Category Archives: Liberal Democrats

Victoria: Duck Hunting on thin ice!

We have recently had some extremely concerning news reach our ears from senior Liberal sources, that the Liberal party in Victoria at present is seriously considering adopting an ‘amend but not oppose’ approach to the Duck Hunting Ban Bill that has been introduced from Andy Meddick of the Animal Justice Party. This could mean that whilst they might amend the legislation in some meaningless way, they would abstain from voting against it. This would only leave the (presumably) Nationals as well as the SFFP and LDP to oppose such a bill.

However we need to keep in mind the recent news that the Labor party is seriously contemplating adopting a position to ban the time honoured cultural tradition. With the Victorian Labor conference over the weekend passing a motion calling for a ‘hunt review’. Of course we all know a ‘hunt review’ is just code for a ban on recreational duck hunting, something one of the backbenchers (MP Lizzie Blandthorn) has made exceedingly clear in her comment that “On the eve of 2020, it’s time to end this practice once and for all”.


This all might combine to mean the 2019 duck season is the last time Victorian shooters had the opportunity to enjoy some delicious freshly harvested waterfowl.

Now is the time to call, write to or email your local member in Victoria and strongly but politely let them know that if they do not oppose this outright that you will not be able to support them or their party in the next election. You can easily find your electorate and representative here.



Some photos generously provided for this article by Blair Findlay, you can see his instagram here.

Labor, Liberal and Greens wankers team up to reclassify lever actions in Victoria

The Adler debacle has now hit Victoria, with state parliament voting to reclassify lever action shotguns more than 5 rounds into Category D and those with 5 rounds or less into Category B. Victoria is one of the last states to pass this abomination.

This from Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ MLC Jeff Bourman:

“The changes to the Firearms Act to move lever action shotguns finally went through parliament yesterday despite an amendment being proposed by the SFFP. The amendment was to retain the status quo, a situation that’s worked well since 1996.

It needs to be noted that both the Labor AND Liberal/National parties voted AGAINST the amendment, yet again proving that the SFFP is still the preeminent party out there fighting for the rights of shooters to not be punished for doing nothing wrong.

Next election, remember that what you are told by the major parties and what they will actually do are rarely the same.

Those who did vote for the amendment:

SFFP
LDP
Dr Cumming (independent)”

Tim Quilty nailed it again:


Thanks to SFFP, LDP and Dr Cumming for their attempt to stop this lunacy.

Another reminder that the major parties are no friend of gun owners, if you didn’t already know by now. The slimy Nationals also again voted against their constituency. This is all off the back of 4 people shot dead this week in Melbourne and another drive-by shooting in Geelong, all with illegal firearms but not a peep said about that.

The Adler debacle continues to be one of the dumbest moments (and there’s a lot of them) in Australian political history.

Perth teenager raped in home invasion while politicians vote against self-defence

Absolutely abhorrent crime out of Perth:

“A man has been charged with the sexual assault of a young girl after a terrifying break-in in Perth’s southern suburbs.

It is alleged the 29-year-old man broke into the victim’s home on Saturday morning and sexually assaulted her before being confronted by a family member and held until police arrived. Sex Assault Squad detectives say the girl is aged under 13-years-old.

The man was believed to have been staying temporarily at a neighbour’s house.

He has been charged with two counts of aggravated sexual penetration of a child under 13, attempted sexual penetration of a child under 13, three counts of aggravated indecent dealing of a child under 13, aggravated burglary and threaten to kill.

He was refused bail and is due to appear in the Perth Magistrates Court today.”

This girl’s life is now sadly ruined. So much for calling the Police.

That’s all the details so far.

This is the latest in a string of home defence cases this week. Meanwhile, in the NT Mick Denigan was acquitted for shooting an axe-wielding home invader and a Sydney man took out a home invader in his living room in defence of his family, without (so far) being charged.

In his final week in the Australian Senate, Liberal Democrats’ Senator David Leyonhjelm attempted to ease import restrictions on non-lethal self-defence items such as pepper spray and tasers:


As you can see it was voted down. Senator Fraser Anning did the same thing last year in the wake of the Eurydice Dixon murder and got the same result:

Note that each time, 19 or more female Senators voted against this motion. So much for gender equality and respect for women – it’s nothing more than a virtue signalling wank by a polity showing increasing contempt for the Australian populace.

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman attempted to launch an inquiry into self-defence in Victoria, but was rebuked in the past week:

Liberal Democrats’ MLC Aaron Stonehouse is doing his best to get the currently legally ambiguous use and carriage of pepper spray over the line in WA:

Liberal Democrats’ MLC Tim Quilty also made the point very clear in Victoria this week:


How many more examples do we really need? Australia is arse backwards on self-defence. The Police can’t protect you and then often will charge you for exercising the right to self-defence in your own home, the public is unarmed, criminals know they have the upper hand in terms of force and a weak-as-piss justice system and can act with essential impunity – so what are your options? Essentially be a victim or be a victim.

It needs to be said again, the legal right to self-defence is absolutely useless without access to the legal means and that includes non-lethal options and legally owned firearms to those who qualify.

As has been previously discussed, the Castle Doctrine needs to be the standard when dealing with home invasions. Law-abiding people being unnecessarily dragged through the courts for protecting themselves and their families in clear circumstances, at great financial and emotional expense, does nothing more than generate more victims.

Australians are encouraged and, in many cases, legally compelled, to make preparations for medical emergencies, bushfires, floods and cyclones and other events that may threaten their safety. If you make preparations for a home invasion or self-defence however, you can end up in gaol.

The time for the Castle Doctrine is now.

LDP push pepper spray while One Nation votes against it

As David Leyonhjelm exited the Australian Senate last week, he used the opportunity to move a couple of final motions. One being for the legalisation of pepper spray:

As you can see, it was soundly defeated and again, female Senators voted against it. Senator Fraser Anning attempted this in the wake of the Eurydice Dixon murder but a similar result was had. Interestingly enough, Derryn Hinch changed his mind this time round.

Most notable though was One Nation voting against this. Particularly interesting as Pauline Hanson was complaining about the Castle Doctrine earlier in the week and Peter Georgiou previously voted for it.

Meanwhile, over in WA Liberal Democrats’ MLC Aaron Stonehouse is making progress on this issue:

Spot on. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman considered a similar motion last year in Victoria.

Stonehouse also took to ABC Radio to discuss further:

Further to this, Victorian Liberal Democrats’ MLC Tim Quilty gave a great speech in Victorian Parliament on the need for self-defence:



One Nation are all over the shop on this issue. If you’re trying to court the shooting and self-defence vote, you’re doing it wrong.

Only the Liberal Democrats, SFFP and Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party are serious on this issue. Vote accordingly.

Watch your language: How politicians and the media warp Australians’ perception of firearms

It’s obvious to many that the Australian media and politicians have been at the forefront of shaping Australians’ perception on firearms, particularly to those who are indifferent or against firearms in general.

The level of astounding mistruths and misinformation that are promulgated on this topic in Australia is of epic proportions, but like any issue, unless you’re a firearm owner or clued on about guns in some way you aren’t going to know that. Frankly, most Australian journalists and politicians are rubbish when it comes to the issue of firearms.

It’s important to understand how they have been able to achieve this and it’s very simple: through language. In reality, they nearly always employ a barrage of emotive buzzwords in place of any sane debate or discussion on this topic in Australia. It is exactly the same trick as yelling “racist” or “bigot” when you want to shut down a debate on immigration or any other issue.

There many terms used by the Australian media and politicians to stifle debate on firearms and we’ve identified the five worst phrases.

“Port Arthur!”

Google just about any article on firearms in Australia and it’s a safe bet that the Port Arthur Massacre is in some way mentioned.

This is, in reality, a form of trauma-based neurolinguistic programming. When Port Arthur is uttered, the average Australians’ thought process goes something like this: “Port Arthur Massacre – man killed lots of people – semi autos are bad – John Howard changed gun laws – no mass shootings since.”

All of these points are demonstrably false when explored with an open, objective mindset and a hint of critical thinking. There’s little to no discussion by the media of where the AR15 used allegedly came from, the Police response time, the active role John Howard and Tim Fischer took in ensuring there was no Coronial Inquiry or Royal Commission or any discussion about how the National Firearms Agreement was formulated as far back as 1991 by Labor. There’s no exploration of the relationship between NFA architect Rebecca Peters and her personal financier, George Soros.

It was infamously said that the reason for no Royal Commission into the events at Port Arthur was because of ‘trauma to the victims’, but it seems that goes out the window whenever there is some issue regarding firearms in this country and it’s ok to keep bringing it up and put the victims’ through it every time.

It is the go-to weapon of the media but fortunately, the knife has really started to become blunt. Continually relying on Port Arthur as your primary argument for gun control is in fact, a weak one.

“American style gun culture!”

Another buzzword deemed fail safe and arguably the 2nd worst used. If in doubt, just bring up some vague comparison to the USA and the debate is, apparently, over.

There’s never any discussion about the complete disparity between the two nations which add validity to any discussion: levels of income disparity, population size, gang activity, health services, demographic crime trends, etc. It’s just a straight up, superficial black and white reference.

Comparing Australia to the United States is an intellectually dishonest, false binary argument. There’s never any mention of the daily examples of firearm self-defence by US citizens which far outweigh the total number of homicides ever year. There’s no discussion about disproportionately higher African-American crime rates or the scourge of Mexican cartel violence spilling onto US soil. Those who cite this argument also almost always don’t know what the laws actually are or the wide variance of laws at the federal, state and county level.

There’s also no comparison to other western countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc which have far more liberal gun laws and comparable crime rates to Australia.

The reality is the per capita murder rate in the US has declined 49% over the last 25 years while firearm sales and concealed carry permit holders have nearly trebled. Meanwhile, south of the border, Mexico just posted a record number of homicides for 2017 in a country with gun laws stricter than the UK. Don’t worry though, their lives don’t count.

It’s also amazing that Australians’ are so open to sledging the US on this issue, yet we complain about not being able to defend ourselves in our own homes and are 100% reliant on the ANZUS treaty for military protection against foreign threats.

“Semi-automatics!”

The amount of lies told about self-loading, semi-automatic rifles in Australia is astounding.

The biggest one being is that they’re banned completely in Australia. Well no, they’re still legal. Semi-auto handguns are also still available. However, the restrictions on both of them are absolutely ridiculous and make very little common or legislative sense that they are virtually banned.

The doublespeak around semi-automatic rifles is even more blatant when Police are praised for having them yet citizens are demonized for the same. When the Police have them they are deemed “proper and necessary tools to protect the public” but when the public have them they are “killing machines designed purely to commit the next Port Arthur”. Seems fair and reasonable.

Semi-autophobia is one of the leading causes of ignorance in Australia in the firearm debate. Meanwhile, over the ditch in New Zealand (and a slew of other countries), one of these can be hand on the lowest category of licence and remains the most popular rifle in NZ. No “mass shootings” there in 21 years either.

“Firearm Buyback!”

First of all, you cannot buy back something you did not own in the first place – this is sleight of hand. The use of this term is deliberate and invokes a sense of mutual agreement. “Don’t worry mate, we’ll be a good government and give you some cash for that gun and she’ll be right”. The reality, as we have seen, was far more sinister than that.

Call it for what it was: compensated confiscation with the threat of imprisonment. Seriously, does this look like a passive buy back to you?

Further, the number of number of firearms that were confiscated by the government seems to inflate year on year and depends on who is doing the reporting. There’s also no mention of several of those firearms re-entering circulation due to negligence and corruption in 1998 either. Or you could ask Michael Keenan about how many were recently handed in.

“No mass shootings since 1996!”

Patently false and one of the more annoying catch cries. If we want to get technical, then the last mass shooting in Australia honour goes to NSW Police, who shot an escaped mental patient with a pair of scissors and three old ladies out for morning tea at Westfield Hornsby in 2016. But that’s ok, because the government did it.

There is no international consensus on what constitutes a mass shooting. The FBI uses mass killing as 4 or more. Interpol use 4 or more, some countries use 3 or more. Should it be people shot or people shot and killed? Who is right?

Australia has changed the definition of mass murder multiple times since 1996 and the latest research by the notoriously anti-firearm University of Sydney used “5 or more killed by one or more perpetrators” to get around the Logan shootings in 2014. They also were forced to concede they couldn’t attribute any decline to the 1996 laws.

They also discount the massive decline in firearm homicide, as shown by the ABS no less, between 1980 and 1995.

Mass shootings are a poor metric of firearm law effectiveness. We now have daily gun crime in our cities, home invasions and car jackings are now a regular occurrence and the public is unable to protect themselves against it with so much as a pepper spray.

Declaring that victims of mass shootings are somehow more dead than those that are killed by other means is also a facile argument. Do victims care how they’re killed or injured? No, they care about why it happened and how it could have been avoided. We have had many sickening mass casualty attacks since Port Arthur, some with and some without firearms, with vehicles now seemingly the latest trend.

There’s absolutely nothing to stop another mass shooting – as Man Monis, Rick Maddison and a slew of other incidents have shown. And the second another major one happens in Australia, the apologists won’t know what to do with themselves.

There’s also been no mass shootings in New Zealand for the last 21 years either despite not changing the laws, but that doesn’t count for some reason.

Obviously, the above is not an exhaustive list. There are several other terms that they employ like “assault rifle”, “high powered”, etc, which are equally as dishonest and have the same objective.

Again, education and experience are key in the firearm debate. The media and political class know this, hence why they invest so much time and energy in emotive linguistics to keep the debate in a juvenile context.

However, you can only cry wolf so many times before the magic wears off and the fake news MSM seem not to have learnt their lesson.

It’s not all bad though, in 2017 during the firearm amnesty Channel 9’s Brett MacLeod interviewed Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman in a very balanced and noteworthy interview. This is the standard the debate should be at in the media and kudos to Brett MacLeod for providing some much needed balance.

Note to the media: Brett is smart.

Be Like Brett.