘a mate needs a hand, I’m off to help, they’d do the same for me.’
Not that long ago, a great many people that lived in the city still had connections to rural land. “Pack your bags kids, we’re going to the farm this weekend.” Today, it’s the reverse, or at best, “Let’s go glamping!” What the bloody hell is that? You want a five star hotel in the bush?
The gap has grown so wide that city people have no idea where their food actually comes from or what kind of troubles a farmer faces when it comes to stock or crops.
For some of us that live in the city or suburbs, we love getting out and going bush. It’s cathartic to us and we love it. Not all of us that enjoy this are shooters, but the shooters sure do help. We take out feral species that threaten our native fauna and we’re proud to do our bit for the country’s ecology and remove anything from rabbits up to camels. We save farmers and the Government hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum and usually at our own expense.
That’s what I call ‘giving back’!
Meanwhile, back in the cities, where the ‘sanitised’ youth have been raised – they have no idea. The ongoing insanity over the Adler 110 being a prime example. Recently in The Daily Telegraph, they did their ‘Street Talk’ section where they asked random (yeah, right) people their thoughts on the Adler:
Do you notice the average age of these ‘random’ people? Looks to me like 19-24, would that sound right? How much rural contact have they had do you think? How much do you think they know about the plight of landholders? City-centric people have no idea about the issues surrounding farmers. It is no concern for them. Coles & Woolworths stock everything they need!
Let’s have a look at Louise’s comment. “unnecessary trouble” you say? Can you be more specific? Are you aware that the 5 shot version is legal and can also be legally modified? Who will cause this “trouble?” Law Abiding Firearms Owners? I don’t think so. A fact 100% backed up by the Senate Inquiry last year, of which Paul Murray was the only Australian journalist to bother to go and check these facts.
Max says “we haven’t had a massacre in 16 years!” I hope Max isn’t at university, he can’t even count!
Alexis: “This specific gun”? Oh, you mean the Adler? Is it because it’s black? The IAC, Pardus, Uzkon and Chiappas don’t count though, do they?
Dennis was almost close. He said “Why don’t you just leave it as it is?” All shooters would be happy with that, but then, like the ‘sanitised’ people I mentioned earlier, has no bloody idea and states “I just don’t think we need guns.”
All of these people are uneducated in firearms and this is unfortunately often what sways public opinion. People who know nothing, but feel compelled to have a very loud opinion. When was the last time they ‘went bush’?
We have all heard recently that ‘only farmers need these guns’ or ‘farmers & professional shooters have a legitimate reason.’ Sorry, that doesn’t fly with me. As I mentioned earlier, it’s the recreational hunter, who at their expense, assists landholders without reward. Sure, the SSAA run culls occasionally, but that alone won’t do much. The Government reducing the amount of funding to combat pests does less and less each year.
I say to you: who is the most beneficial group of people when it comes to assisting our farmers and country? Who gives the most in return? It is the recreational hunter, who does it for free. To continue to do our job (at no cost) we need the Adler and others of its’ ilk in our arsenal. In fact, we could even go further and demand that Category C firearms be returned to us. The first to whinge in the next rabbit plague will be the Government. “The farmers didn’t do enough!” they’ll cry as the environmentally deleterious 1080 poison is rolled out across affected areas. This in turn will take out many non-target species and our precious fauna will be again at risk.
The above is one possible scenario. Should any firearms owner let the Government get their way because of mass media hysteria?
You know the answer.
Written by a bloke who lives in the suburbs, but loves going bush.
At the height of the storm of media indoctrination regarding the Adler 110, and a slew of clueless presstitutes trying to act as authorities on the subject as usual, the media decided they’d change tack.
The article was epic fail from start to finish, starting with the photo depicting Stewart holding an 1887 IAC Winchester Replica and NOT an Adler, and then him spouting a whole lot of nonsense, ie “hurr durr if you need more than one shot you’re no good“, about levers being unnecessary while not realising the apparent hypocrisy of him using said firearm. Levers for Stewart (in his own right a Category C licence holder and unaffected by any Adler potential recategorisations), but not anyone else. Animal Farm figuratively and literally.
Further to this, WA Young Nationals President Lachlan Hunter (who?) took to Australia’s youth (indoctrination) station Triple J to claim that the Adler shotgun was unnecessary. Because who better to tell the shooting community about what is not needed, than a hipster millennial who was barely alive at the time of NFA’s inception and is completely oblivious to his party’s betrayal of the Law Abiding Firearm Owner Community in 1996. This was also right after he had finished talking about drugs and seemed completely unable to realise the connection between drugs, illegal guns and related deaths from both, given the recent rise in shootings in Australia.
Cultural Marxism and the youth, folks – ain’t it grand?
This just goes to show how far the LNP will go to stab shooters in the back and just how desperate the LNP and the media are to try and force further gun control down an unwilling and increasingly angry LAFO community. And they wonder why nobody trusts them anymore.
The only exception to this it seems, is the excellent work of NSW Deputy Prime Minister Troy Grant who was the lone voice of reason at COAG and forced every other state to back down, for the meantime anyway.
It’s also the same collectivist representation and punishment tactic that they have used for the last 20 years – picking one person and making them representative of the entire community. Gee, wonder if we applied that logic to the LGBT community or any other racial or religious demographic – the Guardianistas and Australian Bolshevik Corporation would go into meltdown.